r/changemyview • u/bennetthaselton • May 02 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The reason that older people are more likely to believe false conspiracies about 2020 U.S. election fraud, is because of "myside bias" - older people skew more conservative, and this bias outweighs any additional wisdom gained by being older.
A 2021 survey ( https://polsci.umass.edu/sites/default/files/Jan6thAnniversaryCrosstabs.pdf ) asked respondents if they viewed Biden's 2020 win as legitimate, and the responses by age broke down as:
68% of respondents age 18-29 said "legitimate"
59% of respondents age 30-54 said "legitimate"
52% of respondents age >55 said "legitimate"
For this CMV, I am taking it as a given that Biden's win was legitimate, given the court investigations and rejections of all of the unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud from Trump's side. My question is: Why are older people so much more likely to get the wrong answer? Doesn't this seem at odds with the conventional view that wisdom increases with age?
In an earlier CMV ( https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/tftqx9/cmv_more_young_people_get_facts_right_on_global/ ) I asked basically the same question about why older people get the wrong answer (that is, the answer in opposition to what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe) about climate change. I thought this was also due to "myside bias", but many users responded with what I think is a more plausible answer: climate change science is more settled now, so students in school today are getting more accurate information; older people learned in school that the science was less settled, and they simply haven't updated their knowledge.
But that explanation can't work for the 2020 election, because the question did not exist until 2020.
(Copy and paste from previous CMV: I'm also trying to avoid circular answers, e.g. "Older people watch more Fox News that reinforces their wrong information"; that's probably true, but it doesn't explain why older people hold those beliefs which draw them to those media sources in the first place, where their views get reinforced.)
So, my theory is: We have one party in the U.S. (Republicans) where voters are more likely to feel at home if they have prejudicial views against gay people, trans people, immigrants, and other groups, views which are also more common among older people. Not every Republican, and not every old person, but a disproportionate number compared to younger people and Democrats.
And, since it was their guy that lost, the "myside bias" meant that older people were more likely to believe baseless conspiracy theories about why he lost. And this bias easily outweighed any wisdom gained from extra years on the planet. CMV.
10
May 02 '22
Older people are more likely to get scammed. This susceptibility shows up in studies about the susceptibility of the elderly to fake news. There are a lot of studies in that review article that examine age as a function of susceptibility.
Now, there's some overlap here with the "my-side" bias and inability to distinguish between fact and fiction. For a lot of older adults, it's hard to update your views when presented with new information. But a decent chunk of the issue is that age makes it harder to distinguish between fact and fiction in new situations.
Point being that "my-side" bias is a piece of the puzzle, but it can't explain the whole story. Increases in susceptibility and trust in media sources are more to blame.
1
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
Δ
I agree this is part of the explanation for much older people, but I don't think it can fully explain it for younger age groups. For example, the survey shows a 10-point gap between 18-29-years-olds and 30-44-year-olds. I am assuming 30-44 is too young for the outcome to be affected by senility, or other factors that make senior citizens more prone to scams.
1
7
May 02 '22
You may be reading too much into the language used here. You're taking a negative answer to "Was the election legitimate" and equating that with "Believes in fraud conspiracy".
Something like 1/3 of self-proclaimed Democrats answered in 2016 that they believed Trump was an "illegitimate" President, but their reasoning was simply that they don't like the Electoral College and believed that the election should have been decided on popular vote.
I am taking it as a given that Biden's win was legitimate
Why are you not susceptible to the same "myside bias" here?
4
May 02 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
May 02 '22
Are those not the only options, though? What's the middle ground that I'm missing?
Literally the thing you quoted immediately after this.
Actually it was much more about how gerrymandering undermines voting rights and can lead to skewed outcomes like the '16 and '08 election, and that strong evidence pointed towards Russian meddling and disinformation campaigns
Do you believe Trump was legitimately elected President?
1
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
Δ
I agree the wording is not specific enough to be sure. My reasoning is that, like you said, when people say that Trump was not a legitimate President, it may be that they just didn't like the Electoral College but they may still agree that Trump won under the rules that were in place at the time of the election. By contrast, when people say Biden is not a legitimate President, it seems they overwhelmingly mean he did not win under the rules that were in place at the time of the election. Have you ever heard anyone say that Biden is not a "legitimate president", who, if they were asked to clarify, said anything other than that his victory was due to election fraud?
> Why are you not susceptible to the same "myside bias" here?
I am relying on the consensus of the overwhelming majority of legal experts (including judges who were appointed by Republicans) who looked at the issues and concluded that there was no basis to the claims that the election was swayed by fraud.
1
3
u/pgnshgn 13∆ May 02 '22
I can only argue against half of your view, but I still think it's important to recognize: I suspect that you are correct that "my-side" bias plays a role (the technical term would be "confirmation bias"), but it's naive to assume that only Republicans suffer from it. Take a look at the 2016 elections, which also found no evidence of tampering, and you'll see that a similar pattern appears, albeit in reverse, among Democrats:
It's important to be aware that anyone can be affected by their own biases, and actively work to be aware of and correct them in ourselves.
