Heard this on the radio this morning. Thought I would post it here. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/22/159588275/are-independents-just-partisans-in-disguise?ps=view&ec=mostpopular Since it's from a radio show, you can listen to it instead of reading it if you are too lazy.
Quote
Independent voters have grown in recent years into a mega voting bloc. By some estimates they outnumber registered Republicans, and even registered Democrats.
Every election cycle, independents generate enormous amounts of interest as candidates, pollsters and the media probe their feelings. These voters are widely considered to hold the key to most elections.
Independents generally report that neither party fully represents their views. Some report being to the left of the Democratic Party or to the right of the GOP, but most report being in the middle and describe themselves as moderates. As a group, independents tend to prize their ability to think for themselves, rather than march lockstep with a party.
"It's a shame that ... more people don't do that," said Amin Sadri, 23, a Florida independent. "That more people, for lack of a better word, they almost feed at the trough. They are set on a certain mindset, so they only listen and gather information that is already predestined to go in a certain direction."
Sadri is an independent voter. He despises partisanship, and has close friends who are Republicans and Democrats. Even his religion — he subscribes to the Baha'i faith — has explicit rules about partisanship.
"It's an inherent aspect of politics that it's about one side versus the other," Sadri said in an interview. "So Baha'is, because we seek unity and because we seek to abstain from conflict and contention, partisan politics are something that Baha'is are forbidden to participate in."
There's a paradox, however: Even as the number of independents in the United States has soared, presidential election after presidential election in recent years has come down to the wire. If a third of the country is truly open-minded about supporting either the Republican or the Democrat for president, the math alone suggests elections should regularly produce outcomes other than a 50-50 split.
Political scientists have known for some time that significant numbers of independents vote consistently for Democrats or consistently for Republicans.
Sadri for example, supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election and plans to do so again in 2012. Going back to the presidential race between Republican Bob Dole and Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996 — when Sadri was a small child — the disputed 2000 race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, and the 2004 election between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, Sadri said he has always wanted the Democrat to win.
So why isn't he a registered Democrat?
"See, that's the problem," he said. "As soon as I say that I'm a Democrat, people look at me and say, 'Oh, you believe in this, you believe in this, you believe in this,' and I don't!"
This fall, Sadri will count himself as an independent voter. But if the campaigns think he's persuadable, they'll be wasting their time.
Now, politicians, reporters and pollsters have known for a while that only a few independents are actually open to persuasion. The challenge lies in how to identify them.
That's where a new psychological test could be useful.
Brian Nosek is a psychologist at the University of Virginia. Along with graduate student Carlee Beth Hawkins, Nosek studies why people don't always do what they say they want to do — why there is a gap in many aspects of human behavior between what people intend to do and what they actually do.
Nosek and Hawkins believed this disconnect explains why many independents aren't independent when it comes to voting.
The psychologists used a test that purports to measure people's inner attitudes, including ones they don't know they have.
"The test is called the Implicit Association Test," Nosek said. "And it's been used for a variety of different topics — trying to measure people's racial attitudes, their anxieties about spiders, their self-esteem. In our case, we tried to measure how strongly people associate themselves with Democrats or Republicans."
The idea behind the test is simple. If you are a Republican deep down, you'll quickly categorize things that are Republican with things about yourself, because you identify with the Republican Party. You'll be slower to group things connected to the Democratic Party with things about yourself.
The speed of those associations can be precisely measured. In the study, Nosek tested 1,865 U.S. citizens to see how fast they made these associations. The test easily identified registered Republicans and Democrats. Republicans were quick to link Republican words with themselves. Liberals made faster associations with words connected to the Democratic Party.
Independents? Some showed no bias for either party. But many did.
"It might break down into a third, a third, a third," Nosek said, referring to independents who leaned Democratic, leaned Republican and were neutral. "There are a large number of independents who are not in the middle, but show some degree of implicit partisanship."
Nosek and Hawkins proved the test was measuring people's real attitudes by asking the volunteers to evaluate different policies. Some were labeled Democratic ideas. Others were labeled Republican. Then Nosek secretly switched the labels. The idea that used to be called Democratic was now labeled Republican, and the idea that used to be Republican was now labeled Democratic.
