The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll - The American Public on International Issues
October 22, 2004 8:39 AM Subscribe
University Study - Most Bush Voters Are Extremely Stupid [Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format]
just to save mefi's bush supporters some time, i'll point out that:
- no one is saying that every single person who supports kerry is a genius.
- no one is saying that every single person who supports bush is stupid. no one is saying that you must be stupid b/c you support bush.
- yes, yes, we know: this study is proof positive that The Left is elitist.
- yes, yes, we know: this is the kind of activity The Left engages in that alienates voters.
- yes, yes, we get it: none of this matters b/c only bush can protect america from terrorists (all of whom want kerry to win)
you're welcome.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:53 AM on October 22, 2004
- no one is saying that every single person who supports kerry is a genius.
- no one is saying that every single person who supports bush is stupid. no one is saying that you must be stupid b/c you support bush.
- yes, yes, we know: this study is proof positive that The Left is elitist.
- yes, yes, we know: this is the kind of activity The Left engages in that alienates voters.
- yes, yes, we get it: none of this matters b/c only bush can protect america from terrorists (all of whom want kerry to win)
you're welcome.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:53 AM on October 22, 2004
Good work there, lord_wolf.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:56 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:56 AM on October 22, 2004
did we really need a university study to confirm this?
posted by specialk420 at 8:56 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by specialk420 at 8:56 AM on October 22, 2004
It's not so much extremely stupid--it's probably more a combination of wishful thinking and willfully ignorant.
The sad thing is the Bush administration is exploiting these people to further their agenda. And the conservatives who know better don't have the guts to call Bush on it because they can't stand the idea that the "other guy" might win.
posted by turaho at 8:58 AM on October 22, 2004
The sad thing is the Bush administration is exploiting these people to further their agenda. And the conservatives who know better don't have the guts to call Bush on it because they can't stand the idea that the "other guy" might win.
posted by turaho at 8:58 AM on October 22, 2004
WILLFULLY IGNORANT == EXTREMELY STUPID
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2004
I'm going to write to Clark County and tell them they're all fucktards.
posted by biffa at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by biffa at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2004
Just to tack onto that study, is the CNN/Gallup Poll, which says:
If you're a Republican, 62 percent say, yes, Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks
Eventhough countless reports have stated otherwise. (self-link) I don't think Bush supporters are stupid, ignorant perhaps; but it is clear that the Bush Administration has done a great job of using innuendo, false remarks, and the power of the Presidency to create a false reality for their followers to latch onto.
posted by plemeljr at 9:05 AM on October 22, 2004
If you're a Republican, 62 percent say, yes, Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks
Eventhough countless reports have stated otherwise. (self-link) I don't think Bush supporters are stupid, ignorant perhaps; but it is clear that the Bush Administration has done a great job of using innuendo, false remarks, and the power of the Presidency to create a false reality for their followers to latch onto.
posted by plemeljr at 9:05 AM on October 22, 2004
Who has ever told these people that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11? The government never has. The people believe it because they assume it must be true, based on what little they know about the war their own country is fighting.
They are bombarded with information on this subject every day, and they choose to avoid all of it. This is stupidity.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:11 AM on October 22, 2004
They are bombarded with information on this subject every day, and they choose to avoid all of it. This is stupidity.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:11 AM on October 22, 2004
The media has done an extremely poor job of removing the distortion from everything this administration says. They are doing an extremely poor job of informing people.
That said, I think you do either have to be stupid or extremely biased to vote for Bush. I would like to think that any democrat with a record half as bad as Bush's would be run out of the country.
Also, there is an element of radicalism here. Half the country is deeply, deeply radical. They want Government to give money to churches, to rewrite the constitution, to have an insanely right judiciary.
posted by xammerboy at 9:31 AM on October 22, 2004
That said, I think you do either have to be stupid or extremely biased to vote for Bush. I would like to think that any democrat with a record half as bad as Bush's would be run out of the country.
Also, there is an element of radicalism here. Half the country is deeply, deeply radical. They want Government to give money to churches, to rewrite the constitution, to have an insanely right judiciary.
posted by xammerboy at 9:31 AM on October 22, 2004
I always hear this, "If you're a Republican, 62 percent say, yes, Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks", but does anyone really know anyone that truly asserts this?
