They were afraid of a thing that would significantly improve their electoral chances because they were too wrapped up in their support for a presumed nominee to put their biases aside and consider the benefits of switching to another candidate.
Anchoring Bias, Salience Bias, Normalcy Bias, Confirmation Bias, Semmelweis Reflex, Egocentric Bias Blind Spot, False Consensus Effect, Illusion of Control, Illusion of Validity, Naive Realism, the Overconfidence Effect, Zero-Risk Bias, Neglect of Probability, Sunk Cost Fallacy, Plan Continuation Bias, Ambiguity Effect, Loss Aversion, Status Quo Bias, System Justification Bias, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect, among others.
I don’t understand what you mean. I’m literally referring to any and all mental hangups which made people think that sticking with Biden would have been better than switching. That switching improved the Democrats chances should have been extremely obvious even without the benefit of hindsight, and the folks who thought otherwise were wrong and should reckon with this so they can be less wrong in the future.
“Biden supporters had biases that prevented them see the big picture.”
Ok, what biases?
“Anchoring bias, blah, blah”
That’s like saying “there are many reasons why that engine doesn’t fit for that car” and then when someone asks you “what reason?” you reply “a technical reason, a mechanical stress reason, an electrical failure reason,” ok, but GIVE ME SOMETHING CONCRETE. Is that red cable sticking out of the engine too thin and it risks catching fire?
Ok, name ONE example bias that you can say it is “anchoring bias” in this case.
That’s all I want, man.
“Democrats have a Status Quo bias because they do this and they do that.”
“Biden supporters had biases that prevented them see the big picture.”
Ok, what biases?
I already tried listing all possible biases that might be involved in the misconception and you complained about a lack of specificity.
That’s like saying “there are many reasons why that engine doesn’t fit for that car” and then when someone asks you “what reason?” you reply “a technical reason, a mechanical stress reason, an electrical failure reason,” ok, but GIVE ME SOMETHING.
Oh, I think I understand now. You don’t want to think about Biden supporters as a generalized class who might take any number of different routes to reach the same wrong conclusion, you just want me to explain how psychological bias works.
Ok, name ONE example bias that you can say it is “anchoring bias” in this case.
That’s all I want, man.
Fine. Anchoring bias occurs when an individuals’ judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point that may be entirely unrelated to the question at hand.
For example, people who took “Biden is the most progressive president ever” as a reference for their judgement that he shouldn’t step down from the race. The reference point was entirely immaterial to the actual question, whether or not another candidate would have improved the partys’ chances in the election, because it tells us nothing about how Biden compared with his electoral competition.
Thus, persons who relied on this anchor to justify their opposition to Biden dropping out did so for fallacious reasons, and an honest reckoning with this might have led them to an opinion which more accurately reflected reality.
Thanks, man. Yes, I think we were referring to two similar things, but definitely not the same.
When you said biases, you were referring to clinical, psychological ones, just like you said.
When I said biases, I was referring to those based on interests or an individual’s experience. For example, a person might say that she has a bias for black kittens when trying to pick up on at the rescue shelter, because she grew up with one (you probably mentioned that kind of bias in the big list you shared - I just don’t know how it’s called.)
And I agree with you. Some people thought that Biden “is the most progressive president ever,” or held other equally fallacious statements.
Particularly, my “bias,” if we can call it that way, is that, at least up until the moment Biden bowed down, the Republicans seemed like a very unified party, whereas the Democrats didn’t know what to do with themselves, and they didn’t seem to be as unified. For example, Hillary Clinton (in sprite of winning the popular vote) didn’t win enough votes because some party members protested by not voting. No unity whatsoever. And my bias, or fear, was that if Biden bowed down, the party would be like little ants scattering around - giving Trump the win.
Thankfully that was not the case in the end, and I happily stand corrected.
You still haven’t said in what way people who feared Biden dropping out need to re-evaluate the way they look at politics.
They were afraid of a thing that would significantly improve their electoral chances because they were too wrapped up in their support for a presumed nominee to put their biases aside and consider the benefits of switching to another candidate.
Your sentence comes down to: “Their biases made them afraid of considering better options.”
Specifically what biases are you talking about?
Anchoring Bias, Salience Bias, Normalcy Bias, Confirmation Bias, Semmelweis Reflex, Egocentric Bias Blind Spot, False Consensus Effect, Illusion of Control, Illusion of Validity, Naive Realism, the Overconfidence Effect, Zero-Risk Bias, Neglect of Probability, Sunk Cost Fallacy, Plan Continuation Bias, Ambiguity Effect, Loss Aversion, Status Quo Bias, System Justification Bias, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect, among others.
Don’t be dense. Those are types of biases anyway. Now tell me the biases you’re talking about.
I don’t understand what you mean. I’m literally referring to any and all mental hangups which made people think that sticking with Biden would have been better than switching. That switching improved the Democrats chances should have been extremely obvious even without the benefit of hindsight, and the folks who thought otherwise were wrong and should reckon with this so they can be less wrong in the future.
What part of this is confusing?
This is the part that is confusing:
“Biden supporters had biases that prevented them see the big picture.”
Ok, what biases?
“Anchoring bias, blah, blah”
That’s like saying “there are many reasons why that engine doesn’t fit for that car” and then when someone asks you “what reason?” you reply “a technical reason, a mechanical stress reason, an electrical failure reason,” ok, but GIVE ME SOMETHING CONCRETE. Is that red cable sticking out of the engine too thin and it risks catching fire?
Ok, name ONE example bias that you can say it is “anchoring bias” in this case.
That’s all I want, man.
“Democrats have a Status Quo bias because they do this and they do that.”
I already tried listing all possible biases that might be involved in the misconception and you complained about a lack of specificity.
Oh, I think I understand now. You don’t want to think about Biden supporters as a generalized class who might take any number of different routes to reach the same wrong conclusion, you just want me to explain how psychological bias works.
Fine. Anchoring bias occurs when an individuals’ judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point that may be entirely unrelated to the question at hand.
For example, people who took “Biden is the most progressive president ever” as a reference for their judgement that he shouldn’t step down from the race. The reference point was entirely immaterial to the actual question, whether or not another candidate would have improved the partys’ chances in the election, because it tells us nothing about how Biden compared with his electoral competition.
Thus, persons who relied on this anchor to justify their opposition to Biden dropping out did so for fallacious reasons, and an honest reckoning with this might have led them to an opinion which more accurately reflected reality.
Thanks, man. Yes, I think we were referring to two similar things, but definitely not the same.
When you said biases, you were referring to clinical, psychological ones, just like you said.
When I said biases, I was referring to those based on interests or an individual’s experience. For example, a person might say that she has a bias for black kittens when trying to pick up on at the rescue shelter, because she grew up with one (you probably mentioned that kind of bias in the big list you shared - I just don’t know how it’s called.)
And I agree with you. Some people thought that Biden “is the most progressive president ever,” or held other equally fallacious statements.
Particularly, my “bias,” if we can call it that way, is that, at least up until the moment Biden bowed down, the Republicans seemed like a very unified party, whereas the Democrats didn’t know what to do with themselves, and they didn’t seem to be as unified. For example, Hillary Clinton (in sprite of winning the popular vote) didn’t win enough votes because some party members protested by not voting. No unity whatsoever. And my bias, or fear, was that if Biden bowed down, the party would be like little ants scattering around - giving Trump the win.
Thankfully that was not the case in the end, and I happily stand corrected.
Anyway. Thanks. Nice discussion.