CDZ The Psychology of "Mandates"

[Mac1958]

Among the many similar behaviors the two major parties share is this predictable chant of "MANDATE!" whenever they win an election. The point appears to be, "we won, so we have a mandate to shove every last bit of our agenda right down your throat whether you like it or not. Because we won".

Okay. And we all know how that ends up. They end up on the wrong end of a wave election and we go in the opposite direction for a while. Back and forth, back and forth, we just never learn.

In 2016, Donald Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the votes. Now, I'm not complaining about that, nor is this a conversation about the Constitution or electoral votes. But I do wonder how he and his supporters interpret 46.1% of the popular vote as a mandate to pull the country in their direction.

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: You know what's best for the country, and once you've had a chance to put your agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that you were right all along.

Is that fair? Thoughts? (And by the way, this applies to both parties)
.

 

[Freewill]

Actually, I don't see a lot of talk about mandates with Trumps election. What I do see is that elections have consequences.

TheIf I were to see a mandate in the Trump election it would be giving the establishment the middle finger big time.

Unfortunately I believe our government has grown in a fashion that makes whatever they do unworkable. For example, look at the COTUS, simple, and a few pages. Now look at ACA and the reams of paper to explain what could be simple. Then throw in the SCOTUS making law. Or the president, any president, making law through executive orders. The system is almost unworkable, in my opinion. And the only recourse the voters have is to keep voting the ins out and that just ain't gonna do anything.

 

[Fishlore]

Among the many similar behaviors the two major parties share is this predictable chant of "MANDATE!" whenever they win an election. The point appears to be, "we won, so we have a mandate to shove every last bit of our agenda right down your throat whether you like it or not. Because we won".

Okay. And we all know how that ends up. They end up on the wrong end of a wave election and we go in the opposite direction for a while. Back and forth, back and forth, we just never learn.

In 2016, Donald Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the votes. Now, I'm not complaining about that, nor is this a conversation about the Constitution or electoral votes. But I do wonder how he and his supporters interpret 46.1% of the popular vote as a mandate to pull the country in their direction.

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: You know what's best for the country, and once you've had a chance to put your agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that you were right all along.

Is that fair? Thoughts? (And by the way, this applies to both parties)
.

"Mandate" is a latinate word meaning "command," a mandate is something the citizens command the government to do. We do have some cases of legal mandate in the form of a popular referendum which requires the passage of a specific act if enough signatures are obtained. Congressional and presidential elections are not, technically, mandates. The candidates are elected and are bound only to follow constitutional procedure in performance of the duties of office. Of course, candidates normally seek election by promising to do something specific if victorious, and voters often chose them because they want to see those promises carried out. But they are promises without consequences. The candidate is free to change his mind or break his promise. Elections do not produce mandates. Politicians uses the term as a propaganda tool.

 

[martybegan]

Among the many similar behaviors the two major parties share is this predictable chant of "MANDATE!" whenever they win an election. The point appears to be, "we won, so we have a mandate to shove every last bit of our agenda right down your throat whether you like it or not. Because we won".

Okay. And we all know how that ends up. They end up on the wrong end of a wave election and we go in the opposite direction for a while. Back and forth, back and forth, we just never learn.

In 2016, Donald Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the votes. Now, I'm not complaining about that, nor is this a conversation about the Constitution or electoral votes. But I do wonder how he and his supporters interpret 46.1% of the popular vote as a mandate to pull the country in their direction.

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: You know what's best for the country, and once you've had a chance to put your agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that you were right all along.

Is that fair? Thoughts? (And by the way, this applies to both parties)
.

it's just another selling point in both directions, i.e. (we have a mandate! vs. they lack a mandate!)

Mandates are meaningless, the only things that matters are votes in the house of 50%+1, votes in the senate of 50 or 60 depending on the bill, which president's hand the pen is in, and can you convince 5 of 9 unelected lawyers that your program is constitutional.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Among the many similar behaviors the two major parties share is this predictable chant of "MANDATE!" whenever they win an election. The point appears to be, "we won, so we have a mandate to shove every last bit of our agenda right down your throat whether you like it or not. Because we won".