It sounds to me like a poll where anyone could be made to agree with anything becuase of poor question phrasing.
Or maybe I only know smart Republicans?
posted by Keith Talent at 9:32 AM on October 22, 2004
It sounds to me like a poll where anyone could be made to agree with anything becuase of poor question phrasing.
Or maybe I only know smart Republicans?
posted by Keith Talent at 9:32 AM on October 22, 2004
"no one is saying that every single person who supports bush is stupid"
No, there's also the liars, thieves, greedheads and polluters.
posted by 2sheets at 9:36 AM on October 22, 2004
No, there's also the liars, thieves, greedheads and polluters.
posted by 2sheets at 9:36 AM on October 22, 2004
DBAPaul - It's not Friday here in New Zealand.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:37 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:37 AM on October 22, 2004
One of the letters to the editor of the Iconoclast (FPPed yesterday) averred that Saddam co-orchestrated 9/11.
posted by kenko at 9:39 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by kenko at 9:39 AM on October 22, 2004
That's probably commissioned by some pundit who wants to pour fire on fuel ; point is, blindly following any ideology doesn't imply stupidity, rather ignorance (in the proper sense of the word, ignorant = not knowning).
Also, the one who would rather not listen to a different bell are often scared by the prospect of realizing that they didn't know ..basically intellectually unsecure people who are often told that they must NOT believe something else and if they feel uncomfortable about that they only need to "reinforce their faith" by (for instace) pray and fasten long enough so that the "evil" is scared away ; actually they're just covering their ears because they're scared.
posted by elpapacito at 9:39 AM on October 22, 2004
Also, the one who would rather not listen to a different bell are often scared by the prospect of realizing that they didn't know ..basically intellectually unsecure people who are often told that they must NOT believe something else and if they feel uncomfortable about that they only need to "reinforce their faith" by (for instace) pray and fasten long enough so that the "evil" is scared away ; actually they're just covering their ears because they're scared.
posted by elpapacito at 9:39 AM on October 22, 2004
Keith, I personally work with 400 people that feel that way. Saddam was instrumental to 9/11 in their eyes and weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. These guys are almost all engineers so they're by no means stupid. They avidly listen to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh who as far as I can tell still at least imply that Iraq was involved.
posted by substrate at 9:39 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by substrate at 9:39 AM on October 22, 2004
"It's not Friday here in New Zealand."
Fucking New Zealand. It's like a different country or something!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:43 AM on October 22, 2004
Fucking New Zealand. It's like a different country or something!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:43 AM on October 22, 2004
The Guardian yesterday ran up the white flag and called a halt to "Operation Clark County", the newspaper's ambitious scheme to recruit thousands of readers to persuade American voters in a swing state to kick out President George W Bush in next month's election.
[...]
"Good-humoured" headlines in the local newspaper, the Springfield News-Sun have included "Butt Out Brits, voters say" and "Trashing letter campaign" - a reference to the fact that the first woman to receive a letter from a Guardian reader, Beverly Coale, threw it away, fearing it was from a terrorist.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:50 AM on October 22, 2004
[...]
"Good-humoured" headlines in the local newspaper, the Springfield News-Sun have included "Butt Out Brits, voters say" and "Trashing letter campaign" - a reference to the fact that the first woman to receive a letter from a Guardian reader, Beverly Coale, threw it away, fearing it was from a terrorist.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:50 AM on October 22, 2004
There are different kinds of stupidity. Mathematically-minded engineers can still be stupid in a sociopolitical sense.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:52 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:52 AM on October 22, 2004
The Problem in a nutshell: Only three in ten [26%] Bush supporters believe that the majority of people in the world oppose the US going to war with Iraq, while an overwhelming majority [74%] of Kerry supporters have this view. A majority [57%] of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would like to see Bush reelected, while a large majority [69%] of Kerry supporters believe the opposite.
In reporting on American perceptions of world opinion about Bush being reelected, between "yes", "no" and "evenly divided" the total comes out to 100%. So either this report is not including people who claim not to know, or everyone polled was willing to pick an answer. If "don't know" was included in "evenly divided", then only at most 17% of people polled claimed not to know the answer.
