Skip to content

Bi-Weekly Discussion - The "Dark Arts" of Political Persuasion

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Bi-Weekly Discussion - The "Dark Arts" of Political Persuasion

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 1 block west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

-----------------------------------------------------

THE "DARK ARTS" OF POLITICAL PERSUASION

INTRODUCTION - WHY POLITICS ISN'T RATIONAL:

In our last discussion, we discussed some conceptual tools that could be useful if you're involved in a meetup like this where we're committed to approaching politics in a rational & civil manner. We discussed how to rationally assess evidence & update one's beliefs, how to untangle the moral complexities of political issues & resist the urge to grandstand, how to understand the views & values of people who think different from us & represent them faithfully, and how to maintain composure & speak civilly with others on topics that usually devolve into outrage & insults.

However, we need to realize that most people don't know about the concepts we discussed, nor do they really care about being factually accurate, intellectually & morally humble, flexible & prudent, or fair-minded & civil towards those they disagree with. Most people's political beliefs are irrational and the field of "public choice theory" gives us two interrelated explanations as to why:

(1) Anthony Downs' Theory of "Rational Ignorance" - It's rational (in a narrow, self-interested sense) to refrain from acquiring knowledge when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide. Since the probability of any one vote changing the outcome of an election is very small, most voters feel it's not worth their time to study public policy in much depth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

(2) Bryan Caplan's Theory of "Rational Irrationality" - Since a person's vote is highly unlikely to ever decide an election, the major benefit most people get from political involvement is a sense of emotional empowerment & social approval from others. Thus, it is rational (in a narrow, self-interested sense) for people to support a bad policy as long as it "feels good" and it's popular with their in-group and to oppose a good policy as long as it "feels bad" and it's unpopular with their in-group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality

This can help us make sense of some common empirical findings from political science, such as:
(1) Most voters have little political knowledge and often lack coherent policy preferences. (Polls that try to discern voters policy preferences have significant framing effects.)
(2) Most people vote and join political movements & parties based on their group identities, i.e. race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status/profession, locale, etc.
(3) Most people do not join political groups based on their political opinions; rather, once they join a group it shapes their opinions. To the extent that people retain opinions that aren't the norm for their group, they tend to rationalize this away by assuming their group is actually closer to their opinion that it really is.
(4) Most voters registered as "independent" are closet partisans who consistently vote for one party year after year. Swing voters are rare & truly non-partisan people tend to be less likely to vote.
(5) Many voters say they want "compromise", but when pressed on what that means they typically say they'd like the other side to stop being so intransigent and move towards their position.
(6) Most voters try to punish or reward elected officials based on their perception of conditions during their term, but voters are myopic (i.e. they tend to focus on conditions in the last year, not the politician's whole term) and they have difficulty attributing causation (i.e. they often praise or blame politicians for things they had no control over).

As if people's political irrationality wasn't bad enough, there's always a variety of pundits, advertisers, PR specialists and politicians that are savvy in the "dark arts" of political persuasion & use it to mislead the public in ways that serve their own interests. However, sometimes the effectiveness of the various types of political persuasion are overstated. In this discussion, we'll look at the research on 4 key avenues of political persuasion - i.e. news media, political campaigns, social media ads, and political speeches - and try to discern what effects they have on public opinion.

Note that we're starting with the most pervasive influence and working our way down to less pervasive but still potentially influential methods. News coverage tends to provide about 10 times as much "earned media" compared to campaign ads. The presidential campaigns in 2016 spent about 1000 times as much total as were spent by Russia's Internet Research Agency or Cambridge Analytica on Facebook ads. And of course a candidate's entire campaign is more pervasive than his or her speeches, since the latter is usually a subset of the former.

-------------------------------------------

SOME RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

In the 1st section of this discussion deals with the effects of the news media on Americans' political beliefs. We've covered this twice before, once in a discussion of mainstream media bias: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/jlzgxlywcbcc/

...and again this past July in a discussion of the effects of alternative media - see Part 1 of the discussion outline in particular: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxjbgc/

The 2nd section of our discussion deals with the effects of political campaign & ads in particular. We covered that last year in February - see Part 2 of the outline: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/

The 3rd section of our discussion deals with the effects of social media manipulation, in particular by Russian bots & Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 election. The Skeptics meetup covered Russian interference in the 2016 election last spring: https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/248230435/

...and we covered Cambridge Analytica's use of psychographic targeting in a meetup on political psychology back in April of 2017 - see Part 4 of the outline:
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/ghwhpmywgbvb/

The 4th section of this discussion deals with presidential speeches & Trump's rhetoric in particular. We devoted almost an entire meetup to that topic back in December of 2017: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywqbnb/

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the research on the various methods of political persuasion & how they play upon our unconscious biases. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 42 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section. I've listed questions under each section which we'll do our best to address.