Okay. And we all know how that ends up. They end up on the wrong end of a wave election and we go in the opposite direction for a while. Back and forth, back and forth, we just never learn.

In 2016, Donald Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the votes. Now, I'm not complaining about that, nor is this a conversation about the Constitution or electoral votes. But I do wonder how he and his supporters interpret 46.1% of the popular vote as a mandate to pull the country in their direction.

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: You know what's best for the country, and once you've had a chance to put your agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that you were right all along.

Is that fair? Thoughts? (And by the way, this applies to both parties)
.

I do wonder how he and his supporters interpret 46.1% of the popular vote as a mandate to pull the country in their direction.

They are utter simpletons who see the matter binarily, much as they see sporting contests. "A" lost and "B" won is all the consideration they care to give. That degree of simplification is fine for a sporting contest because the only people for whom a win or loss truly matters are the contestants. When it comes to winning an election, however, regardless of what individual/party wins, the winning individual is supposed to effect public policy so that the overwhelming majority of the polity are the winners for having chosen whomever won the election.

But as to the more simplistic point of whether some 46% constitutes an unequivocal popularly accorded imprimatur, well, no, it doesn't. Neither, for that matter, does some 53% majority. In modern times and by my reckoning, Reagan (1984), Nixon (1972), Johnson (1964), and Eisenhower (both times) won big enough to construe their wins as popular mandates. The rest of the post-1936 elections were not, not that I think the 1930s and before, in this context, can be rightly called "modern times."

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: You know what's best for the country, and once you've had a chance to put your agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that you were right all along.

I have edited the personal pronouns in statement above as shown below because it's what I think you were intending, OP-er.

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: [The election winner(s) thinks they] know what's best for the country, and once [the election winner(s) has] had a chance to put [their] agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that [the election winner(s)] were right all along.

Assuming my interpretation of what you wrote is accurate, yes, that does appear to be the nature and extent of hubris elected office holders exhibit.

For some few matters, I don't have a problem with their thus exhibiting it. For the rest, those for which there is a preponderance of empirical evidence and expert opinion indicating course of action "X" is the most likely to yield the maximum measure of beneficial results, yet policymakers implement/enact policy other than "X" or some procrustean bastardization of "X." I find that unacceptable for the solution/policy approaches to handling such matters vary by the political persuasion of the individuals holding elected office.

 

[blackhawk]

Among the many similar behaviors the two major parties share is this predictable chant of "MANDATE!" whenever they win an election. The point appears to be, "we won, so we have a mandate to shove every last bit of our agenda right down your throat whether you like it or not. Because we won".

Okay. And we all know how that ends up. They end up on the wrong end of a wave election and we go in the opposite direction for a while. Back and forth, back and forth, we just never learn.

In 2016, Donald Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the votes. Now, I'm not complaining about that, nor is this a conversation about the Constitution or electoral votes. But I do wonder how he and his supporters interpret 46.1% of the popular vote as a mandate to pull the country in their direction.

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: You know what's best for the country, and once you've had a chance to put your agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that you were right all along.

Is that fair? Thoughts? (And by the way, this applies to both parties)
.

As you said both parties have gotten this mindset that because they win in a Presidential election year they think they have a mandate to do whatever they want yet when they lose big in midterm elections they never see that as a mandate against them. It's not the right of the party in power to do as they please nor is it the job of the party out of power to do nothing but obstruct the two parties are not going to agree on everything but it's still there job to try and work together and try and find common ground for the benefit of the nation and people when possible something both seem to have forgotten.

 

[Mac1958]

Among the many similar behaviors the two major parties share is this predictable chant of "MANDATE!" whenever they win an election. The point appears to be, "we won, so we have a mandate to shove every last bit of our agenda right down your throat whether you like it or not. Because we won".