The report indicates, without qualification or specific reference, that a GlobeScan poll of 35 countries found a strong preference for Kerry, implying that this result represents the opinion of "the majority of people in the world". That poll in fact surveyed only a small minority of people in the world. Although it did include India and China, it covered only a few major cities in each. Approximately 10-15% of China's total population was included (depending on the exact proportion of "urban" residents, which I'm not sure of). Of those Chinese included in that demographic who were willing to answer the poll, 36% had no opinion. I would guess that the 85% of that nation's people who do not live in its largest cities, or do not want to answer survey questions, are much less likely to have any opinion on the matter. Given the substatial difference of average opinion in the US between urban and rural populations, it's also reasonable to suspect that the opinions of people in urban centres in less developed countries might also diverge from their rural counterparts. So, even after reading through a summary of this poll, I have to conclude that I do not know how the majority of the world feels about the US presidential election, although my suspicion is that a small majority probably doesn't care all that much; though of those who do have an opinion the majority very likely favors Kerry.
Anyway, I suspect that the percentage of people surveyed by PIPA who had examined any international poll results that might claim to represent anything close a majority of the world population is very small. Why then, do 83% of them claim to know that rest of the world likes (probably) the same candidate they do? Although it's most obvious on this question, people on both sides seem to generally lack scepticism. There is some kind of human unwillingness to say "I don't know" that makes people gullible to any plausible-sounding answer to fill in the parts of reality that they actually have no clue about. The pollsters and pundits only encourage it.
It isn't just Bush supporters that are duped in this way. Kerry supporters were far more likely to believe that they know how the majority of the world feels about the election. The majority of them are almost certainly extrapolating from what they've heard people in wealthy European countries believe, and taking that as representative of the world. I strongly suspect that most of them, like me, have no idea what your average Chinese farmer thinks. While they may be right, they are at best right for the wrong reasons.
I suppose this is the same sort of credulity that leads people to Scientology, the Ramtha cult, or UFO conferences. It seems to be taking over American politics as well.
posted by sfenders at 10:15 AM on October 22, 2004
In reporting on American perceptions of world opinion about Bush being reelected, between "yes", "no" and "evenly divided" the total comes out to 100%. So either this report is not including people who claim not to know, or everyone polled was willing to pick an answer. If "don't know" was included in "evenly divided", then only at most 17% of people polled claimed not to know the answer.
The report indicates, without qualification or specific reference, that a GlobeScan poll of 35 countries found a strong preference for Kerry, implying that this result represents the opinion of "the majority of people in the world". That poll in fact surveyed only a small minority of people in the world. Although it did include India and China, it covered only a few major cities in each. Approximately 10-15% of China's total population was included (depending on the exact proportion of "urban" residents, which I'm not sure of). Of those Chinese included in that demographic who were willing to answer the poll, 36% had no opinion. I would guess that the 85% of that nation's people who do not live in its largest cities, or do not want to answer survey questions, are much less likely to have any opinion on the matter. Given the substatial difference of average opinion in the US between urban and rural populations, it's also reasonable to suspect that the opinions of people in urban centres in less developed countries might also diverge from their rural counterparts. So, even after reading through a summary of this poll, I have to conclude that I do not know how the majority of the world feels about the US presidential election, although my suspicion is that a small majority probably doesn't care all that much; though of those who do have an opinion the majority very likely favors Kerry.
Anyway, I suspect that the percentage of people surveyed by PIPA who had examined any international poll results that might claim to represent anything close a majority of the world population is very small. Why then, do 83% of them claim to know that rest of the world likes (probably) the same candidate they do? Although it's most obvious on this question, people on both sides seem to generally lack scepticism. There is some kind of human unwillingness to say "I don't know" that makes people gullible to any plausible-sounding answer to fill in the parts of reality that they actually have no clue about. The pollsters and pundits only encourage it.
It isn't just Bush supporters that are duped in this way. Kerry supporters were far more likely to believe that they know how the majority of the world feels about the election. The majority of them are almost certainly extrapolating from what they've heard people in wealthy European countries believe, and taking that as representative of the world. I strongly suspect that most of them, like me, have no idea what your average Chinese farmer thinks. While they may be right, they are at best right for the wrong reasons.
I suppose this is the same sort of credulity that leads people to Scientology, the Ramtha cult, or UFO conferences. It seems to be taking over American politics as well.
posted by sfenders at 10:15 AM on October 22, 2004
Still, my blood boils over TV and Print Media's lackadaisical reporting of each side.
