Do strangers personal stories change your mind when voting in a referendum?

freshpopcorn

I was thinking about this due to the up coming referendum and the previous marriage referendum. In the marriage referendum I knew a mix of Yes/No voters but most people I knew how they were going to vote months in advance and all these personal stories with people saying what a yes vote meant to them had no impact on how they were going to votes. Some people might have voted Yes because a family member was gay but they wouldn't have done it for a stranger.
So whilst a good campaign can get people out to vote. It is just my experience that is it didn't have much of an impact on how they voted.

Do strangers personal stories change your mind when voting in a referendum?

Silentcorner

The problem with that is, us Irish are serious spoofers...we believe our own spoof so we don't even realise we are spoofing...

Just take a look at Micheal Martin...

kneemos

Personal stories are the main thing that change peoples minds I'd have thought.

One eyed Jack

Not me personally anyway, no. Because I'm voting on a change to our Constitution which governs and guides Irish society, I would be considering how it affects society as a whole before I'd consider any effect on immediate family and friends, let alone the effect it has on complete strangers, regardless of their personal stories that I consider personal only to them.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I don't find myself influenced by individual stories, as they are usually extremes and catering for the most extreme circumstances leads to bad law quite often. I prefer to see a wider example or a general sense of something.

freshpopcorn

kneemos wrote: »

Personal stories are the main thing that change peoples minds I'd have thought.

I just found it was when somebody was close to them they changed there minds otherwise they didn't!

SEPT 23 1989

Will there be many happy stories like in the last one ?

I doubt it

Windorah

I voted in the previous referendum for strangers. Gay strangers. I happen to be straight so had the right to marry but these strangers due to their sexual orientation were denied that right.
I will vote in the next referendum, again, thinking of strangers. I am in a stable relationship, I have a secure job and supportive family but unfortunately many people do not have the things I do so I will be voting thinking of these strangers.

So ya. Strangers are often motivation enough to swing a vote!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Windorah wrote: »

I voted in the previous referendum for strangers. Gay strangers. I happen to be straight so had the right to marry but these strangers due to their sexual orientation were denied that right.
I will vote in the next referendum, again, thinking of strangers. I am in a stable relationship, I have a secure job and supportive family but unfortunately many people do not have the things I do so I will be voting thinking of these strangers.

So ya. Strangers are often motivation enough to swing a vote!

In that sense strangers means society as a whole and likewise my decisions would be based on the impact on society or sections of society. But a personal story about an individual stranger rarely will have an impact on me.

kneemos

Bexley Mysterious Waste wrote: »

In that sense strangers means society as a whole and likewise my decisions would be based on the impact on society or sections of society. But a personal story about an individual stranger rarely will have an impact on me.

Personal stories are how your vote relates to society as a whole.

One eyed Jack

kneemos wrote: »

Personal stories are how your vote relates to society as a whole.

How do you mean?

Personal stories offer just a small glimpse of that individuals perspective of their experiences, and don't give any greater understanding of society as a whole.

kneemos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you mean?

Personal stories offer just a small glimpse of that individuals perspective of their experiences, and don't give any greater understanding of society as a whole.

A personal story obviously relates to more than one person.

A personal story of a woman carrying a dead foetus back from the UK or a couple who hate each other unable to get divorced are examples of what's wrong with the current or former laws.

pitifulgod

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you mean?

Personal stories offer just a small glimpse of that individuals perspective of their experiences, and don't give any greater understanding of society as a whole.

Well in this instance, most aren't prevented from having abortions. They are forced to leave the country though. So it is very much so giving an insight.

freshpopcorn

kneemos wrote: »

A personal story obviously relates to more than one person.

A personal story of a woman carrying a dead foetus back from the UK or a couple who hate each other unable to get divorced are examples of what's wrong with the current or former laws.

I just find that strangers personal stories have no impact on people I know. They don't seem to change there mind until it's someone close to them.
Some might vote by using fact or vote according to their conscience.

Neyite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you mean?