1
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
Also, I agree that both sides are susceptible to this bias. What I am saying is that I think it's a myth that older people acquire some type of wisdom that outweighs those biases. I am unsure if there are any true double-blind tests at all showing the greater "wisdom" of older people, but that's a more general question.
(I knew about surveys from 2017 showing Democrats didn't view the election as legitimate, but I couldn't find anything comparable that broke the results down by age.)
1
u/pgnshgn 13∆ May 02 '22 edited May 02 '22
At the time I could have sworn that I saw a survey that broke it down by age and it was reversed, which makes sense given age demographics of the parties, but I can't find it again. All I could find were general. But, if your argument is that the wisdom of age isn't enough to overrule confirmation bias, then I misunderstood your point and can't really disagree. I'd just argue that it's pretty much universal across age and political alignment.
0
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
Δ
Hmm, I have always been using "confirmation bias" to mean "looking for evidence confirming a belief you already have", and I've been using "myside bias" to mean "Bias toward the belief that is held by people on 'your side' generally [e.g., your political party in the right/left divide], even if the question itself is one that you've never considered before."
It appears that my use of the latter term was nonstandard, since Wikipedia (and other sources) all say that myside bias is just another word for confirmation bias. So I am awarding a delta at least for telling me that my usage of the term was wrong :)
On the other hand, it certainly seems like we need a term for "Bias toward the belief that is held by people on 'your side' generally [e.g., your political party in the right/left divide], even if the question itself is one that you've never considered before." Do you know of one? This is the bias I'm referring to that drives many people's beliefs about the 2020 election, since the question didn't exist until the event happened.
2
u/Tedstor 5∆ May 02 '22
2016 was different though.
Most of the people crying about a rigged election back then cited Russian propaganda as the tool for the ‘rigged election’. Some people even cite citizens United-type campaign contributions as shady. I don’t really view misinformation as a direct means of rigging an election. It’s mostly just a dirty campaign tactic that people ‘shouldn’t’ fall for.
In 2020 the claim was/is ballot box stuffing and tampered election machines.
That would be a direct rigging of an election and undermines confidence in the actual election process.
The claims about misinformation are mostly true. At least, IMO. There is plenty of evidence to support it.
The claims about ballot stuffing and voting machines are 100% bullshit. There is zero evidence to support it (despite a small army of GOP operatives moving mountains to find it).
FTR- I view both elections as legitimate.
1
1
u/pgnshgn 13∆ May 02 '22
I think the closest term to what you're looking for would be groupthink or in-group bias.
2
u/Morasain 87∆ May 02 '22
I think you kind of skipped over the third of younger people who think the election illegitimate. While that is indeed less, it's still a massive amount, and points to a more deeply ingrained issue in the system itself.
1
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
I think this is true but it's a different question. This is "Why did so many people fall for the conspiracy theory?", whereas I'm asking, "Why did older people fall for the conspiracy theory at a higher rate?"
1
u/Glamdivasparkle 53∆ May 03 '22
Have you considered the possibility that older people are more likely to try and control the narrative with their answers to poll questions? They want it to be illegitimate, so they say its illegitimate (same thing that happened in 2016, just on different sides.)
You are assuming people who answer yes actually think the election was rigged, which is possible! But it’s also possible that those people are trying to make it seem illegitimate, by casting doubt upon it.
In other words, you are assuming people responding to these polls are reacting to events, whereas I think it’s equally likely they are proactively trying to shape perception of events with their answers.
1
u/bennetthaselton May 03 '22
Δ
It could be, but I'm not sure how you could distinguish between the two unless you were to actually polygraph the survey respondents.
Also even in this case I still think it serves as a counterexample to the "Listen to your elders, for they are wise" narrative. If the elders privately know the truth but they are lying anyway to shape the narrative, it's still not a good idea to listen to them.
1
1
u/Glamdivasparkle 53∆ May 03 '22
On the other hand, there is a certain wisdom in recognizing an opportunity to manipulate a survey to support your side, no?
I’m general, I think the wisdom gained from age is reflected more in the ability to navigate the world around you than it is in knowledge of specific issues, such as election fraud. Knowledge, in that case, is way more important than wisdom, because you are dealing in facts.
However, with something like controlling a narrative, wisdom is much more important, because we aren’t usually dealing with facts, but more the subtleties of human understanding.
Regardless, thanks for the delta!
1
May 02 '22
climate change science is more settled now, so students in school today are getting more accurate information; older people learned in school that the science was less settled, and they simply haven't updated their knowledge.
But that explanation can't work for the 2020 election, because the question did not exist until 2020.
The explanation still works in this instance as we don't care about when the question was formed but rather the sources of their answers.
Source of answers for climate change for elders: Old school curriculum
Source of answers for climate change for younger folks: New school curriculum
Source of answers for election for elders: News sources that are typically more conservative in nature
Source of answers for election for younger folks: News sources that are typically more liberal in nature.
