Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 208 posts

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#61

Post by bruce511 »

lettergram wrote: post #47

I think this is a product of mass social media and mass media. Effectively, we amplify propaganda one way or another. It leads to false impressions and we are unable to make decisions based off real information. This survey (which imo is not very robust) simply highlights the fact we are uninformed as a population. This is a failure primarily of our news media (the big 5) and education. Easy example, we believe mass…

Our ability to understand risk is imperfect, and certaintainly divorced from actual risk numbers.

While perceptions based on media are surely a factor, its also based on our control over the risk.

Lots of people die in car accidents (presumably because they are bad drivers) but I am a good driver, therefore the risk for me is much lower or zero. I am in control therefore my perception of risk is reduced. What risk there is, I accept in return for the utility of a car.

Same for drugs - my kids are well brought up, and I'm a good parent, so the risk of an overdose is low, and I feel in control of that. Clearly lots of people balance the risk of an overdose against the utility of taking the drugs (and clearly they get it wrong a lot.)

School shootings have no (direct) utility. So I am both lacking in control, and there is no utility balance, I am concerned about this a lot more.

I see the solution as fewer guns, but that crosses over with the utility perceived by a large segment of society. Since they are unwilling to give up that utility we reach an impass.

School shootings are a side effect of gun ownership, which has a significant perceived utility to a large group of people. Those people implicitly accept that some people (including children) die in the service of that utility.

To them taking away guns is as ridiculous as taking away cars (which also kill people.) taking away cars is absurd right?

Of course perceived utility may not be real. Lots of people in the world live without guns. Lots live without cars. But these perceptions are hard, dare I say impossible, to change.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#62

Post by imbnwa »

lkrubner wrote: post #43

It's important to remember that this same problem haunted historiography for at least 2 centuries, if not much more. At least from the 1700s, and lasting well into the 1900s, historians considered themselves the historians of events, rather than non-events. As such, they automatically gave too much weight to change. That a different approach was possible was not even considered until modern anthropology got going in…

Chronically misunderstood, early Michel Foucault goes one step forward than this and asks "Why not just remove the human as catalyst of truth entirely? What if humans are just the canvas for knowledges rather than the other way around?" Another way to look at his hypothesis: what if truth and knowledge are no differently anonymous automata than the processes of biological evolution with respect to individuals?

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#63

Post by logifail »

godelski wrote: post #18

The actual title is > Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change Not "Study: Americans consistently overestimate how much culture has changed." And from the abstract > Participants overestimated the amount of change on 29 attitudes (57%), underestimated change on 10 attitudes (20%), estimated change in the wrong direction on 10 attitudes (20%), and estimated change correctly on only two attitudes (4%). (o…

> Another example is concerns about climate change

I'm not sure that measuring respondants expressing "concern about X" in isolation is a good metric. It costs nothing to express concern.

Aside: I'm afraid I can't stop thinking of Channel 4's Brass Eye show from 2001 about the (fictional) drug "cake" (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cake-channel-4-contro...

Instead, how about asking what respondants what steps they have taken - if any - in response to their concerns about X?

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#64

Post by godelski »

phantom_of_cato wrote: post #22
larsiusprime wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I based the submission title from a press repost, but wanted to link the original source, which apparently had a different title.

That shouldn't be permitted, otherwise everything can be submitted with any arbitrary title: you just submit the original with the title you used to link to it in your personal blog.

The rules are that you are supposed to keep the original title. OP linked a different title. You are allowed to edit within a small timeframe because we're humans and mistakes happen. Same goes with comments. We work on good faith here (another rule) and so don't abuse it. Bad faith actors do get warned. Dang is a dang good moderator and underappreciated for the amount of work he has.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#65

Post by jononomo »

nichos wrote: post #6
GiorgioG wrote: post #3

And they overestimate how badly the “other” political party is ruining the country when they’re in power.

Is there a difference in the 2 major parties anymore? I seriously don't know which parry you're referring to.

Yes, there is a difference between the two parties and you know it.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#66

Post by jononomo »

dillondoyle wrote: post #56
nichos wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a difference in the 2 major parties anymore? I seriously don't know which parry you're referring to.

GIANT differences and anyone pretending not is usually acting in bad faith. - abortion - environment (or you know that global warming is real and caused by humans) - LGBTQ rights - race & equity - immigration & treatment of asylum seekers - role of Fed & state regulators in markets, like energy markets (tx) - taxes - workers rights - federal govt powers could go on and on but that's not the point of your comment is i…

support for democracy and the rule of law also comes to mind

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#69

Post by dillondoyle »

jononomo wrote: post #66
dillondoyle wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GIANT differences and anyone pretending not is usually acting in bad faith. - abortion - environment (or you know that global warming is real and caused by humans) - LGBTQ rights - race & equity - immigration & treatment of asylum seekers - role of Fed & state regulators in markets, like energy markets (tx) - taxes - workers rights - federal govt powers could go on and on but that's not the point of your comment is i…

support for democracy and the rule of law also comes to mind

It's funny how 15 years ago, if we asked for this study, the perception of which party that description belongs to would likely be flipped.

Well not funny. More sad and terrifying.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#70

Post by arkis22 »

godelski wrote: post #60
winstonewert wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you are responding to is probably referring to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. According to some, that act (signed by Clinton) was (somewhat) responsible for the financial crash. But this is certainly a matter of dispute.

To expand, this law allowed investment banks (e.g. Goldman) and commercial banks (e.g. Washington Mutual) to do what the other could. Effectively this allowed the mortgage backed securities that were a major player in the financial crisis to be created. There were a lot of other issues that contributed to the crisis, but (as far as I'm aware) the main mechanism used would not have been possible without this deregulat…

Eh. It allowed banks to have in house investment banks. They still needed to have walls that dealt with conflicts of interest between the two. Whether the walls work all the time can be disputed.

But you seem to have offered no substantial link to the existence of MBS securities and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. so your conclusion, that arbitrary deregulation, lead to the existence of MBS securities should be even more disputed.

MBS are probably more clearly linked to the complete takeover of the mortgage market by the government. if you turn debt into a commodity you can divide it up however you want. and you turn debt into a commodity by guaranteeing it.

Post reply on HN