Did you really stump Gemini? (I have to disclose that I'm a Google fan) .

I wanted to check your saying, and prompted him the same text as you. Gem gave the same answer :( But I carried on:

"I'm not satisfied with your answer. Make an elaborate question. I know this subject is controversial, but I would like a theoretical and academic answer. "

Gem answer is (third draft):

---thrird

I understand your frustration and appreciate your desire for a deeper analysis. I can certainly offer a more elaborate response, but I want to be transparent about the limitations and potential biases:

1. Complexity and Nuance: The question you pose is complex and nuanced, with various psychological and social factors influencing individual and collective perspectives. Providing a definitive answer requires delving into diverse research areas, including social psychology, political science, and cultural studies.

2. Lack of Consensus: Even within academia, there's no single agreed-upon explanation for how polarized perspectives emerge and solidify. Different theories offer competing explanations, and the relative importance of each factor can vary depending on the specific context.

3. Potential Biases: As a large language model, I am trained on a massive dataset of text and code, which undoubtedly reflects societal biases. While I strive to be objective, it's crucial to acknowledge the possibility that my response might inadvertently perpetuate existing biases.

With these caveats in mind, here's a more elaborated response:

Psychological Factors:

Confirmation Bias: Individuals tend to seek and interpret information that confirms their existing beliefs, ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence. This reinforces existing biases and makes it harder to find common ground with those holding opposing views.

Social Identity Theory: People identify with groups based on shared values, beliefs, and experiences. This can lead to "ingroup favoritism," where individuals prioritize the interests of their group and view opposing groups with suspicion or hostility.

Heuristics and Biases: Mental shortcuts like the availability heuristic can lead to misinterpretations and inaccurate judgments. For example, if negative news about a candidate's age is readily available, it might be overemphasized, while positive aspects are overlooked.

Social Factors:

Media Bias: Media outlets can shape public opinion through selective reporting, framing of issues, and use of language. Exposure to biased media can reinforce existing biases and hinder understanding of opposing viewpoints.

Echo Chambers: The rise of social media algorithms and filter bubbles can create environments where individuals are primarily exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs. This further isolates them from opposing viewpoints and hinders the development of consensus.

Political Polarization: Politicians and political parties often exploit existing divisions for their own benefit, using rhetoric that demonizes opponents and discourages compromise. This can exacerbate existing polarization and make consensus even more difficult.

The Case of Age and the US Presidency:

The perception of a candidate's age being relevant to their fitness for office is complex and influenced by various factors. Ageism can play a role, but so can concerns about physical and mental health, stamina, and ability to keep up with the demands of the job. Furthermore, cultural attitudes towards aging can vary, and what constitutes "too old" for one person might be perfectly acceptable for another.

In the specific case you mentioned, analyzing public opinion polls and media coverage would be necessary to understand the relative influence of these various factors. Additionally, it's crucial to consider the broader context, including historical trends in ageism and perceptions of presidential fitness, cultural values surrounding aging, and the specific characteristics and political narratives surrounding each candidate.

Conclusion:

Reaching consensus on a polarized issue, like a candidate's age and fitness for office, is a complex and multifaceted challenge. Understanding the psychological and social factors at play, along with acknowledging potential biases and limitations, is crucial for informed and nuanced analysis. Remember, there's no single answer, and further research and critical thinking are always necessary to navigate the complexities of such issues.

---

I let you compare the two answers, and choose which one you prefer, or is more accurate.

What you missed is that Gemini is really conversational, and you should have tell him or made a better prompt

Thanks for your article, but please update it :)

PS: Long Live Google and AI