Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gun Fanatics Express Their Support For a Mass Murderer’s Second Amendment Rights [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)111. The false consensus effect is strong amongst you lot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why-we-all-stink-as-intuitive.php
The false-consensus effect is not necessarily restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority. The false-consensus effect is also evidenced when people overestimate the extent to which their particular belief is correlated with the belief of others. Thus, fundamentalists do not necessarily believe that the majority of people share their views, but their estimates of the number of people who share their point of view will tend to exceed the actual number.
This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.
Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way...
...The false-consensus effect, as defined by Ross, Greene, and House in 1977, came to be the culmination of the many related theories that preceded it. In their well-known series of four studies, Ross and associates hypothesized and then demonstrated that people tend to overestimate the popularity of their own beliefs and preferences.[8] In each of the studies, subjects or "raters" were asked to choose one of a few mutually-exclusive responses. They would then predict the popularity of each of their choices among other participants, referred to as "actors". To take this a step further, Ross and associates also proposed and tested a related bias in social inferences: they found that raters in an experiment estimated their own response to be not only common, but also not very revealing of the actors' "distinguishing personal dispositions".[9] On the other hand, alternative or opposite responses were perceived as much more revealing of the actors as people. In general, the raters made more "extreme predictions" about the personalities of the actors that did not share the raters' own preference. In fact, the raters may have even thought that there was something wrong with the people expressing the alternative response.
This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.
Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way...
...The false-consensus effect, as defined by Ross, Greene, and House in 1977, came to be the culmination of the many related theories that preceded it. In their well-known series of four studies, Ross and associates hypothesized and then demonstrated that people tend to overestimate the popularity of their own beliefs and preferences.[8] In each of the studies, subjects or "raters" were asked to choose one of a few mutually-exclusive responses. They would then predict the popularity of each of their choices among other participants, referred to as "actors". To take this a step further, Ross and associates also proposed and tested a related bias in social inferences: they found that raters in an experiment estimated their own response to be not only common, but also not very revealing of the actors' "distinguishing personal dispositions".[9] On the other hand, alternative or opposite responses were perceived as much more revealing of the actors as people. In general, the raters made more "extreme predictions" about the personalities of the actors that did not share the raters' own preference. In fact, the raters may have even thought that there was something wrong with the people expressing the alternative response.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why-we-all-stink-as-intuitive.php
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
184 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Gun Fanatics Express Their Support For a Mass Murderer’s Second Amendment Rights [View all]
doxydad
May 2014
OP
Thousand os dollars of ammo? He had 400 rounds of 9mm, about $125-150 worth, and fired far less
Lee-Lee
May 2014
#6
After reading your post and the one above about the cost of just shooting for the heck of it,
Skidmore
May 2014
#11
Liability insurance would cover an accidental death or injury caused by me and I have that.
badtoworse
May 2014
#105
Don't let them know that high capacity magazines are older than the bill or rights
Travis_0004
May 2014
#172
Bill of rights was ratified in 1791. First 20 round magazines was made in 1779.
Travis_0004
May 2014
#171
The constitution says different, but 5 members of the USSC are bought & paid for by the RW
baldguy
May 2014
#23
Solving the problem begins with gun fanatics casting off their 17th century attitudes about firearms
baldguy
May 2014
#61
YES, but the 2nd Amendment has been greatly distorted by those who make billions
drynberg
May 2014
#36
that's funny cause it's the gun-fetishists that have been doing all the taking
leftyohiolib
May 2014
#22
No...I want reasonable laws that would take time to phase in and prevent random violence.
Sancho
May 2014
#47
I've been around a long time and seen things change...so "old" doesn't mean much to me.
Sancho
May 2014
#106
None of the things you mentioned are enumerated rights. That makes a big difference
badtoworse
May 2014
#114
"I'm a gun owner with decades of experience. I know exactly what I'm saying."
friendly_iconoclast
May 2014
#156
If any gun owner has decades of experience, then they know what I'm talking about...
Sancho
May 2014
#168
It's still prior restraint, therefore un-Constitutional without due process of law
friendly_iconoclast
May 2014
#174
Start prosecuting straw buyers. Improve the mental health reporting system...
friendly_iconoclast
May 2014
#178
You misunderstand me. I meant "Mandatory *for gun buyers and sellers*"
friendly_iconoclast
May 2014
#181
Oh, you actually meant to defend the statements of "joe the plumber" (and his ilk)
etherealtruth
May 2014
#60
'Joe's" staements are only correct if one views our enumerated "rights" as absolute
etherealtruth
May 2014
#82
Rights are subject to subject to limits and restrictions, that is different than taking them away.
badtoworse
May 2014
#88
You lot aren't very good at slacktivism, much less real-world politics
friendly_iconoclast
May 2014
#113
Of course they do -- just as their pathetic, blood-soaked apologetics were instantly available
villager
May 2014
#129
If the RKBA folks had even a miniscule shred of integrity, they would wholeheartedly support efforts
Maedhros
May 2014
#143
Effective ones, arrived after extensive study and discussion by knowlegeable participants.
Maedhros
May 2014
#146
I'm just saying that the responsible thing to do is to recognize the need for changes
Maedhros
May 2014
#149