Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Facts do not change peoples opinions.


Recommended Posts

I once changed someones opinion with anecdotal evidence. So you should believe that and not the study below, since facts do not work.

 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/6/e2008389118

Both liberals and conservatives believe that using facts in political discussions helps to foster mutual respect, but 15 studies—across multiple methodologies and issues—show that these beliefs are mistaken. Political opponents respect moral beliefs more when they are supported by personal experiences, not facts.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is to weep. The pursuit of truth was more vital to me than money, success, status, even waking up with the flowing locks of free & bouncy hippiechix™ on my chest. I honestly could not be more gobsmacked if men stopped chasing women than that knowing new, knowing more is barely an ethic anymore. Seeking truth is the only eternity in our godforsaken lives, yobbos - the entire point of the thing. The late great @Man of Constant Sorrow's favorite of my axioms was, "If ye have not God, seek truth. If ye have not love, seek beauty". He made it the banner of his website. i would like it to convince someone else now....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Facts shouted at people to win arguments against them don't change their minds.

Facts discovered by people on their own often do change their minds.

There is a difference between, "I don't agree with you," and "I don't want to agree with you."

 

(Can we make this a quip thread?  I like quips.)

Edited by Yankee23Fan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Facts shouted at people to win arguments against them don't change their minds.

Facts discovered by people on their own often do change their minds.

Conspiracy theory has never been more prominent in our daily discourse than it is now.  And all the facts in the world, discovered by them or not, will not change the mind of a conspiracy theorist.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Conspiracy theory has never been more prominent in our daily discourse than it is now.  And all the facts in the world, discovered by them or not, will not change the mind of a conspiracy theorist.  

I disagree. Sure it has and was. Remember the Birchers? Or LBJ's "Daisy" ad, that went after right-wing nuts. It's why Richard Hofstadter coined "the paranoid style in American politics" as a phrase, essay, and book. And it's the same charged leveled by the left at the right as always. It's just that the idiot right this time had no Buckley, no institution to keep it in check and had direct instruction from the President who knew full well the stuff being bandied about and even retweeting it.

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant." - Hofstatder "The Paranoid Style In American Politics

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:
2 hours ago, zoonation said:

Conspiracy theory has never been more prominent in our daily discourse than it is now.  And all the facts in the world, discovered by them or not, will not change the mind of a conspiracy theorist.  

I disagree. Sure it has and was.

Modern informational reach (e.g. the Internet, social media, proliferation of television) has considerably raised the profiles of conspiracy theories, no?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Modern informational reach (e.g. the Internet, social media, proliferation of television) has considerably raised the profiles of conspiracy theories, no?

Possibly. I'd argue that the Birchers in the fifties had an incredibly wide reach by the early sixties. They were the group to loathe, much like #QAnon is/was.

But yeah, the reach aspect is possible. That said, the left has been complaining about low information voters that are susceptible to conspiracy theories for a long, long time. It's a page out of the left-wing playbook, much like generalizing about one's patriotism is a right-wing one, up to and including people that are arguably war heroes (see: JFK, Kerry)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Possibly. I'd argue that the Birchers in the fifties had an incredibly wide reach by the early sixties.

I always thought that from a top-of-the-mountain view ... the John Birch Society was decidedly fringe. Not to say they weren't entrenched deeply in certain locales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Modern informational reach (e.g. the Internet, social media, proliferation of television) has considerably raised the profiles of conspiracy theories, no?

agree.  but i do no think we've lived through an era where the conspiracy theories themselves were coming from inside the (white)house.  it did irreparable damage imo.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MTskibum said:

I once changed someones opinion with anecdotal evidence. So you should believe that and not the study below, since facts do not work.

 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/6/e2008389118

Both liberals and conservatives believe that using facts in political discussions helps to foster mutual respect, but 15 studies—across multiple methodologies and issues—show that these beliefs are mistaken. Political opponents respect moral beliefs more when they are supported by personal experiences, not facts.

 

Sad but true.

