British public wrong about nearly everything

phonemonkey

phonemonkey

phonemonkey

Associate
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Posts
1,056
Location
On the wagon
According to The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

Makes interesting reading. It raises the point - how do you apportion resources when the public perception is so out of touch with reality. Case in point is benefit fraud. According to the article it's believed that £24 in every £100 claimed in benefits is claimed fraudulently, when in reality it's only 70p in every £100.

If the public believe a quarter of the benefits budget is wrongly claimed then as a politican can you run for office without promising to be stricter than the other side on benefit fraud even though the enforcement measures you're proposing is more costly than the current level of benefits fraud.
 
Maybe the public apply more common descriptions to such definitions rather than the legal definitions that are created to paint the ruling party in the best possible light. I have seen cases of what I would consider benefit fraud that are highly unlikely to be accounted for or ever noticed. Whilst they may be wrong it is dangerous to assume you are using an impartial measure.
 
If the media was regulated with stricter punishment for unfounded stories we might not have such a twisted notion of what is right and wrong.
I am one of the public and I get a lot of extra info from even this forum that tbh I wouldn't normally be subjected to, if I didn't do it myself. The papers are to blame for rallying the masses in the wrong directions. IMO anyway.

We as a society need to find out who is accountable for this misinformation and public scaremongering.
 
I think a lot of people who comment on this thread will want the public to have less of a say in the day to day activities of running the country - It might be the case that getting them more involved will make them less ignorant of public affairs.
 
ChroniC said:
If the media was regulated with stricter punishment for unfounded stories we might not have such a twisted notion of what is right and wrong.
I am one of the public and I get a lot of extra info from even this forum that tbh I wouldn't normally be subjected to, if I didn't do it myself. The papers are to blame for rallying the masses in the wrong directions. IMO anyway.

We as a society need to find out who is accountable for this misinformation and public scaremongering.
Click to expand...

Or just educate the public about critical thinking and get them to look at more sources of news before believing something?
 
Tabloids have a lot to answer for, mainly using suggestive grammar to sway an (lets face it, an audience not generally bright enough to differentiate between suggestions and expressions of fact) in leiu of more matter of fact language.

That's why I don't read papers any more, because i can rarely get through the opening paragraph without thinking "what a load of purposely biased nonsense"

"if you torture the statistics long enough, they will confess ".

Im all for free press, but i do belive the authorities should come down much harder on the increasing instances of pretty much outright lies.
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
Or just educate the public about critical thinking and get them to look at more sources of news before believing something?
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think students need to be better taught how to find, and evaluate the information they need from an earlier age. I was doing my Highers (16/17) before I was expected to research my own data and evaluate it's validity. That's way too old in my opinion.
 
[TW]Fox;26276422 said:
This is why I am terrified of the concept of a referendum :p
Click to expand...

Yep and what people think our democracy is about.

Instead it should be about elect people who will implement what's best. Who are advised by experts in the relevant fields. Unfortunately this won't happen with our current system as such a PM would never get elected and it's all about 4 years, not decades.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Or just educate the public about critical thinking and get them to look at more sources of news before believing something?
Click to expand...
Indeed, but that takes time.

Until that day we will have to deal with 'Johnny common-sense down the pub politics", which frankly is part of the reason I'm a technocrat.

From an article.

"The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies. The research shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. If people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments...democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders"

Glaucus said:
Yep and what people think our democracy is about.

Instead it should be about elect people who will implement what's best. Who are advised by experts in the relevant fields. Unfortunately this won't happen with our current system as such a PM would never get elected and it's all about 4 years, not decades.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think that's a problem in itself.

How can somebody who knows nothing about politics or the myriad of different social factors underline a potential policy choice may entail really make an informed decision?, surely the it just becomes a case of the 'best salesman' or the one who has the most media in his pocket.

That's forgetting the fact that a vast majority of political changes which occur in a democracy are for the benefit of the smallest minority of the population (which further diminishes it's functionality).
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
Or just educate the public about critical thinking and get them to look at more sources of news before believing something?
Click to expand...

Not totally your point however. This will never work on a political broad spectrum, there is no way for us public to learn all fields to make a judgment. Which is why we really need to listen to experts, and understand that what we believe maybe completely wrong.
 
phonemonkey said:
Case in point is benefit fraud. According to the article it's believed that £24 in every £100 claimed in benefits is claimed fraudulently, when in reality it's only 70p in every £100.
Click to expand...

How do we KNOW benefit fraud is only 70p in every £100? Fraud, by it's nature is hidden and therefore unaccountable.

Furthermore that figure comes from the DWP, who are essentially marking their own homework. What makes them look less incompetent that benefit fraud is rife or that it is very low?
 
The problem is that whilst the public make poor decisions based on little to no political knowledge...

the government makes poor decisions based on actually being "in the know".

That, to me, is far more scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom