How facts backfire.

[evil_gop_liars]

Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains.

 

 

[SEC=UGA]

Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains.

 

 

 

I'm convinced that this article is more applicable to religious than political beliefs. I mean, have you ever told a Christian that Jesus was merely a man exploiting society and certain commonly held religious prophecies? That basically he was a narcissist with a penchant for lies and exaggerations, a love of half truths and swindling. That basically he was a lecherous beggar that managed to gain acclaim during a time of political, social, and economic turmoil. That his legacy was cleverly crafted by a burgeoning power class that needed something, an icon via which to propel themselves into power and into the graces of society at large.

 

It is kinda fun to watch them become red faced and outraged... But, I'm kinda demented that way.

[lennykravitz2004]

I mean, have you ever told a Christian that Jesus was merely a man exploiting society and certain commonly held religious prophecies?

 

Or as the cliche goes... "ever notice how people who want to share their religious beliefs with you almost never want you to share your religious beliefs with them?"

[SEC=UGA]

Or as the cliche goes... "ever notice how people who want to share their religious beliefs with you almost never want you to share your religious beliefs with them?"

 

Actually, I will have to confess, I had a good long talk with some traveling Mormons at my house one day. They left looking a little bit worse for the wear, but none the less, they listened.

 

I never could get them down to the cellar to look at my "shrine" though.

[Savage Beatings]

I'm convinced that this article is more applicable to religious than political beliefs.

 

I think it has more to do with class and even race. But I can definitely see it in religion as well.

 

Look at the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons out there finding racists around every corner... regardless of the FACTS, people keep listening to their divisive bile.

 

And with class warfare, people might KNOW that we spend to much on pet projects, but they still don't want to give up funding for their own pet project.

[billay]

Unfortunately, the sheer volume of information available via the internet has undercut our ability to establish real "facts."

 

Also, the ultimate result of the politically correct movement is that even the stupid are entitled to their opinion, and that opinion is as valid as any other.

[SEC=UGA]

Unfortunately, the sheer volume of information available via the internet has undercut our ability to establish real "facts."

 

Also, the ultimate result of the politically correct movement is that even the stupid are entitled to their opinion, and that opinion is as valid as any other.

 

Actually that has been true ever since we granted the right to vote to the masses.

[Deathpig]

I know this is splitting hairs, but I'd say this applies to dogma more specifically than religion in general. As political debate has essentially degenerated into clashing dogmatic arguments, it ends up relevant in the context of the article. Unfortunately, the article seems to pass the blame on to the poor, dumb, insecure voters for being that way instead of looking at how the people at the top (politicians' diatribes, sensational media coverage, etc.) have undermined actual fruitful debate on almost any topic. People aren't filled with facts, they're filled with dogmatic principles and sound bites cleverly arranged to depend on one another, so attacking any one element is an attack on the whole belief structure.

 

THIS is why I can't stand the two party system, it essentially creates a black and white vision of any topic, with the grey area of compromise hated by either side.

[Azazello1313]

something I read yesterday seems relevant here. it was an article defending the tea party movement against the charges of racism, and the best part of the article, for me, was this bit:

 

Even among educated liberals, few have more than a single-layered view of conservatism. They may know the conservative argument superficially, and they are armed with their own objections, but they are ignorant of how conservatives would respond to their objections. This is worse than knowing nothing at all, as it gives liberals the false impression that they have addressed and defeated conservatism. Yet they have only conquered a Potemkin village, where the people are thin and false.

 

But the problem is not merely ignorance. Liberals are also alienated from core conservative values. Liberals are trained to believe that many of the traditional American ideals and values that conservatives inherit in their families and churches are cruel and intolerant, imperialistic, and implicitly racist, sexist, and classist. They are trained, for instance, not to be motivated by patriotism and American exceptionalism, but by an ideal of world citizenship and parity.