Basically, why don't reporters include a by-line about the facts, rather than each side's supporters opinions?
I can't believe that the press would keep mum about Democrats believing Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, and intentionally stayed put to maximize damage.
Sure it's a load of shit, but that's not for us to say...
posted by Busithoth at 10:15 AM on October 22, 2004
Basically, why don't reporters include a by-line about the facts, rather than each side's supporters opinions?
I can't believe that the press would keep mum about Democrats believing Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, and intentionally stayed put to maximize damage.
Sure it's a load of shit, but that's not for us to say...
posted by Busithoth at 10:15 AM on October 22, 2004
YAY, I'M A REATARD! NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:18 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:18 AM on October 22, 2004
Most Bush Voters People Are Extremely Stupid.
I'm just sayin'.
posted by Lafe at 10:43 AM on October 22, 2004
I'm just sayin'.
posted by Lafe at 10:43 AM on October 22, 2004
The report doesn't actually use the word "stupid" anywhere.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:15 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:15 AM on October 22, 2004
You must work where I do, substrate. The folks in the cubes around me fit that profile perfectly...
posted by ph00dz at 11:19 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by ph00dz at 11:19 AM on October 22, 2004
By the way, it might be worth noting that some of the Moon-affiliated news organizations have actually reported that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.
posted by ph00dz at 11:24 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by ph00dz at 11:24 AM on October 22, 2004
so this whole report can be summed up pretty simply. bush supporters aren't necessarily stupid, they're just misinformed (through their own efforts or otherwise). basically, the people who support bush are either those who obstinately refuse to believe anything bad about his administration (no matter what), or those too lazy to do even a small amount of fact-checking and just take fox news and bush's bullshit as gospel.
nice. the country is run by idiots, and the blissfully ignorant amongst us want to celebrate this by rewarding the idiot king with four more years. friggin' sheep.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:27 AM on October 22, 2004
nice. the country is run by idiots, and the blissfully ignorant amongst us want to celebrate this by rewarding the idiot king with four more years. friggin' sheep.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:27 AM on October 22, 2004
Vice President Cheney: "[Iraq is] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." MS NBC
Huh, wonder where people get the Saddam-9/11 connection?
posted by plemeljr at 11:36 AM on October 22, 2004
Huh, wonder where people get the Saddam-9/11 connection?
posted by plemeljr at 11:36 AM on October 22, 2004
When reporters told him that the unit's refusal was a national news story and involved a soldier from Louisville, Bunning said, "Let me explain something: I don't watch the national news, and I don't read the paper. I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:37 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:37 AM on October 22, 2004
friggin' sheep.
SEEN A MOVIE THIS WEEK?
JUST SAYIN'...
posted by quonsar at 11:38 AM on October 22, 2004
SEEN A MOVIE THIS WEEK?
JUST SAYIN'...
posted by quonsar at 11:38 AM on October 22, 2004
misinformed = stupid.
stupid = poor cognitive ability
poor cognitive ability = low IQ
low IQ = can't think critically
can't think critically = misinformed.
The real issue is that STUPID PEOPLE ALSO GET TO GOVERN THEMSELVES, and there are generally more of them, which accounts for professional wrestling, nascar, pro sports (in which adults play children's games for millions of dollars) 90% of hollywood, a crappy news media, the huge cost of white collar crime, war, poverty, an insane level of heart disease, rising rates of communicable diseases, and, in my personal opinion, the popularity of trivia.
there. I said it.
posted by ewkpates at 11:52 AM on October 22, 2004
stupid = poor cognitive ability
poor cognitive ability = low IQ
low IQ = can't think critically
can't think critically = misinformed.
