Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Hey. Now that we all seem to have calmed down a bit, you guys should really check this link out. It's funny as hell, but it's a little scary too.

Part of me can't believe that these focus groups were real. The other part of me knows these focus groups were real.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Hey. Now that we all seem to have calmed down a bit, you guys should really check this link out. It's funny as hell, but it's a little scary too.

Part of me can't believe that these focus groups were real. The other part of me knows these focus groups were real.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Hey. Now that we all seem to have calmed down a bit, you guys should really check this link out. It's funny as hell, but it's a little scary too.

Part of me can't believe that these focus groups were real. The other part of me knows these focus groups were real.

---

I actually think it would be more absurd if it was real, they'd stick to their positions more, and the transgressions of the real candidates would be worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Recognize anyone? Was it like looking into a mirror?

---

Quote:

---

If you felt this was fake, why would you post it. Isn't there enough bullshit posted here to sort out?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
It's an irritating put on; such media is irresponsible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Oh, the people might have been real, but if so it would take several tries to get 100%. The only thing that makes me think you might be right is that a couple of the people from each group we didn't hear from by the end, and I think they may have been edited out for not falling for it. The quotes could have been replaced with real ones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

I don't think it would be as hard to get that result as you might imagine. That's the funny thing about "group think". I don't think this would have worked if they only had one or two people per group. The person would probably catch on when all alone, or they would keep their opinion to themself. But you put a bunch of strangers in the same room, let them know that they're all on the same "side" and there is a problem that needs to be solved and see what happens....

All it takes is two people from that group, and the rest usually fall in line. The first person is important to get the ball rolling, but really it's the second person that is key because that is what turns into a movement. Once you've got two people doing mental gymnastics to justify what is obviously unjustifiable, the more shy and/or less opinionated people jump on board.


Then you have to take the last election into account. No matter how bad your "side" was, the other side was just so much worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:


interesting idea. reminds me of a friend of mine's explanation of jury duty. She was having an interesting debate with a couple other people, about the probably that the suspect could be guitry vs the lack of evidence and the amount of doubt that still remained, and then an alpha male and alpha female came in with a couple of natural followers, and their "must be guity, he looks like a lout" argument. Then, she said, it all turned into high school.

In 30 seconds, the entire justice just fell apart for me, because I realized she was right. No evolution happens that transforms ordinary people into jurors, so there isn't going to be a lot of highly evolved discourse. Oh, sure, that may happen with lawyers, but then we're back to "everyone gets as much justice as he or she can afford"

Myself, I was on jury duty once, but the suspect confessed before the trial

---