Personal stories offer just a small glimpse of that individuals perspective of their experiences, and don't give any greater understanding of society as a whole.

I'm not understanding your point. Could you elaborate?

Divorce affects the individual. Marriage equality affects the individual, and abortion affects the individual. I don't see how they affect society as a whole.

freshpopcorn

Neyite wrote: »

I'm not understanding your point. Could you elaborate?

Divorce affects the individual. Marriage equality affects the individual, and abortion affects the individual. I don't see how they affect society as a whole.

If I had to make an educated guess I think people vote on the society they want themselves and their family to grow up. Some want changes and others don't.

eeguy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you mean?

Personal stories offer just a small glimpse of that individuals perspective of their experiences, and don't give any greater understanding of society as a whole.

Personal stories touted by both sides are usually extreme and usually false example design to give an emotive response.

Its to totally disengenous but it works. Usually used by the side who have no real evidence such as anti-vaxxers ("my daughter got autism from the cervical jab") but also both sides of the abortion debate and gay marriage debate.

One eyed Jack

kneemos wrote: »

A personal story obviously relates to more than one person.

A personal story of a woman carrying a dead foetus back from the UK or a couple who hate each other unable to get divorced are examples of what's wrong with the current or former laws.

Think you have that arseways kneemos tbh. Some people relate to people's perspectives of their own personal stories. For example if we were just to use your example of the personal stories of two different people who hated each other and now they want a divorce because she wanted to keep the child and her wife wanted her to have an abortion.

You're going to get two very different perspectives of the same story, but you're not getting any real insight into their lives apart from the particular narrative they've chosen to portray. That's why allowing yourself to be influenced by personal stories regarding social issues is a bad idea - because it's focused more on subjectivity pertaining to the individual, rather than objectivity relating to society as a whole.

Owryan

Normally no. But in relation to abortion it was a story on the radio that got to me. This was around the time they were discussing making changes following the death of Savita.

Husband and wife were interviewed about their experiences. She had been pregnant but a scan showed that the brain had not developed and the foetus would not survive the birth but would continue to grow and develop in the womb.

As the "pregnancy" developed they had to endure family, friends and strangers asking when she was due or if they knew it was a boy or a girl. They both said they were unable to cope with this.

Eventually a doctor off the record referred them to a clinic in London and they made the journey. Just listening to them was horrible, you could feel the trauma and despair in their voices.

It was that interview that helped me decide that termination in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities should be permitted. I don't believe in abortion being freely available but yes to certain circumstances.

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

I'm not understanding your point. Could you elaborate?

Divorce affects the individual. Marriage equality affects the individual, and abortion affects the individual. I don't see how they affect society as a whole.

Facilitating divorce, marriage equality and abortion in a society affects people on an individual level, and that's one perspective, but also it changes society as a whole, and that's another perspective. There's two different ways to look at any social issue, both at an individual level, and at a social level. Even if we were to take the effects of marriage equality for example, it meant that for the children of same-sex couples in Irish society that those children would enjoy the equal protection of the family as recognised by the Irish Constitution. The children of parents who are unmarried do not enjoy the same legal protections as the children of married parents because unmarried couples in Irish society are not legally recognised as a family by the Irish Constitution.

That's something that affects people at an individual level, but it's an issue that also affects people at a societal level, and it's something I think anyway should be addressed by way of a referendum on the issue of what constitutes the family in Irish society today with the effect it has on unmarried parents and their children.

kneemos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Think you have that arseways kneemos tbh. Some people relate to people's perspectives of their own personal stories. For example if we were just to use your example of the personal stories of two different people who hated each other and now they want a divorce because she wanted to keep the child and her wife wanted her to have an abortion.

You're going to get two very different perspectives of the same story, but you're not getting any real insight into their lives apart from the particular narrative they've chosen to portray. That's why allowing yourself to be influenced by personal stories regarding social issues is a bad idea - because it's focused more on subjectivity pertaining to the individual, rather than objectivity relating to society as a whole.

Individuals make up society.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kneemos wrote: »

Individuals make up society.

