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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: What The NRA's "All In" Failure Means For The Media [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)92. Ahem- *You* post here a lot and are... shall we say, "concerned" about guns, no?
Would you piss on other posters that concentrate on Environment and Energy and Public Transportation and Smart Growth (two of my subscriptions, BTW)?
Have you considered that 'false consensus effect' just might be affecting your views about those that don't share your opinions?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=86334
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect
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.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why-we-all-stink-as-intuitive.php
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
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
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
Judging by recent political trends in gun law legislation, I daresay there are far more people like me in the Democratic Party than you might care to admit...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
147 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
I think we also need to challenge the idea that the NRA is a single issue advocacy group.
HankyDub
Nov 2012
#6
So...did you actively support and work for the candidate whose gun position matched yours?
dumbledork
Nov 2012
#51
Well, at the end of the day...make that the end of the century, all this bloviating and parsing
dumbledork
Nov 2012
#86
Ahem- *You* post here a lot and are... shall we say, "concerned" about guns, no?
friendly_iconoclast
Nov 2012
#92
Oh, your pudding? Conservatives change infrequently. Reactionairies, never. Which are you?
Eleanors38
Nov 2012
#54
I've been trying to get him to explain what other issues other that gun rights
glacierbay
Nov 2012
#101
Translation: "this being on the losing side of an argument really bites." I notice you in that
apocalypsehow
Nov 2012
#144
Once again: that ad mentions "debt," "spending," and "threats to sovereignty," and
apocalypsehow
Nov 2012
#143
What do you mean, "links"? Right there in #49, one of the posts we're arguing about it.
apocalypsehow
Nov 2012
#146
The notion that the NRA is anything BUT a right-wing advocacy group is so obviously ludicrous
apocalypsehow
Nov 2012
#142
Does the head of mediamatters still have an armed bodyguard accompanying him?
Eleanors38
Nov 2012
#55
Secular. MSM has been & continues to be the gun prohibitionist's pressure group.
Eleanors38
Nov 2012
#4
No surprise. The content was fine. But prohibitionists get their way on alerts. nt
Eleanors38
Nov 2012
#56
Bipolar nature of anti-RKBA folks: the NRA is too powerful vs the NRA has no power
aikoaiko
Nov 2012
#14
A lot of us held our nose on that rotten board in the platform and stepped around it.
Tuesday Afternoon
Nov 2012
#75
Yes, it is a major bone of contention within this party as is abortion for republicans.
Tuesday Afternoon
Nov 2012
#77
agreed and a lot of it (on both sides) I think, has to do with the nebulous definition of both words
Tuesday Afternoon
Nov 2012
#80
So all your crying wolf about the NRA was really much ado about nothing...
cherokeeprogressive
Nov 2012
#64
The NRA lost bigtime in 2012. Great article, and more great news to come in future
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#102
He supported more winners than losers. He supports those that support gun control.
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#105
Bloomberg was the biggest supporter of Angus King among many, many others
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#107
so you are OK with him supporting canidates who coddle the criminals on Wall Street
gejohnston
Nov 2012
#108
You consider Angus King a bad person? The NRA is bad. Mike is the Equalizer.
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#109
Angus King is the newly elected independent Senator from maine who will caucus with Democrats
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#111
"guns.... They are WMD's" Then Bush was right about Iraq? AK's were and are common there.
friendly_iconoclast
Nov 2012
#114
Ahem- "Saint Michael of Bloomberg" supported one notable winner in 2004: George Bush
friendly_iconoclast
Nov 2012
#115
I posted this on the OWS thread- however, 75% of it is relevant right here.
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#116
What are you, Bloomie's 'advance man' for 2016? The shilling is blatant.
friendly_iconoclast
Nov 2012
#132
He is not running in 2016 is he? A woman will be our next president45. Meet Hillary Clinton.
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#133
IMHO-the dems won't nominate a white male. Just fact of demographics. The base after all
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#135
Can you give me an example of a law that would violate the 2nd Amendment?
Glaug-Eldare
Nov 2012
#104
My right to peaceful assembly is ruined by your right to ruin my right to assemble peacefully.
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#117
But my right to my peaceful right to assemble is ruined-ask Gabby Giffords when that extremist shot
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#119
As Katrina proved, the only riots in Katrina were the cops acting as vigillantes
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#138