I find it easy to manipulate my boss into making decisions by catering to her irrational emotion-driven responses.  It took a few months to figure it out, but now we can make good business decisions each week and move on with life.

I’d say at my company, emotion wins vs logic on at least 2/3 of decisions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Gotta define "facts" and that sounds like I'm joking but I'm not. 

Many times folks will take their opinions and make them out to be facts.  And this is where the heated discussions can start.

 

Yep. Facts they don't like need context. Opinions they like become facts. 

When the assault on math begins... wait what's that? They have already started a 2+2=5 campaign?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 1:44 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

Facts shouted at people to win arguments against them don't change their minds.

Facts discovered by people on their own often do change their minds.

The presentation of facts is key to being persuasive.  It is not just shouting, but being accussatory or demeaning does not work.  And then there are certain people who really don't want to ne open to other ideas.  But i don't think that is most people.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The presentation of facts is key to being persuasive.  It is not just shouting, but being accussatory or demeaning does not work.  And then there are certain people who really don't want to ne open to other ideas.  But i don't think that is most people.  

Wait... so are you willing to admit you were completely wrong about COVID?

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, rcam said:

Wait... so are you willing to admit you were completely wrong about COVID?

Completely wrong?  I was probably closer to the truth than the experts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your previous statements

15 hours ago, jon_mx said:

In the end this is going to be a really bad flu season and hopefully we will be better prepared for the next. (I guess if only compared to the Spanish Flu)

I believe the flu killed 40,000 people in 2018.  We did not panic or shut down everything.    This is worse and especially more deadly to older people, but this is not 10 times worse than 2018.  It will be about 2 to 3 times worse. (Maybe you meant 12-13 times worse?)

COVID-19 might reach 1,000,000.(worldwide numbers are at least double that)

The mortality rate is not anywhere close to 1.4% when analyzed and corrected for the age of known infected vs. general population and that is absolutely based on real world data.(Might not reach 1.4 % but it isn't #justaflubro and is much closer to that number than a flu mortality)
 

Pretty much all wrong especially considering the amount of undercounting that experts think is going on regarding COVID deaths both in the US and worldwide. I mean, maybe you could argue 1.4% is on high end... but your other implied numbers of .2, .3, .4% are even more off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rcam said:

Your previous statements

Pretty much all wrong especially considering the amount of undercounting that experts think is going on regarding COVID deaths both in the US and worldwide. I mean, maybe you could argue 1.4% is on high end... but your other implied numbers of .2, .3, .4% are even more off.

You've been waiting for a chance to post that, haven't you? No matter the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 9:44 AM, MTskibum said:

. Political opponents respect moral beliefs more when they are supported by personal experiences, not facts.

 

 

To succeed in politics, you don't need people to respect your moral beliefs, you just need them to respect your leverage.

You are right in that many people will not change their minds and/or their opinions based on facts presented to them. But, no offense, you are lacking some context here.

Facts will rent silence.

Silence will buy you just enough time to let someone know you'll either monetize them or demonetize them.

Money is all the leverage you will ever need.

Can you change a person's mind and lead them your way? Sure. Back in 2007, I was asked some life advice in public in the FFA, basically how to be a successful person in general. I said live an exceptional life. Be above reproach and leave no room for any type of criticism. Keep your word. Be respectful. Hold your boundaries. Advocate for yourself. Be a gentleman warrior. When people see you've got a lot going on and it's all good, they are going to want to be around that and will want to know how to do things more like you do them, so they can emulate what they see as success. You can change hearts and minds by being an example.

But the problem is that only works on a small scale. It takes time, pain, listening, guidance, love, sacrifice and patience. When you need to scale that up like a politician does, you just need people to comply via effective leverage.

Let's say you are doing something I don't like. I can say I don't like it. You can tell me to go shove off and to kiss your ###. Which is more than fair since it's your life. However, let's say you owned a restaurant, and I could make moves to ensure you lost 20 percent of your customer base. Will you keep telling me to go shove off then? What if I could help you get 15 percent more customers instead if you simply complied with my wishes?

