People believe what they feel

A recent article in The Upshot, the NYT data journalism section, dove into how voters project their beliefs onto the candidates they support. The gist of it is, people don't actually know their candidate's positions and assume their preferred candidate shares their own positions.

This, in particular, jumped out at me:

"A majority (59 percent) of Trump voters support requiring masks (only 18 percent are opposed), and 81 percent of Trump voters who support mandatory masking think Mr. Trump does as well."

I think this might be a bit simplistic.

I've always had trouble with the distinction between "feeling" something and "knowing" something. Maybe someone can explain that.

I'm more inclined to explain these discrepancies on poor information processing - either because of a cognitive failing, or because the information sources just do a bad job of explaining things. Mostly a combination of both, I think.

A poll such as this that doesn't do a deep dive into how/where these people get their information is lacking very important data points.


PVW said:

A recent article in The Upshot, the NYT data journalism section, dove into how voters project their beliefs onto the candidates they support. The gist of it is, people don't actually know their candidate's positions and assume their preferred candidate shares their own positions.

This, in particular, jumped out at me:

"A majority (59 percent) of Trump voters support requiring masks (only 18 percent are opposed), and 81 percent of Trump voters who support mandatory masking think Mr. Trump does as well."

 That’s why I will never stop saying that the people who are still supporting Trump are racists. Even if they might have friends or extended family who are minorities. Racism is insidious. Hate is a bond. Trump does and says what they’re prohibited to do or say. That’s the attraction. Period.



and a lot of people have no ability to distinguish among fact, fiction, truth, lies and opinions.  A FB friend commented on last week's revelation that Trump new all along how deadly and dangerous COVID-19 is.  Another person replied that she was thankful Trump showed such great leadership by not panicking the country.  And I commented that it's not leadership to pretend a looming disaster isn't coming, because ignoring it doesn't make it go away.  And that person replied to me -- "thank you for your OPINION."

how is that an opinion?  Isn't it just common sense that ignoring something you know is coming doesn't make it go away?  But I guess people have an easier time dismissing uncomfortable thoughts if they can think of them as someone's OPINION.


ml1 said:

And I commented that it's not leadership to pretend a looming disaster isn't coming, because ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Were you stating that as a general truism? Like a thought for the day? Or was it, in your opinion, applicable to the Facebook discussion at hand?


People have an easier time dismissing uncomfortable thoughts when they are a moron with no interest in finding out the truth.  


DaveSchmidt said:

Were you stating that as a general truism? Like a thought for the day? Or was it, in your opinion, applicable to the Facebook discussion at hand?

 do you really think it's an opinion that Trump ignoring a pandemic wasn't going to prevent it from happening?


ml1 said:

 do you really think it's an opinion that Trump ignoring a pandemic wasn't going to prevent it from happening?

I posed a question that I thought might shed light on the opinion vs. factual nature of your Facebook comment. You can answer it, here or for yourself, or not. What I really think is irrelevant.


DaveSchmidt said:

I posed a question that I thought might shed light on the opinion vs. factual nature of your Facebook comment. You can answer it, here or for yourself, or not. What I really think is irrelevant.

 OK then. No it wasn't an opinion. 

If medical experts told me I had a deadly melanoma and I decided to ignore it in order not to panic my family and then I died, it wouldn't be someone's opinion to say ignoring my cancer didn't cure it.  Kind of an obvious point I'd think. Almost circular logic it's so obvious. 


Yes. At issue here is what was the effect of Trump's reaction to the information. Was there any benefit in not causing a "panic"? Did people die who might have been saved by an honest presentation of the information to the nation?

A panic in a crowded disco might be more dangerous than trying, say, a small fire in the building. Maybe you can extinguish it before it becomes an inferno and you avoid people getting trampled or crushed trying to escape. Then you duck a worse problem.

But what would a panic do during a pandemic?  I'm thinking it keeps people home and wearing masks if they have to leave the house.

