Have some on the Left/Right lost the ability to think?

[Quantum Windbag]

What’s even more bizarre is the propensity of many on the right to continue to propagate lies and myths long after they’ve been thoroughly debunked, such as the DHS ‘ammo stockpiling’ myth.

Even the likes of Breitbart and Fox conceded the claim was false:

The Great DHS Ammunition Stockpile Myth - Fox Nation

Yet just this week a conservative USMB member cited the myth yet again as ‘true.’

Is that a deflection from me showing you the flaw in your argument? Because, to me, it certainly seems like one.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Old fart I had to give you a rep for earth shaped like a pyramid and intellectual vandalism. Love any creativity on here. Not sure if intellectual vandalism means defacing ideas but what a wonderful phrase to chew on.

I have heard people say there are paid trolls. Is there any truth to this and why would anyone waste their time and money on USMB? Does this site have far more influence than I am aware of? I have seen segments of the news that have mysteriously paralleled a thread from the night before but I have a hard time believing the networks have to troll USMB for material..

I slogged my way through all the posts on the psychology of partisanship and with the exception of self esteem having a bearing on posters most of it is psycho-babble. When one study says liberals come from well adjusted children and conservatives are the product of children that are damaged goods you know what kind of science it is.

I would give credence also to the idea that people are looking for stucture in their lives, but there is literally too much conflicting information available for most people to be able to lock down on something. One day eggs are good for you, next day they are not, and your mother made you eggs almost every day for breakfast when you were a kid. I have always believed everyone grows up with the soft cement of ideas that gradually hardens as you get older, by which time you have to believe in something or you believe in nothing at all. That is why I have generally come to the conclusion that I need to rely on empirical info more than results from surveys or studies because I don't have time or desire to find out how much integrity say CBO figures have, and I actually think that requires more critical thinking than copying and pasting friendly articles.

One of the moderators once told me that in the course of a whole night they might read six really worthwhile posts. I would hope anyone on this thread would guard against too much hubris. While there might be many posting with too little self-esteem here there are also many posting with an over abundance of self-esteem I.e. a lot of ego. All of the open minded intellectuals on here need to ask themselves one question: how many times have they said, you are right and I am wrong, good debate?

 

[Clement]

I don't intend this as an ad hominem. Recently I have encountered some egregious posts that claim as fact statistics that are demonstratably untrue. And I don't mean a little bit; I mean real howlers.

Now I understand that there are a lot of gray areas. I even understand that there are positions that all of the statistics are rigged and everything is a conspiracy. Such positions can't lead anywhere in public discourse, but they at least have some internal consistency. If you live in an alternate universe and play by the rules of the alternate universe, no one can prove you wrong by the rules of the alternate universe.

But I am talking about threads following the usual back and forth when, suddenly, someone makes a factual assertion on the level that the earth is pyramid shaped with absolute sincerity.

I have intentionally avoided giving any real examples, as it is not my intention to embarrass anyone or pick on anyone. I think everyone here, regardless of ideological persuasion has some great examples from the other side. Of course the "other guys" are much more prone to this than we are; but I don't think very many of us can't recall a few cringe-worthy comments from our own compatriots. Hell, I spend most of the 60s and 70s disassociating myself batshit crazy claims from the left.

A lot of good threads are now drowned by this kind of stuff. So I ask:

1. Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases?

2. Is there a sense that everybody does it, so it's OK to make things up that clearly are not so?

3. What do posters think they gain by doing this?

And finally, is this a form of intellectual vandalism meant not to prevail in a discussion but to stop the discussion if it doesn't go your way?

My reason for bringing this up is that the assumption about free speech that underlies boards such as this is that the solution to bad speech is robust good speech. But if threads are killed off by throwing rhetorical bombs, what's the point?

I have been watching this for over a decade, and I have a couple of theories about it:

1. No, these people don't believe what they say, and they don't expect to be believed, at least not initially. The idea is to get the phrase/buzzword/rhetoric out there. If people say it enough and hear it enough it will start to sound plausible, because, let's face it, 10,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong. Attorneys some times throw something out in court that causes the judge to say "jury, disregard that". To late, they already heard it and you can't make them un-hear it.

2. I believe it is done purposely. I have seen this kind of shit destroy at least four conservative message boards and two or three Christian message boards. Liberal trolls show up and do nothing but disrupt the dialog until there is no meaningful dialog to be had. I even recognize some of the usernames.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't intend this as an ad hominem. Recently I have encountered some egregious posts that claim as fact statistics that are demonstratably untrue. And I don't mean a little bit; I mean real howlers.

