Are Conservatives Easier to Manipulate?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by Bassago
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

No, these sound like 2 subtly different questions. OK "valid" different questions.

or as they say in the courtroom "Leading the witness your Honor!"

edit on 6-6-2013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)

Again, precisly the point of the article. -

Leading the Witness - exactly - leading by the nose.

No. They worded two questions very differently. A thoughtful person would look at each question and evaluate them based on their individual merit and potential ramifications. The potential ramifications of both, as already mentioned above, are very different. The results actually contradict the results claimed by the observers and actually suggest that conservatives are more thoughtful and take a more reasoned approach than liberals.

Thank you. Going to find some Aloe Vera for the chaffing received from the previous semi wall-o-text. Apologies to all for getting OT.
Star for you.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by Bassago
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

No, these sound like 2 subtly different questions. OK "valid" different questions.

or as they say in the courtroom "Leading the witness your Honor!"

edit on 6-6-2013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)

Again, precisly the point of the article. -

Leading the Witness - exactly - leading by the nose.

No. They worded two questions very differently. A thoughtful person would look at each question and evaluate them based on their individual merit and potential ramifications. The potential ramifications of both, as already mentioned above, are very different. The results actually contradict the results claimed by the observers and actually suggest that conservatives are more thoughtful and take a more reasoned approach than liberals.

And again we here from another, making the point of the article. Each question is worded differently - but in essense asks the same question.

I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. The response one gets to a specific topic or issue is largely dependant on just how the question is presented to the public. Gallups results show that dems are less likely to change their opinion on an issue based on the wording of that question - that they responsd to the core issue not the phrasology. The results showed much more variance in answers from Rep based on how the question was phrased.

You seem to be arguing that it matters how you phrase a question - and it does the article says so.

reply to post by FyreByrd

FyreByrd please understand I see what you are saying, just don't agree with your poll. Really, I'm not trying to be irritating but those questions just seems slanted to illicit a specific response. What if we asked a question more targeted to progressives?

1. Is the president of the USA a progressively minded official?
2. Is the president of the USA a left-wing big government liberal?

See, it's still 2 different questions.

Originally posted by Bassago
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

FyreByrd please understand I see what you are saying, just don't agree with your poll. Really, I'm not trying to be irritating but those questions just seems slanted to illicit a specific response. What if we asked a question more targeted to progressives?

1. Is the president of the USA a progressively minded official?
2. Is the president of the USA a left-wing big government liberal?

See, it's still 2 different questions.

It's tomAtoes and toMAtoes - I call the president progressive, you call him a left-wing big government liberal. We are still describing the same person.

Same question - different phrasing/spin.

Anyone who worships and follows a political party with religious fervor is going to be easy to manipulate. Conservatives and liberals are equally easy to manipulate if you ask me. Depending on who is trying to manipulate them, of course. Liberals tend to be smarter but they melt like butter in the hands of a skilled liberal spin doctor. Conservatives are leery of anything that sounds liberal but again, they are putty in the hands of someone they believe is on their side.

People who don't invest in political parties are much harder to manipulate. We can be. No one is impossible to manipulate but we get smarter as time goes by. We're actually looking for it. People who are simply religiously devoted to a political party tend to simply trust the spokespeople of their party and don't look for signs of manipulation (or they ignore it even if they know it's happening).

reply to post by FyreByrd


How about this, OP.

I propose an experiment. As a self-proclaimed conservative, why don't we ask the staff at ATS if we can run our own poll and see if the same standards apply within our small community.

That way we can control the group, determine the questions ourselves.

We are all easy to manipulate.

There is a whole science behind it. Billions aren't spent on marketing and advertising (whether for a politician or for a tin of beans) because its ineffective.

They way the world is going with the tracking of individuals these manipulations can be targeted and directed at ever smaller demographics. In my lifetime i'm pretty sure i'll be watching commercials edited on the fly to manipulate me personally, based on data collected about me.

An amusing anecdote about advertising.

An ATM I use regularly was upgraded to a large LCD touchscreen recently. When this happened they started showing small commercials that each customer would have to watch before making their transaction (very brief, seconds long).

This ATM was outside a supermarket. One day I used it and as usual stared absently at the advert and then got my cash. When I went into the store I bought some groceries, including milk. It wasn't until I was queuing for the checkout I realised I'd bought 'cravendale' milk which is more expensive than the usual stuff. I then realised thats what the advert i'd just been subjected to was for. I got irritated and put it back. I was pre-loaded with the image of cravendale milk before entering the store. How many other people that day went home with a brand they don't normally buy just because of that?

Your thought processes are hackable whether you are a conservative or a liberal. All that differs is the nature of the script written for you.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by Bassago
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

No, these sound like 2 subtly different questions. OK "valid" different questions.

or as they say in the courtroom "Leading the witness your Honor!"

edit on 6-6-2013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)

Again, precisly the point of the article. -

Leading the Witness - exactly - leading by the nose.

