The False Consensus Effect and DU Politics

[Oregone]

I learned about this in psych. Its about how an individual perceives a larger percentage of the world to agree with and hold their own personal values than is reality. See:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DGUS,DGUS:2006-25,DGUS:en&q=%22False+consensus+effect%22

I was reminded of this by the following thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6160109&mesg_id=6160109
(I am assuming the premise of the thread is false, and these masses of angry women are merely a cognitive bias created by the posters own personal feeling).


But its something shared by Obama and Hillary supporters alike, and something people should be aware of in the upcoming election. Just because you believe something, doesn't mean everyone else does. Further, it definitely illustrates the reality you live in is not necessarily the reality. Further, the candidate you support is not necessarily the only everyone will vote for. People too often try and found arguments and political movements based on faulty premises constructed from personal cognitive biases (rather than empirical fact)

[AllentownJake]

1. Why do you hate Lee Mercer

Mercerdroids attack the OP!!!!

[Oregone]

4. Because USSR's defense supplementers stole his sex drive.

The US Defense Security conspiracy is quite obvious

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Quite true.

It is not possible to win while indulging in the ego trip of alienating the opponents supporters.

The general election will not be a gimme.

[Jersey Devil]

3. Yes, it's true, this place is not represenative of the real world

In the real world, uncommitted superdelegates are tripping over themselves preparing to vote for Hillary.

Here's the proof: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

[IsItJustMe]

5. I think, therefore; I am. That's the only think I know for sure. All the rest of it is up to

interpretation through our perceptions.

[yurbud]

6. simpler explanation: that thread was started by shill to create illusion of consensus

I've noticed that threads here based entirely on ''feeling'' usually have some apologetic disclaimer and even end with something like ''Is it just me or has anyone else felt that way too?''

When shills post, they make blanket statements don't support them with facts, and don't apologize for being unsubstantiated.

The real tip off is asking yourself if you could imagine a TV pundit saying the same thing the same way. If you can, you know it's talking points from a PR firm, not a real persons real thoughts.

Here at DU, things most often work the other way: somebody notices or feels something, asks if others feel the same, and are surprised to find that a consensus exists without anyone knowing.

As far as supporting candidates, I don't think the DU trend has been to see anyone as inevitable, but to pick who we like and hope they do well. For example, I liked Kucinich but knew he had no chance at all, so I back Edwards as the most progressive of the viable top three, but I had no idea whether he would win. After he dropped out, I switched to Obama, again as the most progressive of what was left, and again not knowing if he would win.

[Oregone]

7. Perhaps...but how do I sign up to be a shill?

Surely they are getting paid right (unless they are at the bottom of the Hillary vendor list)? Id like a seat on that gravy train.

[David Zephyr]

8. What makes you think that any here are under the delusion that you accuse them of.

I think that I am qualified to speak to this issue because I've been here since early 2001.

I am quite certain that the vast majority are not under any delusional belief that our progressive blog represents either a national consensus or even a consensus within the Democratic Party. The name "Democratic Underground" is sort of the first hint that you missed before you made your sweeping insult to most everyone here.

I hope your intentions were better than your post implies them to be.

[Oregone]

9. Its actually a general trend shared by all members of the population alike (as studies have shown).

Anyone and everyone, when making generalizations about what the majority of the population may believe should question whether or not their own personal values are influencing their perceptions.

I have been around as long as you (though a registration date may not prove as much). But referencing one's time of membership as proof of their authority, knowledge & qualification is merely a logical fallacy.

Time and again I have seen posts regarding consensus opinions on issues such as drugs, abortion, race relations, bush's popularity and chances on winning in 2004, etc, etc. Many of these posts have replies consisting of arguments that are based on real-life experiences, feelings or personal values, rather than factual statistics. Its a common behavior.

To point out a behavior that all humans typically share at some time to some degree (democrat and republican alike, christian and atheist/agnostic alike), which could cause faulty conclusions, is hardly an insult. Its rather asking people to examine their cognitive process to try and filter fact from fiction, which is something we should all try.

You know my intentions are better than you are twisting them to be, or you would have clearly not have included that sentence in your post.

[David Zephyr]

12. I simply disagree with your sweeping insult to the intelligence of everyone here.

At least I know how low you regard everyone here and how high you hold yourself above us all.

So the only question is: why are you even here at all?

[Oregone]

13. Because everyone else everywhere else exhibits the same behavior.

So it by no means is a point that detracts from any intrinsic value of this online community, being that it is a norm across the population. It is only a lack to understand and snarky replies that are a detraction.

If I regard members here, on this one characteristic as "low" (or normal in comparison to humans rather than in comparison to a Deity), that by no means encapsulates how I view the community as a whole across all spectrums.

But despite any regard or disregard I have for this community as a whole, there are unfortunately individuals whose lack of understanding, cognition and intellect will forever cast a black scar upon its reputation in general (As is the case with any other community).

If Ive insulted you personally by pointing out this psychological phenomenon, I will gladly coddle your ego and hold your hand, as to apologize for exposing you to these horrendous realization. I run an online ego grooming company for a living, and will gladly take on another client.

[David Zephyr]

14. No. You insulted the entire DU community.

Your broad brush swipe at everyone here hardly takes into consideration the intense arguments and discussions that are daily bread at the DU. So your "group think" assertion is simply laughable.

Your snide comments toward me personally only reveal that my challenge to your OP hit the mark.

As to ego, to paraphrase Dostoevsky, I truly doubt that my humility could find room to coexist with your great pride.

I won't respond to any of your further comments and will let you have the last word which I know you need to have.

But you painted the entire DU with a false color and in doing so only instructed us as to how high you hold yourself above us.

As we used to say, "touch you".

[Oregone]

15. Satire?

Your feeling of being insulted leads you to percieve the entire community is insulted?

[mamalone]

10. I absolutely agree with you...

You know, I am in the very unique position of spending about half of my time with very conservative folk, and the other half with very progressive types. Each group is utterly convinced that their view is shared by the overwhelming majority:shrug:

As for me... I guess I am enough in both worlds to spend most of my time wondering;)

[cbayer]

11. That would explain why a large number of people here

appear to believe that Hillary Clinton is actually abhorred by the vast majority of Democratic voters. That is about as clear an example of cognitive bias trumping empirical fact as you can get.