LA Times OpEd - why conspiracies have appeal

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trumps claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaigns baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans including about 70% to 80% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trumps backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Bidens victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally fake rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a persons self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trumps volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the Radical Left), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called deep state).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then its harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that its laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the deep state specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trumps stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to peoples deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trumps supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?

Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Steven M. Galbraith

2020-12-07 19:05:50 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

One of the biggest conspiracy theories being promoted is the claim that
all of American institutions, both public and private, are "systematically
and structurally racist." And that white supremacists run them (if they're
all anti-black racist institutions they'd have to be).

That's nonsense. Is there racism in America? Yes, of course. Sadly. Are
all of our institutions covertly run by white supremacist thinking and
behavior? Are they all fundamentally and structurally evil, which is what
racism is? That's conspiracy nonsense.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-08 03:18:56 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?

Not sure hoq that works. Trump uaed a go-btween named Micael Flynn, who
confessed to the crime. And Trump gave him a pardon. You can't give an
innocent person a pardon. Did Trump give YOU a pardon for Christmas just
for fun?

Post by John McAdams
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

davide...@gmail.com

2020-12-11 01:12:37 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
You can't give an
innocent person a pardon.

A president can most certainly give a preemptive pardon PRIOR to any
conviction. President Ford gave Richard Nixon a pardon and, at the time,
Nixon was guilty of nothing. Ford granted Nixon "a full, free, and
absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United
States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or MAY HAVE COMMITTED (my
emphasis) or taken part from January 20, 1969 to August 9, 1974."

I suspect Trump will give just such a preemptive pardon to every member of
his family, including himself. If the self-pardon is rejected, he will
simply resign the presidency and have President Pence pardon him. That
would make Biden the FORTY-SEVENTH president of the United States. Don't
purchase any "46th president" merchandise like ball caps and t-shirt just
yet unless you want to celebrate the shortest tenure as president in
history.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

ajohnstone

2020-12-11 22:53:35 UTC

While the electoral system in America is being questioned i fail to see
any real debate or discussion on the fundamentals of it. There is little
alternative to the existing constitutional design of the elections...as if
the conditions of 18thC colonies still apply in the 21stC.

Around the world, many democratic nations are constantly addressing the
weaknesses of their electoral system, eagerly to include more
participation and also to reflect the wishes of the electors. I won't
mention what many consider the anachronism of the Electoral College but
the basic principle of First-Past-the-Post. My country of birth selects
its government through a version of proportional representation. Many
others also. Sometimes it does means parliamentary coalitions and
bi-partisan agreements which means compromise and concessions on political
policy. Some say that this avoids extremism of both right and left. Others
say it leads to the presence of such extremist parties in the legislatures
or even the government itself.

But from where i stand, i see complete absence of any choice for the
American people, total silence by the politicians. It is as if there is a
consensus that the American political system is perfect and need not
require improvement, other than just some minor tinkering and closer
over-sight.

I came across this website which revealed to me that some American do
believe that there are flaws in how America chooses its political
representatives and seek a fundamental change in the operation of US
democracy.

https://www.fairvote.org/the_rcv_movement_grows_on_college_campuses_nationwide

It may offer a counter-weight to the current dispute on the 2020 election
results which only undermines confidence.

ajohnstone

2020-12-11 22:53:41 UTC

Perhaps a bit off topic but i recall an earlier exchange where the
question of California seceding but it seems secession may be the policy
tacitly approved by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and it also appears that
Texas and a number of other Republican-controlled states along with over
100 House Republican have decided they have the legal right to choose the
next president of the USA, not the rest of the other states and the 80
million voters, a popular majority of 7 million over Trump's smaller
vote.

Again i am surprised at just close the USA is to an existential threat as
a united nation and the lack of discourse over it.

Will this all pass and be water under the bridge in a few years? I don't
know but i'm not sure that many of the armed militias will incorporate
sovereignty into their belief systems.

John McAdams

2020-12-12 23:09:35 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
You can't give an
innocent person a pardon.

For what?

Thinking that your political opponents must be guilty of some criminal
offense is downright Stalinist.

https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/

If you are implying that Biden appointed officials are going to go
after Trump or his family, that is something you should condemn.

But you won't because you hate Trump. So any principles about civil
liberties and abuse of government power go by the wayside.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Corbett

2020-12-13 13:47:14 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
You can't give an
innocent person a pardon.

For what?
Thinking that your political opponents must be guilty of some criminal
offense is downright Stalinist.
https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/
If you are implying that Biden appointed officials are going to go
after Trump or his family, that is something you should condemn.
But you won't because you hate Trump. So any principles about civil
liberties and abuse of government power go by the wayside.

It would be a very bad precedent for a victorious presidential candidate
to turn around and prosecute the defeated opponent. It was a bad idea when
Trump was saying "Lock her up" during the 2016 campaign but it's clear
that he was just pandering to his base. He showed no inclination toward
doing that after he took office. I can't see the Biden administration
going after Trump either, especially if he is sincere about uniting the
country. Nothing would be more divisive than prosecuting Trump or his
family. That doesn't mean some ambitious local prosecutor won't try to
make a name for himself by going after Trump on state charges.

davide...@gmail.com

2020-12-13 17:32:07 UTC

Pence would have to agree to do that. If he has future ambitions about
running for president himself, that could be problematic.

Pence has already fully established himself as a Trumpite. There's no
turning back now. The reason Pence would pardon Trump and fear no
political backlash is the same reason so many Republicans are signing-on
to the narrative that Trump had the election stolen from him through
widespread fraud. There is actual political benefits to this since over
70-million Americans voted for Trump. These politicians want that base to
stand by them. There's political expediency in supporting Trump, no matter
how ridiculous the narratives. That base is unlikely going to defect from
that narrative since right-wing media/radio is keeping that narrative
alive. "Stop the steal" is the new birtherism.

It is widely
believed that Ford's pardon of Nixon cost him the 1976 election. An
interesting ploy however.

I think Ford lost for a more general reason. Watergate (and the Agnew
scandal) opened Americans' eyes to how corruption can seep into the
highest levels of our government. Then along came this aw-shucks,
flannel-shirt wearing-Christian, southerner who epitomized the complete
opposite. I don't think the Nixon pardon had much to do with it. It was
just part of a much larger tapestry of bad perceptions of the Republican
party.

Among other things, it would entitle Pence to have a presidential library.

Pence could hardly reject the presidency because it would make Nancy
Pelosi the acting president. On the other hand, he would be loathed to go
down in history as a president who would forever have the largest
asterisks by his name. He'll have to carry that asterisk around like Roger
Maris, who broke Babe Ruth's season home run record by doing so with eight
additional season games. In Pence's case, his "mark" on presidential
history will be measured in days - maybe even an hour.

To me, it would somehow seem more appropriate for Pence to have a
presidential library than for Trump to have one - a man who doesn't read,
readily admits he doesn't read and gets his information through voracious
TV-watching.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

John Corbett

2020-12-14 01:54:10 UTC

Pence would have to agree to do that. If he has future ambitions about
running for president himself, that could be problematic.

It's not the base that decides elections. It's the swing voters. I believe
in the 40/40/20 theory. Both major parties have a base of 40 percent of
the electorate that will stand by them no matter what. The two major
parties compete for the 20 in the middle. Occasionally a third party
candidate will step in and take part of that 20. If the major parties can
turn out their base and get more of that middle 20, they win elections.
Now in presidential races, the Electoral College skews the math a bit
because the Democrats have so much overkill in California, New York, and
Illinois. I heard an analyst say two weeks before the election that if
Biden won the national popular vote by 4%, he would still have only a
50-50 chance of winning the Electoral College. That seems to be correct as
the final popular vote total gave Biden a 4.37% edge and he won the
Electoral College with very narrow wins in five states.

It is widely
believed that Ford's pardon of Nixon cost him the 1976 election. An
interesting ploy however.

Ford wouldn't have been tied to Watergate had he not pardoned Nixon. Ford
had a reputation as a Mr. Clean, even among Democrats. I think it was
Julian Bond who commented when Ford took office, "What we have is a clean
Nixon.".

Among other things, it would entitle Pence to have a presidential library.

I don't think anybody thinks Pence would turn down the presidency and it
has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi. The question would be whether he
would agree to pardon Trump. It is widely suspected to this day the Nixon
made a deal with Ford for a pardon as a condition for Nixon to resign. Any
such deal would have been made in private so there is no way of knowing if
that was true or not. Ford denied any such deal had been made to his dying
day.

I learned something interesting a couple days ago. Even if Pence were
president for only one day, he would be REQUIRED to establish a
presidential library by a law passed in 1955. That is because a
president's official papers are considered government property and
presidential libraries are the repository of such papers. In addition,
former president's receive an annual pension equal to cabinet secretary
salaries, office and travel expenses, and lifetime Secret Service
protection for themselves and their spouses.

Post by ***@gmail.com
To me, it would somehow seem more appropriate for Pence to have a
presidential library than for Trump to have one - a man who doesn't read,
readily admits he doesn't read and gets his information through voracious
TV-watching.

Trump will have a library for reasons stated. He is required by law to
establish one.

davide...@gmail.com

2020-12-11 01:12:25 UTC

Post by John McAdams
Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?

If there's one thing that the Mueller Report definitely established is
this: Russia DID try to sway American sentiment to favor Trump. There is
absolutely no question about that. So, when Trump (and his supporters) use
the term "Russia hoax", it's not exactly clear what they're talking about.

What is also very clear is that those in the Trump orbit (even Trump,
himself), was both solicitous, aware and welcoming of Russia's assistance.
As a technical, legal point - it wasn't quite as clear that there was a
conspiracy involving Trump and Russia. It was difficult to answer the
question: What did Trump ACTIVELY do to facilitate and coordinate with the
Russian effort to assist him? "Collusion" isn't really a thing in legal
parlance. The Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr, Jared Kushner & Paul
Manafort and Russians who were known to have connections with the Kremlin,
if nothing else, indicates that the Trump campaign was certainly
interested in receiving any assistance from a hostile foreign nation.
Also, Paul Manafort's sharing of polling data with the Russians seems to
be an effort to assistance them. I would certainly characterize that as
"collusion", but that's not the same thing as a conspiracy.

There's solid evidence that the Trump campaign colluded (def: to cooperate
in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over
others) with the Russians but the evidence of a conspiracy (active
participation) was not as clear. At best, the Trump campaign was a passive
recipient of Russian's assistance. But I think the evidence indicates they
were far more than passive. As time goes on, I think history will have a
more definitive view of what happened.

Post by John McAdams
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John

I'm not sure what you mean. Trump's victory in 2016 was far from a random
(i.e. chaotic) event that was untouched by outside influences to
manipulate voter sentiment. I don't have to have some fanciful or wishful
predilection toward thinking that all bad things happen as a result of
orchestrated forces. There's solid EVIDENCE of that influence. Whether
that influence made a difference or not is unknowable. To answer that, one
would have to know EXACTLY how many of those who voted for Trump did so
based on the influence of Russia's systemic and pervasive social media
campaign. I don't see how that would ever be knowable.

On the other hand, there is no solid evidence of a conspiracy in the
Kennedy assassination.

THAT'S the difference!

We (those who do not believe there was a conspiracy in the JFK
assassination) are often accused by CTs of rejecting *all* conspiracies.
They label us as naïve. We *do* believe in conspiracies - but only
when there is evidence to support them. For instance, the 9/11 attack was
a conspiracy - just not the type of conspiracy that a lot of Truthers
believe in.

With regards to the most recent election, there doesn't seem to be
anything that remotely indicates there was any kind of conspiracy (or even
anything as mild as collusion) that contributed to Biden's victory. The
validity of a theory is directly proportional to the evidence that
supports that theory, whether that theory be of a conspiracy or have a
more scientific component.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

John McAdams

2020-12-12 23:06:14 UTC

Post by John McAdams
Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?

That's not collusion.

The Mainstream Media tried to influence the election in favor of
Hillary.

Post by ***@gmail.com
What is also very clear is that those in the Trump orbit (even Trump,
himself), was both solicitous, aware and welcoming of Russia's assistance.
As a technical, legal point - it wasn't quite as clear that there was a
conspiracy involving Trump and Russia. It was difficult to answer the
question: What did Trump ACTIVELY do to facilitate and coordinate with the
Russian effort to assist him? "Collusion" isn't really a thing in legal
parlance. The Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr, Jared Kushner & Paul
Manafort and Russians who were known to have connections with the Kremlin,
if nothing else, indicates that the Trump campaign was certainly
interested in receiving any assistance from a hostile foreign nation.
Also, Paul Manafort's sharing of polling data with the Russians seems to
be an effort to assistance them. I would certainly characterize that as
"collusion", but that's not the same thing as a conspiracy.

But Muller said there was no collusion. Aren't you a bitter ender
insisting there was?

The Trump Tower meeting people certainly desired to get negative
information on Hillary.

But your friends in the FBI and the Mainstream Media were happy to run
with the Steele Dossier!

How is that any different?

Post by ***@gmail.com
There's solid evidence that the Trump campaign colluded (def: to cooperate
in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over
others)

Muller said there was not.

Post by ***@gmail.com
with the Russians but the evidence of a conspiracy (active
participation) was not as clear. At best, the Trump campaign was a passive
recipient of Russian's assistance. But I think the evidence indicates they
were far more than passive. As time goes on, I think history will have a
more definitive view of what happened.

Translation: you don't have the evidence, but you think it will be
forthcoming.

You sound like Tony Marsh.

Post by John McAdams
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John

I'm not sure what you mean. Trump's victory in 2016 was far from a random
(i.e. chaotic) event that was untouched by outside influences to
manipulate voter sentiment.

Does the Mainstream Media have a right to "try to manipulate voter
sentiment?"

Do the FBI and the CIA?

What you said actually means nothing.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I don't have to have some fanciful or wishful
predilection toward thinking that all bad things happen as a result of
orchestrated forces. There's solid EVIDENCE of that influence.

You mean as when *accurate* information about Hillary's e-mail, and
DNC machinations against Bernie got released?

What do you think about this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-13 17:32:04 UTC

Post by John McAdams
Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?

