Arguing in this forum really is futile

[suzzer99]

Published study: pointing out factual errors in people's beliefs may actually make them MORE likely to continue believing

In a 2010 study, Nyhan and Reifler asked people to read a fake newspaper article containing a real quotation of George W. Bush, in which the former president asserted that his tax cuts "helped increase revenues to the Treasury." In some versions of the article, this false claim was then debunked by economic evidence: A correction appended to the end of the article stated that in fact, the Bush tax cuts "were followed by an unprecedented three-year decline in nominal tax revenues, from $2 trillion in 2000 to $1.8 trillion in 2003." The study found that conservatives who read the correction were twice as likely to believe Bush's claim was true as were conservatives who did not read the correction.

...

Another notorious political falsehood is Sarah Palin's claim that Obamacare would create "death panels." To test whether they could undo the damage caused by this highly influential morsel of misinformation, Nyhan and his colleagues had study subjects read an article about the "death panels" claim, which in some cases ended with a factual correction explaining that "nonpartisan health care experts have concluded that Palin is wrong." Among survey respondents who were very pro-Palin and who had a high level of political knowledge, the correction actually made them more likely to wrongly embrace the false "death panels" theory.

...

Together, all of these studies support the theory of "motivated reasoning": The idea that our prior beliefs, commitments, and emotions drive our responses to new information, such that when we are faced with facts that deeply challenge these commitments, we fight back against them to defend our identities. So next time you feel the urge to argue back against some idiot on the internet…pause, take a deep breath, and realize not only that arguing might not do any good, but that in fact, it might very well backfire.

The bold part really rings true with me. I've been arguing politics online for a long time. I've come to the conclusion that people's political positions are 90% or more generated by nothing more than tribally identifying with one side. Of course no one thinks about themselves like that. We all think we're freethinkers who form our opinions independently based on a wide range of available objective sources. Furthermore I think this polarization is getting stronger and stronger every day with the advent of the Internet and endless sources of partisan news delivery.

I'm sure this happens on both sides. I have about half a dozen ultraliberal friends on my Facebook feed who think that Palestinians can do no wrong, and Israel can do no right. They also tend to be the same people who post about GMO and got super worked up about Trayvon Martin, like it was some seminal moment in history. Although I admit I don't know anyone stupid enough to be anti-vaccine. Or at least they don't admit it.

I think Carl Sagan can say it a lot better than me:

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Yup. Suzzer and I could go round and round here with neither one of us changing the others mind. Which was my point, he's exactly what his op was pointing out.

Except that I actually cite things and post evidence sometimes. Whereas you just seem to regurgitate garbled talking points.

[headsnap]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Except that I regurgitate garbled talking points. Whereas you just seem to regurgitate garbled talking points.

fyp

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Except that I actually cite things and post evidence sometimes. Whereas you just seem to regurgitate garbled talking points.

You haven't posted any evidence I'm wrong. Keep blathering though, you posted a stupid op and are living the dream

[suzzer99]

I posted a poll showing a majority of Americans don't agree with your assertions about Obamacare.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Except that I actually cite things and post evidence sometimes. Whereas you just seem to regurgitate garbled talking points.

You don't even understand your own poll. Of course someone has benefited from obamacare. If asked the question even if have to agree with that It doesn't mean the majority of people like the law.

Again, you're no different than what the op is trying to poorly point out. Which makes it even more funny.

[Bowser]

"Arguing in this forum really is futile"

No it's not

[suzzer99]

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/1/5954701/...dangerous-safe

In laboratory settings, there's no evident difference between liberals and conservatives in their propensity to believe what they want, evidence be damned. In one experiment, Yale law professor Dan Kahan showed you could get liberals to start doubting global warming (and conservatives to begin accepting it) by making clear that any solution would require geoengineering. In another, he showed that both liberals and conservatives were more likely to rate someone an expert on climate change if they agreed with their conclusions. In a third, he showed liberals were about as resistant to evidence showing concealed carry laws are safe as conservatives were to evidence showing climate change is dangerous.

The difference, at least for now, isn't between liberals and conservatives. It's between the liberal and conservative establishments.

In that way, GMOs are actually an example of how differently the Republican and Democratic parties and their allied ideological movements have been responding to scientifically contested issues. Just as many conservatives distrust science that tells them the earth is warming and government needs to regulate private enterprise to stop it, many liberals mistrust science that says genetically manipulating seeds or injecting chemicals into children will lead to a better world.