Okay. And we all know how that ends up. They end up on the wrong end of a wave election and we go in the opposite direction for a while. Back and forth, back and forth, we just never learn.

In 2016, Donald Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the votes. Now, I'm not complaining about that, nor is this a conversation about the Constitution or electoral votes. But I do wonder how he and his supporters interpret 46.1% of the popular vote as a mandate to pull the country in their direction.

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: You know what's best for the country, and once you've had a chance to put your agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that you were right all along.

Is that fair? Thoughts? (And by the way, this applies to both parties)
.

As you said both parties have gotten this mindset that because they win in a Presidential election year they think they have a mandate to do whatever they want yet when they lose big in midterm elections they never see that as a mandate against them. It's not the right of the party in power to do as they please nor is it the job of the party out of power to do nothing but obstruct the two parties are not going to agree on everything but it's still there job to try and work together and try and find common ground for the benefit of the nation and people when possible something both seem to have forgotten.

Yeah, they've definitely forgotten it. And it's only getting worse. When they inevitably get voted out for going too far, the last place they look is the mirror. Democrats will say they lost because Americans are stupid and racist; Republicans will say they lost because of the media or because of a RINO candidate.

This is one of the symptoms of being afflicted with a partisan ideology: Intellectual blindness. They can't see the obvious. They WON'T see it, because the ends of the spectrum have become terribly narcissistic and have convinced themselves that only they have all the answers.
.

 

[Mac1958]

They are utter simpletons who see the matter binarily, much as they see sporting contests. "A" lost and "B" won is all the consideration they care to give.

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people. This affliction literally distorts both perceptions (what comes in and the nature of that prism) and thought processes (how it is then analyzed and how conclusions are formed). That's why the afflicted are so passionate - they truly believe what they are saying. In their own way, they are being honest and truthful.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff? And most importantly, does their affliction cause them to block out all contrary evidence and data like that, and only see one pure end of an argument? That's why I'll sometimes tell them, "I absolutely believe that you absolutely believe that."

And literally, I believe that those of us who are not ideological like that are not smarter than them by any measure. We have simply been fortunate enough to avoid the affliction. So far, we'll see, who knows.
.

 

[Toronado3800]

If you win with 88% of the popular vote then you probably have a mandate and the Bill of Rights is going to have a difficult time standing up to you lol and the 12% better try to get out while they can.

If you win with 46%, 48%, heck, 58%, you probably don't have a mandate in the sense I think they are using it.

 

[yiostheoy]

Among the many similar behaviors the two major parties share is this predictable chant of "MANDATE!" whenever they win an election. The point appears to be, "we won, so we have a mandate to shove every last bit of our agenda right down your throat whether you like it or not. Because we won".

Okay. And we all know how that ends up. They end up on the wrong end of a wave election and we go in the opposite direction for a while. Back and forth, back and forth, we just never learn.

In 2016, Donald Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the votes. Now, I'm not complaining about that, nor is this a conversation about the Constitution or electoral votes. But I do wonder how he and his supporters interpret 46.1% of the popular vote as a mandate to pull the country in their direction.

Here is my guess, please let me know if I'm wrong: You know what's best for the country, and once you've had a chance to put your agenda in place, the majority of the country will open its eyes and see that you were right all along.

Is that fair? Thoughts? (And by the way, this applies to both parties)
.

I hear Speaker Ryan using the term "mandate" a lot.

My thoughts are that this is all political bullsh!t.

But with Ryan being a consummate politician he is good at it.

Ryan probably plans to run for POTUS in 2024. So he is getting a lot of face time now. Pence will probably run against him in the primaries.

 

[yiostheoy]

If you win with 88% of the popular vote then you probably have a mandate and the Bill of Rights is going to have a difficult time standing up to you lol and the 12% better try to get out while they can.

If you win with 46%, 48%, heck, 58%, you probably don't have a mandate in the sense I think they are using it.

Reagan had a mandate to get the hostages back from Iran back in 1980.