If there's one thing that the Mueller Report definitely established is
this: Russia DID try to sway American sentiment to favor Trump. There is
absolutely no question about that. So, when Trump (and his supporters) use
the term "Russia hoax", it's not exactly clear what they're talking about.
What is also very clear is that those in the Trump orbit (even Trump,
himself), was both solicitous, aware and welcoming of Russia's assistance.
As a technical, legal point - it wasn't quite as clear that there was a
conspiracy involving Trump and Russia. It was difficult to answer the
question: What did Trump ACTIVELY do to facilitate and coordinate with the
Russian effort to assist him? "Collusion" isn't really a thing in legal
parlance. The Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr, Jared Kushner & Paul
Manafort and Russians who were known to have connections with the Kremlin,
if nothing else, indicates that the Trump campaign was certainly
interested in receiving any assistance from a hostile foreign nation.
Also, Paul Manafort's sharing of polling data with the Russians seems to
be an effort to assistance them. I would certainly characterize that as
"collusion", but that's not the same thing as a conspiracy.
There's solid evidence that the Trump campaign colluded (def: to cooperate
in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over
others) with the Russians but the evidence of a conspiracy (active
participation) was not as clear. At best, the Trump campaign was a passive
recipient of Russian's assistance. But I think the evidence indicates they
were far more than passive. As time goes on, I think history will have a
more definitive view of what happened.

Post by John McAdams
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John

Trump's dealings with Russian intelligence are Federal crimes and he can
or can not be prosecuted. Trump's dealings with the Russian Mafia in New
York are state crimes and he will be prosecuted.

Post by ***@gmail.com
We (those who do not believe there was a conspiracy in the JFK
assassination) are often accused by CTs of rejecting *all* conspiracies.
They label us as na??ve. We *do* believe in conspiracies - but only
when there is evidence to support them. For instance, the 9/11 attack was
a conspiracy - just not the type of conspiracy that a lot of Truthers
believe in.
With regards to the most recent election, there doesn't seem to be
anything that remotely indicates there was any kind of conspiracy (or even
anything as mild as collusion) that contributed to Biden's victory. The
validity of a theory is directly proportional to the evidence that
supports that theory, whether that theory be of a conspiracy or have a
more scientific component.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Bud

2020-12-11 22:53:59 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...

"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."

*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

BT George

2020-12-18 04:30:15 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...
"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."
*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

Correct. And it explains why many persons (understandably) believe there
was a vast conspiracy to steal the election. I too would believe that if
what I know about conspiracies didn't tell me there's just not enough
"there" there. But your point is correct regardless. If Democrats and
Leftists were floating the same "stolen election theories" such ideas
would suddenly be "legitimate" enough not to take down.

John Corbett

2020-12-18 13:34:41 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...
"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."
*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

Four years ago I went around and around with Chris/mainframetech about the
implausibility of voting machines being tampered with to change votes to
help Trump and now we have Republicans who are making the same claim.
Having been a poll worker I know what steps are taken to ensure that can't
happen. For starters, the voting machines are not online which eliminates
hacking. The machines are reused every election and have to be programmed
by the county boards of election. In Ohio, those boards are comprised of
two members of each major party and they work together to program and test
the machines before the election. For one party to tamper with the
machines would require either collusion or incompetence by the board
members from the other party. I think most states have similar structure
although in some states, it's a three person board with the majority party
in a county getting two members. I have a hard time believing that voting
machines were used to steal votes for Biden.

I have a little less confidence in the mail in ballots. Maybe if I knew
more about the safeguards in place I would have more confidence. I am
troubled by the fact that in both Philadelphia and Detroit, observers were
apparently barred from observing the vote counting as is required by law.
Why was that done? That seems a legitimate question. Why did the vote
counters tape cardboard to the windows to prevent people from watching
from the outside.

As I've learned from years of dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists,
things that on the surface seem suspicious invariably have a very mundane
explanation so maybe that is the case with the counting of the mail in
ballots. I think in all probability Biden's victory was legitimate but I
wish the accusations of fraud had at least been looked into. In most
cases, the courts were summarily dismissing them or dismissing them on
technical grounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 against giving a
full hearing to charges of fraud.

Going back to GWBush's victory in 2000, the losing side has seemed to be
less willing to accept the legitimacy of the outcome. The last election
prior to that in which that was the case was the 1960 election. There were
close elections in 1968 and 1976 but I don't recall the losing side
charging fraud. Now it seems to be the new norm.

Biden has said he wants to bring the country together. That is going to be
difficult if a large segment of the population don't think he was elected
fairly. He could go a long way to restoring confidence in our elections if
he would appoint a bi-partisan commission to look into these allegations
of fraud. As we have seen with the Warren Commission, even a bi-partisan
commission isn't going to convince everyone, but I think it might satisfy
some that it was a fair election.

BT George

2020-12-19 01:52:09 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...
"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."
*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

Four years ago I went around and around with Chris/mainframetech about the
implausibility of voting machines being tampered with to change votes to
help Trump and now we have Republicans who are making the same claim.
Having been a poll worker I know what steps are taken to ensure that can't
happen. For starters, the voting machines are not online which eliminates
hacking. The machines are reused every election and have to be programmed
by the county boards of election. In Ohio, those boards are comprised of
two members of each major party and they work together to program and test
the machines before the election. For one party to tamper with the
machines would require either collusion or incompetence by the board
members from the other party. I think most states have similar structure
although in some states, it's a three person board with the majority party
in a county getting two members. I have a hard time believing that voting
machines were used to steal votes for Biden.
I have a little less confidence in the mail in ballots. Maybe if I knew
more about the safeguards in place I would have more confidence. I am
troubled by the fact that in both Philadelphia and Detroit, observers were
apparently barred from observing the vote counting as is required by law.
Why was that done? That seems a legitimate question. Why did the vote
counters tape cardboard to the windows to prevent people from watching
from the outside.
As I've learned from years of dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists,
things that on the surface seem suspicious invariably have a very mundane
explanation so maybe that is the case with the counting of the mail in
ballots. I think in all probability Biden's victory was legitimate but I
wish the accusations of fraud had at least been looked into. In most
cases, the courts were summarily dismissing them or dismissing them on
technical grounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 against giving a
full hearing to charges of fraud.
Going back to GWBush's victory in 2000, the losing side has seemed to be
less willing to accept the legitimacy of the outcome. The last election
prior to that in which that was the case was the 1960 election. There were
close elections in 1968 and 1976 but I don't recall the losing side
charging fraud. Now it seems to be the new norm.
Biden has said he wants to bring the country together. That is going to be
difficult if a large segment of the population don't think he was elected
fairly. He could go a long way to restoring confidence in our elections if
he would appoint a bi-partisan commission to look into these allegations
of fraud. As we have seen with the Warren Commission, even a bi-partisan
commission isn't going to convince everyone, but I think it might satisfy
some that it was a fair election.

I guess that Vulcan mind meld continues. Couldn't have said the above
better myself, except to point out that to the extent that Texas and other
states that joined in their suit alleged *Constitutional* concerns about
the how some of the voting rules were changed to accommodate more mail in
voting (i.e., sometimes bypassing an amended procedure vote by the
*legislature* itself) SCOTUS judges who refused to hear the case due to
"lack of standing" were manifestly incorrect. It might open a can of
worms, but *every* state that voted against the Electoral College winner
clearly has a stake in making sure the other states that helped create
that Electoral majority properly followed the US Constitution.

I have read the reasoning in Bush vs. Gore, and the majority explicitly
rejected the arguments that the other branches of a state's government had
any right to depart from the legislative scheme even on (alleged) state
constitutional grounds provided that what the legislature had not violated
the *US* Constitution in providing a scheme. They reasoned that it was
the Federal Constitution that explicitly left the power of determining how
legal votes would be counted with that branch and no other. So any
allegations that this wasn't followed in PA or elsewhere, should *not*
have been summarily dismissed.

John Corbett

2020-12-19 19:20:05 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...
"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."
*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

Four years ago I went around and around with Chris/mainframetech about the
implausibility of voting machines being tampered with to change votes to
help Trump and now we have Republicans who are making the same claim.
Having been a poll worker I know what steps are taken to ensure that can't
happen. For starters, the voting machines are not online which eliminates
hacking. The machines are reused every election and have to be programmed
by the county boards of election. In Ohio, those boards are comprised of
two members of each major party and they work together to program and test
the machines before the election. For one party to tamper with the
machines would require either collusion or incompetence by the board
members from the other party. I think most states have similar structure
although in some states, it's a three person board with the majority party
in a county getting two members. I have a hard time believing that voting
machines were used to steal votes for Biden.
I have a little less confidence in the mail in ballots. Maybe if I knew
more about the safeguards in place I would have more confidence. I am
troubled by the fact that in both Philadelphia and Detroit, observers were
apparently barred from observing the vote counting as is required by law.
Why was that done? That seems a legitimate question. Why did the vote
counters tape cardboard to the windows to prevent people from watching
from the outside.
As I've learned from years of dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists,
things that on the surface seem suspicious invariably have a very mundane
explanation so maybe that is the case with the counting of the mail in
ballots. I think in all probability Biden's victory was legitimate but I
wish the accusations of fraud had at least been looked into. In most
cases, the courts were summarily dismissing them or dismissing them on
technical grounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 against giving a
full hearing to charges of fraud.
Going back to GWBush's victory in 2000, the losing side has seemed to be
less willing to accept the legitimacy of the outcome. The last election
prior to that in which that was the case was the 1960 election. There were
close elections in 1968 and 1976 but I don't recall the losing side
charging fraud. Now it seems to be the new norm.
Biden has said he wants to bring the country together. That is going to be
difficult if a large segment of the population don't think he was elected
fairly. He could go a long way to restoring confidence in our elections if
he would appoint a bi-partisan commission to look into these allegations
of fraud. As we have seen with the Warren Commission, even a bi-partisan
commission isn't going to convince everyone, but I think it might satisfy
some that it was a fair election.

The Constitution empowered the states to individually determine how their
electors are chosen so on that basis, I believe SCOTUS acted properly. We
don't have a presidential election. We have 51 presidential election, each
independent from the others. No state has a say in how other states choose
their electors and therefore no standing.

I have read the reasoning in Bush vs. Gore, and the majority explicitly
rejected the arguments that the other branches of a state's government had
any right to depart from the legislative scheme even on (alleged) state
constitutional grounds provided that what the legislature had not violated
the *US* Constitution in providing a scheme. They reasoned that it was
the Federal Constitution that explicitly left the power of determining how
legal votes would be counted with that branch and no other. So any
allegations that this wasn't followed in PA or elsewhere, should *not*
have been summarily dismissed.

I believe any allegation of wrong doing needed to come from someone in
Pennsylvania or from the candidate himself as was the case when Bush
appealed the Florida Supreme Court ruling to SCOTUS.

BT George

2020-12-20 03:11:54 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...
"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."
*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

Four years ago I went around and around with Chris/mainframetech about the
implausibility of voting machines being tampered with to change votes to
help Trump and now we have Republicans who are making the same claim.
Having been a poll worker I know what steps are taken to ensure that can't
happen. For starters, the voting machines are not online which eliminates
hacking. The machines are reused every election and have to be programmed
by the county boards of election. In Ohio, those boards are comprised of
two members of each major party and they work together to program and test
the machines before the election. For one party to tamper with the
machines would require either collusion or incompetence by the board
members from the other party. I think most states have similar structure
although in some states, it's a three person board with the majority party
in a county getting two members. I have a hard time believing that voting
machines were used to steal votes for Biden.
I have a little less confidence in the mail in ballots. Maybe if I knew
more about the safeguards in place I would have more confidence. I am
troubled by the fact that in both Philadelphia and Detroit, observers were
apparently barred from observing the vote counting as is required by law.
Why was that done? That seems a legitimate question. Why did the vote
counters tape cardboard to the windows to prevent people from watching
from the outside.
As I've learned from years of dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists,
things that on the surface seem suspicious invariably have a very mundane
explanation so maybe that is the case with the counting of the mail in
ballots. I think in all probability Biden's victory was legitimate but I
wish the accusations of fraud had at least been looked into. In most
cases, the courts were summarily dismissing them or dismissing them on
technical grounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 against giving a
full hearing to charges of fraud.
Going back to GWBush's victory in 2000, the losing side has seemed to be
less willing to accept the legitimacy of the outcome. The last election
prior to that in which that was the case was the 1960 election. There were
close elections in 1968 and 1976 but I don't recall the losing side
charging fraud. Now it seems to be the new norm.
Biden has said he wants to bring the country together. That is going to be
difficult if a large segment of the population don't think he was elected
fairly. He could go a long way to restoring confidence in our elections if
he would appoint a bi-partisan commission to look into these allegations
of fraud. As we have seen with the Warren Commission, even a bi-partisan
commission isn't going to convince everyone, but I think it might satisfy
some that it was a fair election.

I believe any allegation of wrong doing needed to come from someone in
Pennsylvania or from the candidate himself as was the case when Bush
appealed the Florida Supreme Court ruling to SCOTUS.

Well the mind meld ends. And precisely because of what you stated. We
have 51 presidential elections. Mine (actually Texas) determined Donald
Trump should be president. I have no problem that an electoral plurality
of separate states votes determined that Joe Biden should be. If that
plurality was determined by those states *Constitutionally* per the scheme
their *legislatures*--and no one else---stipulated. *if* that happened in
PA and elsewhere, so be it. But if their is credible evidence that other
branches there and elsewhere caused a departure from the legislative
scheme, then each state that *Constitutionally* voted otherwise had their
will frustrated by the failure of such states to properly adhere to the US
Constitution. IMHO that automatically creates standing. Standing on
personal loss (frustration of that state's collective will) and standing
on the *presumption* that following the Constitution itself is vital
principle to the welfare of the entire country.

John Corbett

2020-12-20 21:10:04 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...
"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."
*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

Four years ago I went around and around with Chris/mainframetech about the
implausibility of voting machines being tampered with to change votes to
help Trump and now we have Republicans who are making the same claim.
Having been a poll worker I know what steps are taken to ensure that can't
happen. For starters, the voting machines are not online which eliminates
hacking. The machines are reused every election and have to be programmed
by the county boards of election. In Ohio, those boards are comprised of
two members of each major party and they work together to program and test
the machines before the election. For one party to tamper with the
machines would require either collusion or incompetence by the board
members from the other party. I think most states have similar structure
although in some states, it's a three person board with the majority party
in a county getting two members. I have a hard time believing that voting
machines were used to steal votes for Biden.
I have a little less confidence in the mail in ballots. Maybe if I knew
more about the safeguards in place I would have more confidence. I am
troubled by the fact that in both Philadelphia and Detroit, observers were
apparently barred from observing the vote counting as is required by law.
Why was that done? That seems a legitimate question. Why did the vote
counters tape cardboard to the windows to prevent people from watching
from the outside.
As I've learned from years of dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists,
things that on the surface seem suspicious invariably have a very mundane
explanation so maybe that is the case with the counting of the mail in
ballots. I think in all probability Biden's victory was legitimate but I
wish the accusations of fraud had at least been looked into. In most
cases, the courts were summarily dismissing them or dismissing them on
technical grounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 against giving a
full hearing to charges of fraud.
Going back to GWBush's victory in 2000, the losing side has seemed to be
less willing to accept the legitimacy of the outcome. The last election
prior to that in which that was the case was the 1960 election. There were
close elections in 1968 and 1976 but I don't recall the losing side
charging fraud. Now it seems to be the new norm.
Biden has said he wants to bring the country together. That is going to be
difficult if a large segment of the population don't think he was elected
fairly. He could go a long way to restoring confidence in our elections if
he would appoint a bi-partisan commission to look into these allegations
of fraud. As we have seen with the Warren Commission, even a bi-partisan
commission isn't going to convince everyone, but I think it might satisfy
some that it was a fair election.

