Are liberals or conservatives more likely to be "triggered"?

[Daniel Waxman]

Being "triggered" is what the kids say these days when someone gets upset, perhaps overly so, when they hear an opposing viewpoint. I was wondering if conservatives or liberals are equally likely to be triggered, or if there is a difference in likelihood. One way of quantitatively gauging which group is more likely triggered is to see look at websites like Reddit, where liberals and conservatives have separate spaces, and we can observe their up-voting and down-voting behavior, i.e. if there are a greater number of highly down-voted comments in subreddits dominated by liberals when compared to subreddits dominated by conservatives then we can conclude that liberals are more likely to be triggered.

Is this a good way to quantitatively measure the likelihood of being triggered between each group?

[iNow]

No. This is an individual difference, not an ideological one. 

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, Daniel Waxman said:

Is this a good way to quantitatively measure the likelihood of being triggered between each group?

Classifying large groups of people using a single word may help increase the quantity of whatever you're looking for, but it's unlikely to improve the quality. Perhaps part of the problem comes from the "liberal" and "conservative" labels? In reality, nobody can always be one way or the other, especially when these labels mean something different to each person who uses them. Is it more conservative to spend tax dollars wisely, or to not spend them in the first place? How liberal are you if you don't want your healthcare to bankrupt you?

[MigL]

4 minutes ago, Daniel Waxman said:

Is this a good way to quantitatively measure the likelihood of being triggered between each group?

Good experimental practice is to ( try to ) isolate all variables which are not pertinent to the effect you are investigating, if you wish to draw any valid conclusions from your experiment.
At best, this is a cheap attempt to 'trigger' elements of both groups into a confrontation.

[Phi for All]

58 minutes ago, MigL said:

At best, this is a cheap attempt to 'trigger' elements of both groups into a confrontation.

Nice insight gained from a new perspective. Um, were you being liberal or conservative here? 😕

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Daniel Waxman said:

Being "triggered" is what the kids say these days when someone gets upset, perhaps overly so, when they hear an opposing viewpoint. I was wondering if conservatives or liberals are equally likely to be triggered, or if there is a difference in likelihood. One way of quantitatively gauging which group is more likely triggered is to see look at websites like Reddit, where liberals and conservatives have separate spaces, and we can observe their up-voting and down-voting behavior, i.e. if there are a greater number of highly down-voted comments in subreddits dominated by liberals when compared to subreddits dominated by conservatives then we can conclude that liberals are more likely to be triggered.

Is this a good way to quantitatively measure the likelihood of being triggered between each group?

Speaking as a liberal I am unimaginably incensed by your ridiculous, scandalous, doubtless libellous, innuendo and outright explicit implications that liberals are anything other than measured, reasonable, thoughtful, calm and objective in their reactions to the turgid, emotional, hate filled drivel issuing from the mouths of asutralopithecene conservatives. Grrrh!

Do I need to point out that the above is satire?

[Phi for All]

It occurs to me also that the premise may be wrong. Is it really "an opposing viewpoint" that triggers someone's objections? That sounds suspiciously like a strawman of what's really going on. After all, different opinions aren't that threatening or upsetting.

Isn't it more likely that the arguments are poorly understood or badly delivered? Or because of the binary way Americans think about their politics, aren't we more likely to be upset when we hear someone who seems to be voting against their best interests? In my experience, many Republicans get very upset when someone in the military expresses liberal views. Conversely, many Democrats can't fathom why working class conservatives don't want better healthcare. It's not about a difference of opinion, it's probably more about the two stupid, enormous umbrellas we try to hide each other under.

[CharonY]

I am pretty sure that the definition of "triggered" could use some work. As a whole, mass and social media have heavily invested in an outrage industry as appeal to emotions has been shown to be an effective way to grab attention (which equals monetary value). As such a distinction into political leanings itself  is meaningless as it is more about media consumption. Then one could ask whether there is a connection between political leaning and media use.

I am not familiar with the whole range of literature, but I recall that a number of studies (I think one of the author was Guess) showed that especially older conservatives were more prone to share fake news (which mostly fall into the clickbait/outrage storylines). But it is a dynamic field of research and on some platforms folks found a higher impact of young users. Either way it appears that those on the extremes of either end are more likely to share and disseminate false information. However, it appears that numerical there are fewer liberal oriented folks (or Democrats, depending on how the study segmented the participants) falling for these fake news than their counterparts, which in part is probably due to the fact that within the liberal/democratic side there is a broader spread of opinion, whereas (at least in the USA) the conservative side is far more uniform (i.e. the group likely to fall for an disseminate false information is larger). 

Then of course one could take a look at the media landscape. Of course the Murdoch empire has for a long time manipulated opinion toward an alternative (conservative) view of the world and now with a number news outlets, podcasts and so on, a rather solid and influential outrage machine has been established, which does not only operate in the US. One example is how the US-centric QAnon conspiracy has spread to Europe. I am not really aware of something similarly powerful on the other side of the aisle. 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am pretty sure that the definition of "triggered" could use some work.

Indeed. 

How does one differentiate being triggered vs being baited? Could this be recast as conservatives are more likely to bait and provoke their opponents in arguments?

[Charles 3781]

Can't you easily bait Liberals by saying "I support President Trump".

 

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Charles 3781 said:

Can't you easily bait Liberals by saying "I support President Trump".

 

Since all liberals are not identical I would say no.  Some liberals would be baited by saying that just as some conservatives would baited by saying "I don't support Trump".