The Persian Allatollahs probably knew it and coughed them up right away.

Reagan used the rest of his mandate to cut taxes and to stimulate the economy with a huge deficit spending plan.

Trump is following Reagan's formula but there is NO mandate.

It was a close election with Crooked Hillary losing to Crooked Trump by a very narrow margin. NO mandate.

 

[usmbguest5318]

They are utter simpletons who see the matter binarily, much as they see sporting contests. "A" lost and "B" won is all the consideration they care to give.

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people. This affliction literally distorts both perceptions (what comes in and the nature of that prism) and thought processes (how it is then analyzed and how conclusions are formed). That's why the afflicted are so passionate - they truly believe what they are saying. In their own way, they are being honest and truthful.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff? And most importantly, does their affliction cause them to block out all contrary evidence and data like that, and only see one pure end of an argument? That's why I'll sometimes tell them, "I absolutely believe that you absolutely believe that."

And literally, I believe that those of us who are not ideological like that are not smarter than them by any measure. We have simply been fortunate enough to avoid the affliction. So far, we'll see, who knows.
.

The intellect one doesn't use manifests no differently than does the intellect one lacks.
-- Xelor​

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people.

I am willing to agree that it's not purely a function of intellect or one's lack thereof.; however, in the abstract, it appears a huge plurality (if not majority) of people have the acuity needed to discern what matters are, at their core, partisan/political and what matters are not, yet they renounce using their cognitive abilities when they address those questions as matters of politics and pathos rather than as matters to which should be applied logos. In my observation, what those people do is bring their brains to bear to formulate specious arguments, arguments that by dint of one or more of their premises must necessarily lead to the individuals' desired conclusions rather than to sound conclusions. Put another way, what they do is use their intellects to craft valid arguments that are unsound.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff?

Well, some of them do and some of them don't. I construe whether they do or don't to be a function of the interrelationship among humility, will, intellect and knowledge and not a function of a disease's/affliction's machinations.

• Humility --> One must refrain from accepting that what is good or best for oneself must also be good/best for everyone else, nearly everyone else or most folks.
• Will --> One must have the fortitude to consider a matter objectively, without qualitative preconceptions, and one must have the will to obtain as much information as is available pertaining to the matter.
• Knowledge --> One must possess the raw information pertaining to the matter in question.

Intellect comes into play both in evaluating a given matter and insofar as it is the "power" one uses to know that, within oneself, there is an imbalance among the above qualities and recognizing as much, act to, for the issue under consideration, effect balance among them. One either (1) abrogates certain aspects of one's intellect, resulting in one inaptly and inaccurately evaluating the matter, thus arriving at unsound conclusions about it, or (2) simply hasn't the intellect, in which case, yes, one suffers from a psychological/physiological affliction, namely some measure and form of intellectual disability.

Now, how many people indeed are intellectually disabled? Well, my cursory investigation into the matter leads me to think something less than 5% of the population are. I know that when I find myself asking the question you do, I'd prefer to think that the person(s) in question are not thus afflicted, but maybe they are. Could it be that the preponderance of thus afflicted individuals hold elected and appointed offices in government?

Hell, no, though a small few of them may be, albeit not to an extent that they are profoundly so disabled. That leaves to conclude that most individuals who appear not to "realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true" are dissembling willfully and deliberately being disingenuous. Inasmuch as one must possess at least an average measure of adult-level knowledge and intellect to do that; thus one's doing so is not the function of an affliction.

 

[Mac1958]

They are utter simpletons who see the matter binarily, much as they see sporting contests. "A" lost and "B" won is all the consideration they care to give.

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people. This affliction literally distorts both perceptions (what comes in and the nature of that prism) and thought processes (how it is then analyzed and how conclusions are formed). That's why the afflicted are so passionate - they truly believe what they are saying. In their own way, they are being honest and truthful.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff? And most importantly, does their affliction cause them to block out all contrary evidence and data like that, and only see one pure end of an argument? That's why I'll sometimes tell them, "I absolutely believe that you absolutely believe that."

