Desirability Bias

[showa58taro]

There is a very interesting psychological study that has been conducted over the course of the previous election in US politics in order to try and determine and ascertain some of the causes of the hyperpolarization that is increasingly consuming the US. The experiment has significant details to it, but the short highlight reel version is this:

They took a group of about 9000 voters who were either pro-Clinton or pro-Trump, and they asked them to note who they supported, and whether they thought their candidate would win. This created 4 groups. Candidates who wanted Clinton to win and thought that she was likely to, candidates who wanted Clinton to win but thought that Trump was likely to, and then People who wanted Trump to win but either thought he would or wouldn't. They then created polling data that showed significant wins for each candidate (fake data to help show significant empirical basis for a victory prediction) and assessed what happened as a result of the information given.

What is interesting is that, in the case of those who were either pro-Clinton and knew she'd win, or Pro-Trump and knew Trump would win, this additional information did not change their minds at all, they stuck to their guns no matter what. But for the ones where they wanted X to win but thought Y, any confirmation of X would significantly increase their conviction of correction.

This shows a very interesting facet of modern politics. Initially the idea was that with the advent of the internet and facebook groups and twitter and your reddit groups, there was an ever-increasing mass of confirmation bias, which is to say people found increasing information that supported what they thought, and they saw less views that disagreed with their own. This effectively assumes that empiricism would win if all facts were equal.

What the new study finds is that a Desirability bias plays a much stronger part in people's interpretations of news. Basically, if you WANT that to happen, any information you get is seized upon as crucial information. If you DON'T want it, then any negative story is the one you believe, because you WANT that to be the case, rather than you live in a circle where that is exclusive. This adds a very interesting issue for political science, in that such strong desire bias means no volume of empirical facts or figures, or news reports, are likely to sway a large group of people. As an obvious example, take gun control/gun ownership. Regardless of crime statistics, deaths, or any other story, those that WANT to believe that guns are a way to stay safe will find a way to justify that. Whereas those who WANT guns restricted will also place extra value on any negatives that prove harm caused by guns. In both cases, it is not about facts or figures that they don't see. It is about elevation of desired datapoints to counter non-desirable information received.

I think it plays out very clearly on HMF where there's no way people can accuse me or Head of not having to face Foo and Jason repeatedly, or vice-versa. And both sides have definitely at least at some point put together strongly factually accurate assertions or claims and logical arguments on complex topics. And yet I don't feel one step more conservative, just as Foo doesn't appear to have moved a step more liberal. That certainly seems to confirm the same basic principle that I want Foo to be wrong, regardless of what I find, and he no doubt assumes I am also always wrong or off base no matter what excellent facts or articles I can cite to prove things.


The danger really is that from all this, you never get to a point where it is possible to depolarize things as you can't undo people's desire bias. At least not that I can think of.

[zombie]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

[Foo]

Sounds like a very flawed study.

Both Clinton and Trump have been incredibly famous for decades. People have had a lot of time to form opinions about them. New information introduced must weigh that against the source, which many perceive to be an incredibly biased and unreliable media (not just Trump supporters either, as libs have been crying about Fox News, Breitbart, etc for years.

This is like the town liar giving you information about your sister. You know your sister and don't trust the town liar.

[Foo]

Also, consider this:

Trump people knew he was going to win. Every major media outlet was saying Clinton was going to run away with it. What should those Trump supporters have believed?

[Foo]

Also,

I want my weed, so it is definitely medicine, helps people, and should be legal!

[zombie]

Also,

I want my weed, so it is definitely medicine, helps people, and should be legal!

so come to colorado? *fails to see how this has anything to do with the topic of the thread*

[Tiggnutz]

Also,

I want my weed, so it is definitely medicine, helps people, and should be legal!

so come to colorado? *fails to see how this has anything to do with the topic of the thread*

Reefer Madness!!

[showa58taro]

Sounds like a very flawed study.

Both Clinton and Trump have been incredibly famous for decades. People have had a lot of time to form opinions about them. New information introduced must weigh that against the source, which many perceive to be an incredibly biased and unreliable media (not just Trump supporters either, as libs have been crying about Fox News, Breitbart, etc for years.