----------------------------------------------------

I. MEDIA EFFECTS, MEDIA BIAS & EARNED MEDIA:

  • DOES THE DECLINE OF THE "MAGIC BULLET / HYPODERMIC NEEDLE" MODEL AMONG MEDIA SCHOLARS MEAN THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE ALMOST COMPLETE AGENCY, OR MERELY THAT PUBLIC OPINION EMERGES FROM A VARIETY OF INFLUENCES WITH COMPLEX FEEDBACK EFFECTS?

  • HOW DO MEDIA SCHOLARS THINK THE NEWS MEDIA USES FRAMING, PRIMING & AGENDA-SETTING TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION, AND WHAT DO THEY THINK THE MAGNITUDE OF THESE EFFECTS ARE ON PUBLIC OPINION?

  • IS TIM GROSECLOSE CORRECT THAT CITATIONS OF THINK TANKS IN ARTICLES REVEALS A LEFT-LEANING BIAS IN MOST MAJOR NEWSPAPERS? IF SO, DOES THIS SHIFT THE POLITICAL VIEWS OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN?

  • SHOULD WE ASSUME MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS ARE COLLUDING TO INFLUENCE POLITICS, OR IS MATT GENTZKOW RIGHT THAT THEY ARE MOSTLY JUST CATERING TO THE BIASES OF THEIR READERS/VIEWERS?

  • WHAT'S THE ROLE OF "EARNED MEDIA" (FREE POLITICAL COVERAGE BY THE NEWS MEDIA) IN ELECTIONS? DID TRUMP SHOW THAT POLITICIANS CAN ATTRACT MEDIA COVERAGE BY STIRRING UP CONTROVERSY?

  • IS IT TRUE THAT "NO PUBLICITY IS BAD PUBLICITY", OR ONLY IF YOU'RE RELATIVELY UNKNOWN?

  • WHY DIDN'T SCANDALS LIKE THE ACCESS HOLLYWOOD TAPE SEEM TO HURT TRUMP - OR DID THEY HURT HIM BUT NOT ENOUGH TO BE DECISIVE?

1a) Mike Rugnetta, "How DOES The Media Tell You What To Think?" (video - 12:34 min, start at 0:15 & listen to 10:30)
https://youtu.be/F7SzwMJ3MZQ?t=15

1b) Matthew Gentzkow, "The real reason for media bias" (video - 5:06 min.)
https://youtu.be/Z7ZmSxmhohs

1c) Fortune w/ Michael Bassik, "Donald Trump ‘Outsmarted’ Hillary Clinton When it Comes to Earned Media" (video - 2:53 min.)
https://youtu.be/VPteYrsat6U

.
II. POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, OPPOSITION RESEARCH & NEGATIVE ADS:

  • WHY DO MOST POLITICAL SCIENTISTS SAY THAT "FUNDAMENTALS" (ECONOMIC & INCUMBENCY FACTORS) MATTER MORE THAN CAMPAIGNS IN DETERMINING WHO WINS?

  • IF CAMPAIGN ADS CAN'T SWAY MANY "INDEPENDENTS" (BECAUSE THEY'RE CLOSET PARTISANS), CAN THEY SWAY THE FEW "UNDECIDED" & "SWING VOTERS"? OR DO THEY JUST BUILD NAME RECOGNITION & MOBILIZE EXISTING SUPPORTERS?

  • WHAT TYPE DIRT DO OPPOSITION RESEARCH FIRMS LOOK FOR - I.E. WHAT WILL MAKE POLITICIANS LOSE SUPPORT?

  • WHY DO SOME POLITICIANS SURVIVE SCANDALS WHILE OTHERS SINK? ARE POPULISTS LESS VULNERABLE TO SCANDALS?