And literally, I believe that those of us who are not ideological like that are not smarter than them by any measure. We have simply been fortunate enough to avoid the affliction. So far, we'll see, who knows.
.

The intellect one doesn't use manifests no differently than does the intellect one lacks.
-- Xelor​

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people.

I am willing to agree that it's not purely a function of intellect or one's lack thereof.; however, in the abstract, it appears a huge plurality (if not majority) of people have the acuity needed to discern what matters are, at their core, partisan/political and what matters are not, yet they renounce using their cognitive abilities when they address those questions as matters of politics and pathos rather than as matters to which should be applied logos. In my observation, what those people do is bring their brains to bear to formulate specious arguments, arguments that by dint of one or more of their premises must necessarily lead to the individuals' desired conclusions rather than to sound conclusions. Put another way, what they do is use their intellects to craft valid arguments that are unsound.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff?

Well, some of them do and some of them don't. I construe whether they do or don't to be a function of the interrelationship among humility, will, intellect and knowledge and not a function of a disease's/affliction's machinations.

• Humility --> One must refrain from accepting that what is good or best for oneself must also be good/best for everyone else, nearly everyone else or most folks.
• Will --> One must have the fortitude to consider a matter objectively, without qualitative preconceptions, and one must have the will to obtain as much information as is available pertaining to the matter.
• Knowledge --> One must possess the raw information pertaining to the matter in question.

Intellect comes into play both in evaluating a given matter and insofar as it is the "power" one uses to know that, within oneself, there is an imbalance among the above qualities and recognizing as much, act to, for the issue under consideration, effect balance among them. One either (1) abrogates certain aspects of one's intellect, resulting in one inaptly and inaccurately evaluating the matter, thus arriving at unsound conclusions about it, or (2) simply hasn't the intellect, in which case, yes, one suffers from a psychological/physiological affliction, namely some measure and form of intellectual disability.

Now, how many people indeed are intellectually disabled? Well, my cursory investigation into the matter leads me to think something less than 5% of the population are. I know that when I find myself asking the question you do, I'd prefer to think that the person(s) in question are not thus afflicted, but maybe they are. Could it be that the preponderance of thus afflicted individuals hold elected and appointed offices in government?

Hell, no, though a small few of them may be, albeit not to an extent that they are profoundly so disabled. That leaves to conclude that most individuals who appear not to "realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true" are dissembling willfully and deliberately being disingenuous. Inasmuch as one must possess at least an average measure of adult-level knowledge and intellect to do that; thus one's doing so is not the function of an affliction.

In a nutshell, it just goes back to the power of ideology, something for which I'm in greater awe every single day.

It's about: Perceptions (the prism through which information is absorbed) and thought processes (the very structure of the mental schematic that information then passes through).

Compare the above process with a deeply religious person and an atheist; I think that, right away, before information is even processed, the core information looks different to each person. The prism through which it has passed has given it an entirely different set of fundamental characteristics. Then, the mental schematic through which it passes is structured differently as well. And one similar and crucial part of that schematic, a key element within an ideology, is to avoid, ignore and distort all information contrary to the ideology.

The result? And this is key => both people's ideology have distorted the information in completely different directions, and both people's distorted opinions are perfectly honest and sincere. That's why they can be so passionate, perfectly intelligent, even though those very thought processes are betraying them by ignoring and avoiding contrary information. The behaviors both ends then display - hyperbole, insults, name-calling, denial, lies, the rest - are then essentially justified within the very binary, us vs. them dynamic of the ideology.

And, INTELLIGENCE can be a key driver in how effective the behaviors are on a macro level!

Obviously, I could be completely wrong here. But this is a real fascination with me, and I'll tell ya, USMB is a perfect little Petri dish for observing this.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

They are utter simpletons who see the matter binarily, much as they see sporting contests. "A" lost and "B" won is all the consideration they care to give.