Now I understand that there are a lot of gray areas. I even understand that there are positions that all of the statistics are rigged and everything is a conspiracy. Such positions can't lead anywhere in public discourse, but they at least have some internal consistency. If you live in an alternate universe and play by the rules of the alternate universe, no one can prove you wrong by the rules of the alternate universe.

But I am talking about threads following the usual back and forth when, suddenly, someone makes a factual assertion on the level that the earth is pyramid shaped with absolute sincerity.

I have intentionally avoided giving any real examples, as it is not my intention to embarrass anyone or pick on anyone. I think everyone here, regardless of ideological persuasion has some great examples from the other side. Of course the "other guys" are much more prone to this than we are; but I don't think very many of us can't recall a few cringe-worthy comments from our own compatriots. Hell, I spend most of the 60s and 70s disassociating myself batshit crazy claims from the left.

A lot of good threads are now drowned by this kind of stuff. So I ask:

1. Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases?

2. Is there a sense that everybody does it, so it's OK to make things up that clearly are not so?

3. What do posters think they gain by doing this?

And finally, is this a form of intellectual vandalism meant not to prevail in a discussion but to stop the discussion if it doesn't go your way?

My reason for bringing this up is that the assumption about free speech that underlies boards such as this is that the solution to bad speech is robust good speech. But if threads are killed off by throwing rhetorical bombs, what's the point?

1. Yes, I believe they do. I have firsthand experience with people like this as well. Facts are to them as water is to a duck. They roll right off of them. Confirmation bias is strong in some.

2. Absolutely not. BUT - what are you to do? They continue because they can and think that they are really 'winning' the argument even though there is no winning here - only learning and growing.

3. Self confirmation. At least that is what I think is going on. They see their arguments as reality and it is confirmed each time that they are able to ignore facts and reality to confirm that opinion.

As to what is the point - I find that inquiry somewhat silly - the point is individualistic and different for each person that comes here. For myself, it is to strengthen my worldview or improve it with better ideas than I came here with. That requires that you are willing to CHANGE though and very few posters seem capable of changing an opinion based on the given evidence. You have your own point in coming here I would imagine but no one here can actually answer your question as to what it is.

Now personally, I remember the 60s and 70s as a period of when the conservative movement made a lot of good intellectual arguments and a lot of the left passed the bong at the ashram a bit too often. My politics haven't changed much since then, so I don't think I've become more conservative or more liberal. But now it seems to me that the conservative movement has lost intellectual steam (I'm mainly referring to economic policy and political economy here) and become more apologists for the powerful (which they certainly weren't in the mid-60s). But I will cheerfully consider the possibility that my observations may reflect changes in me as well.

I guess I think that which side is the worst offender here is not really very important. The abuses from either side are destructive.

I would actually posit that the reason that the other side seems more prone to the insanity and ignorance of the facts is not necessarily because you changed or one is actually worse - I think it has to do with 2 factors. one is the general dumbing down of all political discourse through the nation. The discourse that we go through today is incredibly dumbed down and almost universally untrue considering the selective nature that the news outlets use in regard with the truth. This has led to much of the so called facts being completely misinterpreted.

Second, (and pure conjecture on my part) I think that personal confirmation bias allows one to more easily dismiss the outrageous and 'loose' use of the facts from your own political spectrum more easily. I think this is due to the fact that you already know that there is more to the story than that and what the real objective of those who agree with your political views actually are trying to accomplish whereas it is simple to stand up the outrageous and loose facts of the other side as representative of that particular political spectrum.

Taken together, I believe, creates what you were referring to.

 

[FA_Q2]

Even these numbers are suspect thought. I don't know how many people have argued against CBO numbers because they are generated based on faulty input (which they are forced to eat and they know it).

But it's not like CBO doesn't know about the problems with their data collection and modelling systems. There is a robust debate on how to improve them, of which I often am a part. Most organizations have an "occasional papers" series to deal with this. Now this stuff will make the eyes glaze over, so I don't recommend it for light reading. Usually the non-wonk can get the gist of the issues in the footnotes to the reports. And CBO is far more open about its assumptions and "base-line modelling" than anyone else.

So if you claim imperfections you are right. But where does that leave you? Can you just reject all the results and wait for something perfect which will never come along?

