Do Facts hurt the contemporary political debate?

[SpinDr79]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

 

[Darkwind]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

So, this was aimed at conservatives, but where are you studies using the same techniques on Democrats?

 

[JoeB131]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

 

[SpinDr79]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

Well i guess if I was polling non-conservatives you would have selected option three. I included that for a reason out of general curiosity of what people who are actually using a non-facebook outlet feel about diplomacy.

 

[SpinDr79]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

So, this was aimed at conservatives, but where are you studies using the same techniques on Democrats?

-There was a greater general acceptance of continuation of the debate after fact introduction in the liberal demographic. I didn't cite the source because like most studies they can show possibility of correlation but not prove causation. It more sparked my interest, like "Have I been conducting myself all wrong when debating with Conservatives if my goal is to allow for doubt or change on their current stance while giving them a respectful out of a debate? It could be something like the 9/11 first responders bill or all the way up to Obamacare etc.

 

[Decus]

.

Biden recently laid out the present state of politics where he encouraged listeners that: "“we must choose truth over facts”.



Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

.

 

[JoeB131]

Well i guess if I was polling non-conservatives you would have selected option three. I included that for a reason out of general curiosity of what people who are actually using a non-facebook outlet feel about diplomacy.

I'm sorry, are there any "conservatives" left?

We have "Libertarians" supporting protectionism and concentration camps.

We have "Family value" voters who are coming up with reason why a man who cheated on all three of his wives and paid off porn stars is really a good Christian.

We have "Security" voters who are now perfectly okay with the fact that the Russians are openly subverting our election process.

So what do conservatives stand for anymore exactly?

 

[SpinDr79]

Biden recently laid out the present state of politics where he encouraged listeners that: "“we must choose truth over facts”.


Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

I was speaking more towards like if I submitted a graph of the deficit as a function of GDP over the past 10-30 years as a longitudinal look at our economy. Not as much as subjective statements like a cow's heaven.

 

[Darkwind]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

So, this was aimed at conservatives, but where are you studies using the same techniques on Democrats?

-There was a greater general acceptance of continuation of the debate after fact introduction in the liberal demographic. I didn't cite the source because like most studies they can show possibility of correlation but not prove causation. It more sparked my interest, like "Have I been conducting myself all wrong when debating with Conservatives if my goal is to allow for doubt or change on their current stance while giving them a respectful out of a debate? It could be something like the 9/11 first responders bill or all the way up to Obamacare etc.

You can start by being honest, then respectful.

In this case, honesty is defined with regard to studies conducted that target a specific group of people with no corresponding data on another group.

Respectful in that you would promote an unbiased study as a means of addressing someone whom you oppose politically.

By not providing a balanced look at any issue, you are in fact, trying to frame a discussion in your favor.

Hope that helps.

 

[petro]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

'Insert laugh track here'

 

[SpinDr79]

Well i guess if I was polling non-conservatives you would have selected option three. I included that for a reason out of general curiosity of what people who are actually using a non-facebook outlet feel about diplomacy.

I'm sorry, are there any "conservatives" left?

We have "Libertarians" supporting protectionism and concentration camps.

We have "Family value" voters who are coming up with reason why a man who cheated on all three of his wives and paid off porn stars is really a good Christian.

We have "Security" voters who are now perfectly okay with the fact that the Russians are openly subverting our election process.

So what do conservatives stand for anymore exactly?

Haha, while I may agree with some of these things, I'm trying to see if any vector of communication actually exists anymore at this point. We should be able to, as Americans, talk with one another and not freak out because somebody did their research and now your own inadequacies are exposed. I've been on too many sites where its conservatives or liberals creating a positive feedback loop to nowhere. There has to be some kind of civil diplomatic approach and my question to you would be, if you could move the needle on someone's healthcare rights view toward the middle from an extremely polarized state wouldn't it be worth it to know some expert approaches to achieve that? Or, is it a complete waste of time and You would be content with stating your disagreements simply and working harder on your own base to move toward your ideologies?

