The largest, most dangerous voting block...

[chipmunk stew]

That could be true if the distribution is not symetrical but I take your point.

In this case, I think people are commonly referring to the (theoretical) median, not the mean.

edit: I think it's fair to assume that most people posting on this forum are at or above the 50th percentile...

 

[RandFan]

In this case, I think people are commonly referring to the (theoretical) median, not the mean.

edit: I think it's fair to assume that most people posting on this forum are at or above the 50th percentile...

I watched an interview with Alan Alda once. He was asked how he could play a Republican. He pointed out that no one asks him how he can play murderer but there is something about Republicans that an actor would cross some line if he or she played one. In any event he said something I thought important. He always asks the questioner, "how are you so sure you are right"? "Why is it you are so confident in your position that you would think somone wrong to play a Republican?" Given those old dead Greek philosophers how is it that we are so sure that we are right?

For most it doesn't matter. Just being right is all that matters.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Is there a huge moron block amongst Democrats as well?

As someone who has been active in Democratic circles for a few years... yes.

No political party is immune from teh Morons. The Dems would be fools to believe otherwise, imo.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I watched an interview with Alan Alda once. He was asked how he could play a Republican. He pointed out that no one asks him how he can play murderer but there is something about Republicans that an actor would cross some line if he or she played one. In any event he said something I thought important. He always asks the questioner, "how are you so sure you are right"? "Why is it you are so confident in your position that you would think somone wrong to play a Republican?" Given those old dead Greek philosophers how is it that we are so sure that we are right?

For most it doesn't matter. Just being right is all that matters.

Was this meant as a direct reply to my post? As a stand-alone anecdote, it offers a good skeptical moral. As a reply to my post, I don't get it.

 

[BenBurch]

Offhand, I'd say that 80% of McCain's "base" (and they ARE base) is that group.

 

[RandFan]

Was this meant as a direct reply to my post? As a stand-alone anecdote, it offers a good skeptical moral. As a reply to my post, I don't get it.

The first mistake a critical thinker can make is to fail to be skeptical of one's self. The second is to fail to be skeptical of one's in-group.

I don't have your confidence.

 

[RandFan]

Offhand, I'd say that 80% of McCain's "base" (and they ARE base) is that group.

Offhand I would say that 95% of all statistics are wrong 99% of the time. Your chances of being right about McCain's base aren't very good.

“There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics" --Benjamin Disraeli

 

[chipmunk stew]

The first mistake a critical thinker can make is to fail to be skeptical of one's self. The second is to fail to be skeptical of one's in-group.

I don't have your confidence.

My confidence in what? That most people who post here are at or above the 50th percentile on the smartness scale? Really? I think that's way too conservative, personally.

 

[RandFan]

My confidence in what? That most people who post here are at or above the 50th percentile on the smartness scale? Really? I think that's way too conservative, personally.

How did you control for confirmation bias?

Peronally I'm skeptical and for good reason. My observations would put us even but I'm willing to question my observations (see the two mistakes above).

You and I can disagree.

 

[Slayhamlet]

How did you control for confirmation bias?

Peronally I'm skeptical and for good reason. My observations would put us even but I'm willing to question my observations (see the two mistakes above).

You and I can disagree.

Confirmation bias? You're being silly (and taking this far too seriously).

CS's assumption is a fair one considering that a relatively high level of literacy is required to even take part in an online discussion forum like this one. Most people here write coherently, and reading comprehension is generally sound. Compare it to the literacy level of your average Youtube or Myspace comment, for example. I think you're vastly overestimating the mean intelligence of the population.

 

[RandFan]

Confirmation bias? You're being silly (and taking this far too seriously).

No.

CS's assumption is a fair one considering that a relatively high level of literacy is required to even take part in an online discussion forum like this one. Most people here write coherently, and reading comprehension is generally sound. Compare it to the literacy level of your average Youtube or Myspace comment, for example. I think you're vastly overestimating the mean intelligence of the population.