"What we found was that independents who were implicitly Democratic tended to favor the plan proposed by Democrats," Nosek said. "And independents who were implicitly Republican tended to favor the plan proposed by Republicans. And it didn't matter which plan was which."
When a plan was labeled Democratic, in other words, independents who were implicitly Democratic supported it — and they opposed it when the label was changed to Republican. Party labels, not ideas, determined which proposals these voters supported. That's the definition of partisanship — where loyalty to the team comes first; the ideas come second.
The psychologists are publishing their study in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Nosek thinks the test can help independents figure out if they are walking the walk, or just talking the talk. Campaigns might use the test to find the minority of independents truly open to persuasion.
So this fall, don't be surprised if someone comes up to you and says, "Would you mind taking a little psychological test?"
I was not aware not being a partisan meant you have no bias what-so-ever towards left wing or right wing policies or would prefer one party or the other win. Maybe it just means they do not want to be hit up for fund raising.
I just don't like the bullshit with being associated with a particular party; puts a damper in the primaries, but screw it.
Can I be a conservative independent?
I haven't read past the first paragraph of the article - but if the measure of being independent is that you are not registered as either a Democrat or a Republican, I'm surprised independents do not outnumber non-independents by, say, 10:1.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 10:25:12 AM
I haven't read past the first paragraph of the article - but if the measure of being independent is that you are not registered as either a Democrat or a Republican, I'm surprised independents do not outnumber non-independents by, say, 10:1.
Some people like to vote in primaries.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2012, 10:07:42 AM
I just don't like the bullshit with being associated with a particular party; puts a damper in the primaries, but screw it.
You're more closely bound to the Democrat party than nearly any actual Democrat I know.
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2012, 11:08:56 AM
You're more closely bound to the Democrat party than nearly any actual Democrat I know.
Meh, I'd say 80/20. I've voted for my share of Republicans since '92.
But I'll admit, organized party work in the College Republicans pretty much turned me off to the whole concept of party participation.
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2012, 11:08:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2012, 10:07:42 AM
I just don't like the bullshit with being associated with a particular party; puts a damper in the primaries, but screw it.
You're more closely bound to the Democrat party than nearly any actual Democrat I know.
I think you have to separate being a Democrat from being an anti-Republican. If you were a Soviet Jew, you may not have liked Stalin very much, but in 1942 you would probably be quite a fervent follower of him.
Wonderful analogy.
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2012, 12:25:29 PM
Wonderful analogy.
It's apparently appropriate enough for women these days.
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2012, 12:25:29 PM
Wonderful analogy.
Yeah, it was a little over the top, now that I think about it. I didn't mean to equate Democrats to communists.
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2012, 12:25:29 PM
Wonderful analogy.
It made sense to me. Both sides hate you and want bad things to happen to you, but one wants worse things for you than the other.
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2012, 12:17:37 PM
I think you have to separate being a Democrat from being an anti-Republican. If you were a Soviet Jew, you may not have liked Stalin very much, but in 1942 you would probably be quite a fervent follower of him.
This is the Stewart/Maher/Colbert variant of partisanship.
It's greatest strength is that you're never really in favor of any solutions, so you never have to defend them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2012, 12:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2012, 12:17:37 PM
I think you have to separate being a Democrat from being an anti-Republican. If you were a Soviet Jew, you may not have liked Stalin very much, but in 1942 you would probably be quite a fervent follower of him.
This is the Stewart/Maher/Colbert variant of partisanship.
It's greatest strength is that you're never really in favor of any solutions, so you never have to defend them.
That's bullshit of quite rare purity.
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
That's bullshit of quite rare purity.
I know you are but what am I?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2012, 12:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2012, 12:17:37 PM
I think you have to separate being a Democrat from being an anti-Republican. If you were a Soviet Jew, you may not have liked Stalin very much, but in 1942 you would probably be quite a fervent follower of him.
This is the Stewart/Maher/Colbert variant of partisanship.