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people. This affliction literally distorts both perceptions (what comes in and the nature of that prism) and thought processes (how it is then analyzed and how conclusions are formed). That's why the afflicted are so passionate - they truly believe what they are saying. In their own way, they are being honest and truthful.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff? And most importantly, does their affliction cause them to block out all contrary evidence and data like that, and only see one pure end of an argument? That's why I'll sometimes tell them, "I absolutely believe that you absolutely believe that."

And literally, I believe that those of us who are not ideological like that are not smarter than them by any measure. We have simply been fortunate enough to avoid the affliction. So far, we'll see, who knows.
.

The intellect one doesn't use manifests no differently than does the intellect one lacks.
-- Xelor​

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people.

I am willing to agree that it's not purely a function of intellect or one's lack thereof.; however, in the abstract, it appears a huge plurality (if not majority) of people have the acuity needed to discern what matters are, at their core, partisan/political and what matters are not, yet they renounce using their cognitive abilities when they address those questions as matters of politics and pathos rather than as matters to which should be applied logos. In my observation, what those people do is bring their brains to bear to formulate specious arguments, arguments that by dint of one or more of their premises must necessarily lead to the individuals' desired conclusions rather than to sound conclusions. Put another way, what they do is use their intellects to craft valid arguments that are unsound.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff?

Well, some of them do and some of them don't. I construe whether they do or don't to be a function of the interrelationship among humility, will, intellect and knowledge and not a function of a disease's/affliction's machinations.

• Humility --> One must refrain from accepting that what is good or best for oneself must also be good/best for everyone else, nearly everyone else or most folks.
• Will --> One must have the fortitude to consider a matter objectively, without qualitative preconceptions, and one must have the will to obtain as much information as is available pertaining to the matter.
• Knowledge --> One must possess the raw information pertaining to the matter in question.

Intellect comes into play both in evaluating a given matter and insofar as it is the "power" one uses to know that, within oneself, there is an imbalance among the above qualities and recognizing as much, act to, for the issue under consideration, effect balance among them. One either (1) abrogates certain aspects of one's intellect, resulting in one inaptly and inaccurately evaluating the matter, thus arriving at unsound conclusions about it, or (2) simply hasn't the intellect, in which case, yes, one suffers from a psychological/physiological affliction, namely some measure and form of intellectual disability.

Now, how many people indeed are intellectually disabled? Well, my cursory investigation into the matter leads me to think something less than 5% of the population are. I know that when I find myself asking the question you do, I'd prefer to think that the person(s) in question are not thus afflicted, but maybe they are. Could it be that the preponderance of thus afflicted individuals hold elected and appointed offices in government?

Hell, no, though a small few of them may be, albeit not to an extent that they are profoundly so disabled. That leaves to conclude that most individuals who appear not to "realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true" are dissembling willfully and deliberately being disingenuous. Inasmuch as one must possess at least an average measure of adult-level knowledge and intellect to do that; thus one's doing so is not the function of an affliction.

In a nutshell, it just goes back to the power of ideology, something for which I'm in greater awe every single day.

It's about: Perceptions (the prism through which information is absorbed) and thought processes (the very structure of the mental schematic that information then passes through).

Compare the above process with a deeply religious person and an atheist; I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person. The prism through which it has passed has given it an entirely different set of fundamental characteristics. Then, the mental schematic through which it passes is structured differently as well.

The result? And this is key => both people's ideology have distorted the information in completely different directions, and both people's distorted opinions are perfectly honest and sincere. That's why they can be so passionate, perfectly intelligent, even though those very thought processes are betraying them by ignoring and avoiding contrary information.

Obviously, I could be completely wrong here. But this is a real fascination with me, and I'll tell ya, USMB is a perfect little Petri dish for observing this.
.

I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person.

I don't think that at all. There is no such thing as "before information is even processed." We humans receive and process information continuously until we are no longer able to do so. Whether we become unable to because of temporal effects or due to our willfully allowing a prior set of information to bind our rational objectivity is of no matter for the effect is the same.