No. They worded two questions very differently. A thoughtful person would look at each question and evaluate them based on their individual merit and potential ramifications. The potential ramifications of both, as already mentioned above, are very different. The results actually contradict the results claimed by the observers and actually suggest that conservatives are more thoughtful and take a more reasoned approach than liberals.

And again we here from another, making the point of the article. Each question is worded differently - but in essense asks the same question.

I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. The response one gets to a specific topic or issue is largely dependant on just how the question is presented to the public. Gallups results show that dems are less likely to change their opinion on an issue based on the wording of that question - that they responsd to the core issue not the phrasology. The results showed much more variance in answers from Rep based on how the question was phrased.

You seem to be arguing that it matters how you phrase a question - and it does the article says so.

But it isn't the same question. They have, if you think about it very different wide spread connotations.

As for Gallup, what conclusions can you draw? Some say that it means that conservatives can be led by the wording, but another interpretation is that liberals do not think about the wording. The results of the survey may be valid, but the conclusions are very much open to interpretation.

Are Conservatives Easier to Manipulate?

No. Just one look at all the people who bought into the hope and change 'yes we can' rhetoric of Obama and you can see that the left is easy to manipulate. And considering the number still clinging to Obama, even with the evidence of his corruption staring them in the face, I'd say that the left is not only easy to manipulate, but it also has a very hard time facing reality.

That being said, the far right is the same way. Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin aren't qualified to be in the White House, but as soon as they say they are conservatives who believe in God .... suddenly they become 'contenders'.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

How about this, OP.

I propose an experiment. As a self-proclaimed conservative, why don't we ask the staff at ATS if we can run our own poll and see if the same standards apply within our small community.

That way we can control the group, determine the questions ourselves.

Don't think it would work, I wouldn't know how to set it up and the sample sets (remember - two questions, two mindsets red/blue - 4 sets of querients). The collilation of answers wouldn't be a problem and I could probablly borrow a simple statistics program.

But it would be skewed because of self-selection and knowledge of the purpose at least here on ATS.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Are Conservatives Easier to Manipulate?

No. Just one look at all the people who bought into the hope and change 'yes we can' rhetoric of Obama and you can see that the left is easy to manipulate. And considering the number still clinging to Obama, even with the evidence of his corruption staring them in the face, I'd say that the left is not only easy to manipulate, but it also has a very hard time facing reality.

That being said, the far right is the same way. Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin aren't qualified to be in the White House, but as soon as they say they are conservatives who believe in God .... suddenly they become 'contenders'.

Thank you for your opinion - off topic and not what the thread is about but thank you for your time

Originally posted by NavyDoc

But it isn't the same question. They have, if you think about it very different wide spread connotations.

As for Gallup, what conclusions can you draw? Some say that it means that conservatives can be led by the wording, but another interpretation is that liberals do not think about the wording. The results of the survey may be valid, but the conclusions are very much open to interpretation.

Again, thank you for making a point that I wasn't making at all.

Precisely, conservatives tend to react to the connotation of the phrase rather then the actual dennotation of that same phrase.

Two statements:

Obama is a Black man.
Obama is a N-----r.

Again both questions state the same FACT about this man.

One is phrased with a positive connotation and the other with a negitive connotation.

Definitions

Connotation |ˌkänəˈtā sh ən|
noun


an idea or feeling that a word invokes person in addition to its literal or primary meaning : the word “discipline” has unhappy connotations of punishment and repression.


• the implication of such ideas or feelings : the work functions both by analogy and by connotation.
• Philosophy the abstract meaning or intension of a term, which forms a principle determining which objects or concepts it applies to. Often contrasted with denotation .
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from medieval Latin connotatio(n-), from connotare ‘mark in addition’ (see connote ).

Denotation |ˌdēnōˈtā sh ən|
noun


the literal or primary meaning of a word, in contrast to the feelings or ideas that the word suggests : beyond their immediate denotation, the words have a connotative power.


• the action or process of indicating or referring to something by means of a word, symbol, etc.
• Philosophy the object or concept to which a term refers, or the set of objects of which a predicate is true. Often contrasted with connotation .
DERIVATIVES
denotational |- sh ənl| adjective.

Of course they are..just read the threads on ATS. They believe anything when it comes to Obama and the admin.

Fox news, Jones and others are their shepherds and like good little sheep they follow. They will deny it, of course, but the proof is all over ATS.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Two statements:

Obama is a Black man.
Obama is a N-----r.

Your DENOTATION, and both CONNOTATIONS, are wrong! I reckon that's because you were manipulated into thinking that your sample statements might have been true.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by kerazeesicko

Of course they are..just read the threads on ATS. They believe anything when it comes to Obama and the admin.

Fox news, Jones and others are their shepherds and like good little sheep they follow. They will deny it, of course, but the proof is all over ATS.

Those that paint others with broad brushes, and broad strokes, ARE the MOST manipulated of all.

Well done!

See ya,
Milt

with my experience that liberals are more driven by emotion than reason

Almost every single contemporary Republican issue is based on nothing but emotion- Attack Iran, Gay marriage, torture muslims or they'll torture us, make kids pray in school or the world will end, and of course "OH MY GOD IT'S SOCIALISM!".