It's greatest strength is that you're never really in favor of any solutions, so you never have to defend them.
Both Stewart and Colbert are comedians (hint: their shows are on a channel called Comedy Central). Why would you expect comedians to advance policies?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2012, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
That's bullshit of quite rare purity.
I know you are but what am I?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. What I meant to say is that your (Admiral Yi's) comment was bullshit of rare purity. I did not mean to imply that what I (DGuller) said was bullshit, of any purity. I hope that clears it up. :)
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 01:16:06 PM
Both Stewart and Colbert are comedians (hint: their shows are on a channel called Comedy Central). Why would you expect comedians to advance policies?
I would not expect comedians to advance policies.
But the large number of Democrats who think and talk just like them are not comedians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2012, 01:19:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 01:16:06 PM
Both Stewart and Colbert are comedians (hint: their shows are on a channel called Comedy Central). Why would you expect comedians to advance policies?
I would not expect comedians to advance policies.
But the large number of Democrats who think and talk just like them are not comedians.
Then why do you use names of comedians to make a point about politicians? It does not allow for a clear response as it is unclear what you meant.
:huh:
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2012, 12:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2012, 12:17:37 PM
I think you have to separate being a Democrat from being an anti-Republican. If you were a Soviet Jew, you may not have liked Stalin very much, but in 1942 you would probably be quite a fervent follower of him.
This is the Stewart/Maher/Colbert variant of partisanship.
It's greatest strength is that you're never really in favor of any solutions, so you never have to defend them.
That's bullshit of quite rare purity.
Nope. Yi is right. Being against things is easy. Being for something, now that's hard. It requires courage.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 01:16:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2012, 12:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2012, 12:17:37 PM
I think you have to separate being a Democrat from being an anti-Republican. If you were a Soviet Jew, you may not have liked Stalin very much, but in 1942 you would probably be quite a fervent follower of him.
This is the Stewart/Maher/Colbert variant of partisanship.
It's greatest strength is that you're never really in favor of any solutions, so you never have to defend them.
Both Stewart and Colbert are comedians (hint: their shows are on a channel called Comedy Central). Why would you expect comedians to advance policies?
Don't understimate the influence of comedians.
Every democrat I know use them as valid reference.
Oh wait, I don't know any democrats.
Yi is right, I just don't get why he thinks it matters.
Those guys are comedians - it is there job to make fun of the media and Republicans, not to formulate effective policy.
QuoteBut the large number of Democrats who think and talk just like them are not comedians.
Meh large numbers of people in this country on both sides are motivated by hatred of the other party. Not just Democrats.
I suspect a lot of people identify themselves as independents so that they can be anti-everything.
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2012, 04:18:43 PM
I suspect a lot of people identify themselves as independents so that they can be anti-everything.
Yep.
Though to be fair not even the greatest geniuses in this country agree or have a good grasp on the problems and solutions we face. To expect ordinary people to be able to understand the problems and be able to have a good idea about solutions is alot to ask so if none of the big authorities have their confidence this is probably a common reaction.
And there is the other issue that as soon as you take on the cloak of Democrat or Republican you will have huge amounts of people who will think you are horrible who hate liberty or gays or whatever. People like Siege and Raz will be hounding you at parties. It can just be less of a headache to just announce your neutrality and avoid the frothing rage that tends to run through political life.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 01:21:56 PM
Then why do you use names of comedians to make a point about politicians? It does not allow for a clear response as it is unclear what you meant.
Because those comedians are examples of the "Stewart/Maher/Colbert variant of partisanship" that Yi wanted to reference?
None of this is very hard, if you just read what is written.
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2012, 04:18:43 PM
I suspect a lot of people identify themselves as independents so that they can be anti-everything.
Almost certainly true, and almost certainly true of lots of Democrats and Republicans, as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 09:36:59 AM
There's a paradox, however: Even as the number of independents in the United States has soared, presidential election after presidential election in recent years has come down to the wire. If a third of the country is truly open-minded about supporting either the Republican or the Democrat for president, the math alone suggests elections should regularly produce outcomes other than a 50-50 split.
