Citation, or at least a clear example, needed. I can probably construct two policy alternatives, and predict which will be attractive to people who identify with a given political tribe. Then I suppose I get to call one of those options the “stupid” one based on my own value system.
Please tell me that isn’t the sort of thing you mean.
I have met people with what I consider to be very irrational political views (in that they are little more than clusters of rote debating points never subjected to analysis). Outside of the well-worn habitual responses their politics would dictate they regurgitate, I have no idea how they would choose on an issue they had never encountered before.
Maybe stupidly (because they aren’t in the habit of reflective thought), but maybe less so (because without a knee-jerk political reaction ready to hand, they might take a few seconds to think).
I will go so far as to agree that in too many cases, simple answers will be favoured over complex questions, and instant gratification will be favoured over longer-term advantage.
Please tell me that isn’t the sort of thing you mean.
Your wish is my command! No, that isn’t the sort of thing I meant.
I meant this quite literally and without a preference for the Magenta party or the Cyan party. Given two alternatives and the way they are presented in the popular media, it is often (but not always) possible to predict the preferences of the low-IQ crowd. The end.
That issue is different from political tribalism.
Having said that, I haven’t run any reasonably controlled experiments so at this point it’s just my opinion without data to support it.
Given two alternatives and the way they are presented in the popular media, it is often (but not always) possible to predict the preferences of the low-IQ crowd.
This is the exact opposite of what I’ve observed in various true-lift models I’ve done for various purposes. Lower IQ tends to correlate more with lower-informedness, and low information voters are highly susceptible to noise, which makes predicting them a pain. Things like the order of the names on the ballot can have an effect on their vote.
Generally, higher information voters are much easier to predict, especially if you have any indications of their voting history.
The whole well-established and rather large field of marketing is preoccupied with predicting and manipulating the preferences of people.
There doesn’t seem to be much difference between persuading people to buy a particular brand of shampoo and persuading people to support a particular political issue (or vote for a particular candidate).
Citation, or at least a clear example, needed. I can probably construct two policy alternatives, and predict which will be attractive to people who identify with a given political tribe. Then I suppose I get to call one of those options the “stupid” one based on my own value system.
Please tell me that isn’t the sort of thing you mean.
I have met people with what I consider to be very irrational political views (in that they are little more than clusters of rote debating points never subjected to analysis). Outside of the well-worn habitual responses their politics would dictate they regurgitate, I have no idea how they would choose on an issue they had never encountered before.
Maybe stupidly (because they aren’t in the habit of reflective thought), but maybe less so (because without a knee-jerk political reaction ready to hand, they might take a few seconds to think).
I will go so far as to agree that in too many cases, simple answers will be favoured over complex questions, and instant gratification will be favoured over longer-term advantage.
Your wish is my command! No, that isn’t the sort of thing I meant.
I meant this quite literally and without a preference for the Magenta party or the Cyan party. Given two alternatives and the way they are presented in the popular media, it is often (but not always) possible to predict the preferences of the low-IQ crowd. The end.
That issue is different from political tribalism.
Having said that, I haven’t run any reasonably controlled experiments so at this point it’s just my opinion without data to support it.
This is the exact opposite of what I’ve observed in various true-lift models I’ve done for various purposes. Lower IQ tends to correlate more with lower-informedness, and low information voters are highly susceptible to noise, which makes predicting them a pain. Things like the order of the names on the ballot can have an effect on their vote.
Generally, higher information voters are much easier to predict, especially if you have any indications of their voting history.
Depressing but plausible :(
I suspect “the way they are presented in the popular media” is crafted with that in mind.
The whole well-established and rather large field of marketing is preoccupied with predicting and manipulating the preferences of people.
There doesn’t seem to be much difference between persuading people to buy a particular brand of shampoo and persuading people to support a particular political issue (or vote for a particular candidate).