I believe any allegation of wrong doing needed to come from someone in
Pennsylvania or from the candidate himself as was the case when Bush
appealed the Florida Supreme Court ruling to SCOTUS.

It is up to each individual state to determine if the mandates of the
legislature where being followed. The state courts determine if that is
being done.

As I understand the legal issues involved, SCOTUS got involved in the 2000
Florida recount because of equal protection issues regarding the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court mandated a statewide
recount without establishing statewide standards for manual recount. One
county might count dimpled chads as a vote while others were not. Some
counties were requiring two corners of the chad to be punched while others
were requiring a complete punch out. Voters in different counties were not
being treated equally. SCOTUS ruled on a 7-2 basis there was an equal
protection violation. It split 5-4 on whether there was a remedy that
could be completed in time for the Electoral College to meet. As I recall,
the ruling was handed down on a Wednesday night and the EC was meeting the
following Monday. That left just four days to establish statewide
standards for vote counting, recounting the votes by the new standards,
and having the counts certified by the Secretary of State.

It was George Bush through his legal team that petitioned SCOTUS for
judicial relief. He most certainly had standing. Had the Texas AG been
the one to petition the court, I'm betting he would have gotten a similar
rebuke as the current AG did.

In 2000, an unofficial statewide recount was conducted by a consortium of
the AP, Miami Herald, and New York Times. They did several recounts using
different standards for each. They found that Bush won the recount by
every standard except using the strictest standards. The irony of that is
the Gore team was arguing to count every vote and the only way they would
have won is if they got as many votes discarded as possible.

BT George

2020-12-21 02:33:07 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...
"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."
*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

Four years ago I went around and around with Chris/mainframetech about the
implausibility of voting machines being tampered with to change votes to
help Trump and now we have Republicans who are making the same claim.
Having been a poll worker I know what steps are taken to ensure that can't
happen. For starters, the voting machines are not online which eliminates
hacking. The machines are reused every election and have to be programmed
by the county boards of election. In Ohio, those boards are comprised of
two members of each major party and they work together to program and test
the machines before the election. For one party to tamper with the
machines would require either collusion or incompetence by the board
members from the other party. I think most states have similar structure
although in some states, it's a three person board with the majority party
in a county getting two members. I have a hard time believing that voting
machines were used to steal votes for Biden.
I have a little less confidence in the mail in ballots. Maybe if I knew
more about the safeguards in place I would have more confidence. I am
troubled by the fact that in both Philadelphia and Detroit, observers were
apparently barred from observing the vote counting as is required by law.
Why was that done? That seems a legitimate question. Why did the vote
counters tape cardboard to the windows to prevent people from watching
from the outside.
As I've learned from years of dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists,
things that on the surface seem suspicious invariably have a very mundane
explanation so maybe that is the case with the counting of the mail in
ballots. I think in all probability Biden's victory was legitimate but I
wish the accusations of fraud had at least been looked into. In most
cases, the courts were summarily dismissing them or dismissing them on
technical grounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 against giving a
full hearing to charges of fraud.
Going back to GWBush's victory in 2000, the losing side has seemed to be
less willing to accept the legitimacy of the outcome. The last election
prior to that in which that was the case was the 1960 election. There were
close elections in 1968 and 1976 but I don't recall the losing side
charging fraud. Now it seems to be the new norm.
Biden has said he wants to bring the country together. That is going to be
difficult if a large segment of the population don't think he was elected
fairly. He could go a long way to restoring confidence in our elections if
he would appoint a bi-partisan commission to look into these allegations
of fraud. As we have seen with the Warren Commission, even a bi-partisan
commission isn't going to convince everyone, but I think it might satisfy
some that it was a fair election.

I believe any allegation of wrong doing needed to come from someone in
Pennsylvania or from the candidate himself as was the case when Bush
appealed the Florida Supreme Court ruling to SCOTUS.

It is up to each individual state to determine if the mandates of the
legislature where being followed. The state courts determine if that is
being done.
As I understand the legal issues involved, SCOTUS got involved in the 2000
Florida recount because of equal protection issues regarding the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court mandated a statewide
recount without establishing statewide standards for manual recount. One
county might count dimpled chads as a vote while others were not. Some
counties were requiring two corners of the chad to be punched while others
were requiring a complete punch out. Voters in different counties were not
being treated equally. SCOTUS ruled on a 7-2 basis there was an equal
protection violation. It split 5-4 on whether there was a remedy that
could be completed in time for the Electoral College to meet. As I recall,
the ruling was handed down on a Wednesday night and the EC was meeting the
following Monday. That left just four days to establish statewide
standards for vote counting, recounting the votes by the new standards,
and having the counts certified by the Secretary of State.
It was George Bush through his legal team that petitioned SCOTUS for
judicial relief. He most certainly had standing. Had the Texas AG been
the one to petition the court, I'm betting he would have gotten a similar
rebuke as the current AG did.
In 2000, an unofficial statewide recount was conducted by a consortium of
the AP, Miami Herald, and New York Times. They did several recounts using
different standards for each. They found that Bush won the recount by
every standard except using the strictest standards. The irony of that is
the Gore team was arguing to count every vote and the only way they would
have won is if they got as many votes discarded as possible.

You are correct that 7-2 was based on the failure to provide equal
protection. But the majority of 5 who found on additional grounds and
(IIRC) issued the orders to "Stop the counting, it's over." reasoned that
the other grave sin was the fact that the Florida Scotus had manifestly
departed from the Legislative scheme in both orders they had issued to
that point. And as they saw no correct way to proceed and honor that
scheme that would not risk disenfranchising all the voters of Florida.

I agree that it might have been better for Trump's team to try to bring
this kind of suit before Scotus. But based on their *abysmal* performance
at every single court along the way, their failure to do so suggests there
really may not have been enough "there" there. Indeed, the arguments they
brought before the Wisconsin SCOTUS was debating merely procedural matters
that dealt with the "logistical" how's of carrying out the election, and
were strained to point out any *substantive* departure from the
Legislative scheme. Hence they were drummed out of court.

John Corbett

2020-12-21 20:47:13 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

Does the same logic apply to the Trump / Russian Collusion conspiracy
theory?
Or is it different when the theory is aimed at somebody you dislike?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

youtube has said it will remove any videos claiming fraud in the
election, and ban people who post such videos. I said this here last year,
when they announced they would be going after flat earthers and conspiracy
theories...
"Watch how quick it will be before they start targeting conservative
viewpoints. This is just to get a foot in the door. The left is desperate
to find a way to control the dialog, and they only way they can achieve
that is to silence the common sense that they have no answer to, so that
only their absurd ideas are heard."
*THEY* will decide what a legitimate idea is, and they don`t even want
any discussion about what those ideas are.

Four years ago I went around and around with Chris/mainframetech about the
implausibility of voting machines being tampered with to change votes to
help Trump and now we have Republicans who are making the same claim.
Having been a poll worker I know what steps are taken to ensure that can't
happen. For starters, the voting machines are not online which eliminates
hacking. The machines are reused every election and have to be programmed
by the county boards of election. In Ohio, those boards are comprised of
two members of each major party and they work together to program and test
the machines before the election. For one party to tamper with the
machines would require either collusion or incompetence by the board
members from the other party. I think most states have similar structure
although in some states, it's a three person board with the majority party
in a county getting two members. I have a hard time believing that voting
machines were used to steal votes for Biden.
I have a little less confidence in the mail in ballots. Maybe if I knew
more about the safeguards in place I would have more confidence. I am
troubled by the fact that in both Philadelphia and Detroit, observers were
apparently barred from observing the vote counting as is required by law.
Why was that done? That seems a legitimate question. Why did the vote
counters tape cardboard to the windows to prevent people from watching
from the outside.
As I've learned from years of dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists,
things that on the surface seem suspicious invariably have a very mundane
explanation so maybe that is the case with the counting of the mail in
ballots. I think in all probability Biden's victory was legitimate but I
wish the accusations of fraud had at least been looked into. In most
cases, the courts were summarily dismissing them or dismissing them on
technical grounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 against giving a
full hearing to charges of fraud.
Going back to GWBush's victory in 2000, the losing side has seemed to be
less willing to accept the legitimacy of the outcome. The last election
prior to that in which that was the case was the 1960 election. There were
close elections in 1968 and 1976 but I don't recall the losing side
charging fraud. Now it seems to be the new norm.
Biden has said he wants to bring the country together. That is going to be
difficult if a large segment of the population don't think he was elected
fairly. He could go a long way to restoring confidence in our elections if
he would appoint a bi-partisan commission to look into these allegations
of fraud. As we have seen with the Warren Commission, even a bi-partisan
commission isn't going to convince everyone, but I think it might satisfy
some that it was a fair election.

I believe any allegation of wrong doing needed to come from someone in
Pennsylvania or from the candidate himself as was the case when Bush
appealed the Florida Supreme Court ruling to SCOTUS.

It is up to each individual state to determine if the mandates of the
legislature where being followed. The state courts determine if that is
being done.
As I understand the legal issues involved, SCOTUS got involved in the 2000
Florida recount because of equal protection issues regarding the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court mandated a statewide
recount without establishing statewide standards for manual recount. One
county might count dimpled chads as a vote while others were not. Some
counties were requiring two corners of the chad to be punched while others
were requiring a complete punch out. Voters in different counties were not
being treated equally. SCOTUS ruled on a 7-2 basis there was an equal
protection violation. It split 5-4 on whether there was a remedy that
could be completed in time for the Electoral College to meet. As I recall,
the ruling was handed down on a Wednesday night and the EC was meeting the
following Monday. That left just four days to establish statewide
standards for vote counting, recounting the votes by the new standards,
and having the counts certified by the Secretary of State.
It was George Bush through his legal team that petitioned SCOTUS for
judicial relief. He most certainly had standing. Had the Texas AG been
the one to petition the court, I'm betting he would have gotten a similar
rebuke as the current AG did.
In 2000, an unofficial statewide recount was conducted by a consortium of
the AP, Miami Herald, and New York Times. They did several recounts using
different standards for each. They found that Bush won the recount by
every standard except using the strictest standards. The irony of that is
the Gore team was arguing to count every vote and the only way they would
have won is if they got as many votes discarded as possible.

You are correct that 7-2 was based on the failure to provide equal
protection. But the majority of 5 who found on additional grounds and
(IIRC) issued the orders to "Stop the counting, it's over." reasoned that
the other grave sin was the fact that the Florida Scotus had manifestly
departed from the Legislative scheme in both orders they had issued to
that point. And as they saw no correct way to proceed and honor that
scheme that would not risk disenfranchising all the voters of Florida.
I agree that it might have been better for Trump's team to try to bring
this kind of suit before Scotus. But based on their *abysmal* performance
at every single court along the way, their failure to do so suggests there
really may not have been enough "there" there. Indeed, the arguments they
brought before the Wisconsin SCOTUS was debating merely procedural matters
that dealt with the "logistical" how's of carrying out the election, and
were strained to point out any *substantive* departure from the
Legislative scheme. Hence they were drummed out of court.

I suspect they lacked credible evidence of widespread fraud. A lot of
anecdotal evidence but nothing concrete. We've seen how anecdotal evidence
has been used to manufacture JFK conspiracy theories. Stories of votes
cast by dead people or out of state voters should be easy to document,
especially if it was done on a widespread basis. The same for allegations
of printer press ballots or large numbers of Biden only votes being cast
with no down ballot races voted on. I'm not buying allegations of voting
machine manipulation. I know the safeguards that Ohio take to prevent such
things and I would be shocked if all states didn't have similar measures.

John Corbett

2020-12-07 13:49:29 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

I think in all probability Joe Biden's victory was legitimate. Ironically
his victory was the mirror image of Trump's in 2016. He got exactly the
same number of electoral votes Trump did by winning a handful of swing
states by small margins.

If the Trump team has evidence of fraud, they need to make it public. I've
heard all sorts of allegations which at face value seem troubling but you
could say the same thing about so many JFK conspiracy theories over the
years. When you look deeper at them, you find out they are baseless.

I wish we had journalists in this country who I could believe when they
tell me the allegations of voter fraud are baseless but the fact is they
would tell us that whether that is true or not.

Steven M. Galbraith

2020-12-07 19:05:57 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

I think in all probability Joe Biden's victory was legitimate. Ironically
his victory was the mirror image of Trump's in 2016. He got exactly the
same number of electoral votes Trump did by winning a handful of swing
states by small margins.
If the Trump team has evidence of fraud, they need to make it public. I've
heard all sorts of allegations which at face value seem troubling but you
could say the same thing about so many JFK conspiracy theories over the
years. When you look deeper at them, you find out they are baseless.
I wish we had journalists in this country who I could believe when they
tell me the allegations of voter fraud are baseless but the fact is they
would tell us that whether that is true or not.

As John pointed out above, how can one write a piece about conspiracy
belief involving the theft of our elections and not include all of these
allegations for four plus years about Trump and Putin stealing the 2016
election? Every night I turned on CNN it was about this matter. Was that
reckless conspiracy mongering?

As to the Trump theory: I'm not aware of anyone who believes that BIDEN
cooked the books or was behind the alleged theft? Isn't the claim that
Democrats in several states manipulated the returns to elect Biden? That's
absurd; there probably was some ballot box stuffing or manipulation
occurring by some Democrats (probably some Republicans too) but there's no
evidence it cost Trump the election. It is reckless and dangerous
conspiracy thinking. But so was the Russian collusion claim.