This is like the town liar giving you information about your sister. You know your sister and don't trust the town liar.

It's not about Trump or Clinton. It's about what information gets selected.

As for "flawed" I guess we will see how many peer reviews and subsequent papers come out.

But it's interesting that you didn't engage in the debate, yet again.

[showa58taro]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

[Tiggnutz]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

There is no longer a middle and that is dangerous in politics and I can't see a way out of it except people becoming so disappointed and disgusted by their parties that the party is forced to change.

[zombie]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

with trump not taking input from democrats, i think that is about an effort to appear loyal to his voters and party, more than anything else. it's very much a us vs. them thing. i didn't think that's what you were trying to get at though?

as for comfort zones and not engaging in real discussion, i think that it's likely that this is more about feeling discomfort, feeling embattled, and kind of shutting down in a way, more than just trying to stick to your comfort zone. i mean, i guess that it is retreating to a comfort zone, but that's not the same thing as wanting to, but instead feeling like you have to. does that make sense? it's like you get backed into your opinion and nothing else, almost? and i don't think that's true in day to day life, but moreso on the internet. maybe i'm wrong.

[zombie]

also, to the point where you talked before about not accepting the point of view of others, or seeing things their way at all... i think that we do actually. it's not as apparent with politics and the like as it is in other areas though. (it could be that' it's just more gradual with politics too) but take movies for instance. i think that we can all point to examples where we were influenced by someone else's interest in a film, even when we weren't initially into the flick. or even about an opinion on something to do with an actor / director. we can see that we are influenced by a different opinion, in that regard. it's not as important in the bigger scheme, maybe, as political views, but it's something.

[Tiggnutz]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

with trump not taking input from democrats, i think that is about an effort to appear loyal to his voters and party, more than anything else. it's very much a us vs. them thing. i didn't think that's what you were trying to get at though?

as for comfort zones and not engaging in real discussion, i think that it's likely that this is more about feeling discomfort, feeling embattled, and kind of shutting down in a way, more than just trying to stick to your comfort zone. i mean, i guess that it is retreating to a comfort zone, but that's not the same thing as wanting to, but instead feeling like you have to. does that make sense? it's like you get backed into your opinion and nothing else, almost? and i don't think that's true in day to day life, but moreso on the internet. maybe i'm wrong.

There are no Democrats who would work with Trump on anything they would be tarred and feathered. When you start screaming impeachment on day one it makes it hard to negotiate.

[zombie]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

with trump not taking input from democrats, i think that is about an effort to appear loyal to his voters and party, more than anything else. it's very much a us vs. them thing. i didn't think that's what you were trying to get at though?

as for comfort zones and not engaging in real discussion, i think that it's likely that this is more about feeling discomfort, feeling embattled, and kind of shutting down in a way, more than just trying to stick to your comfort zone. i mean, i guess that it is retreating to a comfort zone, but that's not the same thing as wanting to, but instead feeling like you have to. does that make sense? it's like you get backed into your opinion and nothing else, almost? and i don't think that's true in day to day life, but moreso on the internet. maybe i'm wrong.

There are no Democrats who would work with Trump on anything they would be tarred and feathered. When you start screaming impeachment on day one it makes it hard to negotiate.

i think that goes back to looking loyal to your party / voters too. at least in as far as not working with trump goes. the impeachment thing is another matter. but also, look at the race leading up to the presidency. "cause you'd be in jail", "i'll take the election result seriously... if i win" etc. that's not easy to work with someone coming from such a position, right or wrong.

[Tiggnutz]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

with trump not taking input from democrats, i think that is about an effort to appear loyal to his voters and party, more than anything else. it's very much a us vs. them thing. i didn't think that's what you were trying to get at though?

as for comfort zones and not engaging in real discussion, i think that it's likely that this is more about feeling discomfort, feeling embattled, and kind of shutting down in a way, more than just trying to stick to your comfort zone. i mean, i guess that it is retreating to a comfort zone, but that's not the same thing as wanting to, but instead feeling like you have to. does that make sense? it's like you get backed into your opinion and nothing else, almost? and i don't think that's true in day to day life, but moreso on the internet. maybe i'm wrong.