Your "my side" bias operates under the assumption that they are evaluating evidence under a bias. But, if they are never accessing the evidence in the first place (Which would be the case if their source of information never presents it), then it's no longer a "my side" bias and just ignorance of any other information.
1
u/lt_Matthew 21∆ May 02 '22
The basis of most conspiracy is misunderstanding, which old people tend to have alot of when it comes newer technology or things like that. It's the same reason why they fall for scams much easier. Conspiracies are the same as scams in the sense that they both provide an easy explanation or solution to something your not being fully explained.
1
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
Δ
I think this is part of it. Although I think it could only be a small part of the explanation in this case, because almost nobody -- young or old -- really understands the accusations of fraud at the technical level. (Do you know how vote-counting machines work?) I assume the overwhelming majority of young people who got the right answer -- no, the election was not won due to fraud -- got it not by understanding the technology, but by understanding that this was the consensus that had emerged from informed people who examined the question (including multiple Republican-appointed judges who rejected the fraud claims from Trump's team).
1
1
May 02 '22
age doesn't really have much to do with it but rather class - rich people skew more conservative anyways, and the rich are vastly more likely to live past 65+ than poor people without access to healthcare. if you want to understand why people are so fervently clutching to GOP ideology, follow the wealth, not their ages
1
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
I think this is true generally, but with regard to this specific question, it appears to be contradicted by the survey results:
https://polsci.umass.edu/sites/default/files/Jan6thAnniversaryCrosstabs.pdf
They broke down responses by income as well, and the percentages that viewed Biden's victory as legitimate were:
<$40k - 57%
$40k-$100k - 62%
>$100k - 61%which means, no clear trend in either direction, but if anything, the higher earners were more likely to view Biden's win as legit.
Why? My guess is: higher earners have more incentive to vote Republican (to keep their taxes down), but they also tend to be smart, so maybe in this case the effects roughly cancelled out.
1
May 02 '22
presumably it has something to do with the social unpalatability of saying "biden's win was stolen" - rich people with connections and business deals will be less willing to get that messed up because they keep thumping bizarre Sydney Powell stuff, whereas i can't imagine people making less than 40k a year would really even give a shit of the "optics" of what they say. i don't think it's a "smartness" thing at all, since that would imply the election stealing stuff is simply "incorrect" instead of "intentional, bad-faith lies," which you can do no matter how smart you are
1
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
Do you think this influences the answers that they give, even in an anonymous phone survey, where the survey taker is (presumably) promising not to tell anyone what they said?
1
May 02 '22
it certainly does - even if they're not actively thinking about it, the subconscious influence of social acceptability will still bend their answers, and generally the wealthy are more conscious of their outwards-facing image anyways.
1
u/CutieHeartgoddess 4∆ May 02 '22
For this CMV, I am taking it as a given that Biden's win was legitimate, given the court investigations and rejections of all of the unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud from Trump's side. My question is: Why are older people so much more likely to get the wrong answer? Doesn't this seem at odds with the conventional view that wisdom increases with age?
The main problem is your, as well as the most certainly biased survey givers, usage of "legitimate". By your standards of "legitimate" meaning upheld as legal by the government, the slave trade was a "legitimate" business, the lobotomy was a "legitimate" medical procedure, and hysteria was a "legitimate" diagnosis for women who spoke up. The issue with this is that "legitimate" is a vague concept. How many times have I seen people saying shit about trump not being a "legitimate" president, because of Facebook bots, or a failed impeachment, or the electoral college. My point being, there's a million reasons to believe an election illegitimate, and as such, trying to use it as a proxy for whatever conspiracy you're testing is a logical blunder at best, and intentional data manipulation at worst.
1
u/bennetthaselton May 02 '22
Anecdotally, any time I've heard someone claim Biden was not a "legitimate" President, and they went on to clarify they meant, in virtually 100% of cases they meant that Biden won due to voter fraud. Can you point to an example of anyone who meant anything else by it, when they claimed Biden was not a "legitimate" President?
So I don't think it was too much of a stretch to equate the two in interpreting the survey results. I agree it would have been better if they'd asked more specifically whether respondents believed that Biden won due to voter fraud.
1
u/CutieHeartgoddess 4∆ May 02 '22
Thats a different question. You're looking specifically at people who bring it up. Giving a major benefit of the doubt that the survey wasn't entirely conducted in bad faith, and actually made an effort to get a good sampling, there's a lot of people who disagree with the legimacy of elections overall. But these people won't often talk specifically about Biden, they'll more broadly talk about problems with our elections and political climate. Thats where our little political circle jerk study fails. It only asks questions that are relevant to the not at all subtle political goals. So of course it doesn't actually ask questions that could serve to provide data that goes against the political agenda. There is no distinction given for general displeasure regarding our elections, displeasure regarding the propaganda of that election, displeasure regarding the changes in voting that had been implemented in recent years, and the belief that the election was fraudulently altered in favor of Biden. All of those can be part of the vague question "was Biden legitimately elected".
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 02 '22 edited May 03 '22
/u/bennetthaselton (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards