[flagged]
On the contrary, if I learned something from the Rittenhouse case is that there's a type of person who, when stuff like this happens, doesn't care about video at all, they just grab the narrative and go with it.
"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
21–30 of 83 posts
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#22Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#23Can we really conclude that people "see" what they say they see? I think most people would not think twice about saying "protesters did not block the road" when in fact they know full well protesters blocked the road and they really mean "protesters blocked the road and that's good actually".
There's a strange pattern of die hard obstinence, even in the face of basic and common facts that we as as society until fairly recently all agreed upon. The reason is that works, if you admit fault/guilt then the usual consequences follow. If they remain obstinate, there's a chance they can project their crime on someone else which doesn't really work except it does retain for them a certain level of public support,…
I think there's a real deficit in research on and understanding motivated cognition, and a lot of blurriness about attitudes versus belief versus perception. I don't just mean anything political, I mean things including physical pain and all sorts of things. When someone states something, it's very difficult to distinguish between "this is honestly what I saw or felt" versus "this is what I wanted to see or feel". When you get into the fact that consensus can be wrong, it leads to all sorts of issues.
It would be nice to have some kind of way to discriminate at what point in the percept -> attitude -> construal chain (which is probably more of a feedback loop) we are.
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#24Can we really conclude that people "see" what they say they see? I think most people would not think twice about saying "protesters did not block the road" when in fact they know full well protesters blocked the road and they really mean "protesters blocked the road and that's good actually".
The tricky part is that people don't necessarily report what they see as what they see, and you can't really look inside their brains to get at what they meaningfully perceive.
A good example of this was the inauguration crowd size photos where people who were unfamiliar with the topic reported a unified perception on which crowd was bigger based purely on the photos. People who knew what the photos were of varied their conclusion based upon their political stance.
One conclusion you could draw from this is that their beliefs were altering their perception, but how would you distinguish that from people altering their expression of what they saw based upon their beliefs?
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#25[flagged]
I'm sorry, but it is deeply ironic for you of all people to be posting this given your statements on the ICE shooting not even 24 hours ago [1] [2]. You are quite literally the exact basis for this research in question. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46546310 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46546283
[flagged]
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#26[flagged]
I don't think so, given the drastically different takes on something that seemed quite obvious to me after rewatching the video many times.
It was quite clear that many takes, on both sides, seemed to bypass the events in the video and jump straight to whatever ideologically-driven interpretation they needed to be true.
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this why the same protest videos can be recycled multiple times for multiple different purposes
This is also why the era of pervasive videotaping of everything hasn’t ended disputes over basic facts of what happened.
Yes, and now we have billionaires arguing in public about such basic facts:
X link: https://x.com/paulg/status/2008989862725341658
Screenshot: https://old.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1q6zgq5/theres_someth...
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#28[flagged]
I'm sorry, but it is deeply ironic for you of all people to be posting this given your statements on the ICE shooting not even 24 hours ago [1] [2]. You are quite literally the exact basis for this research in question. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46546310 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46546283
In this particular instance I don't think he's wrong, The posts in the links could be considered evidence of how pervasive the outrage/blindness effect is.
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#29[flagged]
>speak for themselves.
You sure about that? It's not hard to find people using the same video to come to different conclusions.
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#30[flagged]
Except that if you poll any MAGA person, including basically anyone running the federal government right now, it seems that they see a video of a protester trying to run down an officer.