Leverage is not about killshots, it's about making someone bleed. Losing 20 percent of your customers might not end your business. However, it might be enough where you need to lay people off and you can't send your kids off to college like you hoped before. That's how you bend someone in half without breaking them completely, you associate the punitive fallout towards people they love and have an obligation towards.

You can do what I say because you love me. You can do what I say because you hate me and yet it's still in your best individual interests to keep me happy and prevent me from being unhappy. Leverage is the equalizer that makes both those concepts functionally the same. Politics is the weapon that fires that leverage.

People who like to deny facts are usually people who don't realize what comes after the silence. It's easy to be idealistic when one has surrendered all sense of actual agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

To succeed in politics, you don't need people to respect your moral beliefs, you just need them to respect your leverage.

You are right in that many people will not change their minds and/or their opinions based on facts presented to them. But, no offense, you are lacking some context here.

Facts will rent silence.

Silence will buy you just enough time to let someone know you'll either monetize them or demonetize them.

Money is all the leverage you will ever need.

Can you change a person's mind and lead them your way? Sure. Back in 2007, I was asked some life advice in public in the FFA, basically how to be a successful person in general. I said live an exceptional life. Be above reproach and leave no room for any type of criticism. Keep your word. Be respectful. Hold your boundaries. Advocate for yourself. Be a gentleman warrior. When people see you've got a lot going on and it's all good, they are going to want to be around that and will want to know how to do things more like you do them, so they can emulate what they see as success. You can change hearts and minds by being an example.

But the problem is that only works on a small scale. It takes time, pain, listening, guidance, love, sacrifice and patience. When you need to scale that up like a politician does, you just need people to comply via effective leverage.

Let's say you are doing something I don't like. I can say I don't like it. You can tell me to go shove off and to kiss your ###. Which is more than fair since it's your life. However, let's say you owned a restaurant, and I could make moves to ensure you lost 20 percent of your customer base. Will you keep telling me to go shove off then? What if I could help you get 15 percent more customers instead if you simply complied with my wishes?

Leverage is not about killshots, it's about making someone bleed. Losing 20 percent of your customers might not end your business. However, it might be enough where you need to lay people off and you can't send your kids off to college like you hoped before. That's how you bend someone in half without breaking them completely, you associate the punitive fallout towards people they love and have an obligation towards.

You can do what I say because you love me. You can do what I say because you hate me and yet it's still in your best individual interests to keep me happy and prevent me from being unhappy. Leverage is the equalizer that makes both those concepts functionally the same. Politics is the weapon that fires that leverage.

People who like to deny facts are usually people who don't realize what comes after the silence. It's easy to be idealistic when one has surrendered all sense of actual agency.

 

Giant walls of text also do not change peoples opinion.

But it seems like you are arguing with me, but then you do not provide any facts. If the study is wrong and facts do change peoples opinion where are the facts to back that up?

Change my opinion with facts. Show me some studies.

 

 

 

 

Edit, also WTF are you talking about with the below? Dont get me wrong it is Friday night, i put my kids to bed, and cracked a couple beers. But, really, WTF does the below have to do with changing someones opinion with facts. Do you read the subject of the thread before posting or do you just spew word diarrhea and hope something comes out that makes sense? If that is your strategy you missed your mark with this thread.


 

Let's say you are doing something I don't like. I can say I don't like it. You can tell me to go shove off and to kiss your ###. Which is more than fair since it's your life. However, let's say you owned a restaurant, and I could make moves to ensure you lost 20 percent of your customer base. Will you keep telling me to go shove off then? What if I could help you get 15 percent more customers instead if you simply complied with my wishes?

Leverage is not about killshots, it's about making someone bleed. Losing 20 percent of your customers might not end your business. However, it might be enough where you need to lay people off and you can't send your kids off to college like you hoped before. That's how you bend someone in half without breaking them completely, you associate the punitive fallout towards people they love and have an obligation towards.

You can do what I say because you love me. You can do what I say because you hate me and yet it's still in your best individual interests to keep me happy and prevent me from being unhappy. Leverage is the equalizer that makes both those concepts functionally the same. Politics is the weapon that fires that leverage.

