It’s not all blue or red!Ever wondered why your Facebook feed appears so disproportionally outraged, shocked and surprised after election results? For example, following the Brexit vote or the 2016 American Presidential election? I know I have. It has come out in the news recently that Facebook algorithms are programmed to bring you a personalised and tailored feed, according to what they think your opinions are. This has led the organisation to be widely criticised on its coverage of political news.This website set up by the Wall Street Journal could be the answer. It illustrates the two extreme ways the 2016 US Presidential campaign was reported: the red, conservative side against the blue, liberal side. 
http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/#/Indeed, this eye-opening website highlights the presence of a polarised in and out-group. Depending which side your Facebook feed represented, you were probably only shown one-side of the story. I know I was. What are the consequences of such biased reporting and why?Firstly, the theory of social proofing which argues people assume what is the correct behaviour by looking amongst their in-group, seems relevant in this context. A study by Weaver, Schwartz and Miller (2007) found that people inferred an opinion was most prevalent if it was familiar to them, even after being repeated to them just 3 times by the same source. In the context of Facebook news reporting, when social media users are repeatedly exposed to the same opinion they are likely to overestimate the prevalence of this opinion in the general population. An alarming consequence of this is that Facebook users from either side might feel less inclined to go out and vote as their preferred candidate appears well supported.Furthermore, the issue raised by the Wall Street Journal is worrying according to Janis’ (1972) Groupthink theory. The latter is the idea that while not all group members actually agree, a strong desire for homogeneity and harmony leads the group to adopt irrational opinions. Indeed, the natural will to minimise conflict leads to the absence of critical thinking. Janis (1972) highlights that some observable consequences of groupthink are uniformity pressures, self-censorship and close-mindedness. In the context of political campaigns, debate is essential. However, if Facebook narrows down the groups to red and blue, social media users are forced to adhere to one side without the opportunity to navigate both sides of the argument and take their stance. The long-term effects of such biased reporting are severe. Indeed, this emphasis on in-groups and out-groups leaves little room for debate, compromise and tolerance and largely increases opinion polarisation.If you were to take one thing away from this post it should be: it’s not all black or white. Or should I say blue or red. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.Weaver, Schwartz and Miller (2007) Inferring the popularity of an opinion from it’s familiarity: a repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 821-833.
Machiavellianism Q&A Summary + Download
To my magnificent readers! As requested, a condensed version of the Triple Question & Answer Session by IllimitableMan, Illacertus and Modern Machiavelli including a pdf to download. You can download the pdf below: Modern Machiavelli – Triple QA of Power Feel free to share the pdf, the whole article or parts of it, as long as you refrain from editing it. You also are required to link to the following article to avoid confusion: http://modernmachiavelli.com/q-a-power-machiavellianism/ Workplace Question: What is the best & fastest way to get ahead and promoted at work? Answer (MM): You won’t like this answer but
The post Machiavellianism Q&A Summary + Download appeared first on Modern Machiavelli.
The Adjustment Bureau of Politics and Persuasion
Matt Damon starred in the 2011 movie, The Adjustment Bureau, in which he played the youngest politician to be elected to Congress. In the opening scene he has to address supporters after having lost an election bid for the Senate he clearly should have won.
During his consolation speech he begins to reveal the truth about himself and his campaign. He tells the audience everyone assumed his meteoric rise as a young congressman was due to his authenticity. He proceeds to tell people he’s not been authentic at all and starts by telling them a phrase he had just mentioned about his old neighborhood was made up and used only because it polled well with voters. He goes on to say his tie was chosen from 56 others because of what it signified. Then he tells people his campaign paid $7,300 to find out how to perfectly scuff his shoes to appeal to the widest array of voters. Ironically he was viewed more positively the day after the speech because he’d finally been truly authentic.
We’re knee deep in the political process in the U.S., so I thought it was time to share a little about persuasion in the political process. Damon’s revelation about his campaign is more real than you might imagine.
Over the years I’ve participated in many “marketing studies” and quite a few have centered on politics. During these political studies people are literally gathered together for the sole purpose of finding out which phrases resonate best with voters. Mind you, during the selection process participants are paired down so the pollsters understand if the phrases will work best with white, middle aged, conservative males making a certain amount of money or minority voters having a certain educational background, or soccer moms.
By a show of hands or in written format those conducting the marketing ask participants which sentence in each pair appeals the most. Examples might include:
A. A strong national defense
B. A strong U.S. military
A. Family values
B. American ideals
Let’s assume most people like A in both pairs. Before you know it you will hear politicians talking about how “a strong national defense” is important and how the other party doesn’t care about “family values.”
I hope you’re seeing the picture that’s being painted. Very little of what you hear from people running for Congress, the Senate or president comes from their own words. What you’re getting is a republican or democratic made up persona designed to appeal to the most voters.
Part of the reason republican outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have gotten so much attention from the masses and media is because they’re not run of the mill puppet-like politicians who’ve been airbrushed to appeal to voters. For the most part – love ‘em or hate ‘em – they are presenting their real selves. To a lesser degree (only because he’s been in politics a long time) Bernie Sanders has a similar appeal for many democratic voters.
Most career politicians spout the “same old same old.” You only have to watch a few debates to hear the same politically correct jargon and talking points intended to appeal to the base.
For example, it always sounds as if every governor led the greatest comeback his or her state had ever seen. The skeptic in me always thought things were so bad with the economy in 2008 if you couldn’t boast about lower unemployment, increased spending on schools, new programs, etc., in your state then you would have been a terrible governor! Blah, blah, blah. The rising tide of an economic recovery helped every state look much better when compared to six or seven years ago.
So what are we to do? Pay attention to what’s said and see if you can confirm key facts. It’s amazing how politicians will tell us things that are not true or are a twisted version of the truth to support their points.
No candidate is perfect and none will hold your opinions or values on everything. In all likelihood there will be two or three core issues for each voter that will determine who they vote for. It may be healthcare reform, the economy, immigration, ISIS, foreign affairs, etc. No matter who you vote for there may be inconsistencies with their positions on other issues but then again each of us are inconsistent to one degree or another. Just make sure whoever you vote for is the person they present themselves to be and not some campaign consultant, poll-generated image designed to appeal to vote getting. Vote for a real person…if one happens to be running.
Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer
Chief Influence Officer
influencePEOPLE
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.