Let me give a quick example. The headline unemployment rate is U-3 reported by BLS. They also report five other measures, including U-6. Ten years ago the media did not have a clue as to what U-6 was. Most still don't, but they report it when it supports their argument. Someday in the far far future, they will probably begin to report on the annual seasonal adjustment recomputation, but for now it only shows up as proof of a conspiracy to rig the unemployment numbers. So just what is the purpose of implying conspiracy and dumping on the reported statistics? It certainly isn't to get better statistics.

I don't argue with you at all.

Thomas Sowell wrote about how when he first started he was asked to do something (analysis). He did it.

Well, it seems it didn't fit the narrative (and made his boss's boss very uncomfortable), so it got redone for him.

His point was that statistics are politicised.

We need the numbers....but they can be doled out in a way that predestines the conclusion.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Mark Twain

I like that saying because it is very true. Statistical analysis is VERY difficult because you can make statistics say almost anything if you are not carful to completely define the statistic in question and understand exactly what that means. Statistics are abused all the time to bolster an argument.

 

[oldfart]

Old fart I had to give you a rep for earth shaped like a pyramid and intellectual vandalism. Love any creativity on here. Not sure if intellectual vandalism means defacing ideas but what a wonderful phrase to chew on.

Thanks. I learned early that people remember what is funny or bizarre, so I teach with funny stories. I have a collection of Tax Court opinions like the judge who denied a depletion deduction to a professional blood donor because "the loss of vital bodily minerals is not the type of extraction Congress had in mind in passing the depletion provisions".

I have heard people say there are paid trolls. Is there any truth to this and why would anyone waste their time and money on USMB? Does this site have far more influence than I am aware of? I have seen segments of the news that have mysteriously paralleled a thread from the night before but I have a hard time believing the networks have to troll USMB for material..

Personally I believe it is urban legend. There are way too many folks who do it for free.

I slogged my way through all the posts on the psychology of partisanship and with the exception of self esteem having a bearing on posters most of it is psycho-babble. When one study says liberals come from well adjusted children and conservatives are the product of children that are damaged goods you know what kind of science it is.

I generally agree with you. Most of the good research I have seen deals with how people come to world views, often almost randomly, and then confirmation bias sets them on course for the rest of their lives. My observation is that almost all human action and decision-making is non-cognitive; then we feel compelled to create a rationale for our decisions after we make them. But most decisions are made by habit and custom, rules of thumb, instinct, and randomness.

That said, there is a pretty good body of neural and cognitive science about how once these frameworks are established, they perpetuate themselves, closing off lines of thought that challenge the accepted world-view to the point that they often become self-contained alternate realities.

But the really big point is that some people develop skills that counteract this. I think of it as having a "watcher" in the back of your brain, detached from your limbic system, observing what your thought processes and decision-making protocols are. Some of this can be accessed by contemplation and mindfulness training. When you see people do this it is stunning how much more capable it makes them.

I would give credence also to the idea that people are looking for stucture in their lives, but there is literally too much conflicting information available for most people to be able to lock down on something. One day eggs are good for you, next day they are not, and your mother made you eggs almost every day for breakfast when you were a kid. I have always believed everyone grows up with the soft cement of ideas that gradually hardens as you get older, by which time you have to believe in something or you believe in nothing at all. That is why I have generally come to the conclusion that I need to rely on empirical info more than results from surveys or studies because I don't have time or desire to find out how much integrity say CBO figures have, and I actually think that requires more critical thinking than copying and pasting friendly articles.

I agree. Personally I try to comment on those things that interest me enough to motivate me to develop a little independent competence in the subject. When this is not the case I tend to sit back and listen.

One of the moderators once told me that in the course of a whole night they might read six really worthwhile posts. I would hope anyone on this thread would guard against too much hubris. While there might be many posting with too little self-esteem here there are also many posting with an over abundance of self-esteem I.e. a lot of ego. All of the open minded intellectuals on here need to ask themselves one question: how many times have they said, you are right and I am wrong, good debate?

Good point. There are also ethical issues concerning debates with persons less skilled in the subject matter or the techniques of argumentation. Why do we have these discussions anyway? To feed ego? To inform others? To enlighten ourselves?

This might be an excellent thread for another time. For me, I can usually tell when people have certain backgrounds (debate, law, scientific research, historical analysis, and so on) because each comes with a specific skill set and commonly understood set of rules of discourse. If you seem to know the relevant set of rules and lay out points with that skill set, I believe you have the creds. We have quite a few very intelligent people on the board who get into areas foreign to their experience who don't seem to realize that different disciplines operate in substantially different frameworks.