 

Liberals consistently misinterpret what motivates conservatives because they really cannot see the world from the conservative perspective. Liberals cannot imagine that Tea Partiers are really motivated by concern for their country, and by frustration with a White House hemorrhaging red ink and a government less concerned to represent the interests of the citizenry than to pay off the special interests that fund their campaigns.

 

Thus, the Theory of the Missing Motive applies. Unable to see a rational and noble motive at the center of the Tea Party movement, liberals supply a darker and more convenient motive instead. Just as ancient cartographers wrote "there be dragons here" beyond the bounds of the world they knew, so liberals write "there be racism here" because the mind of the Tea Partier is undiscovered country in their map of the world. The Tea Party cannot be rationally and nobly motivated, the liberal believes, because the Tea Partiers are not rational and noble.

 

now, I think it is obvious that would be equally true in the reverse, when it comes to how conservatives respond to liberals. people in every "camp" have a strong tendency to do this. we are all so quick to believe the worst of people we disagree with, because it makes it that much easier for us to dismiss them. but this seeking of refuge behind an us/them fortress mentality is intellectually lazy, uncharitable, and unproductive.

[Duchess Jack]

something I read yesterday seems relevant here. it was an article defending the tea party movement against the charges of racism, and the best part of the article, for me, was this bit:

 

 

 

now, I think it is obvious that would be equally true in the reverse, when it comes to how conservatives respond to liberals. people in every "camp" have a strong tendency to do this. we are all so quick to believe the worst of people we disagree with, because it makes it that much easier for us to dismiss them. but this seeking of refuge behind an us/them fortress mentality is intellectually lazy, uncharitable, and unproductive.

 

which is exactly why folk need to do away with the labels (which lead to broad based generalizations and name calling) and why they need to try to talk about specific policy without piling on by using a broad clumsy brush

Edited July 16, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Azazello1313]

also interesting, something I posted on facebook a while back: keep your identity small

 

I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.

 

Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic. For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't. No one would know what side to be on. So it's not politics that's the source of the trouble, but identity. When people say a discussion has degenerated into a religious war, what they really mean is that it has started to be driven mostly by people's identities. [1]

 

Because the point at which this happens depends on the people rather than the topic, it's a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer. For example, the question of the relative merits of programming languages often degenerates into a religious war, because so many programmers identify as X programmers or Y programmers. This sometimes leads people to conclude the question must be unanswerable—that all languages are equally good. Obviously that's false: anything else people make can be well or badly designed; why should this be uniquely impossible for programming languages? And indeed, you can have a fruitful discussion about the relative merits of programming languages, so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.

 

More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people. And there are other topics that might seem harmless, like the relative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, that you couldn't safely talk about with others.

 

The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.

 

Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

 

I really agree with that, but I also think appropriate weight needs to be given to the importance of standing for something. you have to pick a few things that define you, or you're just adrift. I guess the challenge is to keep that identity concise and clearly defined, and to avoid the baggage of additional partisan encumberances.

[Duchess Jack]

as far as the identity end of things go. It seems like labels are used much more as a way for Person A to tell Person B what Person B believes than they are used for Person A to tell Person B what Person A believes.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

also interesting, something I posted on facebook a while back: keep your identity small

 

 

 

I really agree with that, but I also think appropriate weight needs to be given to the importance of standing for something. you have to pick a few things that define you, or you're just adrift. I guess the challenge is to keep that identity concise and clearly defined, and to avoid the baggage of additional partisan encumberances.

 

I agree with this too. For example, identify yourself as a conservative or liberal or whatever suits your personal belief structure rather than a democrat, republican, libertarian, etc which are defined societal organizations and whose actions you can't control but find yourself obligated to defend or attack because of said identification.

[Duchess Jack]

I agree with this too. For example, identify yourself as a conservative or liberal or whatever suits your personal belief structure rather than a democrat, republican, libertarian, etc which are defined societal organizations and whose actions you can't control but find yourself obligated to defend or attack because of said identification.

