Now what it might be able to tell you – if you have the same question from the other side, like “Barack Obama is a flawed person,” or some other icon of the left, though I’m not the left has as blindly venerated a figure across its ranks – is whether one political party is more apt to regard their leaders held in high esteem as “flawless.” That might be an interesting result.
It seems to me that the people who voted for Trump fall into two categories: the gung-ho Trump supporters, and the ones who say “Yes, he’s flawed, but…”
That was one of the questions I refused to answer, on the grounds that most of the people I’ve seen complaining that men need protection appear to think that such protection should amount, not to giving each case a fair hearing, but to discouraging accusations from being made whether they’re true or false.
If they’d phrased it as ‘is it important that accusations of sexual assault be investigated fully and fairly’ – see how that looks like a different question entirely?
The cynic in me suspects it has something to do with who the respondents think of as the “bad guys”.
As has already been mentioned, “political poll questions”—whether to test the “perception gap” or just conventional polls—are often absolutely maddening, taking complex issues and reducing them to simple-minded little “Agree or disagree?” statements. Throw in the tendency of many people NOT to answer the question that’s actually being asked, and instead to answer the question they heard, or just express their opinion about some complicated topic as best they are able—which is often a somewhat understandable thing to do—AND throw in “tribal” thinking and “virtue signalling” from both (or all) sides, and many polls for anything less straightforward than “Which candidate are you gonna vote for this Tuesday?” give baffling or even infuriating results.
Or the best questions in order to get the results they want.
I’m pretty sure this is a case. I bet if if we look into the origins of “Perceptions Gap” theory, it will be some centrist-posturing, Republican-flattering pseudo-academic horoscopic grift like Haidt’s “Moral Foundations.”
When I’m supposed to imagine how a Republican would respond to “is racism a problem”, am I supposed to consider the historically correct definition that relates to minority persecution? Or am I supposed to consider the bullshit outflanking posture of “this country has a very serious problem with the REAL racism, which is anti-white reverse discrimination.” Which definition am I supposed to consider when I’m guessing what the other side thinks?
This quiz seemingly wants me to take the blame for not grasping the perception of people who purposely obfuscate their terminology to blunt criticism. It’s bullshit.
I’ve never actually been polled. I got a call once, but they lost interest when they found out I was over 35.
But I feel like all these questions are pretty straightforward to answer - as long as you don’t try to read more into them. Surely > 50% of Republicans don’t literally believe Trump has no flaws, though. So people must be reading more into them.
I think this is the question where I stopped and said “Huh???”
That was also what I was thinking. In which case, what’s the point? Any results from this poll/quiz are suspect.
From the name, I thought it was related to the foundation set up when Jo Cox (UK MP) was murdered during the Brexit debate. But now I’ve looked into it I don’t think they are.
To push the narrative that they want to push.
Which is?
That narrative would be in the conclusions that are offered on this site here:
This is correct. The narrative is “Americans tend to have a distorted understanding of the people on the other side.”
No human is a mind-reader, and no human is entirely honest with themselves or others, so it’s perfectly fine to make the weak statement that people have distorted views of one another. It’s also a perfectly useless observation.
But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re taking complex, nuanced positions, reducing them to black-and-white binaries, ignoring the context that some people in the public discourse are lying about what what they believe, and asking us to ignore all that informative context to answer the narrowly-framed questions as given.
To me this is analagous to asking “Do you think the darkies are getting too uppity? Don’t read too much into the question, just answer it so that we can analyze your biases.”
Yes, this.
A pretty hopeful and positive conclusion.
What are you talking about? None of the questions are remotely like that.
Do you know what an analogy is?
‘Do you think men need protection from all these false rape accusations the uppity women are making?’
That wasn’t the exact wording of that question, no. But it’s a pretty reasonable implication to take from the way that they chose to word it.
Whichever definition you think those other people will consider.
The questions themselves don’t have to be good questions in order for “How do you think Democrats/Republicans would answer this question?” to be a good question.
You call
hopeful and positive?
I don’t know anything about this group, and I have no reason to even think that it has a partisan agenda. It does, however, have a self promotional agenda, and I imagine that you wouldn’t be sharing it, and probably wouldn’t have had it shared with you, if its conclusion was that Americans understand each other reasonably well.
It’s clickbait, that’s all it is.
And the conclusionary paragraph isn’t really all that postive and hopeful either.
They pat themselves on the back claiming to show that people actually have many things in common, even though they don’t agree on those things.
I really don’t think that there is anything of real scientific or social value to be had in this survey. The survey and its results speak far more of the creators and authors than it does about those it claims to analyze.