As to the journalists: Yes, unfortunately. The same outlets that promoted
the collusion story are lecturing us about reckless election conspiracy
promotion. These people have no credibility.

ajohnstone

2020-12-08 16:37:08 UTC

Coincidentally, this article appeared on my cyber travels

https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/conspiracy-theories/

' The eternal problem with conspiracy theories is that we know from both
history and current events that there are very real conspiracies at work
in the world. How can we distinguish them from the utterly fabricated
fantasies that comprise the entirety of the conspiracy-theory
universe?...researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have
devised an artificial intelligence tool that can help people figure out
whether they're tapping into an actual conspiracy or just participating in
a cockamamie fantasy.'

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2020-12-09 04:24:38 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
Coincidentally, this article appeared on my cyber travels
https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/conspiracy-theories/
' The eternal problem with conspiracy theories is that we know from both
history and current events that there are very real conspiracies at work
in the world. How can we distinguish them from the utterly fabricated
fantasies that comprise the entirety of the conspiracy-theory
universe?...researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have
devised an artificial intelligence tool that can help people figure out
whether they're tapping into an actual conspiracy or just participating in
a cockamamie fantasy.'

The article goes on to explain how to tell the difference:

== QUOTE ==
Real conspiracies, by their very nature (including their dependence on secrecy), have three major limitations:
Scope. Their purpose is usually to achieve only one or two ends, often narrow in nature.
Time. Their actions necessarily occur within a relatively short time frame.
Number of participants. All successful conspiracies are the product of only a tiny handful of people.
As the boundaries of all three of these limits increase, however, the likelihood of the conspiracy failing or being exposed rises exponentially. The broader the reach—if it attempts too much—the more likely it is to meet failure simply as a matter of raw odds and the nature of institutional inertia. The longer it takes, the greater the risk of exposure, not to mention for components of the conspiracy to go awry. Similar issues arise when increasing numbers of people are involved in the conspiracy, both the likelihood that they will fail to complete their part of the conspiracy as well as the growing chances of exposure. And exposure is fatal to every conspiracy: once the secret is out, it's no longer a viable plan of action.

Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, almost universally feature qualities that contrast sharply with these limits.
They are broad-ranging in nature, and frequently boil down to (or play key roles in) a massive plot to enslave, murder, or politically oppress all of mankind or at least large numbers of people.
They are believed to have existed for long periods of time, in some cases for hundreds of years.
They involve large numbers of people, notably significant numbers of participants in high positions in government or the bureaucracy.
The long-term success of these conspiracies is always credited to willing dupes in the media and elsewhere.
== UNQUOTE ==

Which of these sounds like the Kennedy assassination conspiracy most
critics envision?

From swapping bullets, to intimidating or eliminating inconvenient
witnesses, to altering evidence (including the President's body!), to
having a double masquerading as the accused assassin, to changing the
parade route, to planting evidence to frame the accused assassin... need I
go on?

It's clear which side of the fence the JFK assassination falls on.

Hank

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-13 22:48:15 UTC

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

== QUOTE ==
Scope. Their purpose is usually to achieve only one or two ends, often narrow in nature.
Time. Their actions necessarily occur within a relatively short time frame.
Number of participants. All successful conspiracies are the product of only a tiny handful of people.
As the boundaries of all three of these limits increase, however, the likelihood of the conspiracy failing or being exposed rises exponentially. The broader the reach???if it attempts too much???the more likely it is to meet failure simply as a matter of raw odds and the nature of institutional inertia. The longer it takes, the greater the risk of exposure, not to mention for components of the conspiracy to go awry. Similar issues arise when increasing numbers of people are involved in the conspiracy, both the likelihood that they will fail to complete their part of the conspiracy as well as the growing chances of exposure. And exposure is fatal to every conspiracy: once the secret is out, it's no longer a viable plan of action.
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, almost universally feature qualities that contrast sharply with these limits.
They are broad-ranging in nature, and frequently boil down to (or play key roles in) a massive plot to enslave, murder, or politically oppress all of mankind or at least large numbers of people.
They are believed to have existed for long periods of time, in some cases for hundreds of years.
They involve large numbers of people, notably significant numbers of participants in high positions in government or the bureaucracy.
The long-term success of these conspiracies is always credited to willing dupes in the media and elsewhere.
== UNQUOTE ==
Which of these sounds like the Kennedy assassination conspiracy most
critics envision?
From swapping bullets, to intimidating or eliminating inconvenient
witnesses, to altering evidence (including the President's body!), to
having a double masquerading as the accused assassin, to changing the
parade route, to planting evidence to frame the accused assassin... need I
go on?
It's clear which side of the fence the JFK assassination falls on.
Hank

Comservatives don't want to admit that hey killed JFK.
But conservation theories are more fun because they involve alaens and
Silurians.

BT George

2020-12-18 04:30:12 UTC

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

== QUOTE ==
Scope. Their purpose is usually to achieve only one or two ends, often narrow in nature.
Time. Their actions necessarily occur within a relatively short time frame.
Number of participants. All successful conspiracies are the product of only a tiny handful of people.
As the boundaries of all three of these limits increase, however, the likelihood of the conspiracy failing or being exposed rises exponentially. The broader the reach—if it attempts too much—the more likely it is to meet failure simply as a matter of raw odds and the nature of institutional inertia. The longer it takes, the greater the risk of exposure, not to mention for components of the conspiracy to go awry. Similar issues arise when increasing numbers of people are involved in the conspiracy, both the likelihood that they will fail to complete their part of the conspiracy as well as the growing chances of exposure. And exposure is fatal to every conspiracy: once the secret is out, it's no longer a viable plan of action.
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, almost universally feature qualities that contrast sharply with these limits.
They are broad-ranging in nature, and frequently boil down to (or play key roles in) a massive plot to enslave, murder, or politically oppress all of mankind or at least large numbers of people.
They are believed to have existed for long periods of time, in some cases for hundreds of years.
They involve large numbers of people, notably significant numbers of participants in high positions in government or the bureaucracy.
The long-term success of these conspiracies is always credited to willing dupes in the media and elsewhere.
== UNQUOTE ==
Which of these sounds like the Kennedy assassination conspiracy most
critics envision?
From swapping bullets, to intimidating or eliminating inconvenient
witnesses, to altering evidence (including the President's body!), to
having a double masquerading as the accused assassin, to changing the
parade route, to planting evidence to frame the accused assassin... need I
go on?
It's clear which side of the fence the JFK assassination falls on.
Hank

I also think sometimes things can *seem* like a giant conspiracy, because
so many persons subscribe to a given viewpoint that makes allegations
against them amenable to conspiracist thinking. (E.g., because most of
the MSM really *is* biased against Trump and therefore gleeful that Biden
won, they provide fertile ground to support the familiar conspiracist
notion that "It's all a giant disinformation campaign." when they provide
any level of documentation to refute the allegations of
widespread/systemic voter fraud.)

Of course personal passions tend to blind logical thinking. Just as it is
usually a waste of my breath explaining the factual reasons why Kennedy
wasn't killed by a conspiracy, to those who seem psychologically disposed
to believe he was, so to, it is normally futile to point out realities to
many who are disposed to believe virtually "everyone" that disagrees with
them politically is corrupt or lying.

BTW, there are some unlikely elements in Biden's win, such as how much
turnout Trump got and him still lose. But just a Trump's own personality
flaws distorted polls because he is too "toxic" for some persons to admit
their support for him or his policies, I think it also produced, or helped
produce, other unprecedented results. His "unlikability" (gleefully
played up and exaggerated by a *very* biased media), produced record
numbers of voters against him, as did the pandemic and his railing against
mail in votes. The pandemic, of course led to the mail in votes, and thus
swoll the number of actual voters as it was more convenient that in person
voting. His railing against this led to a disproportionate number of them
being pro-Biden and anti-Trump, which produced an Election Night mirage
that it was razor tight, when Biden in fact won by a strong electoral and
solid popular vote majority

John Corbett

2020-12-09 04:24:41 UTC

We distinguish them by looking to see if they are supported by compelling
evidence. We have solid evidence that John Wilkes Booth had accomplices
when he shot Lincoln. There is not such evidence that any of the other
three presidential assassins had accomplices. That's why I said that if
the Trump team has real evidence that there was widespread voter fraud,
they should make that public. In absence of such, their claims simply
sound hollow.

...researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have

Post by ajohnstone
devised an artificial intelligence tool that can help people figure out
whether they're tapping into an actual conspiracy or just participating in
a cockamamie fantasy.'

I prefer good old fashioned common sense. It works just as well and is
much cheaper.

davide...@gmail.com

2020-12-11 01:12:34 UTC

Post by Steven M. Galbraith
As John pointed out above, how can one write a piece about conspiracy
belief involving the theft of our elections and not include all of these
allegations for four plus years about Trump and Putin stealing the 2016
election? Every night I turned on CNN it was about this matter. Was that
reckless conspiracy mongering?

No respectable person has stated that Trump "stole" the 2016 election.
That's how Trump supporters characterize the view of those who oppose
Trump. It's more accurate to simply say that Russia attempted to help
Trump through an aggressive social media campaign and that the Trump
campaign was aware of it and welcoming of it. Further, the Trump campaign
cooperated with this effort. At a minimum, they were passive recipients of
this assistance. Of that, there is absolutely no doubt.

Post by Steven M. Galbraith
As to the Trump theory: I'm not aware of anyone who believes that BIDEN
cooked the books or was behind the alleged theft?

Yet, you're aware of the strident allegations of voter fraud - right? A
fraud is always perpetrated by someone or some organization - if not Biden
himself, then certainly some person/group that was pro-Biden.

Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Isn't the claim that
Democrats in several states manipulated the returns to elect Biden?

I think the claims are wildly varied - just like Kennedy conspiracy
theories.

Post by Steven M. Galbraith
That's
absurd; there probably was some ballot box stuffing or manipulation
occurring by some Democrats (probably some Republicans too) but there's no
evidence it cost Trump the election. It is reckless and dangerous
conspiracy thinking. But so was the Russian collusion claim.

However, there was strong evidence that the Trump campaign was both
soliciting for, aware of and receiving assistance from Russia. BIG
DIFFERENCE! Having meetings with pro-Kremlin Russians is certainly
collusion. But, whether it rises to the level of a conspiracy is what was
in question.

Post by Steven M. Galbraith
As to the journalists: Yes, unfortunately. The same outlets that promoted
the collusion story are lecturing us about reckless election conspiracy
promotion. These people have no credibility.

Like I said, there was evidence of the former and no evidence of the
latter.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

John Corbett

2020-12-11 22:54:03 UTC

No respectable person has stated that Trump "stole" the 2016 election.

That is true but a lot of talking heads at CNN and MSNBC did. Then of course
we have Adam Schiff. Quite possibly the biggest slime ball ever to serve in
the United States Congress.

Post by ***@gmail.com
That's how Trump supporters characterize the view of those who oppose
Trump. It's more accurate to simply say that Russia attempted to help
Trump through an aggressive social media campaign and that the Trump
campaign was aware of it and welcoming of it. Further, the Trump campaign
cooperated with this effort. At a minimum, they were passive recipients of
this assistance. Of that, there is absolutely no doubt.

The Russians/Soviets have meddled in our elections for a very long time
and there is no evidence there efforts ever amounted to a hill of beans.
Democrats needed an excuse for blowing an election they thought they had
in their back pocket and Russia collusion is what they came up with. It
couldn't have been because they nominated one of the weakest presidential
candidates either major party has ever chosen.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-13 22:48:21 UTC

No respectable person has stated that Trump "stole" the 2016 election.

That is true but a lot of talking heads at CNN and MSNBC did. Then of course
we have Adam Schiff. Quite possibly the biggest slime ball ever to serve in
the United States Congress.

The Russians/Soviets have meddled in our elections for a very long time

Who are these Soviets you are talking about? Do you know that the Soviet
Union collapsed? Do you know what century we are in? Why didn't you
bring up Socialists? I am ashamed pf you. Slackr!

Post by John Corbett
and there is no evidence there efforts ever amounted to a hill of beans.
Democrats needed an excuse for blowing an election they thought they had
in their back pocket and Russia collusion is what they came up with. It
couldn't have been because they nominated one of the weakest presidential
candidates either major party has ever chosen.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-08 03:18:59 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

False equivalency.
That's a Trump Trick.

Post by John Corbett
If the Trump team has evidence of fraud, they need to make it public. I've
heard all sorts of allegations which at face value seem troubling but you

If they had evidence they would not be holding press conferences.

Post by John Corbett
could say the same thing about so many JFK conspiracy theories over the
years. When you look deeper at them, you find out they are baseless.

Bo. We have researcher conferencences where we SHOW the evidence.
That's where I met Bigfoot.

Post by John Corbett
I wish we had journalists in this country who I could believe when they
tell me the allegations of voter fraud are baseless but the fact is they
would tell us that whether that is true or not.

John Corbett

2020-12-09 04:24:34 UTC

Post by John Corbett
I think in all probability Joe Biden's victory was legitimate. Ironically
his victory was the mirror image of Trump's in 2016. He got exactly the
same number of electoral votes Trump did by winning a handful of swing
states by small margins.

False equivalency.
That's a Trump Trick.

What about that is false? Both Trump and Biden won 306 electoral votes. It
remains to be seen if Biden will have any faithless electors. In 2016.
Trump won Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by
razor thin margins. In 2020, Biden won Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Arizona by razor thin margins. In both cases that was the
difference between victory and defeat.

Post by John Corbett
If the Trump team has evidence of fraud, they need to make it public. I've
heard all sorts of allegations which at face value seem troubling but you

If they had evidence they would not be holding press conferences.

Post by John Corbett
could say the same thing about so many JFK conspiracy theories over the
years. When you look deeper at them, you find out they are baseless.

Bo. We have researcher conferencences where we SHOW the evidence.
That's where I met Bigfoot.

I would find that more credible than that you have evidence someone other
than Oswald was involved in the assassination.

davide...@gmail.com

2020-12-11 22:53:25 UTC

False equivalency.
That's a Trump Trick.

In Biden's case ... "razor thin?" Hardly!

Biden won Michigan, ALONE, by double the margin that Trump won
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, COMBINED. I have to disagree with
your "razor thin" comparison.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-13 22:48:24 UTC

False equivalency.
That's a Trump Trick.

What about that is false? Both Trump and Biden won 306 electoral votes. It

JUST because TRUMP CHEATED DOES NOT PROVE THAT bIDEN CHEATED.

Post by John Corbett
remains to be seen if Biden will have any faithless electors. In 2016.

pLEASE LIST THE FIATHLESS ELECTORS IN 2016.

Post by John Corbett
Trump won Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by
razor thin margins. In 2020, Biden won Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Arizona by razor thin margins. In both cases that was the
difference between victory and defeat.