  • ARE NEGATIVE ADS EFFECTIVE - I.E. DO THEY SCARE FENCE-SITTERS INTO VOTING OR DISCOURAGE THE OPPONENT'S BASE?

  • WHY MIGHT NEGATIVE ADS WORK BETTER WHEN THEY COME FROM CANDIDATES RATHER THAN PACs?

2a) Andrew Prokop, "Do political ads on TV actually work?" (video - 2:32 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVa3CFDdFuM

2b) Mitchell Lovett, "The Effect of Negative Political Advertising" (video - 2:32 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ye057m9ewY

  • CONSIDERING THE TOTAL AMOUNT RUSSIA SPENT ON FACEBOOK ADS IS ESTIMATED TO BE ONLY $46K, AND THEIR TWEETS COMPRISED ONLY 1% OF THE TOTAL POLITICAL CONTENT ON TWITTER, WAS THEIR IMPACT ON THE 2016 ELECTION OVERSTATED? OR DID THEIR ADS HAVE WAY MORE INFLUENCE THAN THIS WOULD SUGGEST?

  • IF THE "FAKE NEWS" ATTACKING HILLARY CLINTON WAS PRIMARILY CONSUMED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY HOSTILE TO HER, COULD IT STILL SIGNIFICANTLY HURT HER SUPPORT AMONG SWING VOTERS OR DEMOCRATS?

  • DID PERSONALITY TESTS TAKEN BY FACEBOOK USERS GIVE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA ENOUGH DATA TO PSYCHOLOGICALLY PROFILE THEM & SEND THEM MICRO-TARGETED POLITICAL ADS THAT WOULD BE HIGHLY PERSUASIVE?

  • HOW DOES CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA'S USE OF FACEBOOK DATA IN 2016 COMPARE TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN IN 2012?

  • DOES THE NEWS COVERAGE OF RUSSIAN BOTS & CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA RESEMBLE A “MORAL PANIC” WHERE THE NEWS MEDIA INFLATES THE PUBLIC’S FEAR OF MINOR PROBLEMS? IF SO, DOES THIS MORAL PANIC HURT OUR DEMOCRACY MORE THAN THE SOCIAL MEDIA MEDDLING?

3a) Vox, "Fake news wasn’t the biggest media problem of 2016. It's nothing new, and it didn't swing the election." (video - 4:31 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdsj-PIqR0g

3b) NowThis, "Facebook–Cambridge Analytica Scandal and How It Helped Trump" (video - 3:17 min.)
https://youtu.be/UUBf4BechQo

.
IV. POLITICAL DEBATES, SPEECHES AND TRUMP AS "BULLSHITTER" & "MASTER PERSUADER":

  • WHY DON'T POLITICAL SCIENTISTS THINK DEBATES & SPEECHES CHANGE ENOUGH VOTERS' MINDS TO SHIFT ELECTIONS?

  • IS TRUMP'S SIMPLE VOCABULARY & MEANDERING, REPETITIVE SPEAKING STYLE RESEMBLE EFFECTIVE AT PERSUADING HIS BASE? IF SO, WHY?

  • DID TRUMP'S USE OF NICKNAMES IN THE DEBATES TYPECAST HIS OPPONENTS IN VOTERS MINDS?

  • IS TRUMP'S USE OF HYPERBOLE & FRANKFURTIAN "BULLSHIT" WORSE THAN OTHER POLITICIANS' USE OF EVASIONS & EQUIVOCATIONS?

  • DO TRUMP'S LIES NOT HURT HIM BECAUSE HIS SUPPORTERS "TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY BUT NOT LITERALLY" & FOCUS MORE ON HIS DIRECTION THAN THE SPECIFICS?

  • HAS TRUMP "PACED & LED" HIS SUPPORTERS TOWARDS MORE PRAGMATIC POSITIONS?

  • IS SCOTT ADAMS' NARROW FOCUS ON TRUMP'S RHETORICAL EFFECTIVENESS “MORAL NIHILISM" OR JUST REALISM?

4a) Jules Suzdaltsev, "Do Presidential Debates Sway Voters?" (video - 3:37 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vecw6H3AaM

4b) ReasonTV w/ Scott Adams, "Donald Trump's 'Linguistic Kill Shots'" (video - 8:00 min.)
https://youtu.be/55NxKENplG4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
See more events
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
public group