Of course they do but An Individual isn't representative of society nor does An individual's story reflect society or any norm within society. That's the point being made.

kneemos

Bexley Mysterious Waste wrote: »

Of course they do but An Individual isn't representative of society nor does An individual's story reflect society or any norm within society. That's the point being made.

As I've said an individuals story relates to many people and is a symptom of what's wrong with a particular law.

justfillmein

so how are you supposed to know what is good for society as a whole if you are not interested in individual stories/experiences?

One eyed Jack

kneemos wrote: »

As I've said an individuals story relates to many people and is a symptom of what's wrong with a particular law.

It's a bit like reading a horoscope kneemos. Many different people will read the same horoscope and relate it to events in their own lives. It's the same with personal accounts told from an individuals perspective - you're going to get that individuals perspective of their own experience only, that one single experience.

Think of it like the way there was a traveller girl on here one time whom some people could relate to her experiences as a woman, and asked her to do an AMA. As soon as she posted that she was pro-life, the same people went very quiet, because now they could no longer relate to her experiences. She was no longer portraying the narrative that they wanted to relate to.

Another good example of it is at the recent women's march when the head of Planned Parenthood told an audience of mainly middle-class white women that they weren't doing enough. She maintained that it was thanks to the efforts of women of colour that women's rights were where they are today in the US. It was a shocking condemnation of the majority of women who had turned out for the women's march, and of course it hasn't gone down too well, either with middle class white women, nor with women of colour who claim that they have been ignored by the feminist movement.

This is another good example of people only being able to relate to a narrative they want to hear. You'll often hear people on here complain about the treatment of people of colour in society, but when people of colour speak for themselves regarding civil and political rights, some people would rather they didn't, as in the case of Alveda King (Martin Luther Kings niece) -

One eyed Jack

justfillmein wrote: »

so how are you supposed to know what is good for society as a whole if you are not interested in individual stories/experiences?

Do your own research, search for as many objective sources as possible, meta-analysis of studies and so on. The social sciences in particular are rife with biases, and there's even a term for it -

Are your findings ‘WEIRD’?


The over-sampling of American college students may be skewing our understanding of human behavior, finds an analysis by researchers from the University of British Columbia. In a forthcoming issue of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, anthropologist Joe Henrich, PhD, and psychologists Steven Heine, PhD, and Ara Norenzayan, PhD, review the available database of comparative social and behavioral science studies. They found that people from Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (WEIRD) societies — who represent as much as 80 percent of study participants, but only 12 percent of the world’s population — are not only unrepresentative of humans as a species, but on many measures they’re outliers.

In one illustrative study from the 1966 book “The Influence of Culture on Visual Perception,” researchers found that U.S. college students perceive some visual illusions to a much greater degree than people from many other cultures, including the San foragers of the Kalahari. In fact, people from some cultures were completely unaffected by certain illusions. If such seemingly basic processes as visual perception can differ across cultures, says Henrich, it makes sense that others do, too.

He and his colleagues use many examples to demonstrate that studies that rely on a narrow swath of the world’s population need to be careful in assuming, as many do, that their results are universally applicable to the human species.

 “We hope that researchers will come to realize just how precarious a position we’re in when we’re trying to construct universal theories from a narrow, and unusual, slice of the population,” says Heine.

To address the problem, Heine and his colleagues suggest that journal editors and funding agencies encourage researchers to discuss the limitations of their samples and seek more representative study participants.

kneemos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a bit like reading a horoscope kneemos. Many different people will read the same horoscope and relate it to events in their own lives. It's the same with personal accounts told from an individuals perspective - you're going to get that individuals perspective of their own experience only, that one single experience.

Think of it like the way there was a traveller girl on here one time whom some people could relate to her experiences as a woman, and asked her to do an AMA. As soon as she posted that she was pro-life, the same people went very quiet, because now they could no longer relate to her experiences. She was no longer portraying the narrative that they wanted to relate to.