The difference is that conservatism's mistrust of climate science has taken over the Republican Party - even politicians like Mitt Romney and John McCain have gone wobbly on climate science - while liberalism's allergy to messing with nature hasn't had much effect on the Democratic Party. And part of the reason is that the validators liberals look to on scientifically contested issues have refused to tell them what they want to hear.

[suzzer99]

Andrew WK nails it. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/...ampaign=buffer

The world isn't being destroyed by democrats or republicans, red or blue, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist -- the world is being destroyed by one side believing the other side is destroying the world. The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they're truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love. We must not let this happen.

When we lump people into groups, quickly label them, and assume we know everything about them and their life based on a perceived world view, how they look, where they come from, etc., we are not behaving as full human beings. When we truly believe that some people are monsters, that they fundamentally are less human than we are, and that they deserve to have less than we do, we ourselves become the monsters. When we allow our emotions to be hypnotized by the excitement of petty bickering about seemingly important topics, we drift further and further away from the fragile and crucial human bond holding everything together. When we anticipate with ferocious glee the next chance we have to prove someone "wrong" and ourselves "right," all the while disregarding the vast complexity of almost every subject -- not to mention the universe as a whole -- we are reducing the beauty and magic of life to a "side" or a "type," or worst of all, an "answer." This is the power of politics at it's most sinister.

At its best, politics is able to organize extremely complex world views into manageable and communicable systems so they can be grappled with and studied abstractly. But even the most noble efforts to organize the world are essentially futile. The best we can usually achieve is a crude and messy map of life from one particular vantage point, featuring a few grids, bullet points, and sketches of its various aspects and landmarks. Anything as infinitely complex as life, reality, and the human experience can never be summed up or organized in a definitive system, especially one based on "left or right," "A or B," "us or them." This is the fatal flaw of binary thinking in general. However, this flaw isn't just ignored, it's also embraced, amplified, and deliberately used as a weapon on the very people who think it's benefiting their way of thinking.

Human beings crave order and simplicity. We cling to the hope that some day, if we really refine our world view and beliefs, we can actually find the fully correct way to think -- the absolute truth and final side to stand on. People and systems craving power take advantage of this desire and pit us against each other using a "this or that" mentality. The point is to create unrest, disagreement, resentment, and anger -- a population constantly at war with itself, each side deeply believing that the other is not just wrong, but also a sincere threat to their very way of life and survival. This creates constant anxiety and distraction -- the perfect conditions for oppression. The goal of this sort of politics is to keep people held down and mesmerized by a persistent parade of seemingly life-or-death debates, each one worth all of our emotional energy and primal passion.

But the truth is, the world has always been and always will be on the brink of destruction. And what keeps it from actually imploding is our love for life and our deep-seeded desire not to die. Our love for our own life is inextricably connected to our love of all life and the miracle of this phenomenon we call "the world." We must give all of ourselves credit every day for keeping things going. It's an incredible achievement to exist at all.

I admit I am as guilty of that kind of thinking as anyone on here.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Andrew WK nails it. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/...ampaign=buffer



I admit I am as guilty of that kind of thinking as anyone on here.

Don't lump me (and others) in with you and the other partisans.

[suzzer99]

Right back at you. I'm far from partisan. I call out liberal BS all the time. I voted for Arnie and would vote for the right republican for president. I don't believe in this us-against-them political tribalism that seems to have infected about 90% of people who actually care about politics.

I just have strong opinions when I see utter political bullshit, which republicans seem to have a lot of right now. I also don't seem to be treading down the middle on this forum, because it leans so heavily conservative. On the political forum on the poker site I hang out on I'm pretty much middle-of-the-road.

What that article made me think about though, is that maybe I am a little too emotional with my positions. Maybe I feel like the sky is falling too much when I see a chunk of society holding a belief I consider to be completely wrong. This emotion is planted by the powers-that-be because it keeps us distracted while they rob us blind. Maybe I'm guilty of tribalism sometimes too. But I'm trying to identify and correct that.

[BucEyedPea]

You're a partisan if you use left versus right over republican vs democrat.

[Prison Bitch]

Suzzer: "I'm far from a partisan"

(Forum bursts out into simultaneous laughter)

[Iconic]

Well yeah, admitting you're wrong isn't the norm of the internet. I've accepted debating on here is more or less a dick waving contest rather than a discussion of some merit or value.

[ClevelandBronco]

Arguing is just one of many things that are futile in this forum.

[headsnap]

and arguing in the Lounge isn't?!?!