That's not really accurate. Obama won by 5 points. Clinton won by 5 points. Not sure how big Poppa Bush's margin against Dukakis was, but at least that much. And Reagan crushed Mondale. Only W's wins have been 50-50.
And of course the idea that those people should somehow form a monolithic bloc while swinging from party to party is pretty ridiculous in the first place.
Ooh. Five points. Exactly who else would they vote for if they didn't shift to one of the two major parties?
I'm voting for LaRouche.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 07:13:02 PM
Ooh. Five points. Exactly who else would they vote for if they didn't shift to one of the two major parties?
It's the idea that every election one campaign should trump the other so badly they pick up nearly every "swing" voter that is ridiculous. It's quite rare because the nomination process tends to pick professional politicians who the party feels are electable. Picking up 60% of independents is a sign of a successful campaign. Picking up 60% of voters is a sign that the universe is conspiring in your favor.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2012, 07:38:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 07:13:02 PM
Ooh. Five points. Exactly who else would they vote for if they didn't shift to one of the two major parties?
It's the idea that every election one campaign should trump the other so badly they pick up nearly every "swing" voter that is ridiculous. It's quite rare because the nomination process tends to pick professional politicians who the party feels are electable. Picking up 60% of independents is a sign of a successful campaign. Picking up 60% of voters is a sign that the universe is conspiring in your favor.
I'm unclear on this. Is the problem that both sides pick candidates that are just so darn electable that they inevitably split votes right down the middle, or that they pick ev0l "professional politicians" who disgust everyone? And who should they chose besides "professional politicians"? Unprofessional politicians?
*Professional* politicians are experienced and trained so considerably less prone to making catastrophic campaign-ending blunders than an average schmo would be under the same circumstances. This helps keeps the races competitive and the margin of victory close.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2012, 07:57:19 PM
*Professional* politicians are experienced and trained so considerably less prone to making cataclysmic campaign-ending blunders than an average schmo would be under the same circumstances. This helps keeps the races competitive and the margin of victory close.
I dunno, McCain made a pretty big mistake in picking Sara Palin as VP. Do you have any proof to support your contention? The article I posted had psychological studies. Got anything like that?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Do you have any proof to support your contention?
That professional politicians are better at avoiding saying or doing things that will kill their candidacy than normal folks? Seems pretty obvious to me. I mean, half* the things posted on Languish would kill a Presidential candidacy if one of the candidates said them.
*slight exaggeration
QuoteThe article I posted had psychological studies. Got anything like that?
Didn't read them. But considering the author's fuzzy interpretation of recent election numbers, I'd be inclined to doubt his interpretation of something more complex like a psychological study as well.
QuoteThere's a paradox, however: Even as the number of independents in the United States has soared, presidential election after presidential election in recent years has come down to the wire. If a third of the country is truly open-minded about supporting either the Republican or the Democrat for president, the math alone suggests elections should regularly produce outcomes other than a 50-50 split.
I am somewhat baffled by his description of an independent as somebody who is open minded about supporting either party. It could mean any number of things.
And in any case the Obama-McCain election did not come down the wire. Nor any other recent election besides the two Bush ones.
It was 10 points of 50%. We never have a 70-30 split. But you guys really want to tell yourself you are independent, special little snowflakes, then go ahead.
If independents voted as a block, they'd hardly be independents.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 09:28:57 PM
It was 10 points of 50%. We never have a 70-30 split. But you guys really want to tell yourself you are independent, special little snowflakes, then go ahead.
So...if we did have a 70-30 split then I personally could be an independent, special little snowflake?
If the road only has two paths then they are going be moving in a group even if they think they are chartering their own path.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2012, 09:49:08 PM
So...if we did have a 70-30 split then I personally could be an independent, special little snowflake?
You're a Texan Francophile; you already are.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2012, 09:49:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 09:28:57 PM
It was 10 points of 50%. We never have a 70-30 split. But you guys really want to tell yourself you are independent, special little snowflakes, then go ahead.