There are no Democrats who would work with Trump on anything they would be tarred and feathered. When you start screaming impeachment on day one it makes it hard to negotiate.

i think that goes back to looking loyal to your party / voters too. at least in as far as not working with trump goes. the impeachment thing is another matter. but also, look at the race leading up to the presidency. "cause you'd be in jail", "i'll take the election result seriously... if i win" etc. that's not easy to work with someone coming from such a position, right or wrong.

Agreed both parties share the blame for the toxic situation

[showa58taro]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

There is no longer a middle and that is dangerous in politics and I can't see a way out of it except people becoming so disappointed and disgusted by their parties that the party is forced to change.

Are you suggesting that politics has moved to the left and right but not the people?

[showa58taro]

also, to the point where you talked before about not accepting the point of view of others, or seeing things their way at all... i think that we do actually. it's not as apparent with politics and the like as it is in other areas though. (it could be that' it's just more gradual with politics too) but take movies for instance. i think that we can all point to examples where we were influenced by someone else's interest in a film, even when we weren't initially into the flick. or even about an opinion on something to do with an actor / director. we can see that we are influenced by a different opinion, in that regard. it's not as important in the bigger scheme, maybe, as political views, but it's something.

I think that for Horror movies we probably are less likely to be entrenched, although in some ways it does play a part of it. Though I think this is likely a bit more on the confirmation bias side. Like me, if Slaughter recommends and excellent schlocky film I'll want to see it 100%. But if Jigsaw recommends one, I'm not as keen as I don't think his tastes and mine align. That's a definitive bias.

[zombie]

I think that for Horror movies we probably are less likely to be entrenched, although in some ways it does play a part of it. Though I think this is likely a bit more on the confirmation bias side. Like me, if Slaughter recommends and excellent schlocky film I'll want to see it 100%. But if Jigsaw recommends one, I'm not as keen as I don't think his tastes and mine align. That's a definitive bias.

i thought confirmation bias was more about seeking things out that support your viewpoint? which arguably is how you defined desirability bias, or at least how it came across to me. being aware, through experience, that one friend's taste in film is closer to your own than another doesn't fit that to me?

how would you seek to counter the entrenchment that you see going on, in regard to political debate?

[showa58taro]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

with trump not taking input from democrats, i think that is about an effort to appear loyal to his voters and party, more than anything else. it's very much a us vs. them thing. i didn't think that's what you were trying to get at though?

as for comfort zones and not engaging in real discussion, i think that it's likely that this is more about feeling discomfort, feeling embattled, and kind of shutting down in a way, more than just trying to stick to your comfort zone. i mean, i guess that it is retreating to a comfort zone, but that's not the same thing as wanting to, but instead feeling like you have to. does that make sense? it's like you get backed into your opinion and nothing else, almost? and i don't think that's true in day to day life, but moreso on the internet. maybe i'm wrong.

But I still think that, at least to me, the point is more that both sides are basically assuming that no argument made by the other side is worth examining or entering into as it is just assumed they hold the right answer.

[showa58taro]

I think that for Horror movies we probably are less likely to be entrenched, although in some ways it does play a part of it. Though I think this is likely a bit more on the confirmation bias side. Like me, if Slaughter recommends and excellent schlocky film I'll want to see it 100%. But if Jigsaw recommends one, I'm not as keen as I don't think his tastes and mine align. That's a definitive bias.

i thought confirmation bias was more about seeking things out that support your viewpoint? which arguably is how you defined desirability bias, or at least how it came across to me. being aware, through experience, that one friend's taste in film is closer to your own than another doesn't fit that to me?

how would you seek to counter the entrenchment that you see going on, in regard to political debate?

Confirmation bias is believing things that conform to our world view, mainly. In the case of modern politics the confirmation bias also arises from the bubble you live in where the echo-chamber reinforces what you assume.

A great example of that, I do not take many pro-Tory arguments seriously and find flaws in them but will be happy to hear Labour arguments, for the upcoming UK election. And if you look at my facebook feed, it is overwhelmingly pro-Corbyn vs being a Theresa May led one. BUT I think that she is likely to win it regardless, even though I can't see why that is possible. But I'm basically reading things that confirm my view of Corbyn being a better choice than May.