 

[Decus]

Biden recently laid out the present state of politics where he encouraged listeners that: "“we must choose truth over facts”.


Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

I was speaking more towards like if I submitted a graph of the deficit as a function of GDP over the past 10-30 years as a longitudinal look at our economy. Not as much as subjective statements like a cow's heaven.

.

The context, reasons, purpose, etc., contextualize any issue subject to assessment or evaluation. What are you trying to argue in your example of "deficit as a function of GDP"?

.

 

[SpinDr79]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

So, this was aimed at conservatives, but where are you studies using the same techniques on Democrats?

-There was a greater general acceptance of continuation of the debate after fact introduction in the liberal demographic. I didn't cite the source because like most studies they can show possibility of correlation but not prove causation. It more sparked my interest, like "Have I been conducting myself all wrong when debating with Conservatives if my goal is to allow for doubt or change on their current stance while giving them a respectful out of a debate? It could be something like the 9/11 first responders bill or all the way up to Obamacare etc.

You can start by being honest, then respectful.

In this case, honesty is defined with regard to studies conducted that target a specific group of people with no corresponding data on another group.

Respectful in that you would promote an unbiased study as a means of addressing someone whom you oppose politically.

By not providing a balanced look at any issue, you are in fact, trying to frame a discussion in your favor.

Hope that helps.

The point of the thread is simply to identify myself as someone who came across some studies to suggest correlation with dressing up talking points vs listing objective factual data. This was much more of a phenomena in the conservative group, but the study truly is only a vector for me to simply ask is there still a place for fact citation in online debating or will that get me "unfriended" quicker than keeping it light and using more of a parable approach? The actual numbers in the studies are irrelevant because I'm not trying to prove it to be true or false. I am inquisitively asking conservatives if they can tolerate a good old fashioned debate anymore with deep dives included? OR is it too much of a pain in the butt. Again, all observational and no actual statistics on this one unless I get a whole bunch of people to vote in the poll honestly (lol),

 

[iamwhatiseem]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

Yeah, Obama broke records doing that.
Terrible...even built cages to put kids in!!
And also gave numerous children to child traffickers!
Really bad

 

[SpinDr79]

Biden recently laid out the present state of politics where he encouraged listeners that: "“we must choose truth over facts”.


Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

I was speaking more towards like if I submitted a graph of the deficit as a function of GDP over the past 10-30 years as a longitudinal look at our economy. Not as much as subjective statements like a cow's heaven.

The context, reasons, purpose, etc., contextualize any issue subject to assessment or evaluation. What are you trying to argue in your example of "deficit as a function of GDP"?

I used that example to provide a fact that cannot be disputed vs a fact about cow's perception of Heaven being more subjective. Again, not trying to open up a tangent on economics, simply just assessment of an inarguable data set being presented in any context at all toward proving either direction. Does the mere fact that the debate has gotten to the fact analysis stage shut down the opponent (either by anger or mental fatigue) in an argument? It didn't seem that way in the past and it is much less notable on sites like these, but on general social media and in person (even with family) there tends to be a shift to a more tense feeling and some shut down completely.

 

[iceberg]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

i'm more how do people want to be treated. i'm not going to continue this divisive LIBERALS VS CONSERVATIVES talk cause, to me, it's counterproductive. you want to know why we're at each other all the time - cause we divide each other up into stereotypes and then apply blanket statements that people must then fight their way out of they were never into.

i would simply suggest you treat people as you want to be treated. when people can't do this after time, i get worn out of their NO I'M ALWAYS RIGHT YOU DOPE type games and move them to ignore.

to me, you either want to help resolve issues and problems we all face, or you want to attack "the other side". how you post tells me all i need to know. yes many convos can get heated and i can certainly act in a "negative" manner also. working on that. but in the end, i'd rather we attack issues, not each other.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

 

[Darkwind]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

So, this was aimed at conservatives, but where are you studies using the same techniques on Democrats?