So...if we did have a 70-30 split then I personally could be an independent, special little snowflake?
If you wanted to. The point of the article is that most of the people who consider themselves special little snowflakes tend vote to for the same party most of the time. They don't want to feel identified with a particular party cause that gets in the way of their snow-flakiness. It's a form of cognitive dissonance. "Sure I vote Democratic most of the time, but don't try to pigeonhole me in that party! I'm much better/ more complex/smarter/flaky then that!"
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 09:57:15 PM
If you wanted to. The point of the article is that most of the people who consider themselves special little snowflakes tend vote to for the same party most of the time. They don't want to feel identified with a particular party cause that gets in the way of their snow-flakiness. It's a form of cognitive dissonance. "Sure I vote Democratic most of the time, but don't try to pigeonhole me in that party! I'm much better/ more complex/smarter/flaky then that!"
I vote Democratic in all Statewide Elections (including President) because it amuses me to do so. Making Travis County blue thus more despised by the rest of Texas flatters my sense of civic pride...and I am comfortable in the fact that the Republicans will always win anyway by a large margin so it does not bother me much. But since it does not actually mean I necesarily want those Democrats to win, and indeed if I thought it was a possibility I might vote differently.
Whatever you need to soothe your ego. That is the point cognitive dissonance, to put what you want to believe and what is actually true about yourself closer together.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 09:57:15 PM
If you wanted to. The point of the article is that most of the people who consider themselves special little snowflakes tend vote to for the same party most of the time.
But do they? I suspect most of the analysis is based on Presidential elections, where the parties manage to churn out candidates who are nearly identical to their predecessors on policy year after year. Put up a pro-life Democrat, or a Republican who supports marijuana legalization, and you'll see a lot more shifting among independent voters, while all the partisan voters can really do is stay home.
Yes. Why don't you read the article?
I don't believe the article addressed the hypothetical situations I just mentioned.
And clearly there are some pretty profound differences between yours and Berkut's politics, despite the fact you both consistently vote Democrat for President. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2012, 10:25:48 PM
I don't believe the article addressed the hypothetical situations I just mentioned.
And clearly there are some pretty profound differences between yours and Berkut's politics, despite the fact you both consistently vote Democrat for President. :P
So he says. What the article addressed was that most independents would support a plan proposed by the side they implicitly sided with no matter what the plan was. That seems to be close to your hypothetical of the pro-life democrat and the pothead Republican. It doesn't matter if your Republican likes chemical recreation, independents that lean Republican will still vote him.
He might lose Ed's vote.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 10:34:33 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2012, 10:25:48 PM
I don't believe the article addressed the hypothetical situations I just mentioned.
And clearly there are some pretty profound differences between yours and Berkut's politics, despite the fact you both consistently vote Democrat for President. :P
So he says. What the article addressed was that most independents would support a plan proposed by the side they implicitly sided with no matter what the plan was. That seems to be close to your hypothetical of the pro-life democrat and the pothead Republican. It doesn't matter if your Republican likes chemical recreation, independents that lean Republican will still vote him.
But that suggests that to be independent, they'd have to be single-issue voters. I don't know how many people actually are single-issue voters, but in theory if your single issue is abortion, and you're pro-choice, if in a race for the state legislature the Republican nominee is pro-choice while the Democratic nominee is pro-life, then you'd vote Republican; but if you're pro-choice but not a single-issue voter, then you might still vote Democratic because you agree with the Democratic nominee on all or most other issues.
What? Why does it suggest you'd have to be a single issue voter? I'm not seeing the connection here.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 12:50:17 AM
What? Why does it suggest you'd have to be a single issue voter? I'm not seeing the connection here.
Because if the pro life Democrat is *not* a single issue voter we can't tell if he votes Democrat out of pure partisanship or out of the belief that on net the Democrat more closely reflects his preferences.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 10:08:51 PM
Whatever you need to soothe your ego.
Ok...so what is bruising my ego here exactly? I do not really get the bizarre association that only the arrogant do not support Republicans or Democrats. Plenty of arrogant people are Republicans and Democrats.
