Most Disappointing Part of the Election

[Michael Deneen]

Yesterday's election was a bad day for Lakewood, as hospital closure will damage our economy and safety.

However, there is an even more disturbing finding: the willingness of voters to be lied to by their government.

Voters KNEW that City Hall was conning them with a fake newspaper. Many of the Mayor's supporters also conceded that they don't trust Cleveland Clinic.
However, they voted against the hospital anyway.

The willingness of voters to be conned and bullied is a very ominous sign for our democracy at all levels.

[Dan Alaimo]

I've found that a lot of people live in Lakewood because they want government to take care of things. There's a streak of activism, but it gets beaten back by the entrenched government that the majority of the people seem to want. So activist volunteer groups come and go, as you (Mike) and I have seen.

[Leo Wetula]

Even persons who supported and/or support preserving LH believe it is a done deal. They were convinced of this due to lies spread by the CC and our civic leaders and amplified by our failed mainstream media (i.e., the PD).

[Phil Florian]

I read a great little article on the internet today about this phenomenon that people feel when they are right and everyone else is wrong (as always some people feel after an election, I assume). In particular, I was looking for something that put my feelings about this into words. Found it! An author Matt Motyl wrote about something called "Naive Realism" and "False Consensus Effect." For Naive Realism he pointed out the traits to look for when this was in effect. Here is a quote I found illuminating:


"As naive realists, we tend to think that we see events, people, and the world as they really are, free from any distortion due to self-interest, dogma, or ideology. We also tend to assume that other fair-minded people will share our views, as long as they have the same information as I do (also known as the "truth") and that they process that information in the objective, open-minded fashion that we did. Lastly, we generate three possible explanations for why other people might not share our views:

They haven't been told the truth.
They are too lazy or stupid to reach correct interpretations and conclusions, or
They are biased by their self-interest, dogma, or ideology."

Sounds like a lot of rhetoric going around prior to and after the election, doesn't it? How many times have we heard people on the Deck say "The truth is there to read...why is no one seeing it?!" (which captures point 1 and 2) and if that didn't work then it was assumed the person that disagreed with the consensus opinion on the Deck was in support of the contrary position because they were somehow in the sway, employ, cahoots, etc. with the other guy. Person X only supported BLH because their boss made them, etc. Self interest at work, I would assume.

The whole article is a good one, I think. It is good to keep in mind when engaging in discussions where not everyone agrees on everything.

Anyway, just thought I would share.

http://www.civilpolitics.org/content/if ... e-realism/


Take care,

Phil

[Paul Porter]

Thanks, Phil... worth the read for folks who lumped me in as some shill for BL, when I made my own choice based on the realities I perceived to be facing our city.

Everyone was passionate, sure -- but that doesn't mean anyone was dumb, or a puppet, or willfully ignorant.

[Phil Florian]

Thanks, Phil... worth the read for folks who lumped me in as some shill for BL, when I made my own choice based on the realities I perceived to be facing our city.

Everyone was passionate, sure -- but that doesn't mean anyone was dumb, or a puppet, or willfully ignorant.

Thanks Paul! Glad you read it. I likely got lumped into the shill for BL, too (or as Jim O asked me at the Root, "why you trollin'?" ). I was just curious if there was some psychological or sociological unpinning for it and what do you know, there is.

Fact is, I do this in my own opinionated world, too. Just went to a criminal justice training for work last month and while the conference mostly focused on treatment and so on there was a session led by a professor from University of Cincinnati talking about bias in interpretation of data in all sorts of areas. He challenged our deeply held views on certain topics where we likely have not wavered in a long time. For me that would likely be abortion and gun rights, to pick two. He challenged the audience to look at data with fresher eyes and how difficult it is to move from a position that is deeply held. I really need to re-look at things and not accept the echo chamber of my chosen circle (read: my friends on FB) to make up my mind. Which is why it is delightful to come to the Deck as it is fairly opposite of my own circle. While I tend towards progressive, liberal and democratic peers the Deck regulars seem to me to be more in the conservative and Republican mold (and affiliations with the Lakewood Republican Club kind of confirms this for some of them).

So I come here looking for a different perspective from what I have gathered outside of the Deck and there certainly are strong points of views. Sadly any attempt to discuss or wrangle with the information by asking questions usually gets reduced to be called a "troll" or in one case, a "trill." In other cases a person is considered to be, like you noted, "sent from the enemy" to do...something. What is great about that article is that it really does put all of that behavior in perspective.

Anyway, onward!

Take care,

Phil

[Michael Deneen]

They haven't been told the truth.
They are too lazy or stupid to reach correct interpretations and conclusions, or
They are biased by their self-interest, dogma, or ideology."

Sounds like a lot of rhetoric going around prior to and after the election, doesn't it? How many times have we heard people on the Deck say "The truth is there to read...why is no one seeing it?!" (which captures point 1 and 2) and if that didn't work then it was assumed the person that disagreed with the consensus opinion on the Deck was in support of the contrary position because they were somehow in the sway, employ, cahoots, etc. with the other guy. Person X only supported BLH because their boss made them, etc. Self interest at work, I would assume.

This issue was not about "opinions", as you want to portray. It's a FACT that City Hall and the Clinic have repeatedly lied and held information from the public.

It's similar to Global Warming. The environmentalists point to facts....the conservatives argue that it's a matter of "opinion".
Naturally, many of the folks that passionately defend "denial" are attached to the fossil fuel industry, or are fervent followers of politicians that take large donations from that industry.

[marklingm]

Paul and Phil,

I can only speak for myself.

I never thought of either one of you as being a "troll."

You both have good posts.

Thanks for posting.

Matt

[Phil Florian]

They haven't been told the truth.
They are too lazy or stupid to reach correct interpretations and conclusions, or
They are biased by their self-interest, dogma, or ideology."

Sounds like a lot of rhetoric going around prior to and after the election, doesn't it? How many times have we heard people on the Deck say "The truth is there to read...why is no one seeing it?!" (which captures point 1 and 2) and if that didn't work then it was assumed the person that disagreed with the consensus opinion on the Deck was in support of the contrary position because they were somehow in the sway, employ, cahoots, etc. with the other guy. Person X only supported BLH because their boss made them, etc. Self interest at work, I would assume.

This issue was not about "opinions", as you want to portray. It's a FACT that City Hall and the Clinic have repeatedly lied and held information from the public.

It's similar to Global Warming. The environmentalists point to facts....the conservatives argue that it's a matter of "opinion".
Naturally, many of the folks that passionately defend "denial" are attached to the fossil fuel industry, or are fervent followers of politicians that take large donations from that industry.

[Phil Florian]

Paul and Phil,

I can only speak for myself.

I never thought of either one of you as being a "troll."

You both have good posts.

Thanks for posting.

Matt

Thanks, man. Much appreciated.