I "think" I've found your problem.

Literacy is only one aspect of intelligence. Many educators don't think much of IQ tests, tests that reflect a number of different aspects of inteligence and you want to simply rely on your anecdotal observations of grammatical errors on YouTube and Myspace. How many white collar professionals hang out at YouTube and Myspace? How many teenagers?

No, I'm not being silly neither am I taking anything far too seriously. This is a skeptics forum. I didn't see the "no skepticism allowed in the politics forum" sign.

 

[R.Mackey]

For what it's worth, I would expect the readers here of any political leaning to be largely free of the Moron Block, since at least in theory we were attracted here by intelligent conversation, and contribute our own thoughts in an environment where they are sure to be challenged. However, I would also suggest that to truly distinguish, we would need some kind of test.

Getting back to the OP, this morning's Los Angeles Times ran an interesting editorial on the subject:

The important question is not whether voters are ignorant but whether they make sensible choices despite being hazy about the details. (OK, really hazy.) If they do, that's not stupid -- it's efficient.

Political scientists have been studying this subject for years, and they've found plenty of grounds for pessimism about voters' rationality.

Yet despite this bleak lede, concludes there is wisdom in herds, even in herds of stupid people:

In "Uninformed Votes," a 1996 study examining presidential elections from 1972 to 1992, I took another approach, assessing how closely voters' actual choices matched those they would have made had they been "fully informed." I found that the actual choices fell about halfway between what they would have been if voters had been fully informed and what they would have been if made on the basis of a coin flip.

However, in the "glass is half empty" category, he also concludes the Moron Effect is diluted in part because the rest of us, seemingly educated and aware, also make irrational decisions, as evinced by the power of stupid television commercials.

Food for thought.

 

[Ysidro]

No, I'm not being silly neither am I taking anything far too seriously. This is a skeptics forum. I didn't see the "no skepticism allowed in the politics forum" sign.

No, trust me. You're being too serious.

And if you didn't see the "no skepticism allowed in the politics forum" sign, you didn't look up. Heck, you practically have to sign a "no skepticism" waiver to post here.

 

[RandFan]

No, trust me. You're being too serious.

And if you didn't see the "no skepticism allowed in the politics forum" sign, you didn't look up. Heck, you practically have to sign a "no skepticism" waiver to post here.

Fair enough. I'll let it go.

 

[SezMe]

I wonder about the overlap between the Moron Block and the non-voting block. We know that voter turnout in America is piss-poor. I would advance the thesis (without any evidential backup, to get that monkey off my back ) that the moron block might also substanitally overlap with the non-voting block. If that is the case, while some highly visible morons achieve media visibility (Joe the Plumber, Leno's "Jay walking" etc.) does that block really play a role at the actual ballot box?

 

[JihadJane]

I wonder about the overlap between the Moron Block and the non-voting block. We know that voter turnout in America is piss-poor. I would advance the thesis (without any evidential backup, to get that monkey off my back ) that the moron block might also substanitally overlap with the non-voting block. If that is the case, while some highly visible morons achieve media visibility (Joe the Plumber, Leno's "Jay walking" etc.) does that block really play a role at the actual ballot box?

I don't personally subscribe to any "moron" conspiracy theories because they ignore the socio-economic-political context which forms people's attitudes. However, it could be argued that only morons vote in an election that is nothing but a circus. Voting makes us complicit in the coruption, like we somehow asked for it by voting for it. If you vote for it what right have you got to complain about it?

George Carlin On Voting In US Elections:

4 Minute Video

Warning - Some readers may find the contents offensive. NSFW
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21138.htm

 

[Father Dagon]

Isn't the silent majority kin to "my dad can beat up your dad"?

And regarding low informed voters, there was a opinion poll (source escapes me) that showed that the more educated you are; the more media you consume and the more media you consume; the more misinformed you are.