 

Edited by MTskibum
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 3:30 PM, rockaction said:

I disagree. Sure it has and was. Remember the Birchers? Or LBJ's "Daisy" ad, that went after right-wing nuts. It's why Richard Hofstadter coined "the paranoid style in American politics" as a phrase, essay, and book. And it's the same charged leveled by the left at the right as always. It's just that the idiot right this time had no Buckley, no institution to keep it in check and had direct instruction from the President who knew full well the stuff being bandied about and even retweeting it.

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant." - Hofstatder "The Paranoid Style In American Politics

I think it is more prominent today because social media gives them an outlet for the message.  I remember the mid-80's San Diego Padres had a problem with John Birchers on the team, basically broke them up.  Think how big a story it would be today?  Also think how many followers Eric Show would have today because he was a John Bircher?  Look at how popular Audrey Huff and Curt Schilling are today just because of their far right takes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FairWarning said:

I think it is more prominent today because social media gives them an outlet for the message.  I remember the mid-80's San Diego Padres had a problem with John Birchers on the team, basically broke them up.  Think how big a story it would be today?  Also think how many followers Eric Show would have today because he was a John Bircher?  Look at how popular Audrey Huff and Curt Schilling are today just because of their far right takes.

If there was no social media Curt Schilling would be in the HOF. Slam dunk. But since he has aired his dirty laundry and extremest right views, his character and integrity have come to the forefront. And rightfully so I may add. He sounds like a pissed off wackadoo these days. And his terse language and paranoid tweets are embarrassing. Comparing racial tension riots to storming the capitol in an attempted insurrection....I lost all respect I had left for him as a baseball player. I do not know him personally. Don’t need to. The Hall of Fame is also littered with hypocrisy and that is a whole other discussion. 

But it is a shame the amount of scrutiny people bring upon themselves on social media. The amount of noise, mis-information. It has spiraled out of control. But at the same time it has also exposed threats to our nation, and democracy. 

So it is a double sided sword. I still prefer the world without smart phones and social media. Simpler times and far more respect and communication. Amazing, you would think communication would be far better with the technology at our disposal. Instead it has been infested with lies, propaganda and whaked out conspiracy theories. 

Yeah I am old. Grew up in the late 70’s and 80’s. I have become dismayed at where we have gone as a society. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone wants to be heard but no one wants to deal with the consequences of what they say throw some social media gasoline on that and welcome to the world today take that to the bank brohans 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 2:21 PM, Flash said:

You've been waiting for a chance to post that, haven't you? No matter the thread.

No, but considering jon and supermike were both completely wrong about pretty much everything they said about COVID . I know, because I was one of the ones continually presenting facts, data, and logic that contradicted the unsupported stuff they'd post. I found it supremely ironic that *both* of them would hop in here in defense of facts when they were so vociferously pushing a bunch of non-facts regarding COVID for months. I didn't do a search for hydroxychloroquine but I wouldn't be surprised if them and others in this thread were on that bandwagon as well.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rcam said:

No, but considering jon and supermike were both completely wrong about pretty much everything they said about COVID . I know, because I was one of the ones continually presenting facts, data, and logic that contradicted the unsupported stuff they'd post. I found it supremely ironic that *both* of them would hop in here in defense of facts when they were so vociferously pushing a bunch of non-facts regarding COVID for months. I didn't do a search for hydroxychloroquine but I wouldn't be surprised if them and others in this thread were on that bandwagon as well.

When do you think states, public health, and many posters here will admit they were wrong about wanting schools closed? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rcam said:

No, but considering jon and supermike were both completely wrong about pretty much everything they said about COVID . I know, because I was one of the ones continually presenting facts, data, and logic that contradicted the unsupported stuff they'd post. I found it supremely ironic that *both* of them would hop in here in defense of facts when they were so vociferously pushing a bunch of non-facts regarding COVID for months. I didn't do a search for hydroxychloroquine but I wouldn't be surprised if them and others in this thread were on that bandwagon as well.

