BEAUTIFUL STORIES FOR UGLY CHILDREN
Feb. 2nd, 2010 12:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogThis has been making the rounds on a few LJs:
The question arises from the apparent fact that even Americans who would benefit from universal healthcare are adamantly opposed to it. And the answer, according to the article, is basically this:
I don’t agree with everything in the story, but I do think it’s true that people respond more to emotional anecdotes than hard facts. Security expert Bruce Schneier has made the same observation when it comes to terrorism and crime:
One thing I would add, though, is that a lot of this is likely filtered through the sociopolitical biases that already exist.
Coming back to healthcare, for every horror story of someone who got screwed or killed by Canadian healthcare, there’s at least one of someone getting screwed or killed by private healthcare. Whether politicians relay the stories or not, they’re out there and they do get reported all the time. The voters who hear both kinds of stories ultimately have to decide which one resonates more. And I’m reasonably sure part of that decision is going to come down to yr opinion of the source (Keith Olbermann vs Sean Hannity, say).
That said, it’s also safe to say there’s not a huge amount of overlap in that audience. Consequently, now that it’s possible to select media sources that cater to yr specific political biases, people can (and do) choose their anecdotal evidence accordingly, so there’s no reason for you to ever hear any of the stories that challenge yr worldview.
Or is that elitist of me?
Sorry. It’s just that it’s an issue that’s too complex to be dumbed down to a hopelessly inadequate yet folksy soundbite. I’ll try again:
It’s not mine. But you can use that.
Happily ever after,
This is dF
The question arises from the apparent fact that even Americans who would benefit from universal healthcare are adamantly opposed to it. And the answer, according to the article, is basically this:
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side [...]
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win
I don’t agree with everything in the story, but I do think it’s true that people respond more to emotional anecdotes than hard facts. Security expert Bruce Schneier has made the same observation when it comes to terrorism and crime:
Our brains aren't very good at probability and risk analysis, especially when it comes to rare occurrences. We tend to exaggerate spectacular, strange and rare events, and downplay ordinary, familiar and common ones [...] Novelty plus dread equals overreaction.
We can see the effects of this all the time. We fear being murdered, kidnapped, raped and assaulted by strangers, when it's far more likely that the perpetrator of such offenses is a relative or a friend. We worry about airplane crashes and rampaging shooters instead of automobile crashes and domestic violence -- both far more common.
We can see the effects of this all the time. We fear being murdered, kidnapped, raped and assaulted by strangers, when it's far more likely that the perpetrator of such offenses is a relative or a friend. We worry about airplane crashes and rampaging shooters instead of automobile crashes and domestic violence -- both far more common.
One thing I would add, though, is that a lot of this is likely filtered through the sociopolitical biases that already exist.
Coming back to healthcare, for every horror story of someone who got screwed or killed by Canadian healthcare, there’s at least one of someone getting screwed or killed by private healthcare. Whether politicians relay the stories or not, they’re out there and they do get reported all the time. The voters who hear both kinds of stories ultimately have to decide which one resonates more. And I’m reasonably sure part of that decision is going to come down to yr opinion of the source (Keith Olbermann vs Sean Hannity, say).
That said, it’s also safe to say there’s not a huge amount of overlap in that audience. Consequently, now that it’s possible to select media sources that cater to yr specific political biases, people can (and do) choose their anecdotal evidence accordingly, so there’s no reason for you to ever hear any of the stories that challenge yr worldview.
Or is that elitist of me?
Sorry. It’s just that it’s an issue that’s too complex to be dumbed down to a hopelessly inadequate yet folksy soundbite. I’ll try again:
If yr dentist can’t fix it, yr screwed.
It’s not mine. But you can use that.
Happily ever after,
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2010-02-02 11:07 am (UTC)UK's press take sides too, but it's less glaring and it's more of a "class thing": working class reads The Sun/Daily Mail, middle class reads The Times/Telegraph, the liberal reads The Guardian etc. And more often than not, they have consensus on many issues. The difference is how "sensational" they want to present the same news.