QuoteThat is the point cognitive dissonance, to put what you want to believe and what is actually true about yourself closer together.
What is true is I want certain things like being pro-individual liberty and managing a balanced budget and so forth that neither party are ever going to support. When I feel like one of the parties might be slightly more inclined in that direction I hope they win but being here in Texas I have no ability to help them win besides tossing a few bucks their way. On a local level I am far more active in picking candidates that support things I support and work to steer the state government into a less thought control police state direction. I also always vote in the Republican Primary since they are ultimately the people who are going to win the election anyway. I guess I do not really see how identifying myself as a party member does me any good or changes anything. I certainly do not see how my vast ego is stroked by not doing so. Ultimately I am just one guy and nobody gives a damn what I think, I do not even care that much but, you know, I have a civic duty or something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 07:12:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 12:50:17 AM
What? Why does it suggest you'd have to be a single issue voter? I'm not seeing the connection here.
Because if the pro life Democrat is *not* a single issue voter we can't tell if he votes Democrat out of pure partisanship or out of the belief that on net the Democrat more closely reflects his preferences.
Right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 07:12:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 12:50:17 AM
What? Why does it suggest you'd have to be a single issue voter? I'm not seeing the connection here.
Because if the pro life Democrat is *not* a single issue voter we can't tell if he votes Democrat out of pure partisanship or out of the belief that on net the Democrat more closely reflects his preferences.
Why does it have to be either one? It could be both or neither. Someone who is a single issue voter almost certainly has opinions about other things. It's just that this one issue trumps the other ones. Certainly someone could be a single issue voter and be purely partisan. "Yeah, the Democrat claims to be pro-life, but Democrats are liars. Can't trust them" On the other hand they could be independent because they are very indecisive, extremely broad minded, not well informed, or they just forget what their own opinions were a year ago.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2012, 08:32:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 10:08:51 PM
Whatever you need to soothe your ego.
Ok...so what is bruising my ego here exactly? I do not really get the bizarre association that only the arrogant do not support Republicans or Democrats. Plenty of arrogant people are Republicans and Democrats.
QuoteThat is the point cognitive dissonance, to put what you want to believe and what is actually true about yourself closer together.
What is true is I want certain things like being pro-individual liberty and managing a balanced budget and so forth that neither party are ever going to support. When I feel like one of the parties might be slightly more inclined in that direction I hope they win but being here in Texas I have no ability to help them win besides tossing a few bucks their way. On a local level I am far more active in picking candidates that support things I support and work to steer the state government into a less thought control police state direction. I also always vote in the Republican Primary since they are ultimately the people who are going to win the election anyway. I guess I do not really see how identifying myself as a party member does me any good or changes anything. I certainly do not see how my vast ego is stroked by not doing so. Ultimately I am just one guy and nobody gives a damn what I think, I do not even care that much but, you know, I have a civic duty or something.
Not arrogance, but identity. People develop an identity. How they think about themselves. The gap between how they view themselves and how they really are is bridged by cognitive dissonance. Some people's identity involves being an independent. If they really aren't independent but simply think of themselves that way (as the study suggests most people who think of themselves as independent), they will come up with justifications or simply ignore facts that are contrary to what they want to believe about themselves in an effort to preserve this identity. This isn't arrogance, though most of the things we about ourselves is positive.
It's the same reason Raz gets mad in union threads. :P
I'd say it's easier for people who self-identify as independent though, because basically no issue can be "taken personally" except the questioning of their independence.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:03:58 AM
Why does it have to be either one? It could be both or neither. Someone who is a single issue voter almost certainly has opinions about other things. It's just that this one issue trumps the other ones. Certainly someone could be a single issue voter and be purely partisan. "Yeah, the Democrat claims to be pro-life, but Democrats are liars. Can't trust them" On the other hand they could be independent because they are very indecisive, extremely broad minded, not well informed, or they just forget what their own opinions were a year ago.