Post by John Corbett
If the Trump team has evidence of fraud, they need to make it public. I've

BUT THEY HAVE IDIOT LAWYERS AND THE CASES ARE THROWN OUT,
iF THEY HAD EVIDENCE THEY WOULD PRESENT IT IN COURT.
bUT THEY CAN'T SO THEY CAN'T. tHE issue is never to present facts, but
always stir up controversy.

Post by John Corbett
heard all sorts of allegations which at face value seem troubling but you

If they had evidence they would not be holding press conferences.

Post by John Corbett
could say the same thing about so many JFK conspiracy theories over the
years. When you look deeper at them, you find out they are baseless.

Bo. We have researcher conferencences where we SHOW the evidence.
That's where I met Bigfoot.

I would find that more credible than that you have evidence someone other
than Oswald was involved in the assassination.

BT George

2020-12-18 04:30:09 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

I think in all probability Joe Biden's victory was legitimate. Ironically
his victory was the mirror image of Trump's in 2016. He got exactly the
same number of electoral votes Trump did by winning a handful of swing
states by small margins.
If the Trump team has evidence of fraud, they need to make it public. I've
heard all sorts of allegations which at face value seem troubling but you
could say the same thing about so many JFK conspiracy theories over the
years. When you look deeper at them, you find out they are baseless.
I wish we had journalists in this country who I could believe when they
tell me the allegations of voter fraud are baseless but the fact is they
would tell us that whether that is true or not.

Man we think a lot alike. (Not sure who that's scarier for.) This is
almost word for word what I would say on this.

19efppp

2020-12-07 13:49:36 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything. He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit. The same thing happens with JFK
assassination theories. It is difficult to abandon a long and strongly
held position. The same thing used to happen in the stock market before it
became a trading game; people believed in a particular enterprise and
would hold it all the way down to bankruptcy. The same thing happened to
Hitler in his bunker. The Russians had to be blasting into Berlin before
he could smell the coffee, he was so invested, and the alternative was
suicide. And the "Democrats" will still defend Rachel to this day and say
that Hillary lost because of Putin. 2016 was rigged, too, you know. It's
all about the investment. The sap cannot cut his losses and run. He's in
love with his dear investment.

Bud

2020-12-11 22:54:06 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Trump haters were bombarded with negativity about Trump by the
mainstream media and big tech for four years, what choice did they have to
be against Trump, they can`t think for themselves. If they could they
might wonder why such an effort was expended to see him removed. They like
the status quo of being able to lie unchallenged, and we are back to that
status quo once Trump leaves office.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.

You`ll be back to your comfort zone of being lied to nonstop, but it was
a refreshing change to hear the truth from a politician for a while. First
politician I ever saw who actually tried to do the things he said he would
when he ran, he didn`t hide his agenda (will Biden pack the Supreme Court,
nobody knows he wouldn`t say, why would he tell the people when he ran?)
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t
deliver on what he promised them, it would kill the Democrats in the
election in two years.

Post by 19efppp
The same thing happens with JFK
assassination theories. It is difficult to abandon a long and strongly
held position. The same thing used to happen in the stock market before it
became a trading game; people believed in a particular enterprise and
would hold it all the way down to bankruptcy. The same thing happened to
Hitler in his bunker. The Russians had to be blasting into Berlin before
he could smell the coffee, he was so invested, and the alternative was
suicide. And the "Democrats" will still defend Rachel to this day and say
that Hillary lost because of Putin. 2016 was rigged, too, you know. It's
all about the investment. The sap cannot cut his losses and run. He's in
love with his dear investment.

ajohnstone

2020-12-12 02:50:12 UTC

Post by Bud
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t

deliver on what he promised them

I'm not sure but is this a sea-change in a previous narrative that Biden
was a puppet of AOC and Biden?

I'm sure when i in earlier posts stated that the Justice Democrats and the
progressives had no real political power within the Democratic Party
machine as has Pelosi and Schumer and the DNC, this was challenged and the
case was made that Biden would be pushed left-ward.

He is already back-pedalling on the use of Executive Orders if faced with
Republican Senate blocks.

https://theintercept.com/2020/12/10/biden-audio-meeting-civil-rights-leaders/

So far all his appointments have been rather conservative and we are
seeing perhaps an Obama third-term as his administration gets re-appointed
by Biden.

Much is made of Biden's appointments of minorities but i see this as only
an example of the Democratic Party's fixation on identity politics. I have
not forgotten about Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice roles in the Iraq
war even if the MSM has.

As for Sanders, will he get the Labor Secretary job as he has clearly
applied for? If so, it will be a token gesture appointee

I do agree the Mid-Terms will be a disappointment for Biden. It won't be
the Republicans getting the credit, but the blame as always placed on the
progressives, as we already witnessing now.

John Corbett

2020-12-12 22:37:48 UTC

Post by Bud
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t

deliver on what he promised them
I'm not sure but is this a sea-change in a previous narrative that Biden
was a puppet of AOC and Biden?

I sure hope so. I'm sure you meant to write AOC and Bernie.

Post by Bud
I'm sure when i in earlier posts stated that the Justice Democrats and
the progressives had no real political power within the Democratic Party
machine as has Pelosi and Schumer and the DNC, this was challenged and
the case was made that Biden would be pushed left-ward.

The real test will be if the Democrats win both the Georgia runoffs and
have control of all three levers of power. Then we will see if they will
enact their radical proposals or not and whether Biden will go along. If
my reading of the Constitution is correct, the president is not involved
in granting new statehood so unless there is one Democrat senator or a
handful of House Democrats concerned enough about their reelection
prospects to pump the brakes on that, they could do that without Biden's
approval. He would have to sign off on the more radical proposals such as
Medicare for all and court packing. He is on record as opposing the former
and non-committal on the latter. All that will be mute if the GOP keeps
the Senate. Biden will have no choice but to operate from the left-center
and cut deals with McConnell. I prefer divided government. It tends to
reduce the damage that can be done by the federal government. When either
major party has complete control, it's spend, spend, spend.

Post by Bud
He is already back-pedalling on the use of Executive Orders if faced with
Republican Senate blocks.
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/10/biden-audio-meeting-civil-rights-leaders/
So far all his appointments have been rather conservative and we are
seeing perhaps an Obama third-term as his administration gets re-appointed
by Biden.

I wonder if the radical left is having buyer's remorse. I think they were
expecting to be in the driver's seat.

Biden can't afford to do that if he hopes for Democrat control of the
Senate. Vermont has a Republican governor who would appoint Bernie's
replacement and that would flip that seat to the Republicans. That means
even if they win the Georgia runoffs, they wouldn't control the Senate.
Warren is in the same boat. Maybe he'll wait to see the results of the
Georgia runoffs to find out if that is going to matter or not.

Post by Bud
I do agree the Mid-Terms will be a disappointment for Biden. It won't be
the Republicans getting the credit, but the blame as always placed on the
progressives, as we already witnessing now.

When the vaccines bring the pandemic under control, count on Biden taking
credit for that even though it was Trump who pushed to get these vaccines
developed in record time by eliminating so much of the red tape. When
lockdowns are no longer necessary, that will jump start the economy and
Biden will take credit for that too. Still, history tells us that the
party that holds the White House usually loses seats in the midterms which
means there is a good chance the Democrats will lose the House in 2022. On
the Senate side, the Republicans will be defending more seats than the
Democrats although I haven't looked at it close enough to see how many of
them are going to be vulnerable. Joe Manchin won't be up for reelection
until 2024 but he could prove to be the GOP's ace in the hole. He is on
record as opposing an end to the filibuster and without his vote, the
Democrats can't do that. If they can't end the filibuster, that will limit
what a Democrat controlled Senate can do. Manchin got elected to fill
Robert Byrd's seat in the Senate and Byrd was one of the staunchest
supporters of the filibuster. With West Virginia having recently become
one of the deepest red states in the country, Manchin can't afford to
embrace the radical agenda of the Democrats, that includes court packing,
Medicare for all, and statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.

ajohnstone

2020-12-13 13:47:36 UTC

Biden was a puppet of AOC and Biden? I'm sure you meant to write AOC and
Bernue,

Mea Culpa

And i appreciate your thoughtful response. As we are merely speculating,
your views are as valid as any of the "informed" political pundits,
probably more so, as your job is not on the line if you don't follow the
right editorial.

Were the progressives expecting to have more influence? I expect that they
did anticipate more appreciation for it was the many young progressives
who did the actual campaigning at the grassroots level, getting the vote
mobilized. But some other observers, me included, didn't hold out that
hope. When the election campaign is all about supporting the lesser evil,
the evil still persists. It is the same old same...the Lucy and Charlie
Brown football syndrome.

It wasn't difficult to read between the lines in the speeches of Biden
that his intention is the return of Obama's policies. He stated it often
enough. And the actions of the DNC demonstrated that the Democratic Party
Establishment had no sympathy for its progressive wing and that it would
be side-lined once they had served their purpose. Only the Biden-friendly
media refused to acknowledge that, as they did the present situation with
Hunter Biden.

One perhaps saving grace is that Republican gains in the House narrowing
Pelosi's majority offer the Squad some more leverage but will they risk
the media accusations of undermining the Democratic Party if they stand up
to be counted? I foresee AOC etc. softening their possible intransigence
in exchange for a few cosmetic reforms. Surely AOC has an eye on a future
run as a presidential nominee and now knows the importance of having the
media on her side.

Sanders is very much a political veteran and we can be sure he has fully
considered the wider picture of the effects of his Senate vacancy. Yet he
is still nevertheless lobbying for the Labor Secretary job. Biden's chief
concern, i believe, is that it would not please his Wall St donors and
give the wrong signal to its CEOs. I don't see a return to FDR's labor
union concessions. For a start the organized union militancy is absent.

As for 2022 Mid-terms, you are closer to the ground than i am. My view is
whatever happens with the pandemic vaccine, the economic consequences
won't be so transitory. They will linger and an overly-optimistic
president will suffer a back-lash if there is not substantial
improvements. Even ignoring the pandemic, there is still ample reason to
expect that the bubble boom is due to burst.

John Corbett

2020-12-13 22:48:18 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
Biden was a puppet of AOC and Biden? I'm sure you meant to write AOC and
Bernue,
Mea Culpa
And i appreciate your thoughtful response. As we are merely speculating,
your views are as valid as any of the "informed" political pundits,
probably more so, as your job is not on the line if you don't follow the
right editorial.
Were the progressives expecting to have more influence? I expect that they
did anticipate more appreciation for it was the many young progressives
who did the actual campaigning at the grassroots level, getting the vote
mobilized. But some other observers, me included, didn't hold out that
hope. When the election campaign is all about supporting the lesser evil,
the evil still persists. It is the same old same...the Lucy and Charlie
Brown football syndrome.

I can only speculate because the public wasn't privy to the negotiations
between the Bernie and Biden forces. Did Biden cut a deal with Bernie in
exchange for the latter's support or did Bernie do as you suggest and
support Biden as the lesser of two evils with no quid pro quo arrangement.
Who knows. I do know that Bernie's people were pissed about the way the
DNC had put their thumb on the scale for Hillary in 2016 and 2020 seemed
to be a repeat. Biden and the DNC knew they needed those people to defeat
Trump so it seems logical they would at least throw the Bernie people a
bone. I can't imagine that most of them fell in line naively assuming they
would have a good deal of influence in a Biden administration. My gut
feeling is Biden made some vague promises to Biden and his wing without
making any hard commitments. Now the far left is seeing that rather than
being in the driver's seat, they are in the backseat and they are not
going to be pleased. I look for a civil war to break out among Democrats
not long into the Biden administration.

Post by ajohnstone
It wasn't difficult to read between the lines in the speeches of Biden
that his intention is the return of Obama's policies. He stated it often
enough. And the actions of the DNC demonstrated that the Democratic Party
Establishment had no sympathy for its progressive wing and that it would
be side-lined once they had served their purpose. Only the Biden-friendly
media refused to acknowledge that, as they did the present situation with
Hunter Biden.

The question is whether Biden's moderate stances were genuine or pandering
to the political center and a smoke screen designed to hide his true
intentions. I feared the latter but I have to say it is looking more like
the former. The early signs are that he intends to govern from a moderate
stance but the real test will come when he takes office and we see if he
supports statehood for DC and PR, court packing, the Green New Deal,
Medicare for all, gun banning etc. Even if the Dems do win both Georgia
runoffs and control the Senate, these are measures that will be difficult
to enact. They will have razor thin majorities in both Houses and just a
few moderates who will face tough reelection fights are unlikely to go
along with anything too radical. Joe Manchin is a Democrat in West
Virginia which makes him a member of an endangered species. He is on
record as adamantly opposing getting rid of the filibuster. A few other
Democrats have signaled reluctance. If they can't kill the filibuster the
Democrats can't enact anything from the far left wish list. Look for AOC
to become a pain in Biden's ass.

Post by ajohnstone
One perhaps saving grace is that Republican gains in the House narrowing
Pelosi's majority offer the Squad some more leverage but will they risk
the media accusations of undermining the Democratic Party if they stand up
to be counted? I foresee AOC etc. softening their possible intransigence
in exchange for a few cosmetic reforms. Surely AOC has an eye on a future
run as a presidential nominee and now knows the importance of having the
media on her side.

Look for AOC to become a pain in Biden's ass. The far left seems to be
blind to political pragmatism. They don't seem to understand there is a
gap between what they would like to enact and what is possible. That's why
I expect a lot of infighting among the two wings of the Democrat Party
over the next few years. Pelosi is too weak of a speaker to keep both
camps in line. As for AOC, if she thinks she has a political future
outside her New York district, she is being terribly naive. I doubt she
could even win a statewide race in New York. I think her best prospects
are to land a 7 figure deal at CNN or MSNBC which will make her a one
percenter. You have to admire the way leftists can turn socialism into a
marketable commodity. Michael Moore has an estimated new worth of $50
million.

Post by ajohnstone
Sanders is very much a political veteran and we can be sure he has fully
considered the wider picture of the effects of his Senate vacancy. Yet he
is still nevertheless lobbying for the Labor Secretary job. Biden's chief
concern, i believe, is that it would not please his Wall St donors and
give the wrong signal to its CEOs. I don't see a return to FDR's labor
union concessions. For a start the organized union militancy is absent.
As for 2022 Mid-terms, you are closer to the ground than i am. My view is
whatever happens with the pandemic vaccine, the economic consequences
won't be so transitory. They will linger and an overly-optimistic
president will suffer a back-lash if there is not substantial
improvements. Even ignoring the pandemic, there is still ample reason to
expect that the bubble boom is due to burst.

