Democrats Find Voters Far Less Gullible

Don’t be fooled. Leftists know they are stupid. And their stupidity comes honestly. However, before I delve into the psychopathy of Leftism, let me ask you a question.

On a scale of 1-10 how gullible do you think the America public is as a whole? In other words, how often can they be fooled or pointed in the a new (wrong) direction?

Whatever number you picked, raise it by at least 2. More on that in a bit.

When you are fooled, what fooled you? Your teenager, when asked if he or she is doing drugs or having sex? Perhaps it was a magician?

Politically, did you believe that Obama would actually bring “hope and change?” Has somebody convinced you that global climate change is anything except weather?

Maybe you actually believe Trump lost in 2020? And that J6 was an insurrection cause by Donald Trump?

What is gullibility?

Gullibility is a tendency to be easily manipulated into believing something is true when it isn’t.

April Fool’s tricks often work because they exploit our baseline inclination to accept direct communications from others as reliable and trustworthy. When a colleague tells you the boss wants to see you immediately, the first, automatic reaction is to believe them.

Once we realize this is April 1, a more critical mindset will increase our threshold of acceptance and triggers more thorough processing. Rejection is then likely unless there is strong corroborating evidence.

Do we want to be gullible?

So, it seems that gullibility explores how we think, and the level of proof we need before accepting information as valid.

In most face-to-face situations, the threshold of acceptance is fairly low. Because as humans we operate with a “positivity bias”. Thus, we assume most people act in an honest and genuine way.

Of course, this is not always so. Many times others manipulate us for their own purposes. I can always tell when my teenage son wants something. Because he’s much nicer leading up to the “ask”. I always love his look of incredulity, when I or his mother asks, “What do you want?”. He has no idea about his poker “tell”.

In another instance where you greet a mother and daughter and you say to the mother, “Is this your sister?” While the mother may know that your flattery is a lie, she is likely willing to be gullible to the lie to feed her ego. What was the questioner really setting up in that exchange?

Another way we are gullible is due to “confirmation bias”.

If there is one area where Leftist excel, it’s confirmation bias, where one prefers dubious information that supports our pre-existing attitudes. The contrary is true as well, as those suffering from confirmation bias are more inclined to reject valid information that challenges their beliefs.

A similar bias exists when passing on doubtful information to others. In validating ourselves, we tend to reshape rumor and gossip to support our pre-existing stereotypes and expectations. Inconsistent details – even if true – are often changed or even omitted. To illustrate confirmation bias, look at this wine experiment.

Wine experiment

From Psychology Today,

For decades, psychological research has supported the presence of inherent bias in human perception. A 2001 study titled The Color of Odors examined the effect of color on odor and taste perception of wines. In the experiment, wine experts were presented with two glasses of wine: one red and one white. Each was asked to describe the wine as they experienced it. The experts used words like citrus, flower, lemon, and honey to describe the white wine, whereas they used words like clove, musk and crushed red fruit to describe the red.

However, all of the experts had been unwittingly duped: both glasses actually contained the same white wine, the only difference between them being a little red food coloring in one glass. Not a single expert was even able to identify that both glasses contained white wine, and they all described the colored white wine as they would have a red. This classic study reveals the power that expectations have on how we perceive the world.

As you consider this study, consider what happens when a person reveals his or her political leaning. Politics may in fact be the most polarizing “confirmation bias” in existence.

In 2008 CalTech performed a study on the neuroscience of bias.

In this study, subjects were placed in a functional magnetic resonance imager (fMRI) and presented with two glasses of wine, one labeled $5 and a second labeled $90. However, the subjects were not told that the wine in each glass was actually the same $90 wine. They found that the average self-reported experienced pleasantness (EP) score was greater for the wine labeled $90 as compared to that labeled $5. More important, the higher EP score corresponded to an increased blood-oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) of the brain, meaning that this area was more active when tasting the wine labeled as more expensive. The frontal lobe of the cortex is an area of the brain important for high-level cognitive function and top-down processing. It has been shown to be essential for decision making, planning for future events, and reward comparison.