 

the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' carry to much bagage and too much - us versus them.

 

I am fairly centrist, but lean to the left. I have many right wing views (pro immagration reform, pro capitol punishment, pro drug testing and public service to recieve welfare, etc). If I was to call myself liberal though it would be used to paint me as somebody who kills babies and grandmas and somehow it would suggest that I live off of the gubments teet and only vote the way I do because of the handouts I might recieve (despite me living in the one of the top five most taxed places in the US and the fact that I have never recieved any direct government aid).

 

It would be used to make any problem caused by somebody else that considers themselves liberal somehow 'my fault' and It would than be used to piss on and over-shadow any attempt at a meaningful dialog involving policy.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[lennykravitz2004]

Chris Rock said it best, IMHO:

 

Some things, I am conservative about, and some things, I am liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal!

[Big Country]

At first glance, I though the thread title was "When farts backfire".

 

needless to say I was dissappointed after clicking and noticing my mistake.

[millerx]

I know this is splitting hairs, but I'd say this applies to dogma more specifically than religion in general. As political debate has essentially degenerated into clashing dogmatic arguments, it ends up relevant in the context of the article. Unfortunately, the article seems to pass the blame on to the poor, dumb, insecure voters for being that way instead of looking at how the people at the top (politicians' diatribes, sensational media coverage, etc.) have undermined actual fruitful debate on almost any topic. People aren't filled with facts, they're filled with dogmatic principles and sound bites cleverly arranged to depend on one another, so attacking any one element is an attack on the whole belief structure.

 

THIS is why I can't stand the two party system, it essentially creates a black and white vision of any topic, with the grey area of compromise hated by either side.

Well said.

[westvirginia]

as far as the identity end of things go. It seems like labels are used much more as a way for Person A to tell Person B what Person B believes than they are used for Person A to tell Person B what Person A believes.

 

Absolutely. No one sees this more than a libertarian/anarchist. I get lumped in with conservatives all the time. But I favor drug legalization, open borders, a woman's right to choose... The left used to be able to be counted on to be HUGH civil libertarians, but now the only time they're willing to bring it up is when a republican or someone on the right is coming after their rights. DJ, you and I started on these boards about the same time and have always been able to talk about whatever - because neither one of us takes it personally. Some people do get so invested in that identity though, that they can't be honest about the faults of their "side", because they take it as a personal attack. Ursa is another guy I always enjoyed sparring with for the same reason - he doesn't really take it personally.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Great read on identity based conflict

 

It is based more on political and organizational issues, but applies to interpersonal conflict too.

[yo mama]

Actually that has been true ever since we granted the right to vote to the masses.

Yup. 19th Amendment = worst thing evah.

[polksalet]

I'm convinced that this article is more applicable to religious than political beliefs. I mean, have you ever told a Christian that Jesus was merely a man exploiting society and certain commonly held religious prophecies? That basically he was a narcissist with a penchant for lies and exaggerations, a love of half truths and swindling. That basically he was a lecherous beggar that managed to gain acclaim during a time of political, social, and economic turmoil. That his legacy was cleverly crafted by a burgeoning power class that needed something, an icon via which to propel themselves into power and into the graces of society at large.

 

It is kinda fun to watch them become red faced and outraged... But, I'm kinda demented that way.

 

Is it any different to have faith in government to have faith in God?

[Jimmy Neutron]

Is it any different to have faith in government to have faith in God?

 

I have yet to see the government pull off a miracle.

[evil_gop_liars]

I have yet to see the government pull off a miracle.

 

I have yet to see god pull of a miracle.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I have yet to see god pull of a miracle.

 

I knew that was coming, but we don't need to have that discussion again.

[WaterMan]

which is exactly why folk need to do away with the labels (which lead to broad based generalizations and name calling) and why they need to try to talk about specific policy without piling on by using a broad clumsy brush

 

If only Fox News would drop their Bill O'Reilly's who preach labels to the shut ins.