The real issue is that STUPID PEOPLE ALSO GET TO GOVERN THEMSELVES, and there are generally more of them, which accounts for professional wrestling, nascar, pro sports (in which adults play children's games for millions of dollars) 90% of hollywood, a crappy news media, the huge cost of white collar crime, war, poverty, an insane level of heart disease, rising rates of communicable diseases, and, in my personal opinion, the popularity of trivia.
there. I said it.
posted by ewkpates at 11:52 AM on October 22, 2004
I agree with those who think this is BS. I do believe there are probably sussable statistical differences between voters for each candidate -- and I think I did read a credible study saying voters for Kerry were more likely to correctly understand his positions that voters for Bush -- but this one is off.
posted by namespan at 11:53 AM on October 22, 2004
posted by namespan at 11:53 AM on October 22, 2004
I'm an intellec-tual/You're a stupid dumb-ass.
just say.. oh never mind.
posted by ubi at 11:56 AM on October 22, 2004
just say.. oh never mind.
posted by ubi at 11:56 AM on October 22, 2004
Those psuedo 3D horizontal bar graphs are awful. Just awful. Use a pie chart, or (preferably for something this simple) a table. But 3D bars are inherently distortive and confusing, and then to put them in a non-standard orientation? Terrible.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:01 PM on October 22, 2004
posted by mr_roboto at 12:01 PM on October 22, 2004
"resistance to information" is the best phrase ever.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:14 PM on October 22, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 12:14 PM on October 22, 2004
just to save mefi's bush supporters some time, i'll point out that:
...
- yes, yes, we know: this study is proof positive that The Left is elitist.
- yes, yes, we know: this is the kind of activity The Left engages in that alienates voters.
Shouldn't Kerry supporters find those two facts more troublesome than Bush supporters?
posted by pardonyou? at 12:29 PM on October 22, 2004
...
- yes, yes, we know: this study is proof positive that The Left is elitist.
- yes, yes, we know: this is the kind of activity The Left engages in that alienates voters.
Shouldn't Kerry supporters find those two facts more troublesome than Bush supporters?
posted by pardonyou? at 12:29 PM on October 22, 2004
ewkpates: You overlooked SUVs and liposuction.
posted by alumshubby at 12:58 PM on October 22, 2004
posted by alumshubby at 12:58 PM on October 22, 2004
pardonyou?: democrats have decided to not take political advice from republicans. Go figure.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:45 PM on October 22, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 1:45 PM on October 22, 2004
pardonyou?: democrats have decided to not take political advice from republicans.
I'm not talking about "political advice," I'm talking about the impact of these two facts listed by lord_wolf (and I would agree that those two statements are, indeed, factual). If those are facts, shouldn't a pragmatic Democrat (like, say, myself) be bothered by bullshit like this that tends to alienate moderate (read: undecided/independent) voters?
posted by pardonyou? at 2:07 PM on October 22, 2004
I'm not talking about "political advice," I'm talking about the impact of these two facts listed by lord_wolf (and I would agree that those two statements are, indeed, factual). If those are facts, shouldn't a pragmatic Democrat (like, say, myself) be bothered by bullshit like this that tends to alienate moderate (read: undecided/independent) voters?
posted by pardonyou? at 2:07 PM on October 22, 2004
So it's unfair to as republicans factual questions now?
posted by Space Coyote at 2:20 PM on October 22, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 2:20 PM on October 22, 2004
- yes, yes, we know: this study is proof positive that The Left is elitist.
1. This is not elitist. Sure, it uses some big words, and numbers, (and flawed assumptions and subtle errors in reasoning,) and tries to make an argument rather than just repeating slogans, which may mean that it lends itself to use by people who are elitist. But that does not make it, in itself, elitist. To illustrate this, think of the law of gravity. Only an elite understand it, perhaps, but the equation itself is not "elitist". I do not in any way mean to imply that this study is worthy of comparison to Principia Mathematica. But they do have in common that they are not elitist works, and are in some ways quite the opposite.
2. Even if this were "elitist", it is not proof of anything about "The Left". It's more accurately described as a product of academia, which, though it may have "leftist" tendencies, is neither unilaterally leftist nor completely representative of "The Left" as a whole.
- yes, yes, we know: this is the kind of activity The Left engages in that alienates voters.
I doubt that many voters are going to notice it long enough to be alienated by it. Maybe it will be used rhetorically by clever politicians in an attempt to alienate someone, but if it wasn't there that kind of person would just as easily point to something else.
posted by sfenders at 2:51 PM on October 22, 2004
1. This is not elitist. Sure, it uses some big words, and numbers, (and flawed assumptions and subtle errors in reasoning,) and tries to make an argument rather than just repeating slogans, which may mean that it lends itself to use by people who are elitist. But that does not make it, in itself, elitist. To illustrate this, think of the law of gravity. Only an elite understand it, perhaps, but the equation itself is not "elitist". I do not in any way mean to imply that this study is worthy of comparison to Principia Mathematica. But they do have in common that they are not elitist works, and are in some ways quite the opposite.