I forgot what we were talking about.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:23:24 AM
Not arrogance, but identity. People develop an identity. How they think about themselves. The gap between how they view themselves and how they really are is bridged by cognitive dissonance. Some people's identity involves being an independent. If they really aren't independent but simply think of themselves that way (as the study suggests most people who think of themselves as independent), they will come up with justifications or simply ignore facts that are contrary to what they want to believe about themselves in an effort to preserve this identity. This isn't arrogance, though most of the things we about ourselves is positive.
Well I would love to be a supporter of one party or the other. I am just waiting for one of the parties to be acceptable enough for me to support them. I don't have any deep need to continue to be a special little snowflake over here. The Republicans are who I want to support but the Republicans have managed to be offensive in enough ways that I cannot really support them, particularly the Texas variety. I do not have a strong identity here I just do not have a political home right now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2012, 11:36:27 AM
It's the same reason Raz gets mad in union threads. :P
I'd say it's easier for people who self-identify as independent though, because basically no issue can be "taken personally" except the questioning of their independence.
If you say so. The independents on this board get upset about plenty of stuff.
I'm above your petty concepts of left and right, Democrat and Republican. You petty plebs with your cow like mentality.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2012, 04:59:23 PM
I'm above your petty concepts of left and right, Democrat and Republican. You petty plebs with your cow like mentality.
Stop lying to yourself Ed.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2012, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2012, 04:59:23 PM
I'm above your petty concepts of left and right, Democrat and Republican. You petty plebs with your cow like mentality.
Stop lying to yourself Ed.
I just bought a tiny giraffe.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-4LLfYEvFX3s%2FTjBKI0uVGnI%2FAAAAAAAAPPA%2FQ0XSd457ngg%2Fs1600%2FDirecTV-Russian.jpg&hash=cf50d9e959bd17bf790cbb699b8deff6e3b40646)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2012, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2012, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2012, 04:59:23 PM
I'm above your petty concepts of left and right, Democrat and Republican. You petty plebs with your cow like mentality.
Stop lying to yourself Ed.
I just bought a tiny giraffe.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-4LLfYEvFX3s%2FTjBKI0uVGnI%2FAAAAAAAAPPA%2FQ0XSd457ngg%2Fs1600%2FDirecTV-Russian.jpg&hash=cf50d9e959bd17bf790cbb699b8deff6e3b40646)
That's all the giraffe you could afford? :console:
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2012, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:23:24 AM
Not arrogance, but identity. People develop an identity. How they think about themselves. The gap between how they view themselves and how they really are is bridged by cognitive dissonance. Some people's identity involves being an independent. If they really aren't independent but simply think of themselves that way (as the study suggests most people who think of themselves as independent), they will come up with justifications or simply ignore facts that are contrary to what they want to believe about themselves in an effort to preserve this identity. This isn't arrogance, though most of the things we about ourselves is positive.
Well I would love to be a supporter of one party or the other. I am just waiting for one of the parties to be acceptable enough for me to support them. I don't have any deep need to continue to be a special little snowflake over here. The Republicans are who I want to support but the Republicans have managed to be offensive in enough ways that I cannot really support them, particularly the Texas variety. I do not have a strong identity here I just do not have a political home right now.
Maybe you do, maybe you don't. I don't know you well enough. However, considering yourself to have such a such high integrity that neither party is acceptable for you to support would be part of that hypothetical identify.
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2012, 05:32:46 PM
That's all the giraffe you could afford? :console:
You are totally out of the loop aren't you? :secret:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjWYbcbpiWA
TV commercials? How plebian.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2012, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2012, 05:32:46 PM
That's all the giraffe you could afford? :console:
You are totally out of the loop aren't you? :secret:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjWYbcbpiWA
It's Dguller!
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2012, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2012, 05:32:46 PM
That's all the giraffe you could afford? :console:
You are totally out of the loop aren't you? :secret:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjWYbcbpiWA
It's Dguller!
We'll make an American out of him yet.
:( That's what I get for forwarding through the commercials.
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2012, 07:27:27 PM
:( That's what I get for forwarding through the commercials.
A time traveler! I knew it it! I've been waiting for you bastards since '98! I knew you'd come back. In time. Again!