These studies demonstrate how our own brains can fool us, stemming from the fact that different parts of it process stimuli differently. Bottom-up processing is when we perceive reality objectively based on stimulus—we let the sensations guide our perceptions. Top-down processing is when we drive our own reality based on perception. The frontal cortex’s predisposition for top-down processing is one reason why the subjects in these studies were so easily tricked, and it is why we humans are predisposed to bias.

So just the perception that something cost more actually changed the physiology of the study subjects.


Moving from wine to education, a study Rosenthal and Jacobson established what is known as the Rosenthal Effect, which states: the greater the expectation of achievement, the greater the level of success.

Teacher’s expectations of student performance was studied based on student achievement outcomes. In the study researchers gave an IQ exam to elementary school students and ranked them based on scores. Teachers were told that the top 20 percent of students have high potential to succeed and were provided with the names of these students. What the teachers didn’t know was that they had actually been given a random list of names.

At the end of the school year, the researchers returned and administered the exam again to the same group of students. What they found astonished the researchers.

The second- and third-graders who’d been labeled as “bright” at the beginning of the year had advanced significantly beyond their peers—with significantly higher IQ scores on average.

The researchers concluded that the teachers’ expectations of student achievement actually became self-fulfilling. Those students labeled “smart” actually became smart.

Consciously or unconsciously, teachers paid closer attention to students perceived as high-achieving. Perhaps they worked more closely with these students. The research proved that teachers and students at this elementary school believed in the existence of “smart” and “not-so-smart” students, and those expectations made the outcome a reality for most.

What is Leftists reality? Their reality of America? Their realities for special interest groups?

Misdirection’s role in gullibility

Misdirection is an age-old tactic used often by the Left. But it’s also used by thieves of all kinds.

Consider how pickpockets work. They prey on those whose minds are elsewise occupied. And if an accomplice is used, the pickpocket grabs the treasure then offloads it to a partner usually going in the opposite direction. That way, if the pickpocket is accused of theft, they don’t have the item on them.

In politics, misdirection occurs when governments release bad news on Fridays or before major holidays. Classic misdirection, as the minds of the public are consumed with the weekend, the holiday, or something more likely to draw our attention.

Social compliance and Social proof

We hear the term expert, and generally speaking we concede that the so-called expert knows more than we. Social compliance refers to how we respond to people we consider to be in authority.

It is for this reason, most people driving will slow down when they see a police car. But that submission to authority makes us vulnerable to the “experts”.

Ponzi schemes rely on the idea that the person selling the concept is competent. These “experts” exude the appearance of competence, but many times end up being abusers. Teachers, clergy, and financiers are good examples. All doctors are not good, all judges are not impartial, for example.

Social proof differs from compliance. Social proof refers to how we constantly look to others around us for clues as to how to behave. Look at how the Biden administration handled Covid and you get a great look at social proof.

When the scamdemic hit, only a few people wore mask. Soon, the majority of the country wore mask. Some mask-wearers loved the authority wearing masks gave them over those who refused to comply.

Governments performed a magnificent mind-f*ck on almost the entire world.

Two Paths to Persuasion

Persuasion theorists distinguish between the central and peripheral routes to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). As we analyze these paths, you will clearly see the difference in how Conservatives think compared to Leftists.

First, let’s examine the central route. This path employs direct, relevant, logical messages, and rests on the assumption that the audience is motivated, will think carefully about what is presented, and will react on the basis of cogent arguments. The central route is intended to produce enduring agreement.

For example, you might decide to vote for a particular political candidate after hearing her speak and finding her logic and proposed policies to be convincing. Clearly, this is how Conservatives are persuaded.

The peripheral route, on the other hand, relies on superficial cues that have little to do with logic. The peripheral approach is more emotional. In considering this route to gullibility, look at the snake oil salesman.

The unscrupulous salesman requires a target who does not think logically. That salesperson wants the buyer to have a knee-jerk response, and make an impulse buy. It may be intended to persuade you to do something you do not want to do and might later be sorry you did.

Dictators and cult leaders rely on the peripheral approach. Returning to politics, we witness the peripheral approach with the commercials run that have little substance, and instead attack a candidate with innuendo and half-truths.

The gullible are not necessarily stupid.

We are all programmed for gullibility. We want to trust people. Then we outgrow the urge. Democrats have dumbed-down their constituents. But what they are finding this election cycle is their base is far less gullible.


Copy */
Back to top button