2. Even if this were "elitist", it is not proof of anything about "The Left". It's more accurately described as a product of academia, which, though it may have "leftist" tendencies, is neither unilaterally leftist nor completely representative of "The Left" as a whole.
- yes, yes, we know: this is the kind of activity The Left engages in that alienates voters.
I doubt that many voters are going to notice it long enough to be alienated by it. Maybe it will be used rhetorically by clever politicians in an attempt to alienate someone, but if it wasn't there that kind of person would just as easily point to something else.
posted by sfenders at 2:51 PM on October 22, 2004
It pains me to voice a dissent over the intellectuals versus the "Stupid Bush Supporters" theme here, but there's a cursed part of me that likes to be contrary. Social research generally shows that better educated people from higher social economic blocks tend to be more conservative than the rest of us. During the Vietnam war, even when the overall public was mainly supportive of that war, the poorly educated segments of the population surveyed, tended to be much less so. An explanation for this trend could be that the public education system in the United States is intended to not just prepare people to be successful worker bees, but also turn them into Citizens. The more educated you are, the more socialization you have received over the course of your life, and the more likely you are to obey what the heads of the social order tell you. Yes, I know, conservatives like to rail about liberal college professors corrupting the minds of the young, but statistically, they are the exception rather than the rule.
posted by MetalDog at 3:09 PM on October 22, 2004
posted by MetalDog at 3:09 PM on October 22, 2004
wow, looks like i need to take an extra dose of mockitol before i write my posts so that they sparkle with that zing of disdainfulness all the hip kids love so much. ;-)
for clarity's sake, let it be known and understood that i don't believe any of the last 3 points i made in my post this morning, i just was anticipating that those would be among the "counterpoints" trotted out by the bush supporters.
to extend something that sfenders said, i think that if the results of this study were widely disseminated, it would only alienate and be seen as elitist by those who have an inferiority complex about the libruls they despise so much.
on preview: metaldog, i think the "from higher social economic blocks" part explains it.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:19 PM on October 22, 2004
for clarity's sake, let it be known and understood that i don't believe any of the last 3 points i made in my post this morning, i just was anticipating that those would be among the "counterpoints" trotted out by the bush supporters.
to extend something that sfenders said, i think that if the results of this study were widely disseminated, it would only alienate and be seen as elitist by those who have an inferiority complex about the libruls they despise so much.
on preview: metaldog, i think the "from higher social economic blocks" part explains it.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:19 PM on October 22, 2004
While I'm in the mood to pick on stupid comments, (not yours lord_wolf, I dig your preemptive mockery, dude) here's another one:
The real issue is that STUPID PEOPLE ALSO GET TO GOVERN THEMSELVES, and there are generally more of them, which accounts for professional wrestling, nascar, pro sports (in which adults play children's games for millions of dollars) 90% of hollywood, a crappy news media, the huge cost of white collar crime, war, poverty, an insane level of heart disease, rising rates of communicable diseases, and, in my personal opinion, the popularity of trivia.
Now *that's* elitist. Pretty clear illustration of what I said before, which is that people tend to leap to conclusions that fit with their worldview rather than, for example, think critically. What you got against NASCAR, anyway? If you're going to pick on pro sports, you should probably include the Tour de France, America's Cup, high-level international chess matches, the Olympics, snooker championships, or something anyway to make clear that your contempt isn't based solely on your tastes in entertainment differring from the unwashed masses who happen to prefer it in some other form, 'cause otherwise everyone is going to assume you're just being stupid, just like you're assuming that they are.
War, poverty, disease, and the news media suck, that's indisputable. But to blame them all on stupid people seems perhaps just a little simple-minded.
Anyway, like I said, the problem that leads to people's beliefs often having little to do with reality in present-day America isn't so much that people are "stupid" in general, it's that they're stupid in one specific way, which is very different from what one generally means by "stupid." And it probably isn't the same type of stupidity that leads to the avoidable transmission of communicable diseases. I think people with high general intelligence, including many who are highly educated, account for at least as much of the problem as do whatever NASCAR-watching, trivia-spouting, diease-ridden, telvision-viewing, preffered-stock-holding, trivia-spouting rednecks you're presumably imagining.