Your side willing to admit it was wrong when they said there would be millions dead laying in the streets and hospitals so overcrowded that routine surgeries would be performed in the parking lots?

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

When do you think states, public health, and many posters here will admit they were wrong about wanting schools closed? 

I'm glad our kids have been in school since September, but I also don't necessarily fault those that exercised more caution. Some schools handled this poorly while others did not; same as it ever was. All options were bad ones, assistance and guidance limited/rushed, pressure high, and the right decision for one school wasn't necessarily the right one at another. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

When do you think states, public health, and many posters here will admit they were wrong about wanting schools closed? 

Were they wrong about it?

Because what I continue to see around here...is schools that open...end up closed here and there for a couple weeks at a time...then go back...then close again.

So which part was wrong?  Because in the end...it all just depends on what area you are in...and what measures the schools take.  Doesn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off there is a big difference between facts and predictions. If I say it’s going to rain today and it doesn’t, and my friend says that it rained yesterday and it didn’t, we’re both wrong but in very different ways. My prediction was wrong but my friend either got his facts wrong or he lied. 

As far as recent events this isn’t a “both sides” issue. The leader of the Republican Party has just pursued an absolute lie: that the Presidential election was just stolen from them. The majority of Republicans apparently believe that lie, it’s arguably the biggest amd most dangerous lie in modern American history. There is no equivalence from the Democratic Party. Democrats have never offered or pursued or accepted a lie like this one, ever. This calamity is a one-sided affair. 

Edited by timschochet
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Were they wrong about it?

Because what I continue to see around here...is schools that open...end up closed here and there for a couple weeks at a time...then go back...then close again.

So which part was wrong?  Because in the end...it all just depends on what area you are in...and what measures the schools take.  Doesn't it?

Schools being closed by the same people that wanted them closed before isnt evidence of anything. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Schools being closed by the same people that wanted them closed before isnt evidence of anything. 

 

Seems to be more evidence than what has been provided to the contrary yet expecting people to admit to being wrong?

How were they wrong?  That is the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Your side willing to admit it was wrong when they said there would be millions dead laying in the streets and hospitals so overcrowded that routine surgeries would be performed in the parking lots?

I neither said nor claimed either of those things. Can you point to where I said there would be millions dead in the streets? Or that routine surgeries would be performed in parking lots?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rcam said:

I neither said nor claimed either of those things. Can you point to where I said there would be millions dead in the streets? Or that routine surgeries would be performed in parking lots?

Or that anyone stated that (without yhe caveat of “if we do nothing”)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Seems to be more evidence than what has been provided to the contrary yet expecting people to admit to being wrong?

How were they wrong?  That is the question.

I am sorry. I figured since you were always such an expert on things around here you would have read the current information regarding this topic before commenting. I guess maybe you comment first? 

Quote

Data from K-12 schools that reopened for in-person instruction in the fall show little evidence that schools contributed meaningfully to the spread of COVID-19, according to a new article published Tuesday in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I am sorry. I figured since you were always such an expert on things around here you would have read the current information regarding this topic before commenting. I guess maybe you comment first? 

 

Ahh condescending snark is always fun...you know, easier than just having posted the article first and expecting everyone knows exactly what you are referring to.

Now...with that article...it doesn’t seem to show that doing something that n August/September was the wrong course of action then.

Learning that schools were not large super-spreaders is a good thing especially going forward.  It does not retroactively make the decision to close them, based on the information at the time, a wrong decision.   So my comment...seems to still be accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/29/2021 at 7:24 PM, MTskibum said:

 

Giant walls of text also do not change peoples opinion.

But it seems like you are arguing with me, but then you do not provide any facts. If the study is wrong and facts do change peoples opinion where are the facts to back that up?