Another good example of it is at the recent women's march when the head of Planned Parenthood told an audience of mainly middle-class white women that they weren't doing enough. She maintained that it was thanks to the efforts of women of colour that women's rights were where they are today in the US. It was a shocking condemnation of the majority of women who had turned out for the women's march, and of course it hasn't gone down too well, either with middle class white women, nor with women of colour who claim that they have been ignored by the feminist movement.

This is another good example of people only being able to relate to a narrative they want to hear. You'll often hear people on here complain about the treatment of people of colour in society, but when people of colour speak for themselves regarding civil and political rights, some people would rather they didn't, as in the case of Alveda King (Martin Luther Kings niece) -

Of course you'll get people who'll never change their minds,these people won't be influenced by anything.
It's ridiculous to say stories of abusive marriages or women being forced to travel won't influence people's vote.

kneemos

I might add individuals stories was noted at the time for being a major influencer in the marriage referendum

One eyed Jack

kneemos wrote: »

Of course you'll get people who'll never change their minds,these people won't be influenced by anything.
It's ridiculous to say stories of abusive marriages or women being forced to travel won't influence people's vote.

I didn't say anything like that though?

Of course narratives will influence the way some people vote. The more people can relate to a particular narrative, the more they're likely to support the point of that narrative. That's why I used the example of horoscopes and how thousands of people will interpret and apply the same narrative to their own circumstances. That's why horoscopes are purposely written as vague and generally positive narratives, to appeal to people who already believe in horoscopes. If people were to examine horoscopes objectively, they'd know that horoscopes are unadulterated bunkum.

At an individual level, people are generally willing to believe anything which reinforces their already formed prejudices and biases, and that's why they gravitate naturally towards, and place greater value in, personal accounts and testimonies that reinforce their thinking, and often reject immediately out of hand anything which contradicts their world view. Nobody likes dealing with the discomfort presented by cognitive dissonance.

freshpopcorn

kneemos wrote: »

I might add individuals stories was noted at the time for being a major influencer in the marriage referendum

I'd like to know was it those generic one's that were going around or people who voted for people they knew because in my experience people voted for there brother/sister/son/nephew/etc and not the guy in the paper.
I know a few people with gay children and they voted because of there kids and wouldn't have done so other wise no matter how emphatic the stories were in the paper.

kneemos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't say anything like that though?

Of course narratives will influence the way some people vote. The more people can relate to a particular narrative, the more they're likely to support the point of that narrative. That's why I used the example of horoscopes and how thousands of people will interpret and apply the same narrative to their own circumstances. That's why horoscopes are purposely written as vague and generally positive narratives, to appeal to people who already believe in horoscopes. If people were to examine horoscopes objectively, they'd know that horoscopes are unadulterated bunkum.

At an individual level, people are generally willing to believe anything which reinforces their already formed prejudices and biases, and that's why they gravitate naturally towards, and place greater value in, personal accounts and testimonies that reinforce their thinking, and often reject immediately out of hand anything which contradicts their world view. Nobody likes dealing with the discomfort presented by cognitive dissonance.

Yeah folk have opinions. The question was do individual stories change minds,they undoubtedly do.

One eyed Jack

kneemos wrote: »

Yeah folk have opinions. The question was do individual stories change minds,they undoubtedly do.

We're agreed that they do of course change some peoples minds, but the OP asked the question of individuals, and so in that respect we can only answer for ourselves as individuals. Do individial stories influence my voting preference in a referendum? Of course not. That's an answer from my own individial perspective. It may or may not influence how other people may choose to answer the same question for themselves.

KKkitty

For me now I'm not swayed by what's being said by either pro-choice or pro-life sides as regards repealing the 8th amendment. I knew instinctively not to be a part of denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians of this country as it was the right thing to do. I will be voting yes to repeal the 8th when the time comes. I want Ireland to go forward in time not backwards. I don't want my fellow women to go alone to somewhere they've never been to end an unwanted pregnancy. No more planes or boats. Let those procedures happen in this country.

Annasopra

A long time I was quite strongly pro life. Over time hearing stories of the reality of womens lives completely changed my perspective on the issue.