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Charles 3781 said:

Can't you easily bait Liberals by saying "I support President Trump".

No.

People are not unthinking, one-dimensional, monolithic caricatures so easily defined by such single simplistic labels 

X-posted with bufofrog

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Indeed. 

How does one differentiate being triggered vs being baited? Could this be recast as conservatives are more likely to bait and provoke their opponents in arguments?

Another thought, what about the triggering topic? Is being upset about high unnecessary COVID-19 deaths equivalent to, say , the fear of folks with more melanin?

[MigL]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Um, were you being liberal or conservative here? 

If I had to, I would say a conservative Liberal.
Not a liberal Conservative, like a lot of American Democrats.
Nor a conservative Dumb-ass, like a lot of American Republicans.
( notice I said a lot, not all )

[iNow]

12 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Can't you easily bait Liberals by saying "I support President Trump".

This is a bit like saying, "Can't you easily bait Jews by saying 'I support Adolf Hitler'."

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

How does one differentiate being triggered vs being baited? Could this be recast as conservatives are more likely to bait and provoke their opponents in arguments?

I see the effects of competition vs cooperation here as well. It's unlikely someone who favors cooperation is going to "bait" or "trigger" someone they want to work with to make things better. OTOH, folks who prefer to compete to get ahead often use such tactics to throw their opponents off.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 10/15/2020 at 10:11 AM, iNow said:

This is a bit like saying, "Can't you easily bait Jews by saying 'I support Adolf Hitler'."

No. It really isn't.

...and no...that's not in any way supportive of Trump.

On 10/14/2020 at 7:55 PM, Phi for All said:

It occurs to me also that the premise may be wrong. Is it really "an opposing viewpoint" that triggers someone's objections? That sounds suspiciously like a strawman of what's really going on. After all, different opinions aren't that threatening or upsetting.

Isn't it more likely that the arguments are poorly understood or badly delivered? Or because of the binary way Americans think about their politics, aren't we more likely to be upset when we hear someone who seems to be voting against their best interests? In my experience, many Republicans get very upset when someone in the military expresses liberal views. Conversely, many Democrats can't fathom why working class conservatives don't want better healthcare. It's not about a difference of opinion, it's probably more about the two stupid, enormous umbrellas we try to hide each other under.

I honestly think it's (usually) more against their home team/clan/tribe than their actual best interests.

[iNow]

You feel strongly enough to neg rep me, but not strong enough to tell me why?

Surely, you can see the parallels... the demonization of “the other”... the tribal divisions... the treatment of “the left” and “the libs” as if they’re subhuman garbage in need of a truck driven across their torso and/or a bullet to their face...

And that’s just in the comments section of my local senators Facebook page... there’s far worse out there 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 10/14/2020 at 7:55 PM, Phi for All said:

It occurs to me also that the premise may be wrong. Is it really "an opposing viewpoint" that triggers someone's objections? That sounds suspiciously like a strawman of what's really going on. After all, different opinions aren't that threatening or upsetting.

Isn't it more likely that the arguments are poorly understood or badly delivered? Or because of the binary way Americans think about their politics, aren't we more likely to be upset when we hear someone who seems to be voting against their best interests? In my experience, many Republicans get very upset when someone in the military expresses liberal views. Conversely, many Democrats can't fathom why working class conservatives don't want better healthcare. It's not about a difference of opinion, it's probably more about the two stupid, enormous umbrellas we try to hide each other under.

I honestly think it's (usually) more against their home team/clan/tribe than their actual best interests.

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

You feel strongly enough to neg rep me, but not strong enough to tell me why?

How would you feel if you were Jewish and that was said to you? 

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Surely, you can see the parallels... the demonization of “the other”... the tribal divisions... 

 

I can see that from both sides. Even in Canada.

21 hours ago, iNow said:

as if they’re subhuman garbage in need of a truck driven across their torso and/or a bullet to their face...

Only at the extremes. 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How would you feel if you were Jewish and that was said to you? 

This is a new question. Not an answer to mine. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/16/its-not-wrong-to-compare-trumps-america-to-the-holocaust-heres-why/

Quote

No genocide begins with mass killing. There is no reason that historical comparisons must immediately center on the Final Solution, the murder of Jews. After all, the Nazis themselves did not begin with this solution in mind to their imagined problem. They pursued other options, none of which were benign but none of which demanded the physical extermination of Jews. Genocides — and dictatorships, for that matter — do not spring into existence. Rather, they begin incrementally, with authoritarianism, racism, ethnic myths and dehumanizing language, among other things. This is where Holocaust comparisons can and should be made.

 

Even Jewish scholars are noting the parallels, and the only valid counter argument to using this comparison is that it short circuits the needed conversation when fine people like you can do little more than attack the comparison for lack of 100% precision. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is a new question. Not an answer to mine. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/16/its-not-wrong-to-compare-trumps-america-to-the-holocaust-heres-why/

 

Even Jewish scholars are noting the parallels, and the only valid counter argument to using this comparison is that it short circuits the needed conversation when fine people like you can do little more than attack the comparison for lack of 100% precision. 

What do fine people like you think of Stalin? How about the Spanish Civil War? Both sides of it.

[iNow]

Just to clarify, is your intent here to offer evidence of conservatives being more likely to get triggered?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just to clarify, is your intent here to offer evidence of conservatives being more likely to get triggered?

That was my thought when I first saw your Hitler post. But no. People with lack of balanced perspectives are more likely to be triggered. No one's immune.