 

 

Direct Headline: Humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don’t fit their worldview

Adrian Bardon January 31, 2020 8.00am EST

https://theconversation.com/humans-are-hardwired-to-dismiss-facts-that-dont-fit-their-worldview-127168

 

PARAPHRASED CONTENT FROM ALL ARTICLES/VIDEOS TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH SINGLE USER FBG FORUM POSTING GUIDELINES:

( As Per 1/4/21 12:33 PST,  https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/790107-healing-and-moving-forward-thoughts/page/28/?tab=comments#comment-23172408 )

"....'Our ancestors (needed) small cooperative groups...for reproductive success (and survival) ...thus assimilation into one’s tribe required (completely buying into) the dominant group’s ideological belief system.... An instinctive bias in favor of one’s “in-group” .... (is clearly) deeply ingrained in our human psychology'...."

"......'A human being’s... sense of self is intimately (and dogmatically) tied up with his or her identity group’s status and (their) beliefs (and values). ...and (will) respond automatically and defensively to (any) information ( or contradiction) that threatens their ideological worldview..... (Humans subsequently) respond with rationalization and selective assessment of evidence.... – (in short, we seek) “confirmation bias,” (believing what lines up with our group's viewpoints) and find (any) reason to reject the rest'...."

"......(Charles Taber and Milton Lodge ).....experimentally confirmed the (clear) existence of this automatic (tribal) response....information that threatens your (established) belief system ... can (and does) threaten your sense of identity itself..... (it) feels like a personal attack'...."

 

******

You are asking for facts when you've basically said the usage of facts should indicate the person using them is tone deaf and should be using personal experiences instead.

Something I've said before over the years on these forums is how, ironically, adults here will say and do things that will never line up with what they teach their kids. If two kids fight and keep fighting, parents will eventually tell those kids to stop playing with each other and ignore each other. Some kids and some people are just going to be people where you just aren't going to get along. Find people who share your values and stick with them. However, as adults, we have to pretend there is always some mythical middle ground when we always have a choice to walk with our feet and close our wallets.

Do parents tolerate lies from their children? Parents deal in facts. You shoplifted that. You cheated on that test. You lied to me. You snuck out of the house. You didn't handle your responsibilities. Do you think a responsible parent is going to let their kids slide on irresponsible BS based on some "personal experiences" narrative?

What you've done is create a pathway for those out there to simply ignore the facts they don't like and trigger their "sense of self"

But it's not just facts is it? It's the TRUTH. Of course the truth ( which facts lead into) is going to piss people off who want denial and need to rationalize and find a selective view of the evidence in front of them.

I don't need the change anyone's opinion. What I do is present evidence that runs contrary to their viewpoints. I enforce silence by an investigative deep dive bombardment that is tantamount to blunt force trauma meant to induce the asking of larger questions. Of course some people will despise me, since diversity of thought and diversity of opinion is treated like a crime by those who abide by the woke cancel culture dogmatic methodology.   It's up to each person, or not, to cease the automatic tribal response, and become introspective on if they should investigate those viewpoints and see what is the most accurate answer possible. Of course, the biggest motivator to asking hard questions is money. If you can't put a roof over your head and put food on the table, especially for your kids, then you don't have any other choice but to start asking those tough questions about the truth.

Trying to minimize the value of "facts" is just repackaged identity politics. It's denial of the reality that no one has to like how the world works, but everyone does need to live in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GordonGekko said:

 

Direct Headline: Humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don’t fit their worldview

Adrian Bardon January 31, 2020 8.00am EST

https://theconversation.com/humans-are-hardwired-to-dismiss-facts-that-dont-fit-their-worldview-127168

 

 

 

This article is agreeing with what I posted. Both liberals and conservatives dismiss facts that do not fit their world view.

 

I will say it again, long walls of text also do not change anyone's opinion.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MTskibum said:

 

This article is agreeing with what I posted. Both liberals and conservatives dismiss facts that do not fit their world view.

 

 

That's not what your article/study is doing. What it's doing is saying the presentation of facts is an an affront to mutual respect. And that no one should bother using "facts" and instead use "personal experiences" which is just a proxy for "feelings"  This is a core bedrock of identity politics. It's got some window dressing and some frosting, but it's still the same ugly piece of cake underneath.