Personally, I think it's more of a regression to some kind of pre-literate tribal mentality induced in large part by the cognitive effects of television as described by McLuhan. That can happen to highly intelligent people, with "good" taste in entertainment just as easily as anyone else.
But whatever it is, I'm certain that it isn't as simple as STUPID PEOPLE fucking things UP with their total LACK of non-stupidity, while drowning in their STUPID NASCAR and Hollywood PABLUM. Stupidity is a manifold wonder of the human mind, and while it may be fair to call it to a universal corrosive agent that saps our collective intelligence, its presence is more or less constant (even, possibly, infinite).
It may be true that many of the objectionable cultural relics so strikingly enumerated above wouldn't be so prevalent without a large amount of stupidity moving them along; to the extent that they come and go, stupidity, being a constant, cannot be to blame.
Now it could be argued that people have *always* been as poorly-informed and easily-deceived as this PIPA study indicates. Maybe if you calculated the average level of mass delusion over the past ten thousand years, we wouldn't be too far from it. But I think it has been increasing lately, and therefore that the mechanisms which propel that trend, and those which might reverse it, are worth thinking about. Since eliminating stupidity is not possible, it is recommended that any further thoughts on the subject turn to more contemporary and pratical concerns, rather than just calling people names or talking about "us" versus "them". We are, after all, each stupid in our own ways.
posted by sfenders at 4:45 PM on October 22, 2004
The real issue is that STUPID PEOPLE ALSO GET TO GOVERN THEMSELVES, and there are generally more of them, which accounts for professional wrestling, nascar, pro sports (in which adults play children's games for millions of dollars) 90% of hollywood, a crappy news media, the huge cost of white collar crime, war, poverty, an insane level of heart disease, rising rates of communicable diseases, and, in my personal opinion, the popularity of trivia.
Now *that's* elitist. Pretty clear illustration of what I said before, which is that people tend to leap to conclusions that fit with their worldview rather than, for example, think critically. What you got against NASCAR, anyway? If you're going to pick on pro sports, you should probably include the Tour de France, America's Cup, high-level international chess matches, the Olympics, snooker championships, or something anyway to make clear that your contempt isn't based solely on your tastes in entertainment differring from the unwashed masses who happen to prefer it in some other form, 'cause otherwise everyone is going to assume you're just being stupid, just like you're assuming that they are.
War, poverty, disease, and the news media suck, that's indisputable. But to blame them all on stupid people seems perhaps just a little simple-minded.
Anyway, like I said, the problem that leads to people's beliefs often having little to do with reality in present-day America isn't so much that people are "stupid" in general, it's that they're stupid in one specific way, which is very different from what one generally means by "stupid." And it probably isn't the same type of stupidity that leads to the avoidable transmission of communicable diseases. I think people with high general intelligence, including many who are highly educated, account for at least as much of the problem as do whatever NASCAR-watching, trivia-spouting, diease-ridden, telvision-viewing, preffered-stock-holding, trivia-spouting rednecks you're presumably imagining.
Personally, I think it's more of a regression to some kind of pre-literate tribal mentality induced in large part by the cognitive effects of television as described by McLuhan. That can happen to highly intelligent people, with "good" taste in entertainment just as easily as anyone else.
But whatever it is, I'm certain that it isn't as simple as STUPID PEOPLE fucking things UP with their total LACK of non-stupidity, while drowning in their STUPID NASCAR and Hollywood PABLUM. Stupidity is a manifold wonder of the human mind, and while it may be fair to call it to a universal corrosive agent that saps our collective intelligence, its presence is more or less constant (even, possibly, infinite).
It may be true that many of the objectionable cultural relics so strikingly enumerated above wouldn't be so prevalent without a large amount of stupidity moving them along; to the extent that they come and go, stupidity, being a constant, cannot be to blame.
