Edmonton Journal owners now own the Edmonton Sun

[Darren Dirt]

This forum doesn't have enough users to form an echo chamber, also we tend not to agree with each other (on practically everything) which is good IMO

I both agree and disagree with what you said above.

But tomorrow I might instead be disagreeing but agreeing. I admit I am inconsistent, but at least I'm consistent in my inconsistency! 

[Melbosa]

This forum doesn't have enough users to form an echo chamber, also we tend not to agree with each other (on practically everything) which is good IMO

I disagree... given enough time and thought I'm sure we could complete an echo chamber with technology and our user base, and I think we agree on one or two things at least    <- see what I did there

[Mr. Analog]

You are BAD MAN

BAD

[Thorin]

I started this thread because most of the population ain't expending extra energy exercising critical thinking and additional research etc. when they read some news story. Wish they did, but reality is they don't -- and those same under-informed folks are casting most of the votes next month... and every other time.

Are you sure most of the population doesn't expend extra energy exercising critical thinking and additional research?  Do you have quantitative data to back up that assertion?  Or are you just going with the anecdotal fact of what you see people close to you do?  Because if so, I can counter with the anecdotal fact that I see people who do get involved and interested in the political process and the issues at hand before they vote.

I really would like to see a study on just how well- or ill-informed the voting public is before they go to vote (or don't).

[Tom]

I started this thread because most of the population ain't expending extra energy exercising critical thinking and additional research etc. when they read some news story. Wish they did, but reality is they don't -- and those same under-informed folks are casting most of the votes next month... and every other time.

Are you sure most of the population doesn't expend extra energy exercising critical thinking and additional research?  Do you have quantitative data to back up that assertion?  Or are you just going with the anecdotal fact of what you see people close to you do?  Because if so, I can counter with the anecdotal fact that I see people who do get involved and interested in the political process and the issues at hand before they vote.

I really would like to see a study on just how well- or ill-informed the voting public is before they go to vote (or don't).

The fact that harper got elected more than once is proof that most people don't give a @%&#.

Also i actually heard/read some guy on facebook call people who disagreed with harper "tin foil haters"... sooo....

[Darren Dirt]

This forum doesn't have enough users to form an echo chamber, also we tend not to agree with each other (on practically everything) which is good IMO

I disagree... given enough time and thought I'm sure we could complete an echo chamber with technology and our user base, and I think we agree on one or two things at least    <- see what I did there

You are BAD MAN

BAD

Despite that, do you concur? #PeerPressure

I can counter with the anecdotal fact that I see people who do get involved and interested in the political process and the issues at hand before they vote.

Confirmation bias.

But history in general (and voting/polling results in particular) at least HINT STRONGLY that the majority of people are creatures of habit. They believe what they are told by folks in uniforms and wearing fine hats.

And looking back, the media choices from the 1930s to the late 1990s didn't change all that much -- sure, since then internet + social media expanded the options, but that didn't completely do away with the previous choices for information dissemination.

And the human animal is lazy (and gets lazier as he/she gets older due to ... stuff) so the safe logical presumption is that the random sampling of under-informed folks in "man on the street" video interviews etc. in stuff like The Daily Show or Rick Mercer etc. is sufficiently representative of >50% of the population. Clearly there are exceptions (as your personal anecdotal experience confirms) but the folks on this forum are above average in both intelligence and effort-making when it comes to knowledge -- whether hard factual scientific ideas or philosophical/metaphysical "soft" conceptual stuff.

So I could just as easily demand you provide evidence supporting your claim that things are different than what I claim based on a complete-ass-pull idea


CLIFFS: Sure if we hang around young smart people who don't already have a habit of "reading today's paper" to find out what is going on (and the "paper" includes the 6:00 / 11:00 news on TV, the homepage of MSN or Yahoo, etc.) then you'll see plenty of "extra effort" on display when it comes to learning what's what. But most people are either too busy or too old to do that -- we just don't hang around "most people". imho.

...continue ambiguous flame war... /ducks

[Thorin]

I suggest that if you think people in general are lazy and get lazier when they get older and the safe logical presumption is that the funny under-informed Joe Shmoes we see interviewed are typical of the majority of the population, well then you are most likely a lazy under-informed person.

This is where I repeat, I'd like to see an actual study done to see how informed people are, because a small random sampling by people with cameras will always lean towards whatever the people with the cameras are trying to portray.

[Darren Dirt]

I suggest that if you think people in general are lazy and get lazier when they get older and the safe logical presumption is that the funny under-informed Joe Shmoes we see interviewed are typical of the majority of the population, well then you are most likely a lazy under-informed person.

Touche.

But I'm choosy about exactly which things I will be lazy in.

I'm too lazy to say anything else.