I know this isn't the main point of this thread. But it's amazing the lengths people will go to to preserve their point of view.


Jaytee said:

 That’s why I will never stop saying that the people who are still supporting Trump are racists. Even if they might have friends or extended family who are minorities. Racism is insidious. Hate is a bond. Trump does and says what they’re prohibited to do or say. That’s the attraction. Period.

Totally agreed. And we should not stop pointing that out, even if some of his supporters are friends, neighbors, or even family. I hate this "there are good people on both sides" theory. Supporting Trump is not the same as supporting Biden, or Hillary. Trumpism is racist, anti-american, anti-christian, and evil.


drummerboy said:

 Really?

Commitment to reducing the national debt?

China or Japan? They paid our farmers billions?

Got health done?

Are there people really that stupid? 

Do they credit Trump with discovering America or inventing the telephone?


mrincredible said:

Yes. At issue here is what was the effect of Trump's reaction to the information. Was there any benefit in not causing a "panic"? Did people die who might have been saved by an honest presentation of the information to the nation?

A panic in a crowded disco might be more dangerous than trying, say, a small fire in the building. Maybe you can extinguish it before it becomes an inferno and you avoid people getting trampled or crushed trying to escape. Then you duck a worse problem.

But what would a panic do during a pandemic?  I'm thinking it keeps people home and wearing masks if they have to leave the house.

I know this isn't the main point of this thread. But it's amazing the lengths people will go to to preserve their point of view.

 but it also become impossible for some to think logically as soon as the name Trump is mentioned. In my example above, if I died under those circumstances, and a friend posted about it on FB and said how brave and smart I was to ignore my cancer to keep from panicking my family, people would think that person was nuts. It wouldn't be labeled just someone's OPINION to reply and suggest that my ignoring a looming problem didn't solve it. 


As someone said regarding panicking the public, you do yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when it's on fire.

Only panic Trump wanted to avoid was the usual entity we associate with a panic - Wall Street.


drummerboy said:

 imo, people believe what they hear, especially if they hear it often, and from a source they're already inclined to believe.  Hence the constant repetition of obvious lies (clearly, not obvious to all).  Thanks, Fox.


The reason the example I cited in the OP jumped out at me is because it's about a statement of fact. Someone who says they believe Trump supports mandatory masking is objectively wrong. So to the distinction between "feeling" something and "knowing" something that DB asks about, there are a lot of things we don't know, but there are, in fact, some things we can know, and it's those cases where what you emotionally feel to be true vs what actually is true that I meant by the thread title.

This isn't a new insight, or even something I've never posted on before. More just an expression of exasperation that, yes, this is an actual thing and in a time of unprecedented wildfires and deadly pandemic and police murders, we're somehow still facing a close election.

Now Trump aside, this isn't really a "conservative" problem, it's endemic to people generally. People on the left have generally been lucky enough that many of their political impulses currently line up with current known facts on things like climate change, etc, so those conflicts between fact and feeling aren't as visible. I think what ameliorates it on the political left is that its just a much more diverse coalition. For every Democrat wanting to insist that every storm is tied to global warming, for instance, there's actual climate scientists saying "hold on, we can't say that" who are also Democrats.

Now as for Trump and other Republican leaders, one of the most depressing things to watch has been their cynical attack on any sense of objective reality, and how effective that's been not just on the right, but more broadly throughout our society. The death of newspapers and the contempt you see toward journalism -- and not just on the right -- as one example. All these people going on about the "corporate media" and how they don't need elite gatekeepers filtering the news would be more convincing if the replacements they choose weren't in every way more biased, more subjective, less rigorous, and less committed to any idea of facts. That's my rant for the evening.


PVW said:



People on the left have generally been lucky enough that many of their political impulses currently line up with current known facts on things like climate change, etc, so those conflicts between fact and feeling aren't as visible. 

Really?  Think about that for a minute.  Do you really believe that it's just good luck that liberal beliefs line up with current known facts?  That's pretty offensive.  


