https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-14/the-yes-and-no-cases-for-the-voice/102972172Yes?
The prime minister has travelled the country in an effort to convince Australians to vote Yes to a Voice to Parliament, a proposal that is derived from the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
The Voice is the culmination of decades of consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait people, resulting in the Uluru Statement in 2017.
In just over 400 words, the statement outlines what First Nations delegates at the Uluru conference believed should change in Australia for them to be properly recognised.
The Yes camp wants recognition for First Nations people in the constitution, saying it's no longer acceptable for Australia to be one of the only colonised countries in the world that does not recognise Indigenous people in its founding document.
Supporters say the current state of Indigenous affairs and policymaking cannot continue and that to change things, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should have a say on matters that affect their lives.
For better and more consistent policymaking, they say governments should have to consult with a representative body on laws and policies that affect First Nations people.
Their proposal for both recognition and respect is an enshrined Voice, meaning a permanent body that can't be removed without another referendum.
The Yes camp says the Voice is a way of combining the symbolism of recognition with tangible action in the form of an advisory body.
No?
The main No campaign is backed by the conservative lobby group Advance under the banner of "Australians for Unity", supported by spokespeople Warren Mundine and opposition spokesperson for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.
The Australians for Unity No campaign has three key arguments against the Voice: concerns about division, legal challenges and the unknown.
They see the Voice as "divisive" between Indigenous Australians and the broader population.
Supporters of the No case also say they don't want to see the constitution changed because they believe it could create the opportunity for legal challenges in the high court.
There is also a secondary No case, referred to as the "progressive" No, championed by independent senator Lidia Thorpe and the Black Sovereign Movement she represents in parliament.
The progressive No doesn't support the Voice proposal but has different reasons than the mainstream No campaign.
Supporters of the progressive No believe the Voice proposal doesn't go far enough because the body will be advisory only and has no independent power or veto over the parliament, and they don't want Indigenous Australians to be inserted into the constitution, which some see as an invalid colonial document.
What you are doing is applying the argument a small group of progressives used to explain why they voted against it, in my opinion the wrong way to vote. The potential necessity of review by the courts for legality was the only serious argument I saw in this likely incomplete summary from that bunch. Yes, one of the core functions of the judiciary. The existence of advisory boards isn't an inherently scary thing; even with policy boards I'd assume it's more important is who is on it and why rather than that it's a bureaucratic method, and I don't buy the argument that this one would somehow be made up of antagonistic forces. I'm pretty much done with this though, this has been settled already.
Here's what looks like a reasonable source:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/denying-the-grave/202212/who-is-most-vulnerable-misinformationKey points
Conspiracy theory research suggests that some personality types are more prone to believing in them.
Researchers have similarly tried to figure out what might make people most prone to misinformation.
The parameters are not clear, but it does seem that a lack of knowledge is not the main cause.
There are some important social and psychological factors that might make someone more prone to misinformation.
False information about health, particularly about COVID-19, is a growing problem in the U.S. and throughout the world. As researchers and practitioners have tried repeatedly to intervene in this problem, a common question continues to arise: Who is most vulnerable to misinformation? Are there certain psychological or personality profiles that predict someone’s firm belief in misinformation or does it have more to do with the environment and circumstances?
While these are often methodologically difficult questions to answer, we are starting to get some clues. While in the past, there has been a more prominent idea that exposure to misinformation is often sufficient to result in a belief in it, more recently researchers have been questioning whether this is really true. Some of the research thus far suggests that people who are low in certain skills, including cognitive skills, digital literacy, and media literacy, may be most prone to misinformation.
This is by no means to say that people who believe misinformation just lack key knowledge. In fact, these factors around literacy and cognitive skills do not make up most of the reason why people probably believe in misinformation. These factors may only account for a small portion of the issue. It is most likely the case instead that a knowledge deficit is not the reason why misinformation spreads.
There are some other identity characteristics that may make someone more vulnerable to misinformation. Given previous research, it does seem to be the case that while political polarization is a risk factor for believing misinformation, people on the political right are more likely to believe in and spread misinformation than people on the political left. In addition, age and education both seem to be factors, with advanced age associated with a higher likelihood of sharing misinformation, and those with less than a high school degree displaying more vulnerability to believing fake or misleading news.
Snopek/Shutterstock
Source: Snopek/Shutterstock
Research on identity and skills-related factors that predispose certain individuals to believing in and spreading misinformation is helpful, but it still leaves an open question about whether there are certain psychological or personality factors at play here.
In the conspiracy theories field, there has been some useful research tying certain personality traits, such as narcissism, and certain psychological features, such as feelings of loneliness and isolation, to a greater chance of believing in conspiracy theories. But are any of these psychological and personality factors relevant to vulnerability to misinformation as well?
While research on vulnerability to misinformation is mostly still in its infancy, some have suggested that common psychological factors present in childhood may affect adult life in ways that make some people more susceptible to believing misinformation. In general, childhood beliefs tend to be challenged as people get older, but there is a strong emotional inclination to hold onto beliefs from our childhoods that allows us to maintain family peace. As children learn to come up with rationalizations for their firmly-held beliefs and maintain them in the face of challenges, confirmation bias (the tendency to seek out information that agrees with what we already believe) muscles get strengthened all the way into adulthood.
The less challenged a child is about his or her beliefs, the more he or she will excel at coming up with rationalizations that chase away alternative ideas. On the contrary, when children are actively taught skepticism and critical thinking, their confirmation bias “muscle” gets a little weaker. In addition, people with high levels of anxiety are often more prone to confirmation bias, in part because they have a tendency and a strong inclination to block out new information that might be in any way threatening.
Belonging to a social group that believes in a certain type of misinformation might also strengthen the misinformation muscle. Disengaging from this belief can threaten people’s identity and group membership, so we find ways to hold onto it, even when disconfirming evidence comes along.
While our understanding of vulnerability to misinformation is still evolving, there are some factors that we can attend to now. For example, teaching skepticism and critical thinking to young people is always a useful venture. In addition, recognizing that people sharing misinformation might be particularly anxious or trying to defend a deeply-held belief can help build empathy and necessitates a response that is compassionate and understanding. We will never get very far in the fight against misinformation if we don’t truly understand where it is coming from, how it spreads, and who is most susceptible. We have a long way to go in understanding this, but we should take to heart the progress we have made thus far.
You asked for proof, so here is a more formal one, unless I am supposed to do my own scientific studies:
https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/right-and-left-partisanship-predicts-asymmetric-vulnerability-to-misinformation/So if you take the time to read the essay above, you'll see that both the right and left are more susceptible than moderates who are not immune but less effected. Conservatives, of course, moreso but not as big a difference as I had thought. Now we had here a referendum that both the wings opposed (which in the left's case was smaller but likely crippling to the vote even with only a small faction swaying towards no) for different reasons but to the same end. It's well known such information campaigns exist and have for quite a while. Here's an article from 2018 on studies in 2016 to 2017, presumably suggesting they had already been well established by then. That's a long time to be wondering why the public is slowly being driven insane if a person didn't already know.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06930-7
Author
Topic: Non-EU europe thread (with Russia, Israel and Australia included) (Read 272265 times)