My article talks about group identity as a survival mechanism and roots towards biological imperative and the logistical reality that cooperation on individuals WITHIN "tribes" were needed to survive the harsh world looking to kill them off as fast as possible. What no one wants to discuss is there is more than one tribe. Different tribes existed with different cultures and value systems and remained separate from each other. A competition for resources made armed conflict and war inevitable.

The idea that everyone needs to find this mythical middle ground is not human reality. It has no basis in how human behavior works all throughout recorded human history.

"Tribes" respect leverage. Not personal experiences. Why do you think so many nations are trying to become nuclear powers in the modern world? Why do you think those who are nuclear powers do so much to prevent the rest from becoming new nuclear powers? Leverage means financial might and military might.

There's a real problem when

1) All forms of actual mainstream investigative journalism is basically dead ( i.e. the quest to find facts)

2) Social media dominates the information landscape (i.e. let's just feed people Twitter bite sized nuggets to enrage them)

3) One side is being silenced, cancelled, demonetized and deplatformed

4) The other side controls the MSM, Hollywood, Big Tech, Big Social Media and Big Education

5) The side with the control wants "mutual respect" but only by means of total surrender of their opponent's identity, starting with their "facts"

I'm not here to change your mind. I don't care if you agree with me or not. That's the difference between the two of us. You want some kind of utopian level of agreement in defiance of actual human nature. I am perfectly content to enforce distance and leveraged silence. What I'm not going to do however, and the example I'm not going to set for the other conservatives here, is to allow anyone to tell me that "facts" has become some kind of new pariah and dangerous threat to some bizarre woked out New World Order mantra. Minimizing the value of "facts" is minimizing the value of the truth.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant for the entire world.

You apparently like things shrouded more in darkness, where the facts don't live. That's OK, that difference makes it easier for us to avoid each other. The sunlight often comes with a painful glare, there's a cost, but at least you can see where you are going and at least you can see things without it's "feeling prioritized then weaponized" window dressing. The dark doesn't bring comfort because it hides the glare. The dark brings comfort because it teaches one how to live with the lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Ahh condescending snark is always fun...you know, easier than just having posted the article first and expecting everyone knows exactly what you are referring to.

Now...with that article...it doesn’t seem to show that doing something that n August/September was the wrong course of action then.

Learning that schools were not large super-spreaders is a good thing especially going forward.  It does not retroactively make the decision to close them, based on the information at the time, a wrong decision.   So my comment...seems to still be accurate.

Again, this shows your ignorance on this topic. The original information back in March was that children were not large contributors to community spread. I quoted Maria Van Kerkhove and the very large international group repeatedly back when I questioned closing schools. There was also a lancet study very early that said closing schools would have a minimal impact. 

So initial information showed it was wrong decision. Current info shows it was wrong decision. 

How can you argue that it was the correct decision? 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

I'm not here to change your mind. I don't care if you agree with me or not. 

 

 

I have no idea what your point is, and obviously you have no idea what the point of the this thread was. I was posting on how to better change someone's mind that disagrees with you. If you are not here to change my mind then why post in a thread dedicated to how to change someones mind.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Again, this shows your ignorance on this topic. The original information back in March was that children were not large contributors to community spread. I quoted Maria Van Kerkhove and the very large international group repeatedly back when I questioned closing schools. There was also a lancet study very early that said closing schools would have a minimal impact. 

So initial information showed it was wrong decision. Current info shows it was wrong decision. 

How can you argue that it was the correct decision? 

 

But that isn't exactly what you referenced.  You asked when people were going to admit they were wrong back then.

The original information was that they were thought to be spreaders (because children typically do spread a ton of germs...due to lack of distancing, boundries, touching everything, not washing their hands, and just how kids are...we see that with the flu).  I don't think initial information all showed it was wrong then.  Because a decision at the time...with unknowns...can still be the correct decision at that time.  Even if we find out later that it wasn't as bad as expected.  That is how.  That is how things work...we learn things...make better decisions based on what we learn.

There are decisions we all make based on what we know at a given point in time...do we find out later the information we had wasn't fully there or correct...sure.  That does not make it the wrong decision for the time it happened.  That is where I am coming from.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...