Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Josquius]

That Corbyn wasn't too left is typical of Stalinist, antisemitic far-left.

 

Learn to read.
And what bizarre insults. I represent none of these things.

Corbyn is very far left. But his problem is more that he was shit at his job.

Labour under Corbyn was not Corbyns dictatorship. One good thing that can be said about him is he did compromise on his views giving the party a manifesto far more towards its centre - though Corbyn then did a rubbish job of pretending to actually support this.

Also well done on completely ignoring basically everything to try and pick at a minor point you would like to have seen.

Well, how am I suppose to respond to when your statement is typical of the antisemitic far-left?

So you're just being a trolling little shit and aren't actually interested in the topic. Shame.

If you can't face the inverse of your own argument style you should probably stop doing it yourself

I call a spade a spade as I talk about the spade.

I don't out of nowhere go "nerr you're a Stalinist" to avoid actually talking about the topic at hand.

[mongers]

I call a spade a spade as I talk about the spade.

I don't out of nowhere go "nerr you're a Stalinist" to avoid actually talking about the topic at hand.

Well it does seem a bit odd to call you a Stalinist, leaving aside the near lack of 'evidence', there really aren't many in the West, maybe a few old members of the British Communist party I used to know, but they'll mostly be dead now, plus the odd paid shill working for N.K.in the UK; And that's about it. 

[Razgovory]

Stalinist was probably overegging the pudding.  After all, Josq has said the thinks that Stalin is a right winger.  Still, he has zero self-awareness.  He still can't figure out that I simply reversed what he said to me and Barrister.  I complained that he simply dismissed concerns with the thought-ending cliche "that's typical of what the right-wing says".  If he has a problem with that sort of thing, he should stop doing it.  That was the point I was making.

[HVC]

That Corbyn wasn't too left is typical of Stalinist, antisemitic far-left.

 

Learn to read.
And what bizarre insults. I represent none of these things.

Corbyn is very far left. But his problem is more that he was shit at his job.

Labour under Corbyn was not Corbyns dictatorship. One good thing that can be said about him is he did compromise on his views giving the party a manifesto far more towards its centre - though Corbyn then did a rubbish job of pretending to actually support this.

Also well done on completely ignoring basically everything to try and pick at a minor point you would like to have seen.

Well, how am I suppose to respond to when your statement is typical of the antisemitic far-left?

So you're just being a trolling little shit and aren't actually interested in the topic. Shame.

If you can't face the inverse of your own argument style you should probably stop doing it yourself

I call a spade a spade as I talk about the spade.

I don't out of nowhere go "nerr you're a Stalinist" to avoid actually talking about the topic at hand.

Oh come on now, your go to retort is "right wing fascist talking points " without actually discussing the point made. To most people, but especially Raz. Although I do appreciate that you stopped using "projecting" so much, it was a giant pet peeve of mine

[Razgovory]

I have recently read that people who are well-educated, sophisticated thinkers are the least likely to change their opinions when presented with new facts.  These people are the best equipped to find ways to dismiss new information that conflicts with their opinions.

[DGuller]

I have recently read that people who are well-educated, sophisticated thinkers are the least likely to change their opinions when presented with new facts.  These people are the best equipped to find ways to dismiss new information that conflicts with their opinions.

I don't know if it's really true, or just yet another study that would turn out to be non-reproducible or worse, but I do agree that no one is immune from confirmation bias.  Judging from my experience, though, I do think that educated people are somewhat more likely to be aware of confirmation bias and take steps to not fall victim to it.

EDIT:  Another thing that I thought of is that this conclusion can also be a function of educated people being exposed to much more information.  Statistically speaking, the more information you're exposed to, the less influence on your conclusion each additional piece should have.  If you're trying to figure out whether a coin is fair, the first 10 flips give you a lot of information to go on, whereas flips 511-520 are far less valuable.

[HVC]

Some people are just intrinsically  more stubborn than others. The more you push a mule the more it pushes back. I don't personally think that's tied to intelligence

[Sheilbh]

Well it does seem a bit odd to call you a Stalinist, leaving aside the near lack of 'evidence', there really aren't many in the West, maybe a few old members of the British Communist party I used to know, but they'll mostly be dead now, plus the odd paid shill working for N.K.in the UK; And that's about it. 

There'll be some splitters but I think you're right Stalinists are really just the Communist Party (inheritor of Harry Pollit's CPGB).

The fringe of the left that Corbyn is open to are more the the Trots. Not really the Stalinist, Soviet-aligned wing which has basically been irrelevant (even within the very fringe relevance of hard-left sects) since 1956. There's a few Trot groups here who all hate each other (they agree on every single thing in terms of their political goals but passionately disagree on analysis and practically how to do it). I think Corbyn's wing of the party is open to the Militant style bits of the left (who believe in entryism), Corbyn was President of the Stop the War Coalition which was one of the SWP's front organisations (like Stand up to Racism etc - again their big tactic is front organisations).

I don't know if it's really true, or just yet another study that would turn out to be non-reproducible or worse, but I do agree that no one is immune from confirmation bias.  Judging from my experience, though, I do think that educated people are somewhat more likely to be aware of confirmation bias and take steps to not fall victim to it.

I disagree - because I think they're more likely to have strong views on issues and just enough knowledge to keep digging. I think there was a study on this from a political perspective that basically highly educated people who closely follow the news are most likely to suffer confirmation bias - because they are the people with priors.

[DGuller]

I disagree - because I think they're more likely to have strong views on issues and just enough knowledge to keep digging. I think there was a study on this from a political perspective that basically highly educated people who closely follow the news are most likely to suffer confirmation bias - because they are the people with priors.

You said the same thing I did, but came to an opposite conclusion.  Being exposed to more information is the same as having stronger priors.  If you were exposed to a lot of information but don't have any priors because of it, then you're probably just not processing it, which definitely doesn't seem like a good thing.

I think it's also a mistake to equate having priors with having confirmation bias.  Having confirmation bias means just not considering information that contradicts the priors, or flipping it in your mind so that by the time you process it it's consistent with your priors.  Having strong priors means that any new information is not going to change your overall conclusion, unless it's so incompatible with your priors that you just have to discard all your priors. That's not a bad thing.  What makes new information necessarily better than all the older information that built up your priors to begin with?  Should you forget everything that you learned in your life the moment you learn something new?

[Sheilbh]

Maybe - I think people selectively process information because we're swamped by it. I think a lot of people dip in and out of what they need to know for their own lives and interests.

So in the context of politics 95% of people are really not interested in it (and arguably that's a sign of a well-functioning society, if you need to take an interest in politics is probably because politics is taking an interest in you). The extent of their exposure will be just be the passive intake of what they see on the evening news or listen to in the ride home.

As an aside I think it's the biggest mistake people interested in politics (like consultants and historians) make that I think they assume a far higher level of interest and engagement than is really there. The overwhelming majority of people aren't and don't really come to it with a strong set of ideas beyond what might be constructed from their social and economic context (e.g. a middle class white churchgoer is likely to have a set of assumptions from that background, even if they don't really "care" about politics, which will inform them).

I think educated people have both that social construction from their education (which they could follow or consciously rebel against) but also are more likely to be interested, to have a stake and a set of views and look for information, including subsconsciously information that mainly reinforces confirms their views. I do not think education or cultural sophistication provides any protection against that - look at the conspiracy theories espoused by some Supreme Court justices' wives for example, or for that matter the conspiracy-mindedness of the liberal left in the last 8 years to explain why it's the children who are wrong. Educated, smart people moving in sophisticated circles and having absolute brain rot on some issues.