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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Democratic Votes to Pass Senate [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)48. Agreed- but remember, you're fighting against the 'false consensus effect':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
About the bolded sentence in the excerpt above- note the reaction from certain people on threads like
this on and these others
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106236
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106162
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172105918
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X
In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate how much other people agree with him or her. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are 'normal' and that others also think the same way that they do. This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a 'false consensus'. This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem. The need to be "normal" and fit in with other people is underlined by a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment...
...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 of 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. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors.
...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 of 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. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors.
About the bolded sentence in the excerpt above- note the reaction from certain people on threads like
this on and these others
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106236
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106162
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172105918
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X
The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes
Lee Ross, David Greene, Pamela House
Stanford University USA
Abstract
Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a false consensus with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes.
Lee Ross, David Greene, Pamela House
Stanford University USA
Abstract
Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a false consensus with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
94 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
It's all fluff because no one stands up for anything anymore anyway (say that three times fast).
Drunken Irishman
Jan 2013
#6
And the rightward march because none have the balls to stand up against anyone and say
RKP5637
Jan 2013
#53
After Reid's capitulation on filibuster reform, I'm inclined to agree n/t
markpkessinger
Jan 2013
#47
Congress, I give them about a 2 percent approval rating and that is being kind. n/t
RKP5637
Jan 2013
#54
If they actually gave a tinker's damn about THE PEOPLE they would vote for the gun ban,
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#77
I use mine on my farm to shoot coyotes that go after my chickens and ducks.
nick of time
Jan 2013
#8
When you shoot at coyotes, how many have you seen attacking as a pack?
JustABozoOnThisBus
Jan 2013
#37
Not surprising...can DU GD put a "pin" on a thread used solely for listings and comments on
libdem4life
Jan 2013
#7
Nope, they also give a damn about $$$$$ in their back pockets, their inflated egos and
RKP5637
Jan 2013
#56
You must have miised the news a few years ago about the ACA and what certain Senate Dems were doing
Lesmoderesstupides
Jan 2013
#23
until the next slaughter, and then they'll talk again until they conveniently "forget"
wordpix
Jan 2013
#64
Some kind of 'national database' for the 'mentally ill' is absurd and would be a remarkable setback
RiverNoord
Jan 2013
#61
deemed incompetent or committed to a mental hospital involuntarily is radically
RiverNoord
Jan 2013
#67
Agreed- but remember, you're fighting against the 'false consensus effect':
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2013
#48
No, the problem is that the base imagines there is a difference, when there isn't
Recursion
Jan 2013
#86
Hey, why don't we just give everyone/anyone their own personal nuke and be done with it all!
RKP5637
Jan 2013
#52
I really, really dislike Republican politicians, so if we are going to risk seats,
ZombieHorde
Jan 2013
#55
We just can't get enough slaughter of innocents and children, can we? Keep the blood flowing!
Kablooie
Jan 2013
#81
Good. Now hopefully we can turn towards legislation that actually does something
Recursion
Jan 2013
#84