-There was a greater general acceptance of continuation of the debate after fact introduction in the liberal demographic. I didn't cite the source because like most studies they can show possibility of correlation but not prove causation. It more sparked my interest, like "Have I been conducting myself all wrong when debating with Conservatives if my goal is to allow for doubt or change on their current stance while giving them a respectful out of a debate? It could be something like the 9/11 first responders bill or all the way up to Obamacare etc.

You can start by being honest, then respectful.

In this case, honesty is defined with regard to studies conducted that target a specific group of people with no corresponding data on another group.

Respectful in that you would promote an unbiased study as a means of addressing someone whom you oppose politically.

By not providing a balanced look at any issue, you are in fact, trying to frame a discussion in your favor.

Hope that helps.

The point of the thread is simply to identify myself as someone who came across some studies to suggest correlation with dressing up talking points vs listing objective factual data. This was much more of a phenomena in the conservative group, but the study truly is only a vector for me to simply ask is there still a place for fact citation in online debating or will that get me "unfriended" quicker than keeping it light and using more of a parable approach? The actual numbers in the studies are irrelevant because I'm not trying to prove it to be true or false. I am inquisitively asking conservatives if they can tolerate a good old fashioned debate anymore with deep dives included? OR is it too much of a pain in the butt. Again, all observational and no actual statistics on this one unless I get a whole bunch of people to vote in the poll honestly (lol),

So, what you seem to fail to grasp is that you have not listed any objective factual data. I pointed this out using the information you provided.

This is the problem with people who use the criteria of "factual data".

They seem to think that the data always supports their interpretation of said data.

 

[Mac1958]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

There are two critical issues at play here.

First, the split of our "media" (ahem) has created two separate news and information universes. Trump and right wing media have successfully trained many on the Right to automatically ignore, avoid and dismiss any facts they don't like as untrustworthy "fake news". Then, only "news", "facts" and "information" that support the macro rightwing/Trump agenda are allowed in to that universe. This has, stunningly, isolated this group into its own informational closed circuit. In all fairness, the mainstream media has brought much of this on itself with its long-time left-leaning reporting. Right wing media seized, and continues to seize, on that to keep the fires stoked.

Second, and this is just as disturbing, it's possible it's been so long that we communicated honestly and factually and civilly, that we may have lost the skill to do so. I saw this theory a couple of years ago and it blew my mind. It may be that those skills are like muscles - use them or lose them. Everyone is screaming and taking sides, no one is really listening. We've fallen so far down into the rabbit hole - hyperbole, distortion, personal attacks, on and on - that we may not have the capacity any more to escape it.

Either one of those conditions are as serious as many major issues. But both of them together? We can't even agree on facts, and we can't even communicate. This is bad.
.

 

[Decus]

Biden recently laid out the present state of politics where he encouraged listeners that: "“we must choose truth over facts”.


Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

I was speaking more towards like if I submitted a graph of the deficit as a function of GDP over the past 10-30 years as a longitudinal look at our economy. Not as much as subjective statements like a cow's heaven.

The context, reasons, purpose, etc., contextualize any issue subject to assessment or evaluation. What are you trying to argue in your example of "deficit as a function of GDP"?

I used that example to provide a fact that cannot be disputed vs a fact about cow's perception of Heaven being more subjective. Again, not trying to open up a tangent on economics, simply just assessment of an inarguable data set being presented in any context at all toward proving either direction. Does the mere fact that the debate has gotten to the fact analysis stage shut down the opponent (either by anger or mental fatigue) in an argument? It didn't seem that way in the past and it is much less notable on sites like these, but on general social media and in person (even with family) there tends to be a shift to a more tense feeling and some shut down completely.

.

My issue isn't with facts, in fact the more facts the better. Rather my problem is with the arbitrary selection of facts and an unwillingness to examine the potential of correlation to other facts.

The problem is that sources for facts are not always easily accessible and outlets that provide information often do so on the basis of opinion (sometimes called analysis) rather than providing details or explanation.

.