All the best, Jamie

 

[oldfart]

But it's not like CBO doesn't know about the problems with their data collection and modelling systems. There is a robust debate on how to improve them, of which I often am a part. Most organizations have an "occasional papers" series to deal with this. Now this stuff will make the eyes glaze over, so I don't recommend it for light reading. Usually the non-wonk can get the gist of the issues in the footnotes to the reports. And CBO is far more open about its assumptions and "base-line modelling" than anyone else.

So if you claim imperfections you are right. But where does that leave you? Can you just reject all the results and wait for something perfect which will never come along?

Let me give a quick example. The headline unemployment rate is U-3 reported by BLS. They also report five other measures, including U-6. Ten years ago the media did not have a clue as to what U-6 was. Most still don't, but they report it when it supports their argument. Someday in the far far future, they will probably begin to report on the annual seasonal adjustment recomputation, but for now it only shows up as proof of a conspiracy to rig the unemployment numbers. So just what is the purpose of implying conspiracy and dumping on the reported statistics? It certainly isn't to get better statistics.

I don't argue with you at all.

Thomas Sowell wrote about how when he first started he was asked to do something (analysis). He did it.

Well, it seems it didn't fit the narrative (and made his boss's boss very uncomfortable), so it got redone for him.

His point was that statistics are politicised.

We need the numbers....but they can be doled out in a way that predestines the conclusion.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Mark Twain

I like that saying because it is very true. Statistical analysis is VERY difficult because you can make statistics say almost anything if you are not carful to completely define the statistic in question and understand exactly what that means. Statistics are abused all the time to bolster an argument.

Agreed. My point is the abuse is almost never committed by statisticians who have an incredibly robust peer process to enforce standards. The abuse come from the misuse of statistics by commentators after they are published.

 

[Nutz]

My reason for bringing this up is that the assumption about free speech that underlies boards such as this is that the solution to bad speech is robust good speech. But if threads are killed off by throwing rhetorical bombs, what's the point?

Regretfully, the lack of rules on this forum is confused with advocating free speech. People would rather call someone stupid and personally attack before they actually make an argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi CCJones: I see your point, but I don't think the example you gave was the best one to use.
This issue was not picked up and dragged out, but it seemed to die off before it began.
(Of all the conservatives I know, NONE of them paid attention AT ALL to this issue.
NOT ONE WORD. That's how important it WAS NOT.)

What you DID illustrate instead is this habit of opponents SAYING that "but the other side keeps doing X Y Z" and using that to attack credibility of the opponents.

It does not solve the problem, but detracts even more and makes it worse.

I agree with you that abusing something "out of context" WEAKENS the credibility of their stance.

So that's why this issue got dropped. I don't think it is a good example.

In this case, issues like this that are relatively EASY to resolve SHOULD be used that way: to CORRECT the problem so this is NOT abused as ammo against credibility of either side.

Can we agree that where people bring up complaints, objections, grievances, or points to show conflicts of interest or hypocrisy,

that we strive to RESOLVE the issues brought up or expressed?

These may well be erroneous, out of context, off the wall or from another plane of reality, but if we focus on CORRECTION and RESOLUTION of whatever point or opposition is being expressed, can't we make something good of the opportunity to share anyway?

If we commit NOT to "put people on the DEFENSIVE" by ATTACKING each other's beliefs, this reduces any need for stray arguments, grasping for straws or for straw men. But we could better invest in building on programs and principles instead of wasteful conflict.

And of course those on the left perceive this occurring mostly on the right.

For example, there was a thread recently about the AG’s comments concerning a personal gun safe designed to open in response to an RFID chip contained in a bracelet worn by the gun owner.

The partisan right took the story and contrived the lie that the AG wanted to ‘compel’ every gun owner to possess such a chip so the Federal government could trace the movements of all gun owners:

The Justice Department rejected "any suggestion" that Holder supports tracking legal gun owners.

"The administration is working with the gun manufacturing industry to encourage private-sector solutions to improving firearm safety," Justice Department spokesperson Brian Fallon told TPM in an email on Tuesday. "That is what the Attorney General addressed. Any suggestion that he endorsed a proposal to physically track law-abiding gun owners is a dishonest distortion."

No, Eric Holder Doesn't Want To Make Gun Owners Wear 'Tracking Bracelets'

Indeed.

And with regard to the OP’s inquiry as to “Do the posters actually believe what they post in these cases”?

It’s hard to say, but it’s conceivable many on the right did in the above case, as it conforms to the myth about the AG contrived by the right, and it clearly served the purpose of inciting the rightwing base.

