31–40 of 104 posts
This sort of poll is perennial but never says anything interesting, imo.
I get the impression from the map of responses that many respondents were taking the piss. Who really thinks Iran is Greenland?
47% supported the strike? How could they possibly have had enough information to support it? Iran = Bad Man from Iran = Bad Kill Man from Iran = Good???
I love and sympathize with your comment heavily. As far as 47% support I think it because: Trump = Good Something Trump ordered = Good
This completely blows my mind.
47% supported the strike? How could they possibly have had enough information to support it? Iran = Bad Man from Iran = Bad Kill Man from Iran = Good???
“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer edit: it's easy to read this pridefully yourself ("i have other things to be proud of and therefore i'm immune from such petty things"…
"Men were about twice as likely as women to be able to identify Iran on both maps" Wow, that's unexpected. Is there some credible source on why this is the case? Also curious if this is generally true...would you get the same result if they were asked to identify Belgium on a map?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it not interesting because of the lack of novelty, or not interesting because you think it's acceptable to want to kill someone but not to actually know much about them?
I don't think being able to accurately tell where Iran is is a requirement for wanting to kill someone from there, no. Knowing approximately where it is is useful, but what does it really matter if you confuse it with the next country over?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it not interesting because of the lack of novelty, or not interesting because you think it's acceptable to want to kill someone but not to actually know much about them?
I don't think being able to accurately tell where Iran is is a requirement for wanting to kill someone from there, no. Knowing approximately where it is is useful, but what does it really matter if you confuse it with the next country over?
Specially since an actual war with the people of that polity is an obvious outcome.
"Men were about twice as likely as women to be able to identify Iran on both maps" Wow, that's unexpected. Is there some credible source on why this is the case? Also curious if this is generally true...would you get the same result if they were asked to identify Belgium on a map?
Scientific studies suggest men generally have a better sense of direction than women, and use that sense of direction more effectively. Kind of makes you wonder where the "fails to ask for directions" trope comes from! :) https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2015/12/10/do-...
Not at all surprising. Sad, but not surprising. How many voters know who the Secretary of State is? How many voters know who their local congress critter is? I guarantee the numbers are similarly dismal.
47% supported the strike? How could they possibly have had enough information to support it? Iran = Bad Man from Iran = Bad Kill Man from Iran = Good???
That is true for just about any political question. The consequences are usually so complex that the average citizen can't possibly be informed well enough on the matter. Just look at what happened with brexit...
Mandatory political disclaimer: I'm not saying democracy is wrong, and I wouldn't know how to solve this problem either.