Red_Barchetta said:

PVW said:



People on the left have generally been lucky enough that many of their political impulses currently line up with current known facts on things like climate change, etc, so those conflicts between fact and feeling aren't as visible. 

Really?  Think about that for a minute.  Do you really believe that it's just good luck that liberal beliefs line up with current known facts?  That's pretty offensive.  

Yeah, I agree. The Times, as usual, tries to both-sides the issue. And I'm afraid PVW has fallen into the trap by doing the same.

"facts have a liberal bias" is not a joke in today's environment. It's a description of reality.


The fact is, both sides believe in Liberty and individual freedom. Both sides claim to have a functioning moral compass. In reality (at least in America) it’s quite complicated, because of racism. The libertarians have taken the liberal creed and used it against the liberals. How is that possible? Well...look at the demographics of the liberals...then look at the libertarians. One side embraces minorities, women’s rights, Jews, blacks, in general ..the oppressed. 
we love to debate anything under the sun, even if we know we can’t win, because we embrace different ideologies. It’s more of a moral issue than a  political one, yet we are sucked in to this rabbit hole of the right, that we are socialists/communists. 
no matter how far we get towards changing this nation in its thinking, there’s always that constitution written by the majority, that is used against us. Facts are stubborn things....it’s just that liberals are more open to them.


I've lived in conservative parts of the country and here in the NY metro. I can't say that I've observed any real difference in how prone people are to emotional reasoning. I've met people who, in their particular area of work, are methodical, objective, and analytical and then, if the topic turns to politics, all that goes out the window. I think the best way to guarantee that one falls into the trap of subjective, emotional-driven reasoning is to assume that it can't happen to you because it's a problem of the other side.

Now if we're talking about political coalitions, as opposed to individuals, it's not symmetrical at all. Today's Republican party is an anti-democratic movement causing untold damage to our institutions and national character. But, again, I think that has more to do with the fact that the Democratic coalition is more diverse. To win elections it has to take into account a broader range of individuals. But on the individual level? We all are subject to the same cognitive biases.


Jaytee said:

The fact is, both sides believe in Liberty and individual freedom. Both sides claim to have a functioning moral compass. In reality (at least in America) it’s quite complicated, because of racism. 

 Historian James McPherson titled his very comprehensive book about the Civil War "Battle Cry of Freedom" because both sides believed they were fighting for Freedom.


This feels like the most appropriate thread. 
I’m hesitant to revive an old thread, particularly at present; however I think the OP might be interested in reading the linked research paper.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2020/10/16/Ancient-societies-collapsed-when-leaders-ignored-the-social-contract/3521602861264/ 
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full

Opens the field up to wide opportunities in discussing whatever it is we’re all expecting from our ‘leaders’, when these days we don’t discuss their roles in their Party let alone hold clear and honest discussions on their roles, and our (and everyone’s) role in a modern society, wherever it is. [Look at messes we’ve all allowed to emerge in the UK, across parts of Europe and Africa, let alone your current electoral process, and our current bureaucratic parodies] 

It’s no wonder so many people feel disempowered and overlooked.


joanne said:

This feels like the most appropriate thread. 
I’m hesitant to revive an old thread, particularly at present; however I think the OP might be interested in reading the linked research paper.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2020/10/16/Ancient-societies-collapsed-when-leaders-ignored-the-social-contract/3521602861264/ 
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full

Opens the field up to wide opportunities in discussing whatever it is we’re all expecting from our ‘leaders’, when these days we don’t discuss their roles in their Party let alone hold clear and honest discussions on their roles, and our (and everyone’s) role in a modern society, wherever it is. [Look at messes we’ve all allowed to emerge in the UK, across parts of Europe and Africa, let alone your current electoral process, and our current bureaucratic parodies] 

It’s no wonder so many people feel disempowered and overlooked.

 Thanks. BTW, typo in your second link there -- should be https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full (you accidentally included the line breaks and "Opens").


cheese I just copied and pasted 



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!