Now it could be argued that people have *always* been as poorly-informed and easily-deceived as this PIPA study indicates. Maybe if you calculated the average level of mass delusion over the past ten thousand years, we wouldn't be too far from it. But I think it has been increasing lately, and therefore that the mechanisms which propel that trend, and those which might reverse it, are worth thinking about. Since eliminating stupidity is not possible, it is recommended that any further thoughts on the subject turn to more contemporary and pratical concerns, rather than just calling people names or talking about "us" versus "them". We are, after all, each stupid in our own ways.
posted by sfenders at 4:45 PM on October 22, 2004
better educated people from higher social economic blocks tend to be more conservative than the rest of us.
The veracity (or otherwise) of that claim notwithstanding, it is apparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together (heh - metamockery!) that the current Republican administration is anything but 'conservative' as that word is generally understood.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:41 PM on October 22, 2004
The veracity (or otherwise) of that claim notwithstanding, it is apparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together (heh - metamockery!) that the current Republican administration is anything but 'conservative' as that word is generally understood.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:41 PM on October 22, 2004
The thing is, I don't think Bush's support would drop all that much if the facts were known by the electorate. Bush and Co. would simply have to come up with more layered arguments to appeal to the racist core of their support. Even if these people knew the facts about Saddam and Osama, does it really matter? Both are Arab Muslims with weapons in the Middle East. You can gussy up the education all you want, but there are plenty of educated people who still want to kick some Ass in the Middle East, regardless of the 'facts'.
So Bush supporters may be ignorant, but that doesn't mean sudden enlightenment would change their gut instinct that Bush is right to launch wars in the region where the terrorists who did 9/11 are coming from.
posted by cell divide at 5:54 PM on October 22, 2004
So Bush supporters may be ignorant, but that doesn't mean sudden enlightenment would change their gut instinct that Bush is right to launch wars in the region where the terrorists who did 9/11 are coming from.
posted by cell divide at 5:54 PM on October 22, 2004
So it's unfair to as republicans factual questions now?
No, not at all. The question isn't whether it's unfair, but whether it's wise. (And it's not about its impact on Republicans, but rather on those moderates/undecideds who think it's obnoxious to claim that liberals are smart and Bush supporters are dumb). Reach your own conclusions.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:14 PM on October 22, 2004
No, not at all. The question isn't whether it's unfair, but whether it's wise. (And it's not about its impact on Republicans, but rather on those moderates/undecideds who think it's obnoxious to claim that liberals are smart and Bush supporters are dumb). Reach your own conclusions.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:14 PM on October 22, 2004
Know the difference between pro wrestling and FAUX News?
Pro wrestling is believable.
Willfully ignorant is the correct description here and yes that is equivalent to stupid. Anyone who acts against their best interests repeatedly is STUPID!
posted by nofundy at 7:22 PM on October 22, 2004
Pro wrestling is believable.
Willfully ignorant is the correct description here and yes that is equivalent to stupid. Anyone who acts against their best interests repeatedly is STUPID!
posted by nofundy at 7:22 PM on October 22, 2004
Anyone who acts against their best interests repeatedly is STUPID!
Or moral.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:03 PM on October 22, 2004
Or moral.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:03 PM on October 22, 2004
... or insane, in love, deceived, really tired, bored, angry, afraid, drunk, or otherwise human.
but in the case of FOX news, okay yeah, I guess it is remarkably stupid.
posted by sfenders at 8:25 PM on October 22, 2004
but in the case of FOX news, okay yeah, I guess it is remarkably stupid.
posted by sfenders at 8:25 PM on October 22, 2004
The question isn't whether it's unfair, but whether it's wise.
there are more important issues than elections.
nice work, sfenders.
Anyone who acts against their best interests repeatedly is STUPID!
i can't believe you just said that.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:33 AM on October 23, 2004
there are more important issues than elections.
nice work, sfenders.
Anyone who acts against their best interests repeatedly is STUPID!
i can't believe you just said that.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:33 AM on October 23, 2004
Previous thread on this subject (Septemer PIPA report).
posted by soyjoy at 1:56 PM on October 23, 2004
posted by soyjoy at 1:56 PM on October 23, 2004
This is not proof that people are stupid. It's proof that propaganda is very effective.
posted by ook at 7:59 AM on October 25, 2004
posted by ook at 7:59 AM on October 25, 2004
« Older Catholics for Kerry? | Or maybe it's just the voter's fault Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Wait, did I think that or say it?
posted by soyjoy at 8:52 AM on October 22, 2004