If anybody can use more of these peer reviewed red pills (or get them into the hands of prominent people to disseminate them) let me know. I have a bunch of them.
My favorite was a study where they showed participants one of two made-up news headlines. Headline A claimed a study had found that white people have higher IQ. Headline B claimed a study had found that black people have higher IQ.
They’d show a participant one headline, then ask them if it was credible. Then they’d say “just kidding, the opposite is true - do you think it’s credible now?”
Leftists were far, far more likely to believe blacks had higher IQ in both scenarios. Think about it: you show a Leftist a headline that says “white people are smart” and they say “I don’t believe that” then you tell them, “just kidding it’s blacks” and they say “oh okay, well now I believe it”
It's something like only 10-20% of the population (and this was back in the 50's/60's I think) are willing to go against the consensus of the room. They did those blackboard experiments where they first train one group to accept a wrong answer. Then start rotating in new people. The first group will try to convince the noobs of the incorrect, even if some of the noobs were trained to know the actual answer, something like 75-80% of them would acquiese to the first group instead of standing up for the truth.
Incidentally this is why 2-party winner take all voting is best, because the vast majority of people are immune to facts and reason, and will vote the same way they've always voted.
You can only reach a few percent of people, so in a coalition multi-party system the government can only move slightly to the left/right and make minor corrections (a few percent more left will make a slightly more left coalition), whereas in 2-party a few percent can make substantial course corrections.
These larger changes let the frog know the water is getting hot before it's too late to do anything about it.
If anybody can use more of these peer reviewed red pills (or get them into the hands of prominent people to disseminate them) let me know. I have a bunch of them.
My favorite was a study where they showed participants one of two made-up news headlines. Headline A claimed a study had found that white people have higher IQ. Headline B claimed a study had found that black people have higher IQ.
They’d show a participant one headline, then ask them if it was credible. Then they’d say “just kidding, the opposite is true - do you think it’s credible now?”
Leftists were far, far more likely to believe blacks had higher IQ in both scenarios. Think about it: you show a Leftist a headline that says “white people are smart” and they say “I don’t believe that” then you tell them, “just kidding it’s blacks” and they say “oh okay, well now I believe it”
That was just amazing to me.
They don't actually believe it. They're giving what they think is the acceptable answer.
It's something like only 10-20% of the population (and this was back in the 50's/60's I think) are willing to go against the consensus of the room. They did those blackboard experiments where they first train one group to accept a wrong answer. Then start rotating in new people. The first group will try to convince the noobs of the incorrect, even if some of the noobs were trained to know the actual answer, something like 75-80% of them would acquiese to the first group instead of standing up for the truth.
Incidentally this is why 2-party winner take all voting is best, because the vast majority of people are immune to facts and reason, and will vote the same way they've always voted.
You can only reach a few percent of people, so in a coalition multi-party system the government can only move slightly to the left/right and make minor corrections (a few percent more left will make a slightly more left coalition), whereas in 2-party a few percent can make substantial course corrections.
These larger changes let the frog know the water is getting hot before it's too late to do anything about it.