Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Thursday, July 10, 2025

Understanding types of mental responders to different kinds of political messaging & psychological pressure

An interesting question is this: Approximately what % of the American public is more responsive to demagoguery, dishonest speech, crackpottery, irrational appeals to emotions, prejudices and social loyalties, and threats to identity, than the % that mostly responds to facts, sound reasoning and good faith honest speech.

A summary of a long, complex analysis by Pxy indicates that we more or less fit with a bell curve in three groups, HD, MX and HF. About 25% are mostly demagoguery and dishonest speech responders (HD), and about 25% are mostly fact, sound reasoning and good faith honest speech responders (HF). The middle ~50%, Pxy calls them "mixed-conditional responders" (MX), are somehow between the two modes, maybe depending on the issue and cognitive and social load the issue presents, and/or how it is presented.




That raises an interesting question. 
Q: Is there social science research that indicates whether the ~50% MX group (mixed/conditional responders) in your table flip from the HD mode of thinking to the HF mode, or is their mode of thinking a simultaneous mix of both the HD and HF modes? What mode of reasoning in the MX group does the available evidence and expert opinion mostly support?

A: Conditional Reasoning in the “MX” Majority: Flip-Flop or Hybrid Thinking?

Political‐communication, cognitive‐psychology, and neuroscience studies converge on a nuanced portrait of the 40–50% “mixed/conditional responders” (MX) who fall between high-demagoguery (HD) and high-fact (HF) audiences in susceptibility to persuasive messages. Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that MX reasoning is conditional—they may “flip” toward either HD-style heuristic processing or HF-style analytic processing depending on motivation, cognitive load, and identity threats—but that flip occurs against a constant backdrop of simultaneous, low-effort heuristics. In short, both processes run in parallel; shifts in dominant mode, not wholesale replacement, explain MX behavior.



The mind-grouping biology that emerges is absolutely fascinating.  

1. All human minds are basically MX but can be split into three groups mostly HD with some HF, mostly HF with some HD, and mostly MX with a variable but significant mix of HD and HF. Sophisticated political messaging and how it is presented can nudge minds toward either the HD mode or HF mode. 

2. People in the mostly HD group can sometimes be in HF thinking mode, but they are more easily flipped to HD by applying some psychological pressure, e.g., threaten their identity, don't give them time to think, send virtue signals from the tribe or cult, trigger rationality-killing emotions, especially fear, anger or prejudice, etc. Call it level 1 or "low" psychological pressure.

3. People in the mostly HF group can sometimes be flipped to the HD thinking mode with more intense psychological pressure. Call it Call it level 3 or "high" psychological pressure, which are the same as level 1 pressures, but just more intense. 

4. People in the MX group can sometimes be flipped to the HD thinking mode with more intense psychological pressure. Call it Call it level 2 or "moderate" psychological pressure.

If one accepts that assessment as basically correct, one one can see why over the top MAGA demagoguery, lies, slanders and crackpottery is so dominant in MAGA and authoritarian messaging. The more people feel identity threatened, fearful, angry or disloyal to tribe or cult, the more likely they are to default to the evolutionary personal safety mode of HD thinking. That is why demagoguery and dishonest speech is usually (almost always?) more powerful and persuasive than good faith honest speech.


Q: Does all of this make sense to you, or is it gobbeldygook?