We were already seeing a V-shaped recovery last summer before the second
wave of the pandemic began shutting things down again. I expect the same
if and when the vaccine brings it under control. Predicting economic
fortunes beyond the next quarter is largely guesswork. It's said that
being an economist is one profession where one can become recognized as an
expert without ever once being right about one's forecasts. My guess, and
I emphasize guess, is there is a lot of pent up demand not only for
merchandise but the service industries as well. People want to start going
to restaurants, movies, concerts, ballgames, etc. When they start getting
regular paychecks again, I expect those sectors to flourish.

ajohnstone

2020-12-14 21:20:13 UTC

You have to admire the way leftists can turn socialism into a marketable commodity. Michael Moore has an estimated new worth of $50 million.

Is that a back-handed compliment that there is a great market for
socialist ideas, JC?

Surely, Moore should be the capitalist icon as the boy from a working
class background who used his education and talents to become upward
mobile. What pains them is that he did not forget his roots, did he?

As Debs said ...if i rise, it will be along with all others.

Do the right castigate the billionaires such as Warren Buffet for
advocating increased taxation upon themselves...even though i have no
doubt he has a whole team of tax experts to study the tax codes for
loop-holes.

i recently watched a shameful MSNBC hit-piece on Sanders so perhaps he is
impotent, he is still perceived as that pain in the ass. The Squad will be
rolled out every time the Biden-friendly media seek a scapegoat.

You know i am a Marxist therefore you understand that i ascribe to his
economic theories that crises are in unavoidable cycles...boom - slump -
boom - slump ad nauseum and so far that is demonstrably been proved. We
are in a boom-time of the business cycle ... and the signs are all there
that the slump is imminent and, as i said, the pandemic was only an
additional aggravation.

You may find this economist's explanation different form the usual ones

https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/joe-biden-economic-policy/

John Corbett

2020-12-15 22:49:06 UTC

Post by ajohnstone

You have to admire the way leftists can turn socialism into a marketable commodity. Michael Moore has an estimated new worth of $50 million.

Is that a back-handed compliment that there is a great market for
socialist ideas, JC?

I have never disputed that.

Post by ajohnstone
Surely, Moore should be the capitalist icon as the boy from a working
class background who used his education and talents to become upward
mobile. What pains them is that he did not forget his roots, did he?

Nothing pains me about Moore's success. Bullshit sells.

Post by ajohnstone
As Debs said ...if i rise, it will be along with all others.
Do the right castigate the billionaires such as Warren Buffet for
advocating increased taxation upon themselves

I don't castigate him. I simply disagree with him. People like Buffet,
Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos have so much money that even if the government
took 90% of their wealth it would not put a damper on their life style.
Buffet actually lives quite modestly for someone with his wealth. For over
50 years he lived in the same house in Omaha which was within walking
distance of where my family lived. It was a nice home but nothing
extravagant. His daughter had to hound him to buy a new car when the one
he was driving kept breaking down. Every morning he stops for breakfast at
a McDonald's that is on the route from his home to his office. Each night
he tells his wife how much money to put in his cupholder to pay for his
breakfast. He gives her one of three amounts based on how well his stocks
did the day before and how much he thinks he can afford. I learned that in
a documentary about him. I'm sure he said that tongue-in-cheek but it is
and indication of how modestly he lives.

It makes no sense to me to base tax policy on how it affects the mega-rich
like Buffet, Gates, or Bezos. Tax policy should be based on how it affects
people of all economic levels. When you increase tax rates on the wealthy,
it is a disincentive to take risks if the government is going to cut down
the rewards. Trump's tax cut helped everybody because companies and
individuals were encouraged to invest in business expansions and start
ups. This benefitted workers who say real wages increase significantly for
the first time in a generation.

Post by ajohnstone
...even though i have no
doubt he has a whole team of tax experts to study the tax codes for
loop-holes.

I read that he currently had a dispute with the government over some tax
deductions his company took. I don't know the particulars but the
government alleged he had underpaid his taxes. Don't know if a settlement
has been reached.

Post by ajohnstone
i recently watched a shameful MSNBC hit-piece on Sanders so perhaps he is
impotent, he is still perceived as that pain in the ass. The Squad will be
rolled out every time the Biden-friendly media seek a scapegoat.

I quit watching MSNBC quite awhile ago. I can't watch it for 30 seconds
before I'm ready to punch the talking head in the mouth. It's bad for my
blood pressure. Ditto for CNN.

Post by ajohnstone
You know i am a Marxist therefore you understand that i ascribe to his
economic theories that crises are in unavoidable cycles...boom - slump -
boom - slump ad nauseum and so far that is demonstrably been proved. We
are in a boom-time of the business cycle ... and the signs are all there
that the slump is imminent and, as i said, the pandemic was only an
additional aggravation.

I'm an advocate of Ayn Rand's objectivism. She believes, as do I, that
boom-bust cycles are the result of government intervention. Unfettered
capitalism would not produce these.

Post by ajohnstone
You may find this economist's explanation different form the usual ones
https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/joe-biden-economic-policy/

While you believe Marxism has not succeeded because it hasn't been
implemented the way you think it should, I believe the same thing about
capitalism. We don't have pure capitalism in this country and never have.
Laissez-faire is the only true form of capitalism and it requires
government not to meddle. All transactions should be the result of
consensual acts between buyers and sellers, workers and employers. Our
founding document indicated that the only true purpose of government is to
secure our rights and allow us to live our lives as we see fit so long as
we don't infringe upon the rights of others. Sadly, we have been drifting
away from that ideal ever since it was articulated.

ajohnstone

2020-12-16 02:58:15 UTC

All transactions should be the result of consensual acts between buyers

and sellers, workers and employers. Our founding document indicated that
the only true purpose of government is to secure our rights and allow us
to live our lives as we see fit so long as we don't infringe upon the
rights of others. Sadly, we have been drifting away from that ideal ever
since it was articulated.

First, i would challenge the assumption made that the US Declaration of
Independence and its Constitution was created for that purpose. I'm no
academic professor on the topic but i have expressed a view here in the
first part of the essay

https://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm/2020/10/12/time-for-a-new-revolution/

I understand the libertarian (a term Rothbard admits was 'stolen' from
anarchism) claim of freely entered contracts. As if this society is based
upon a level playing field and negotiation is upon equal terms.
“Propertarianism”, to give it a more accurate description
is only opposed to GOVERNMENT hierarchy. It is fine with hierarchy in the
workplace. This is a fraudulent version of "libertarianism" to justify the
unbridled domination of the corporate sector over the rest of society. It
opposes any institution or movement that stands in the way of such
domination -- labor unions first among them.

There is an impact of economic and social power on individuals within
society and the social relationships of domination they create.
Individuals may be "equal" before the law and in rights, (the writer
Anatole France said it well, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids
the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the
streets, and to steal bread.")

However, without social equality, individual freedom is so restricted that
it becomes a mockery, essentially limiting freedom to choosing which
master will govern them rather than being free. It is inconsistent to
oppose tyranny in the public sphere of government and leave it unaddressed
in the private sphere of work. It is to simply trade one slave-master for
another.

A genuine libertarian, Emma Goldman, denounced Rand's views long before Rand appeared. "[Rugged individualism] is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by classes by means of trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit . . . That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the strait-jacket of individuality . . . This 'rugged individualism' has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions . . . 'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen' . . .and in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as . . . evil in the name of that same individualism."

The Randian point of view opposes the State because it restricts capitalist power, profits and property while the real libertarian opposes it because the State is the bulwark of all three.

It is very much an inconvenient truth for “libertarians” that their ideology of a minimalist U.S. government grew out of the South’s institution of human bondage, i.e. the contractual right of a white person to own a black person, and from the desire of slaveholders to keep the federal government small so it could never abolish slavery. That is why many “libertarian” icons – the likes of Patrick Henry, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson and the later incarnation of James Madison – were slave owners who understood the link between the emergence of a strong national government and the threat to slavery. Some “libertarians” deny this connection between their supposedly freedom-loving ideology and slavery, but any serious study of the U.S. Constitution, its ratification and its early implementation reveals intense Southern fears about the Constitution’s creation of a central government and its eventual implications on slavery. Is it a surprise that the 20thC advocates of libertarianism were opposed to civil rights laws that, in their view, infringe on the rights of white businessmen to discriminate in their choice of hiring and paying their workers, African-Americans, in particular. Even now the “libertarian” response to the overwhelming scientific consensus of global warming has been either to deny the facts or to propose implausible “free market” solutions that would barely make dent in the climate crisis. Anti-government regulation ideology trumps even the possible destruction of civilisation on the planet.

The propertarian view of the benevolent nature of a market economy is a very selective one. Their focus is on exchange, as a mutually beneficial act as a “win-win” situation, where I give you my widget and get your gadget in return. The reality is quite the opposite because what is left out are the belligerent aspects of a capitalist economy, starting first and foremost with cut-throat competition between commercial rivals that goes on in the pursuit of profit. Nor do they dwell on the class divisions inherent to such a system and the conflict that that results. Never minding the fact that we Marxists say that profits are squeezed out of workers and thus depriving them of their own personal liberty.

You are right that i do say the principles of socialism has never been applied but can you say the same about free-market capitalism. America was unique when it was created. Only the already weakened native American peoples stood in the way of a vast region to its west. As the pioneers spread westward, they did indeed exhibit the mutualism of libertarianism, as depicted in that famous tv show, 'Little House on the Prairie.'

At no point in history was capitalism able to operate "profitably" without first committing a massive theft of resources. In Europe it was termed The Enclosures. In the US it was the fencing in of the free range, the end of home-steading, the arrival of the Robber Barons of the rail-roads and mining companies. And to legitimize that theft, the State had to intervene on their behalf.

Yes we can both say we are advocates of "corrupted" systems and you seek to return to a pure capitalism and me to strive for real socialism. But for yourself other than a very brief exceptional period in American history which very quickly disappeared, there is no uncorrupted capitalist past to go back to. Socialism still holds a possibility.

I propose building a new world, but i'm afraid Ayn Rand built a make-believe world

John Corbett

2020-12-16 13:03:11 UTC

Post by ajohnstone

All transactions should be the result of consensual acts between buyers

The first thing that jumped out at me was you see to have your sequence of
events wrong. The war for independence preceded the Constitutional
Convention. It was not, as you phrased it, "The ensuing war of
independence".

The Constitution itself was an imperfect document drafted by great but
imperfect men. The most glaring flaw of course being the institution of
slavery which ran counter to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of
Independence that all men were created equal and were endowed by their
creator with certain unalienable rights. The purpose of the Constitution
was to bind what had been a loose confederation of states into a single
nation. If order to achieve that it was necessary to make numerous
compromises. Had there been an effort to bar slavery there would have been
no Constitution and no nation. For all its faults, our original
Constitution provided a framework whereby liberty could take root and it
provided the means by which it could be modified which it quickly was with
the addition of the Bill of Rights which secured fundamental liberties
which the newly created federal government was barred from infringing
upon. Eventually after a bloody civil war, the abomination of slavery was
abolished.

The wealth of the founders was largely acquired while the colonies were
still a British possession. Most of the wealth was held by white males but
that was the result of the societal structure. There was nothing in the
Constitution, other than protecting the institution of slavery, which
entrenched that holdover class system. It allowed for upward mobility
through the freedoms it protected.

Post by ajohnstone
I understand the libertarian (a term Rothbard admits was 'stolen' from
anarchism)

Just like the major parties, the Libertarian Party has its extremists and
some of them are borderline anarchists. Most libertarians believe that
some degree of government is necessary but that it should be minimalistic.

Post by ajohnstone
claim of freely entered contracts. As if this society is based
upon a level playing field and negotiation is upon equal terms.
“Propertarianism”, to give it a more accurate description
is only opposed to GOVERNMENT hierarchy. It is fine with hierarchy in the
workplace. This is a fraudulent version of "libertarianism" to justify the
unbridled domination of the corporate sector over the rest of society. It
opposes any institution or movement that stands in the way of such
domination -- labor unions first among them.

In a free society, people can choose to make their living by being
employed by others or to go into business for themselves. Laissez-faire
capitalism does not prevent workers from forming unions and attempting to
negotiate terms with the employers. Under pure capitalism, the government
would not take sides in this process. Employers would be free to choose to
negotiate with unions or look elsewhere for workers.

Post by ajohnstone
There is an impact of economic and social power on individuals within
society and the social relationships of domination they create.
Individuals may be "equal" before the law and in rights, (the writer
Anatole France said it well, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids
the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the
streets, and to steal bread.")

To the best of my knowledge, only stealing bread is forbidden by law.

Post by ajohnstone
However, without social equality, individual freedom is so restricted that
it becomes a mockery, essentially limiting freedom to choosing which
master will govern them rather than being free. It is inconsistent to
oppose tyranny in the public sphere of government and leave it unaddressed
in the private sphere of work. It is to simply trade one slave-master for
another.

Employers are not masters and they do not govern their employees. They
make consensual agreements with their employees as to the terms of their
employment. If the employee does not like the terms offered, he is free to
negotiate a better deal with another employer or if he chooses to go into
business himself and become and employer. Workers who have acquired
marketable skills are going to be in a much better position to negotiate
than unskilled laborers. In essence, a laborer is the CEO of his own
company. His company is selling a services to the employer.

Post by ajohnstone
A genuine libertarian, Emma Goldman, denounced Rand's views long before Rand appeared. "[Rugged individualism] is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by classes by means of trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit . . . That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the strait-jacket of individuality . . . This 'rugged individualism' has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions

Sounds like socialist claptrap to me. I don't dispute that Rand's views
are widely denounced but that is not an indictment of those views. Holding
a minority POV does not mean you are wrong.

Post by ajohnstone
. . . 'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen' . . .and in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as . . . evil in the name of that same individualism."

Complete nonsense. In a free society there are no masters nor slaves.
There are people who engage with one another to conduct consensual
tractions that are beneficial to both parties. Each is looking out for
their own self interest which in turn benefits all.

The late Walter E. Williams explained this principle through the example
of Texas ranchers and Idaho potato farmers who provide food for New
Yorkers. They don't do all that hard work for the benefit of New Yorkers.
They do it for their own benefit and by acting in their own self interest,
they are benefitting New Yorkers.

Likewise, going back to the days when small grocers were abundant, the
grocer didn't go into business to feed your family. He was in business to
feed his family. It is only by providing the food to feed your family that
he is able to feed his family.