The only republican issue you could make a claim for being irrational is the debt- except for how irrationally they react to it, so once again emotion.

Since I don't live my life by labels someone else wants to hang on me, I first gave this thread a skim and then kinda forgot about it. Then today I saw another post by the OP in another thread and something in the back of my mind clicked... Just a little click. Not enough to change my mood one way or the other. Kept rollin' around back there, though, and this quiet inner battle started. "I'm gonna say somethin'.." "Naw, not worth it." "Come on, admit it. Does tickle ya a little bit, right??" "Why stick your head up?" "Been kinda dull. And it IS on topic..!"

Okay, I'll play. I can't resist....

There is a neat, quirky irony to the thread that I love.

Yeah, the world is only made up of two groups, Conservatives and Progressives.

The premise put out by the OP seems to be that Progressives, like the OP, are not gullible and easily swayed.

The hope would seem to be that Conservatives feeling that they have heartfelt core beliefs will read this thread, see the error of their ways and join the fold with all of the other intelligent and enlightened Progressives.

At that point, everyone will have vastly expanded their horizons, finally have some sense and totally agree with the OP.

The beautiful irony comes in when you consider the Conservative stereotype. They cling to the past, are stubborn and mean spirited. They will never admit that they were wrong or reconsider a position.

So if the premise is true & you can get a Conservative to listen to you and even change their stance on something, then it is the Progressives who will stubbornly dig in their feet and pig pigheadedly stick with an issue regardless of how it is presented.

What an entertaining world we live in...
-- disclaimer --
Any resemblance between this post and a serious comment on the part of Cornshucker is purely coincidental.

Originally posted by CornShucker

The premise put out by the OP seems to be that Progressives, like the OP, are not gullible and easily swayed.

Thanks for the post and were the above statement my premise or my intent with posting this item, I could agree with you.

But it was neither my premise nor my intent. It was an expostition of the results of an interesting poll.

The only opinion I offered was that Gallup's conclusions to it's poll tended to match my experience with self-described conservatives. I was careful to say that I know many conservatives (btw who don't tend to call themselves that) that would not be swayed by phrasing, but would answer the actual question not REACT to how it was phrased.

This is a subject that has interested me for years. How one can STEAR results in the direction you want by the way to phase a question. Pollsters know this and use it to keep clients I imagine. So polling really is a poor way to judge the opinions all a round.

I did find the scope of change between red/blue self-described people interesting and that is what I offered my opinion on.

What is facsinating about the replies is the "it's different questions" posts and the desparate reaction as though I was calling each and every self-styled conservative 'manipulatable".

This initial reaction seems to overshadow the ability to grasp the point of the poll and it's findings. Talk about taking something personally.

Shakespeare comes to mind.

Both options will be available under Obamacare.

Oh second line. Would one ever expect anything different from AlterNet?

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by CornShucker

The premise put out by the OP seems to be that Progressives, like the OP, are not gullible and easily swayed.

Thanks for the post and were the above statement my premise or my intent with posting this item, I could agree with you.

But it was neither my premise nor my intent. It was an expostition of the results of an interesting poll.

The only opinion I offered was that Gallup's conclusions to it's poll tended to match my experience with self-described conservatives. I was careful to say that I know many conservatives (btw who don't tend to call themselves that) that would not be swayed by phrasing, but would answer the actual question not REACT to how it was phrased.
-- snipped for space --

Thanks for the great reply! Your thread deserves more than a cursory glance, for sure. I'm leery of always mentioning my age, but I haven't been on ATS long enough to know if the person I'm talking to is aware that I'm 60.

Your Red/Blue mention is insightful. Things have changed so much over my lifetime. What the pundits are doing with such over-simplified tagging concerns me. I doubt most that are the most swayed are even aware it's happened. I've done everything from farm work, to IT, to service industry to furniture manufacture, etc. Human nature has always interested me and, the more I observe, the more confusing it's becoming. I don't say that lightly... My "treasured sheepskin" became impossible to accomplish when I left the company of my professor/employer, but I've been around enough educated professionals that I still think my advice holds true. Originally, I was only talking to customers who were having software/hardware problems and were intimidated about asking questions. I always made sure to say, "Don't ever hesitate to ask me a question. The smartest man in the world will always be ignorant of something. If you find yourself talking to someone who wants you to believe they know it all, run like H*ll the other way because you are talking to either a Liar or a Fool."

I'm uncomfortable that the Red/Blue thing is doing real damage in that it only serves to polarize the country. It was gratifying to see that there are a few out there that have started referring to themselves as Purple. It may only be a matter of time before some politically correct pundit jumps on that as stepping on the toes of the gay community, but I think it does a good job of expressing, "I'm Neither... I'm an American and I am capable of making up my own mind, thank you very much..!"

Thanks again for the cordial reply. I'm glad you understood it wasn't knee-jerk or meant as hurtful. Sometimes my sense of humor gets me in trouble...

edited to add:
-------------------
I've been kind of disappointed that I've never been "exit polled". I'd love the opportunity to say, "None of your business."