OK, I see we are indeed in general agreement on most of those things we've been discussing. I took your replies to my posts on the extreme actions by the MSM & DNC as replies attempting to mitigate or discredit my POV. I now see that is not the case.
I have been working on a lengthy response to you to discuss where I seem to differ with you on "bias", all those things that culminate in "ideological blinders" & that study that seems to show that folks shut out what they don't want to hear on politics. The more I tried to explain, the more I realized that there are so many things that need to be taken into consideration that it would take me too many hours to & several thousand words to begin to adequately cover it.
Suffice it to say I firmly believe that virtually everyone is biased. As far as "everybody does it" (I.E., everyone does things short of full disclosure, including acts of deception, ET AL, to cling to their POV or to get others to buy into their POV), is also employed by virtually everyone too. However the range of bias & actions taken to further personal/political agendas is huge, ranging from almost non-existent to tin foil hat conspiracies.
I believe there is a significant minority of the general population with strong to extreme "ideological blinders". Most of them would probably qualify as "staunch party members" in the study you posted, but a fair number would not. I don't doubt that most of these folks would demonstrate the results found in the study (emotional response rather than logical - ignoring facts that run counter to their ideology, etc.). And this group would likely engage in most of the "everybody does it" tactics similar to what we see the MSM & DNC doing.
Sadly, I believe that liberals dominate this category these days.
I also believe that there is a nearly equally sized group that has weak or mild "ideological blinders". Not very many of these folks would qualify as "staunch party members", nor would many of them display the emotional, logical response found in the study. The tactics they would engage in would be quite modest; more nuanced & rarely be very serious or harmful.
And of course I believe there is a 3rd group of folks who would fill in the range from slightly more than mild to just shy of strong "ideological blinders". This most likely would be the largest group of the three. The ranges of bias & tactics engaged in would be the widest in this group. I bilieve that the worst you would see from this group would be a tendency to go with the flow of their more "staunch" peers, be generally, even willfully ignorant of critical facts & rarely stand up to their leaders when they have clearly crossed the line. Perhaps a small minority of this group would qualify as "staunch party members". I don't doubt a lot of these "staunch" folks would also demonstrate the results found in the study as well.
Lastly, I don’t believe that an emotional response to political ideology that allegedly short-circuits the logic/reason portion of the brain is natural or uncontrollable. I believe it is no different than an emotional response to almost any serious issue folks face in their lives. If you allow your emotions to rule, you will make poor decisions. It’s that simple. And if you don't learn to control your emotions you will most likely be an abject failure in that aspect of your life.
It's simply easier to allow emotions to rule than to step back, roll your sleeves up & put in the time & effort to make sound, rational decisions. It’s not easy to learn that something you believe in fervently has been discredited by facts & credible evidence, but you aren’t going to find rational solutions to solve the issues we face today by placing your hands over your ears & screaming NA! Na! NA! Na! NA! Na! So don't expect me to excuse this weakness of will. As far as I'm concerned these folks have taken the easy path & found a convenient excuse to justify their extremely poor behavior.
All IMVHO |