Post by ajohnstone
The Randian point of view opposes the State because it restricts capitalist power, profits and property while the real libertarian opposes it because the State is the bulwark of all three.

I see absolutely no reason for government to restrict capitalist power,
profits, or property.

Post by ajohnstone
It is very much an inconvenient truth for “libertarians” that their ideology of a minimalist U.S. government grew out of the South’s institution of human bondage,

Total bullshit.

Post by ajohnstone
i.e. the contractual right of a white person to own a black person, and from the desire of slaveholders to keep the federal government small so it could never abolish slavery. That is why many “libertarian” icons – the likes of Patrick Henry, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson and the later incarnation of James Madison – were slave owners who understood the link between the emergence of a strong national government and the threat to slavery. Some “libertarians” deny this connection between their supposedly freedom-loving ideology and slavery, but any serious study of the U.S. Constitution, its ratification and its early implementation reveals intense Southern fears about the Constitution’s creation of a central government and its eventual implications on slavery. Is it a surprise that the 20thC advocates of libertarianism were opposed to civil rights laws that, in their view, infringe on the rights of white businessmen to discriminate in their choice of hiring and paying their workers, African-Americans, in particular. Even now the “libertarian” response to the overwhelming scientific consensus of global warming has been either to deny the facts or to propose implausible “free market” solutions that would barely make dent in the climate crisis. Anti-government regulation ideology trumps even the possible destruction of civilisation on the planet.

Segregation and discrimination are perfect examples of how government
interference infringes upon liberty. Segregation was mandated by Jim Crow
laws which prevented businesses from integrating. In absence of such laws,
integration would have been driven by market forces. Here again, this is
where a person acting in his own self interest does so for the benefit of
all. To be sure, some businesses would have chosen to segregate but they
would have lost business to those who were willing to serve people of all
races.

Post by ajohnstone
The propertarian view of the benevolent nature of a market economy is a very selective one. Their focus is on exchange, as a mutually beneficial act as a “win-win” situation, where I give you my widget and get your gadget in return. The reality is quite the opposite because what is left out are the belligerent aspects of a capitalist economy, starting first and foremost with cut-throat competition between commercial rivals that goes on in the pursuit of profit. Nor do they dwell on the class divisions inherent to such a system and the conflict that that results. Never minding the fact that we Marxists say that profits are squeezed out of workers and thus depriving them of their own personal liberty.

The term "cut-throat competition" is pejorative. Competition is beneficial
because the consumer can choose to whom he will give his money to in
exchange for the goods and services he desires.

Post by ajohnstone
You are right that i do say the principles of socialism has never been applied but can you say the same about free-market capitalism.

I did say that about free market capitalism.

Post by ajohnstone
America was unique when it was created. Only the already weakened native American peoples stood in the way of a vast region to its west. As the pioneers spread westward, they did indeed exhibit the mutualism of libertarianism, as depicted in that famous tv show, 'Little House on the Prairie.'

I don't know that I ever watched a complete episode of that program so I
can't really comment on that. I remember just a couple times I was channel
surfing and watched parts of a few episodes.

Post by ajohnstone
At no point in history was capitalism able to operate "profitably" without first committing a massive theft of resources. In Europe it was termed The Enclosures. In the US it was the fencing in of the free range, the end of home-steading, the arrival of the Robber Barons of the rail-roads and mining companies. And to legitimize that theft, the State had to intervene on their behalf.

Robber Barons is another pejorative term. These so called Robber Barrons
accumulated their wealth by providing people with goods and services which
they willingly purchased. John E. Rockefeller provided people with few.
Andrew Carnegie provided the steel that was used the build cities.
Cornelius Vanderbilt built a railroad empire that served the country by
transporting both people and goods. They were no different in their day
than the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos are today. Then
as now, they accumulated their wealth from willing buyers of their goods
and services.

Post by ajohnstone
Yes we can both say we are advocates of "corrupted" systems and you seek to return to a pure capitalism and me to strive for real socialism. But for yourself other than a very brief exceptional period in American history which very quickly disappeared, there is no uncorrupted capitalist past to go back to. Socialism still holds a possibility.
I propose building a new world, but i'm afraid Ayn Rand built a make-believe world

Choosing between Laissez-faire capitalism or your utopian view of
socialism would be the easiest choice I ever had to make.

ajohnstone

2020-12-17 03:27:09 UTC

I'm grateful for pointing out my faux pas that gives the false impression
that i have no understanding of the time-lines involved.

As far as i can read, i await your examples of laissez-faire capitalism
being at any time in economic history the predominant economic system and
that was my point - it has never been and there was never a golden age of
capitalism...as Marx says it capital came forth "... dripping from head to
foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”

Capitalism and the power of the State are inseparable. Like it or not,
government is the executive committee of the capitalist class and the
President is the CEO of America Inc.

From that period of frontier pioneers, which is the closest i can think of "ideal capitalism", although far distant from the reality of corporate finance capitalism, living experience produced what could be more accurately described as mutualism rather than Rand's "libertarianism" which was reflected far more accurately by the likes of Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner as well as all the many co-operative advocates, political and religious, who attempted to set up various communities across America, who pre-date Ayn Rand's form of anti-Stateism, of which some of the religious appeared to be the only ones that have survived and you may draw your own conclusions from that detail.

"...Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate. WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS...If governments originate in combined interests, and if government and liberty cannot exist together, then the solution of our problem demands that there be NO COMBINED INTERESTS TO MANAGE. All interests must be individualized--all responsibilities must be individual, before men can enjoy complete liberty or security, and before society can be completely harmonious..." - Warren

You may favorably cite those industrialists (btw, a bit trivia, i once lived just across the road from where Carnegie was born and which is now a museum to him) but none would have succeeded without the support and sponsorship of the State nor the use of coercion against their workers. Ever wondered how a person with no knowledge whatsoever of metallurgy became the greatest steel-manufacturer? As Gates is charged with, Carnegie stole ideas and used other people's intelligence and eliminating rivals. Capitalists whole purpose is to make sure there is no competition. They seek to put others out of business with bankruptcy if they cannot succeed by mergers and take-overs. Wasn't it something governments had to intervene about with anti-trust legislation to ensure a "fair" market and end monopolies? The mom and pop neighborhood store grow into Walmart conglomerates. It is all about capital accumulation and market expansion.

John Corbett

2020-12-17 15:45:47 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
I'm grateful for pointing out my faux pas that gives the false impression
that i have no understanding of the time-lines involved.
As far as i can read, i await your examples of laissez-faire capitalism
being at any time in economic history the predominant economic system and
that was my point -

When did I ever claim that it was. For a brief period early in our
nation's history we came close to that ideal but as is the tendency of all
government, ours began to exert greater and greater control on both the
economy and society, drifting away from the ideals the country was founded
upon.

Post by ajohnstone
it has never been and there was never a golden age of
capitalism...as Marx says it capital came forth "... dripping from head to
foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”
Capitalism and the power of the State are inseparable. Like it or not,
government is the executive committee of the capitalist class and the
President is the CEO of America Inc.

At our founding, the government only exerted a fraction of the control it
does today and it is to the detriment of the country. Other than the
abolition of slavery and granting woman suffrage, I would love to see a
return to the type of government we had after the Bill of Rights was
enacted.

Post by ajohnstone
From that period of frontier pioneers, which is the closest i can think of "ideal capitalism", although far distant from the reality of corporate finance capitalism, living experience produced what could be more accurately described as mutualism rather than Rand's "libertarianism" which was reflected far more accurately by the likes of Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner as well as all the many co-operative advocates, political and religious, who attempted to set up various communities across America, who pre-date Ayn Rand's form of anti-Stateism, of which some of the religious appeared to be the only ones that have survived and you may draw your own conclusions from that detail.
"...Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate. WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS...If governments originate in combined interests, and if government and liberty cannot exist together, then the solution of our problem demands that there be NO COMBINED INTERESTS TO MANAGE. All interests must be individualized--all responsibilities must be individual, before men can enjoy complete liberty or security, and before society can be completely harmonious..." - Warren

I go back to the principle expressed in our founding document.

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

If all humans had respect for the rights of others, governments would be
unnecessary. Because there will always be those who will infringe upon the
rights of others by force, governments are necessary to protect the people
from those forces. Sadly as time passes on, it is the tendency of
governments to become one of those forces that they were intended to
protect the people against.

Post by ajohnstone
You may favorably cite those industrialists (btw, a bit trivia, i once lived just across the road from where Carnegie was born and which is now a museum to him) but none would have succeeded without the support and sponsorship of the State nor the use of coercion against their workers. Ever wondered how a person with no knowledge whatsoever of metallurgy became the greatest steel-manufacturer? As Gates is charged with, Carnegie stole ideas and used other people's intelligence and eliminating rivals. Capitalists whole purpose is to make sure there is no competition. They seek to put others out of business with bankruptcy if they cannot succeed by mergers and take-overs. Wasn't it something governments had to intervene about with anti-trust legislation to ensure a "fair" market and end monopolies? The mom and pop neighborhood store grow into Walmart conglomerates. It is all about capital accumulation and market expansion.

The industrialists simply operated under the rules they were faced with at
the time. They needed little help from government to build their companies
and in the process build America. Our Constitution granted the government
the power to build roads. The building of railroads was a public/private
partnership. State governments granted charters to private companies to
build the railroads and granted them the government lands needed to do so.
Railroads could not have been built without long continuous stretches of
land. The original charters were for railroads to connect one town with
the next. Eventually, these small town-to-town railroads merged to become
larger railroads which merged with other large railroads to create large
systems such as the New York Central which Cornelius Vanderbilt commanded.
Unfortunately, in exchange for the land, the railroads had to submit to
strict government regulation. That regulation came close to strangling the
railroad industry in the 1970s before the reins were loosened.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-20 03:11:39 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
I'm grateful for pointing out my faux pas that gives the false impression
that i have no understanding of the time-lines involved.

YOU made mistake? Say it ain't so, Joe.

Post by ajohnstone
As far as i can read, i await your examples of laissez-faire capitalism
being at any time in economic history the predominant economic system and
that was my point - it has never been and there was never a golden age of
capitalism...as Marx says it capital came forth "... dripping from head to
foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.???
Capitalism and the power of the State are inseparable. Like it or not,
government is the executive committee of the capitalist class and the
President is the CEO of America Inc.
From that period of frontier pioneers, which is the closest i can think
of "ideal capitalism", although far distant from the reality of
corporate finance capitalism, living experience produced what could be
more accurately described as mutualism rather than Rand's
"libertarianism" which was reflected far more accurately by the likes
of Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner as well as all the
many co-operative advocates, political and religious, who attempted to
set up various communities across America, who pre-date Ayn Rand's form
of anti-Stateism, of which some of the religious appeared to be the
only ones that have survived and you may draw your own conclusions from
that detail.
"...Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY
INDIVIDUAL inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and
connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which
will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of
his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or
her feelings or judgment may dictate. WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR
INTERESTS OF OTHERS...If governments originate in combined interests,
and if government and liberty cannot exist together, then the solution
of our problem demands that there be NO COMBINED INTERESTS TO MANAGE.
All interests must be individualized--all responsibilities must be
individual, before men can enjoy complete liberty or security, and
before society can be completely harmonious..." - Warren
You may favorably cite those industrialists (btw, a bit trivia, i once
lived just across the road from where Carnegie was born and which is now
a museum to him) but none would have succeeded without the support and
sponsorship of the State nor the use of coercion against their workers.
Ever wondered how a person with no knowledge whatsoever of metallurgy
became the greatest steel-manufacturer? As Gates is charged with,
Carnegie stole ideas and used other people's intelligence and
eliminating rivals. Capitalists whole purpose is to make sure there is
no competition. They seek to put others out of business with bankruptcy
if they cannot succeed by mergers and take-overs. Wasn't it something
governments had to intervene about with anti-trust legislation to ensure
a "fair" market and end monopolies? The mom and pop neighborhood store
grow into Walmart conglomerates. It is all about capital accumulation
and market expansion.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-20 03:11:22 UTC

Post by ajohnstone

You have to admire the way leftists can turn socialism into a marketable commodity. Michael Moore has an estimated new worth of $50 million.

Is that a back-handed compliment that there is a great market for
socialist ideas, JC?

I have never disputed that.

Nothing pains me about Moore's success. Bullshit sells.

Post by ajohnstone
As Debs said ...if i rise, it will be along with all others.
Do the right castigate the billionaires such as Warren Buffet for
advocating increased taxation upon themselves

EVER HEAR OF A FLAT TAX?
Was that nvented by Karl Marx?
When I go to the store and buy something, the clerk fdoes not ask me my
total worth.

If you are a progressive does that mean that you believe in progressive
taaxation?

Post by John Corbett
It makes no sense to me to base tax policy on how it affects the mega-rich
like Buffet, Gates, or Bezos. Tax policy should be based on how it affects
people of all economic levels. When you increase tax rates on the wealthy,
it is a disincentive to take risks if the government is going to cut down
the rewards. Trump's tax cut helped everybody because companies and
individuals were encouraged to invest in business expansions and start
ups. This benefitted workers who say real wages increase significantly for
the first time in a generation.

Post by ajohnstone
...even though i have no
doubt he has a whole team of tax experts to study the tax codes for
loop-holes.

I quit watching MSNBC quite awhile ago. I can't watch it for 30 seconds
before I'm ready to punch the talking head in the mouth. It's bad for my
blood pressure. Ditto for CNN.

I'm an advocate of Ayn Rand's objectivism. She believes, as do I, that
boom-bust cycles are the result of government intervention. Unfettered
capitalism would not produce these.

Post by ajohnstone
You may find this economist's explanation different form the usual ones
https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/joe-biden-economic-policy/

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-13 22:48:29 UTC

Post by Bud
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t

THat is exactly what I called for. Obama runs as VP and then takes over
when Biden dies.

Post by Bud
Much is made of Biden's appointments of minorities but i see this as only
an example of the Democratic Party's fixation on identity politics. I have
not forgotten about Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice roles in the Iraq
war even if the MSM has.
As for Sanders, will he get the Labor Secretary job as he has clearly
applied for? If so, it will be a token gesture appointee
I do agree the Mid-Terms will be a disappointment for Biden. It won't be
the Republicans getting the credit, but the blame as always placed on the
progressives, as we already witnessing now.

