I’d been getting shit on for years for trying to tell people Biden would have to drop out to give the Democrats a chance this election. Lo and behold, once he finally does, Democrats are suddenly on track to win.
Everyone who didn’t understand that this was going to be the case had their heads buried too deep in the sand to hear any of the legitimate, well intentioned criticism of their preferred candidate or the arguments for why switching would be a good thing. Such folks who accused me of being a Republican or a Russian bot when I was actually right cannot be trusted to perform political analysis.
They were afraid of a thing that would significantly improve their electoral chances because they were too wrapped up in their support for a presumed nominee to put their biases aside and consider the benefits of switching to another candidate.
Anchoring Bias, Salience Bias, Normalcy Bias, Confirmation Bias, Semmelweis Reflex, Egocentric Bias Blind Spot, False Consensus Effect, Illusion of Control, Illusion of Validity, Naive Realism, the Overconfidence Effect, Zero-Risk Bias, Neglect of Probability, Sunk Cost Fallacy, Plan Continuation Bias, Ambiguity Effect, Loss Aversion, Status Quo Bias, System Justification Bias, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect, among others.
I don’t know how to be any less ambiguous here… I’m literally, deliberately, and intentionally referring to any and all mental hangups which made people think that sticking with Biden would have been better than switching. That switching improved the Democrats chances should have been extremely obvious even without the benefit of hindsight, and the folks who thought otherwise were wrong and should reckon with this so that they can be less wrong in the future.
“Biden supporters had biases that prevented them see the big picture.”
Ok, what biases?
“Anchoring bias, blah, blah”
That’s like saying “there are many reasons why that engine doesn’t fit for that car” and then when someone asks you “what reason?” you reply “a technical reason, a mechanical stress reason, an electrical failure reason,” ok, but GIVE ME SOMETHING CONCRETE. Is that red cable sticking out of the engine too thin and it risks catching fire?
Ok, name ONE example bias that you can say it is “anchoring bias” in this case.
That’s all I want, man.
“Democrats have a Status Quo bias because they do this and they do that.”
“Biden supporters had biases that prevented them see the big picture.”
Ok, what biases?
I already tried listing all possible biases that might be involved in the misconception and you complained about a lack of specificity.
That’s like saying “there are many reasons why that engine doesn’t fit for that car” and then when someone asks you “what reason?” you reply “a technical reason, a mechanical stress reason, an electrical failure reason,” ok, but GIVE ME SOMETHING.
Oh, I think I understand now. You don’t want to think about Biden supporters as a generalized class who might take any number of different routes to reach the same wrong conclusion, you just want me to explain how psychological bias works.
Ok, name ONE example bias that you can say it is “anchoring bias” in this case.
That’s all I want, man.
Fine. Anchoring bias occurs when an individuals’ judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point that may be entirely unrelated to the question at hand.
For example, people who took “Biden is the most progressive president ever” as a reference for their judgement that he shouldn’t step down from the race. Regardless of the truth-value of the statement, the reference point was entirely immaterial to the actual question, whether or not another candidate would have improved the partys’ chances in the election, because it tells us nothing about how Biden compared with his electoral competition.
Thus, persons who relied on this anchor to justify their opposition to Biden dropping out did so for fallacious reasons, and an honest reckoning with this might have led them to an opinion which more accurately reflected reality.
I’d been getting shit on for years for trying to tell people Biden would have to drop out to give the Democrats a chance this election. Lo and behold, once he finally does, Democrats are suddenly on track to win.
Everyone who didn’t understand that this was going to be the case had their heads buried too deep in the sand to hear any of the legitimate, well intentioned criticism of their preferred candidate or the arguments for why switching would be a good thing. Such folks who accused me of being a Republican or a Russian bot when I was actually right cannot be trusted to perform political analysis.
You still haven’t said in what way people who feared Biden dropping out need to re-evaluate the way they look at politics.
They were afraid of a thing that would significantly improve their electoral chances because they were too wrapped up in their support for a presumed nominee to put their biases aside and consider the benefits of switching to another candidate.
Your sentence comes down to: “Their biases made them afraid of considering better options.”
Specifically what biases are you talking about?
Anchoring Bias, Salience Bias, Normalcy Bias, Confirmation Bias, Semmelweis Reflex, Egocentric Bias Blind Spot, False Consensus Effect, Illusion of Control, Illusion of Validity, Naive Realism, the Overconfidence Effect, Zero-Risk Bias, Neglect of Probability, Sunk Cost Fallacy, Plan Continuation Bias, Ambiguity Effect, Loss Aversion, Status Quo Bias, System Justification Bias, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect, among others.
Don’t be dense. Those are types of biases anyway. Now tell me the biases you’re talking about.
I don’t know how to be any less ambiguous here… I’m literally, deliberately, and intentionally referring to any and all mental hangups which made people think that sticking with Biden would have been better than switching. That switching improved the Democrats chances should have been extremely obvious even without the benefit of hindsight, and the folks who thought otherwise were wrong and should reckon with this so that they can be less wrong in the future.
What part of this is unclear to you?
This is the part that is confusing:
“Biden supporters had biases that prevented them see the big picture.”
Ok, what biases?
“Anchoring bias, blah, blah”
That’s like saying “there are many reasons why that engine doesn’t fit for that car” and then when someone asks you “what reason?” you reply “a technical reason, a mechanical stress reason, an electrical failure reason,” ok, but GIVE ME SOMETHING CONCRETE. Is that red cable sticking out of the engine too thin and it risks catching fire?
Ok, name ONE example bias that you can say it is “anchoring bias” in this case.
That’s all I want, man.
“Democrats have a Status Quo bias because they do this and they do that.”
I already tried listing all possible biases that might be involved in the misconception and you complained about a lack of specificity.
Oh, I think I understand now. You don’t want to think about Biden supporters as a generalized class who might take any number of different routes to reach the same wrong conclusion, you just want me to explain how psychological bias works.
Fine. Anchoring bias occurs when an individuals’ judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point that may be entirely unrelated to the question at hand.
For example, people who took “Biden is the most progressive president ever” as a reference for their judgement that he shouldn’t step down from the race. Regardless of the truth-value of the statement, the reference point was entirely immaterial to the actual question, whether or not another candidate would have improved the partys’ chances in the election, because it tells us nothing about how Biden compared with his electoral competition.
Thus, persons who relied on this anchor to justify their opposition to Biden dropping out did so for fallacious reasons, and an honest reckoning with this might have led them to an opinion which more accurately reflected reality.