Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

TGHusker

By TGHusker,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts


RedDenver Offensive Coordinator

RedDenver

Posted
Posted

Here's an interesting op-ed in the NYT about both believing Reade and still voting for Biden (sorry if it's already been posted but I'm not searching back through this thread):

I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway.

Quote

The importance of owning an ugly moral choice.

Quote

 

Discounting Ms. Reade’s accusation and, one after another, denigrating her corroborating witnesses, calling for endless new evidence, avowing that you “hear” her, is nonsense. We are now up to four corroborating witnesses — including one contemporary corroborating witness, unearthed by Rich McHugh, who was Ronan Farrow’s producer at NBC News during the Harvey Weinstein #MeToo reporting — and one “Larry King Live” tape.

 

So stop playing gotcha with the female supporters of Mr. Biden or the #MeToo movement, making them lie to the camera — or perhaps to themselves — about doubting her to justify their votes.

 

I’ll take one for the team. I believe Ms. Reade, and I’ll vote for Mr. Biden this fall.

 

 

Link to comment

Landlord Head Coach

Landlord

Posted
Posted
On 5/6/2020 at 12:38 PM, knapplc said:

or that any of them are uniquely susceptible, but we're now two-for-two on Trump opponents with suddenly major scandals.  They'd try this against everyone.

 

 

two-for-two with two candidates, one of which says to believe women while being married to a rapist and everyone knows it, the other of which has been on camera hundreds of times more or less fondling little girls. 

 

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
FrantzHardySwag Backup

FrantzHardySwag

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Really good read on the Tara Reade saga from a reporter who's worked with her for over a year on this story.

 

It brings up another friction point for me, the interviewer last year contacted Reade and her friend - who both said it wasn't sexual assault - it was an uncomfortable feeling and the fact she felt mistreated by the Biden team. It was explicitly mentioned to the interviewer last year that Biden never tried to "kiss her or go in in for one of those touches". Reade said her story is not a story of sexual misconduct, but of abuse of power.  I know a lot of people here don't like the term, she changed her story - but that seems like a change to me. Either we believe last year's Reade who said there was no sexual misconduct, or we believe this years Reade who said there was sexual misconduct - this wasn't an adding of details, we cannot believe both versions. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

It brings up another friction point for me, the interviewer last year contacted Reade and her friend - who both said it wasn't sexual assault - it was an uncomfortable feeling and the fact she felt mistreated by the Biden team. It was explicitly mentioned to the interviewer last year that Biden never tried to "kiss her or go in in for one of those touches". Reade said her story is not a story of sexual misconduct, but of abuse of power.  I know a lot of people here don't like the term, she changed her story - but that seems like a change to me. Either we believe last year's Reade who said there was no sexual misconduct, or we believe this years Reade who said there was sexual misconduct - this wasn't an adding of details, we cannot believe both versions. 

 

Exactly. Saying she didn't change her story is disingenuous. This is a massive change, and should have been the leading part of her story, not something disclosed after Biden became the apparent nominee.

 

If you're contacting the news to get your story out, the assault is the story, not that you felt like a lamp. 

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Lots.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPWXiRWZ29zrxPFIQT7eHSA

 

It's a reasonable thing to wonder, since she floods this thread.

Link to comment
Danny Bateman Defensive Coordinator

Danny Bateman

Posted
Posted

I decided to take a peek at some lists of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. I was curious if there were any that would help explain why something like the Reade allegation gets so much traction. Sure enough a lot of them can help explain our collective fascination with these type of stories and why we focus on them so much.

 

I've compiled a partial list of these and grouped similar ones together for simplicity:

 

Availability cascade: A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").

Illusory truth effect: A tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process, or if it has been stated multiple times, regardless of its actual veracity. These are specific cases of truthiness.

-I.e.: It must be true that Biden committed sexual assault because people keep saying that's probably true.

 

Backfire effect: The reaction to disconfirming evidence by strengthening one's previous beliefs.

Sunk cost fallacy: The phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong.

-I.e.: This piece of new information contradicts my existing belief that I have invested much time and effort in, ergo I must double down on what I already believe.

 

Bandwagon Effect:  The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same.

Groupthink:The psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Ingroup bias:The tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.

-I.e.: I may adopt the beliefs or behaviors of others in my ingroup or the general public subconsciously even if they are illogical. That person is similar to me and believes X ergo I should probably believe X.

 

Confirmation bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

-I.e.: New evidence that supports what I already believe must be very important and I must share it because it reinforces my belief.

 

Countinued influence effect: The tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. Misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred.

-I.e.: This thing I used to think was true has been disproven but I may still believe it to be true subconsciously.

 

Courtesy bias: The tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one's true opinion, so as to avoid offending anyone.

-I.e.: I am not likely to publicly state that Reade my be lying or Biden may be guilty because it's socially unacceptable.

 

Empathy gap: The tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.

-I.e.: The charged emotional context of the allegation may be influencing one's opinion of its veracity.
 

Negativity bias: Psychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of unpleasant memories compared with positive memories.

Salience bias: The tendency to focus on items that are more prominent or emotionally striking and ignore those that are unremarkable, even though this difference is often irrelevant by objective standards

-I.e.: These accusations will be more noteworthy and I will focus on them more because they are emotionally unpleasant.

 

Is it any wonder these gain such traction and propagandists could view them as so electorally potent? They're littered with opportunities for people to abandon logical analysis and critical thinking.

 

I'm curious the degree to which any or all of these are affecting people. In particular, the availability cascade and illusory truth effect at the top worry me. They provide an opportunity to render something increasingly plausible to the public if it is merely repeated frequently enough. Facts become immaterial and it doesn't matter if something is true or not if you simply spam it enough.

 

Sidestepping the actual facts seems bad.

Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...