Do anons tend to recall only the Q posts that fit their hopes and expectations? While ignoring those that seemed to be predictive, but did not materialize when expected?

"CONFIRMATION BIAS

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for and weigh information that confirms one’s

preconceptions more strongly than information that challenges them. This occurs more than anything

else; we act to preserve our understanding of the world and often disregard contrary information. In

influence, it is vital to identify which perceptions are in conflict and how they might be swayed. It also

leads to a tendency for people to remember success and forget promises or mistakes. This helps to

explain why people are so willing to forget promises made to them or past blunders, as the ends appear

35to justify the means. Thus, a target population can be influenced by many promises and remarks, and

to a non-critical eye, the outlandish and untrue are forgotten and the correct predictions seem powerful.

Confirmation bias further helps to shape how one is influenced, since we have tendencies to remember

only the information pertinent to sustaining our views and delete the rest from memory. Thus, a fake

news site could post multiple fake targeted articles and not be recognized as fake, since the fake articles

will be forgotten, and the fake ones that are well-received will confirm beliefs and gain trust for the

site[10]."

CCIO-Information-Warfare-The-Meme-is-the-Embryo-of-the-Narrative-Illusion.pdf

pp. 35-36

Anon's thoughts:

Social media ("likes", "upvotes") reinforces tendencies to confirmation bias. Viewers are presented with news, and categories of news, that match their preferences. Once the preferences have been established through mockingbird-type propaganda, social media can reinforce beliefs through confirmation bias.

Also, people will tend to see lots of stories on topics they "like". The predominance of one kind of story will reinforce existing beliefs.

Social media designed with "like" or "upvote" are probably also very useful for profiling users. Get them to declare what kind of content they favor.

I think confirmation bias is very, very, very common these days.

>>5537

Ibid. p.36

"COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING

Influencers play both sides of issues relevant to their targets. One effective mechanism that they can

leverage against one or more sides is counterfactual thinking. It focuses on the imagined reminiscence

of “what could have been.” Counterfactual thinkers ponder alternative scenarios and outcomes that

might have happened but didn’t. Often, they over-idealize those wistful thoughts to the point that reality

becomes a bitter disappointment. Attackers can leverage those musings and negative feelings to sow

discord and mobilize movements. According to a 1997 study, “Affective Determinants of Counterfactual

Thinking,” the significance of the event is correlated linearly with the level of counterfactual thinking.

As a result, '''close elections, charged societal debates, the passage of controversial legislation, and other

events that leave one or both sides of an issue extremely emotional are prime targets for memes or trolled

discourse that capitalizes on counterfactual thinking''' [10]."

Anon thoughts. Well we are in that situation right now. Society is deeply polarized, and events have occurred and in the near future will occur (elections!) that fit this "wistful thinking" scenario. We can expect to be targeted with this style of psyop arousing the negative feelings of those disappointed by the outcome.

It could be a secondary purpose of the fake polls to create false expectations, that will be exploited after the election by arousing these "wistful feelings".

The left might be whipped into anarchy when their promised candidates lose, under the manufactured uncertainty of a "pandemic" and "vote by mail fraud".