Sadly, whether such lies are true or not – or believed or not – is irrelevant to those propagating the lies, as the intent is not honest debate, but to muddy the waters of political discourse to achieve some perceived partisan gain.

The best strengths I see in the different parties and approaches:
* Republicans/Libertarians tend to focus on Free Market and Rule of Law (and fail when this isn't enforced consistently)
* Democrats tend to focus on Equal Inclusion and Access to end disparity and discrimination (and fail when they don't act inclusively or discriminate politically)
* Greens tend to focus on sustainable solutions and consensus/conflict resolution

From what I see, the Rightwing Conservatives tend to stick to "FUNDAMENTAL Constitutional arguments" that remain independent of proving this case or that one, etc.

Even the Hobby Lobby case, the Rightwing are not dependent on the arguments or outcome of this case "to prove the issue of civil liberties and religious freedom" -- but the opposite, that these freedoms and liberties are already "God given and inalienable," and this case is used to address govt conflicts with the central laws that ARE the default.

If you look at the letter of the arguments, this case could be easily picked apart legally.
The point is the "spirit of the law" that was violated, where the nitpicky legal flaws don't matter to them, but would be used to argue against the Opponents as missing the point.

The Leftwing does the opposite, DEPENDS on Roe V Wade (and subsequent govt laws and relative support of politicians) to "justify and establish" prochoice, but isn't deriving this DIRECTLY from the natural laws and rights as made statutory by the Constitution.

So it is THIS habit of NOT invoking DIRECT liberties and freedoms at the source (ie by natural laws), but DEPENDING on government laws, judicial precedence, majority rule (and thus party, votes and elections) to "establish it" that BIASES ALL OTHER arguments and views to keep "defending their positions" based on MAN MADE CONDITIONS.

This causes ALL the issues with "voter suppression or political fraud in election campaigns" by DEPENDING on PARTY POLITICS and GOVT to DEFINE and DEFEND policies for them.

Politics/Government ==> defends/establishes the beliefs/views/principles for the people
Versus
Principles and consent of the people ===> establishes laws, contracts, govt policy

As long as Christians, Conservatives and Constitutionalists continue to derive authority directly from the source of natural laws; and as long as the Left draws their power from political OPPOSITION in REACTION to this group taken as the "default"; there is never going to be equality. And there will be biases in the arguments back and forth based on assuming "different starting points" for "where authority of law comes from."

As a progressive Democrat, I have learned this the hard way. I found fellow Democrats generally weak if educated at all on Constitutional arguments and principles, and relying instead on the case by case attacks AGAINST positions by Conservatives or Christians considered the predominant view in power. So it tends to come across as "reactionary," not free standing principles. Because my fellow Democrats know I am sincere in wanting to achieve the goals of inclusion and equality the right way, and not just pushing Constitutional arguments on them as some kind of opposing agenda politically, they have listened and have earnestly tried to understand, but it takes an involved process to catch them up with where other Constitutionalists are who have been working on this for years.

I don't think it is people's fault for coming from different background and approach.
I thought it could be reconciled by agreeing on the laws; I thought "prochoice" was the liberal equivalent of arguing for inherent liberty and freedom from govt intrusion, based on Constitutional principles alone. But the ACA conflicts proved otherwise, and I realized people's starting base beliefs are not on equal ground; I even found a close friend (Black Republican) defines racism and power based on "white people" as the default, so all other laws, govt, and issues are built on that premise and everyone else is reacting to that.

Another friend who is so inherently opposed to "conservative Christian rightwing" depends on the Democrat Party for representation, and does not relate at all to Constitutional laws.
This drove home to me that "prochoice" is still politically reactionary, and not about establishing "freedom of choice" OR DUE PROCESS by Constitutional principle but depending on the Democrat Party to counteract equal beliefs in prolife views associated with Republicans (where before I thought the issue with Roe V Wade was conflicts with DUE PROCESS that made the bans on abortion unconstitutional, but found out later the Democrats do not have qualms with taking liberties without due process with ACA).

With this understanding that the political biases cannot always be helped, but are engrained and as natural to people as their religion, I have been approaching Conservatives to understand this, and try to work out ways to separate political beliefs while keeping these intact.

I believe what may come from this is a collaborative movement of separate groups,
all uniting to defend prochoice, prolife and proliberty views EQUALLY even where they do not even agree with each other's views, but agree to separate them from federal policy.

 

[HackinJack]

o.k.