John Corbett

2020-12-12 15:45:49 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump’s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign’s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans — including about 70% to 80% of Republicans — believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump’s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden’s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally “fake” rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person’s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump’s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the “Radical Left”), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called “deep state”).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it’s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it’s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that “same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems” can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that “same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral” is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the “deep state” specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump’s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people’s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump’s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative — and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.
You`ll be back to your comfort zone of being lied to nonstop, but it was
a refreshing change to hear the truth from a politician for a while. First
politician I ever saw who actually tried to do the things he said he would
when he ran, he didn`t hide his agenda (will Biden pack the Supreme Court,
nobody knows he wouldn`t say, why would he tell the people when he ran?)
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t
deliver on what he promised them, it would kill the Democrats in the
election in two years.

He already has stabbed the Bernie Democrats in the back. His cabinet
choices are largely establishment Obama era Democrats. Bernie and
Pocahontas were both expecting cabinet positions but Biden can't give them
one because there is still a chance the Democrats could win the Senate.
That would get undone if Biden appointed either of those two to a cabinet
post because both states have Republican governors who could/would appoint
Republicans to replace them. I think the radical left believed Biden was
going to be their puppet and that they would be in the driver's seat which
is why they supported him. They are finding out that Biden so far looks
like he is going to be the moderate he said he was during the campaign.
We'll find out for sure if the Democrats win both Georgia runoffs. They
will have to power to do as they please and we will find out if Biden
intends to pack the court. It will become moot if the GOP holds the Senate
because they can block the most radical proposals by the Democrats.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-13 22:48:32 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.
You`ll be back to your comfort zone of being lied to nonstop, but it was
a refreshing change to hear the truth from a politician for a while. First
politician I ever saw who actually tried to do the things he said he would
when he ran, he didn`t hide his agenda (will Biden pack the Supreme Court,
nobody knows he wouldn`t say, why would he tell the people when he ran?)
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t
deliver on what he promised them, it would kill the Democrats in the
election in two years.

Did JFK stab all the Adlai Stevenson peopple in the back?

Post by John Corbett
That would get undone if Biden appointed either of those two to a cabinet
post because both states have Republican governors who could/would appoint
Republicans to replace them. I think the radical left believed Biden was
going to be their puppet and that they would be in the driver's seat which
is why they supported him. They are finding out that Biden so far looks
like he is going to be the moderate he said he was during the campaign.
We'll find out for sure if the Democrats win both Georgia runoffs. They
will have to power to do as they please and we will find out if Biden
intends to pack the court. It will become moot if the GOP holds the Senate
because they can block the most radical proposals by the Democrats.

So, wgenb rthw GOP loses rgiee Senate seats will Rudi go ro court in
Miamu because it is warmer?

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-13 22:48:26 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just

You mean while Trump has been President. And he did nothing about it
because tha Bank of China was loaing him BILLIONS of dollcars.

Post by Bud
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.

You can't use Xenophobia to cure all your problems.

Post by Bud
You`ll be back to your comfort zone of being lied to nonstop, but it was

By whom?

Post by Bud
a refreshing change to hear the truth from a politician for a while. First
politician I ever saw who actually tried to do the things he said he would
when he ran, he didn`t hide his agenda (will Biden pack the Supreme Court,

WTF sre you babbling abour?Are you even an American? Biden has to wait for
each Republican justice to die before he can replace him.

Post by Bud
nobody knows he wouldn`t say, why would he tell the people when he ran?)
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t

He has already done that and we're still fine.

Post by Bud
deliver on what he promised them, it would kill the Democrats in the
election in two years.

Bud

2020-12-14 01:54:16 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just

You mean while Trump has been President. And he did nothing about it

He did do something about it. He put sanctions on China.

Post by Anthony Marsh
because tha Bank of China was loaing him BILLIONS of dollcars.

Post by Bud
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.

You can't use Xenophobia to cure all your problems.

You can enforce the law and prevent people from coming in illegally.
Biden will reward them for breaking the law with citizenship.

Post by Bud
You`ll be back to your comfort zone of being lied to nonstop, but it was

By whom?

WTF sre you babbling abour?Are you even an American? Biden has to wait for
each Republican justice to die before he can replace him.

Post by Bud
nobody knows he wouldn`t say, why would he tell the people when he ran?)
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t

He has already done that and we're still fine.

Define "fine".

Post by Bud
deliver on what he promised them, it would kill the Democrats in the
election in two years.

John Corbett

2020-12-14 12:48:05 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just

You mean while Trump has been President. And he did nothing about it

He did do something about it. He put sanctions on China.

Post by Anthony Marsh
because tha Bank of China was loaing him BILLIONS of dollcars.

Post by Bud
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.

You can't use Xenophobia to cure all your problems.

You can enforce the law and prevent people from coming in illegally.
Biden will reward them for breaking the law with citizenship.

And free healthcare, courtesy of the American taxpayers.

Post by Bud
You`ll be back to your comfort zone of being lied to nonstop, but it was

By whom?

WTF sre you babbling abour?Are you even an American? Biden has to wait for
each Republican justice to die before he can replace him.

Post by Bud
nobody knows he wouldn`t say, why would he tell the people when he ran?)
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t

He has already done that and we're still fine.

Define "fine".

I would define it as Harris isn't president......yet.

I sure hope Joe can make it through four years but I have my doubts.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-20 03:11:46 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just

You mean while Trump has been President. And he did nothing about it

He did do something about it. He put sanctions on China.

Post by Anthony Marsh
because tha Bank of China was loaing him BILLIONS of dollcars.

Post by Bud
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.

You can't use Xenophobia to cure all your problems.

You can enforce the law and prevent people from coming in illegally.
Biden will reward them for breaking the law with citizenship.

And free healthcare, courtesy of the American taxpayers.

Funny, I don't ever see you complaining when YOU get free police snd fire
coourtesy of the American txpayers. Only when blacks get something for
free.

Post by Bud
You`ll be back to your comfort zone of being lied to nonstop, but it was

By whom?

WTF sre you babbling abour?Are you even an American? Biden has to wait for
each Republican justice to die before he can replace him.

Post by Bud
nobody knows he wouldn`t say, why would he tell the people when he ran?)
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t

He has already done that and we're still fine.

Define "fine".

I would define it as Harris isn't president......yet.
I sure hope Joe can make it through four years but I have my doubts.

John Corbett

2020-12-20 21:10:01 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just

You mean while Trump has been President. And he did nothing about it

He did do something about it. He put sanctions on China.

Post by Anthony Marsh
because tha Bank of China was loaing him BILLIONS of dollcars.

Post by Bud
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.

You can't use Xenophobia to cure all your problems.

You can enforce the law and prevent people from coming in illegally.
Biden will reward them for breaking the law with citizenship.

And free healthcare, courtesy of the American taxpayers.

Funny, I don't ever see you complaining when YOU get free police snd fire
coourtesy of the American txpayers. Only when blacks get something for
free.

If I'm paying for it with my taxes, it is not free. It's free for people
who don't pay taxes.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-22 04:41:18 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just

You mean while Trump has been President. And he did nothing about it

He did do something about it. He put sanctions on China.

Post by Anthony Marsh
because tha Bank of China was loaing him BILLIONS of dollcars.

Post by Bud
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.

You can't use Xenophobia to cure all your problems.

You can enforce the law and prevent people from coming in illegally.
Biden will reward them for breaking the law with citizenship.

And free healthcare, courtesy of the American taxpayers.

Funny, I don't ever see you complaining when YOU get free police snd fire
coourtesy of the American txpayers. Only when blacks get something for
free.

If I'm paying for it with my taxes, it is not free. It's free for people
who don't pay taxes.

No, you don't believe in taxes so you have to pay out of pocket. If there
is a fire you pay the fire department $10.00 cash out of your pocket. If
you are killed you pay the police %100,000 cassh to find your killer and
jail him.

John Corbett

2020-12-22 19:26:14 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Funny, I don't ever see you complaining when YOU get free police snd fire
coourtesy of the American txpayers. Only when blacks get something for
free.

If I'm paying for it with my taxes, it is not free. It's free for people
who don't pay taxes.

When you injured your knee, did you fall and hit your head?

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-26 03:55:55 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Funny, I don't ever see you complaining when YOU get free police snd fire
coourtesy of the American txpayers. Only when blacks get something for
free.

If I'm paying for it with my taxes, it is not free. It's free for people
who don't pay taxes.

When you injured your knee, did you fall and hit your head?

No, my knee told my head to get back in bed.
You hurt my head.

Anthony Marsh

2020-12-20 03:11:42 UTC

Post by ***@gmail.com
Those of us non-conspiracy believers in the Kennedy assassination will recognize many of these psychological arguments in this Los Angeles Times OpEd; particularly the narrative that "People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic." Sound familiar? It also talks about the need for "an enemy."
* * * article * * *
Why So Many People Want To Believe the Election was Stolen
December 6, 2020 by Aaron C. Kay and Mark J. Landau
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-06/donald-trump-election-fraud-lies-psychology
A month after the presidential election, President Trump???s claim that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden has been debunked by numerous Republican state elections officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its proxies have been rejected by judges in both state and federal courts. There is no evidence to support any of the campaign???s baseless charges of election fraud, though its power to undermine faith in American democracy is real.
Yet millions of Americans ??? including about 70% to 80% of Republicans ??? believe the election was stolen. Why?
One standard answer is that Trump???s backers will believe anything he says. Another perspective, popular among some psychologists, is that people filter ambiguous information through an ideological lens, preferring interpretations that favor their political affiliations.
But in this case, these explanations seem insufficient. People follow charismatic leaders and selectively process political information, but they do not typically cling to a belief that contradicts all available evidence.
Understanding the fallout from the intense polarization of this election will take time. But research into social and political psychology can offer some insight into this response from Trump supporters.
Whether by accident or design, the election fraud narrative features three characteristics that supercharge its psychological appeal: It makes a complex and hostile world seem orderly, controllable and certain.
First, note that Trump and his supporters are suggesting a very specific reason for their loss: fraud. They are not arguing Biden???s victory is due to accidental miscounting or a random software error; rather, that it is the result of systematic ballot tampering and voting software manipulation. For psychological reasons, this is a crucial distinction.
People want to view the world as predictable rather than chaotic. The possibility that many independent counties and states all, by chance, made a series of random mistakes skewing election results in the same direction does not fit with this deep-seated motivation.
Claiming intentional fraud, by contrast, offers a single explanation for what would otherwise need to be an improbable series of coincidences. The fraud narrative rejects the unwanted election result in a way that satisfies the desire to view the world as orderly.
In a recent study, we asked Republicans and Democrats to explain why news sources would ever publish erroneous news stories. They tended to characterize bad stories in outlets they perceived to be ideologically opposite to their views as intentionally ???fake??? rather than the result of accidental incompetence. And the stronger a person???s self-reported desire for order in the world, the more that person preferred to view objectionable news stories as intentionally fabricated. Similarly, the election fraud narrative can shield people from the idea of blind chance deciding their fate.
To be compelling, the fraud narrative also needs to be paired with another important element: an enemy. While the exact nature of this enemy shifted under Trump???s volatile messaging, it usually stands for a vast underground network of liberal organizations (the ???Radical Left???), powerholders (e.g., the Clintons), private corporations (e.g., Big Tech), and policy makers (the so-called ???deep state???).
On the surface, the appeal of this message is puzzling. Why would people want to believe that powerful malevolent agents are conspiring behind the scenes to sabotage their goals? Yet, in the face of bad news, the idea of being the target of an enemy may feel less distressing than being subject to arbitrary, unpredictable forces like natural disasters, accidents or pathogens.
And the more powerful, nebulous and covert the enemy, the more psychologically useful it is for sense-making. If the enemy is not portrayed as powerful, then it???s harder to imagine it being responsible for large-scale negative outcomes. And if the enemy is not portrayed as operating in the shadows, then it cannot be viewed as responsible for a multitude of diverse outcomes.
Anxiety can heighten this psychological response. In a 2008 study, participants were randomly assigned to think about hazards beyond their control (e.g., vehicle accidents) or other negative but controllable events. In a subsequent, seemingly unrelated, context, participants who were reminded of uncontrollable hazards believed more strongly that the presidential candidate they opposed (Barack Obama or John McCain) was working behind the scenes to illegally influence the election (e.g., by tampering with voting machines).
These findings suggest that attributing misfortunes to an unseen enemy or network of enemies can help people cope with feelings of lack of control in their lives. In an election held during a pandemic, that urge may be particularly strong.
Finally, the third characteristic of the election fraud narrative is that it???s laden with arguments that cannot be tested by evidence. Political and social ideas that cannot be tested by evidence tend to have a stronger psychological advantage. For example, the view that ???same-sex parents are bad because their children will have behavioral problems??? can be tested and refuted or supported by evidence while the view that ???same-sex marriage is bad because it is immoral??? is not subject to such testing. Under threat, people adopt untestable ideas more readily and defend them more vigorously.
Interestingly, the rhetoric surrounding election fraud has become more immune to testing over time. Consider the ???deep state??? specter. Such a covert enemy can never be interrogated or investigated. To someone convinced of its role in the election, not finding any trace of its involvement is only more evidence of its cunning. Those who insist the election was stolen by the deep state can tell themselves no one can prove them wrong.
Trump???s stolen election conspiracy is so dangerous because it plays to people???s deep-rooted need for order and control and is impervious to arguments based on evidence. The result of all this? Trump???s supporters can feel safe investing in this narrative ??? and may well continue fighting zealously for it long after Biden takes office.
[Aaron C. Kay is a professor of management and psychology at Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mark J. Landau is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas.]

That's psychobable. Trump fans are invested in Trump for various reasons.
That they are invested is what makes them believe anything.

Post by 19efppp
He's their guy
and everything else is bullshit.

We believe him because he speaks the truth. China for years was cheating
in trade deals, he was the only one to address this, everyone else just

You mean while Trump has been President. And he did nothing about it

He did do something about it. He put sanctions on China.

Post by Anthony Marsh
because tha Bank of China was loaing him BILLIONS of dollcars.

Post by Bud
went along. He spoke the truth about illegal immigration. He spoke the
truth about the fake news of the main stream media.

You can't use Xenophobia to cure all your problems.

You can enforce the law and prevent people from coming in illegally.
Biden will reward them for breaking the law with citizenship.

Post by Bud
You`ll be back to your comfort zone of being lied to nonstop, but it was

By whom?

WTF sre you babbling abour?Are you even an American? Biden has to wait for
each Republican justice to die before he can replace him.

Post by Bud
nobody knows he wouldn`t say, why would he tell the people when he ran?)
Biden is already poised to stab the Bernie democrats in the back, he can`t

He has already done that and we're still fine.

Define "fine".

Fine: Bernie and his supporters are ok. No serious damage.
Maybe a little weaker, but still strong.