You're viewing a single thread.
And yet Republicans control Montana anyway, so I guess it doesn't make any difference.
And? It's still a good thing to do.
I'd like to see a study that actually shows it matters if someone has one, because I'm dubious.
Edit: I forgot that asking for evidence of something is the worst thing you can possibly do on the internet.
Hanks larger point is that you can answer a lot of questions in life by being more curious than suspicious.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/being-the-first-name-on-the-ballot-has-a-huge-effect/
https://www.npr.org/2016/07/27/487577930/why-the-first-name-on-the-ballot-often-wins
Hanks larger point is that you can answer a lot of questions in life by being more curious than suspicious.
You mean like how I asked if there were any studies to support it?
You can be curious and suspicious.
Thank you for the links, I will read them.
Edit: You have convinced me. Thank you again.
Edit 2: I forgot that thanking someone and admitting you are wrong is the other worst thing you can possibly do on the internet.
Where does "quoting sources" and "stating facts" rank on that scale?
On what scale, the scale of thanking someone and admitting I was wrong?
What was I supposed to do, arrogantly continue to insist I was right in the face of evidence showing me otherwise? Take a video of myself on my knees and beg for forgiveness? Ignore the response entirely?
I honestly don't understand why saying I was wrong and thank you for showing me why is so offensive.
On the "worst things you can do on the internet" scale. Been seeing that ramping up over the last couple of days.
(I'm not the person you were initially responding to.)
It was obviously hyperbole. I just don't know why so many people don't like it.
And yes, I know you weren't the original person. I think the 'thank you' in my post made it confusing though, so I understand why that happened.
Edit: I forgot that asking for evidence of something is the worst thing you can possibly do on the internet.
Depends on how the request is framed. Being dismissive and smug about it gets the pushback.
I wasn't trying to be smug. I sincerely wanted evidence. I was dubious, so I wanted a study. I said so. I got a shit ton of people who didn't like it before my edit. I'm not sure how my request was smug.
Also, admitting I was wrong and thanking the person for showing me I was wrong afterward also got pushback, so...
When you come in doubtful and put zero effort into a basic search of something and request someone else does the work for you it comes across that way. The edits make it look worse by complaining that people didn't like your dismissive and smug request for someone to do a basic search.
Admitting you were wrong wasn't what got pushback.
This is what I said:
I’d like to see a study that actually shows it matters if someone has one, because I’m dubious.
I really don't see how that is smug. Maybe you consider that lazy, but how is it smug? Smug means "having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements." How am I doing that? I really don't understand what you're saying here.
For the record: I have no pride in myself whatsoever and I think anything I've ever achieved has been worthless shit.
Admitting you were wrong wasn’t what got pushback.
It also got pushback. It just did. Look at the comment.
Keep doubling down, that will make people like you.
Most people hate me anyway. I'm sure this won't make much of a difference.
But I would honestly like you to please explain to me what achievement I take excessive pride in. I really do what to know because I can't think of a single thing I've achieved other than contributing half of my genetics to a wonderful child who I'm a bad parent to that's worth taking pride in, let alone excessive pride.
Again, I honestly want to know what I should be proud of in my life. I cannot think of a single thing.
I’d like to see a study that actually shows it matters if someone has one, because I’m dubious.
Imagine someone writing that as a response to being told that vaccines work, then gets defensive about it when they are downvoted. Then they argue about the exact definitions of the words you used to try and help them understand why they are getting pushback.
Lmgtfy 'anchoring bias'
Google the primacy and/or anchoring effect, they are well known psychological biases
Edit: In the linked video I believe he even references example of its effect
Does that really apply to voting, though? It'd make sense for something you're forced to do, like work or school assignments. But voting is something that you have to go out of your way to do. You have to find your polling place, go wait in line, and cast your vote, as opposed to somebody handing you a questionnaire to fill out. If you're going through that trouble, I'd have to imagine you already know who you're voting for.
Do people really take all the effort to just show up to the ballots and pick the top name without thinking about it?
Yes, a small percentage of people can't make up their mind when voting and people in that group they are more likely to pick the first options. Remember that when everyone can vote, that includes the most indecisive people you know.
In a lot of places it takes barely any effort to vote.
Think about your local area, you don't think there is anyone who would just box in the first name because they didn't recognize either names and just want to get it over with?
Some states even have a set of boxes for straight ticket voting so you don't even have to know the name of who you're voting for which really tilts local elections.
I guess I don't vote that way so I didn't understand that people actually do. I just leave it blank when I don't know. I thought that was what most people did. I guess not. I was shown otherwise.
It’s surprising how stupid we are and also amazing that we haven’t already extinct ourselves.
I don’t mean you for not knowing this random thing I mean all of us for doing dumb shit like this
Huh? Eliminating an unfair advantage doesn't mean Democrats have to win? If I were in a race with Usain Bolt and they stopped giving him an objective advantage of a 10-meter head start, Usain Bolt would still win. It's just a fact that Republicans are broadly popular among Montana voters. Measures to reduce unfairness don't inherently mean you'll change the binary win/lose outcome of the competition (although I'll note that you're reducing Montana's 150-member legislature and its executive branch to a binary "controls/does not control").
And as other commenters have noted, the anchoring bias is an extremely prolific and well-known cognitive bias. This objectively does make things less unfair.
Tester has held a Senate seat for the last twelve years, even if he's a bit of a shitlib. Steve Bullock, another mountain west Dem, was the governor as recently as 2020. And Brian Swartzer before that.
Its been trending conservative as the O&G industry has consumed the media markets and dominated the local political scene. But these big empty states aren't naturally conservative by any means. No more than Minnesota or Michigan or Pennsylvania. They only trend that way when oil money drowns the democratic process.
I know how it can feel like any steps in the right direction is like trying to swim up a waterfall, but you gotta start somewhere.
Also, ignore the haters and downvotes. It seems like a disproportionate reaction. It's not like you were being rude or a jerk.
It’s not like you were being rude or a jerk.
The rest of Lemmy appears to disagree with you.
I certainly wasn't intending to be. I guess I just am one whether I want to be or not.