I’ve spent a great deal of time observing, researching and studying human behavior; little did I know I was teetering in the field of behavioral psychology, not by trade obviously. So, I cannot claim to be an expert in the field. However, I made a stunning discovery; it was a EUREKA moment for me; I owe a debt of gratitude to the “weird” elections season.
You see, during the 2016 presidential elections cycle, I’ve been writing about the candidates of both major partys. Although I’ve frequently claimed to be objective, unbiased, most readers are inclined to believe ‘I am full of it’ (whatever “it” means) but before I discuss their reasoning, I must also explain that “most readers” are not always the same ones. “Most readers” are either Democrat or Republican and also interestingly, “most readers” are Rubio’ supporters or Ted’s or Kasich’s or Trump’s or Hillary’s or Sanders’; you get the picture. For instance, when I published an article which was not in essence favorable to Marco Rubio (and Ted Cruz), “most readers” (read Rubio’s supporters and Ted’s) thought “I was full of it” and biased.
Let me say for the nth time that I don’t have allegiance to any political party or candidate, thus freeing me to be as objective as one can be. What makes my analysis most unique is the fact that it is usually peppered with accurate predictions; but that’s not what I really want to discuss here.
Two weeks ago, I posted the following:
Imagine your favorite sport team is 300 point down and there is just five minutes left of the game; the most any fan could hope for in this scenario is for the losing team to reduce the loss margin. You would agree there is absolutely no strategy a coach could come up with to change the outcome of the game, would you not? I would add that not even a miracle could change it.
That was an excerpt from an article Bernie’s supporters (or Bernizens as referred to in Bernie City) decided to boycott on Postwaves (an online forum for discussion on any topic) simply because the article was not favorable to Bernie. However, the article was an analysis of the then state of affairs which clearly pointed to the fact that Bernie had no chance to overtake Hillary.
It became obvious (to me) that Bernie’s supporters share similar traits with Trump’s a) they are only interested in opinions which support theirs b) logic does not matter. It was both sad and startling to find that out 1) it is believed that Bernie’ supporters are mostly college educated (some already graduated, others still in college) and yet their reactions to anyone who does not share their belief or support “the Bernie Revolution” is not worth paying attention to 2) it is widely believed and accepted that educated individuals are inclined to be curious; they would want to broaden their knowledge, hear (read) other viewpoints even those which contradict theirs. Besides, the title of the article “The Bernie Sanders Delusion Strategy” should have triggered curiosity; after all, I too am a fan of Bernie but it is my job to apply logic, to use rationale – even it does not support my preferences – to derive at accurate conclusions.
Since most (if not all)Bernizens reacted the same way in regards to news, opinions, articles or commentaries which are not favorable to Bernie even if those commentaries, opinions or news are factual, could that be construed as Mass Delusion?