How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once one has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.

 

[Mac1958]

They are utter simpletons who see the matter binarily, much as they see sporting contests. "A" lost and "B" won is all the consideration they care to give.

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people. This affliction literally distorts both perceptions (what comes in and the nature of that prism) and thought processes (how it is then analyzed and how conclusions are formed). That's why the afflicted are so passionate - they truly believe what they are saying. In their own way, they are being honest and truthful.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff? And most importantly, does their affliction cause them to block out all contrary evidence and data like that, and only see one pure end of an argument? That's why I'll sometimes tell them, "I absolutely believe that you absolutely believe that."

And literally, I believe that those of us who are not ideological like that are not smarter than them by any measure. We have simply been fortunate enough to avoid the affliction. So far, we'll see, who knows.
.

The intellect one doesn't use manifests no differently than does the intellect one lacks.
-- Xelor​

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people.

I am willing to agree that it's not purely a function of intellect or one's lack thereof.; however, in the abstract, it appears a huge plurality (if not majority) of people have the acuity needed to discern what matters are, at their core, partisan/political and what matters are not, yet they renounce using their cognitive abilities when they address those questions as matters of politics and pathos rather than as matters to which should be applied logos. In my observation, what those people do is bring their brains to bear to formulate specious arguments, arguments that by dint of one or more of their premises must necessarily lead to the individuals' desired conclusions rather than to sound conclusions. Put another way, what they do is use their intellects to craft valid arguments that are unsound.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff?

Well, some of them do and some of them don't. I construe whether they do or don't to be a function of the interrelationship among humility, will, intellect and knowledge and not a function of a disease's/affliction's machinations.

• Humility --> One must refrain from accepting that what is good or best for oneself must also be good/best for everyone else, nearly everyone else or most folks.
• Will --> One must have the fortitude to consider a matter objectively, without qualitative preconceptions, and one must have the will to obtain as much information as is available pertaining to the matter.
• Knowledge --> One must possess the raw information pertaining to the matter in question.

Intellect comes into play both in evaluating a given matter and insofar as it is the "power" one uses to know that, within oneself, there is an imbalance among the above qualities and recognizing as much, act to, for the issue under consideration, effect balance among them. One either (1) abrogates certain aspects of one's intellect, resulting in one inaptly and inaccurately evaluating the matter, thus arriving at unsound conclusions about it, or (2) simply hasn't the intellect, in which case, yes, one suffers from a psychological/physiological affliction, namely some measure and form of intellectual disability.

Now, how many people indeed are intellectually disabled? Well, my cursory investigation into the matter leads me to think something less than 5% of the population are. I know that when I find myself asking the question you do, I'd prefer to think that the person(s) in question are not thus afflicted, but maybe they are. Could it be that the preponderance of thus afflicted individuals hold elected and appointed offices in government?

Hell, no, though a small few of them may be, albeit not to an extent that they are profoundly so disabled. That leaves to conclude that most individuals who appear not to "realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true" are dissembling willfully and deliberately being disingenuous. Inasmuch as one must possess at least an average measure of adult-level knowledge and intellect to do that; thus one's doing so is not the function of an affliction.

In a nutshell, it just goes back to the power of ideology, something for which I'm in greater awe every single day.

It's about: Perceptions (the prism through which information is absorbed) and thought processes (the very structure of the mental schematic that information then passes through).

Compare the above process with a deeply religious person and an atheist; I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person. The prism through which it has passed has given it an entirely different set of fundamental characteristics. Then, the mental schematic through which it passes is structured differently as well.

The result? And this is key => both people's ideology have distorted the information in completely different directions, and both people's distorted opinions are perfectly honest and sincere. That's why they can be so passionate, perfectly intelligent, even though those very thought processes are betraying them by ignoring and avoiding contrary information.

Obviously, I could be completely wrong here. But this is a real fascination with me, and I'll tell ya, USMB is a perfect little Petri dish for observing this.
.

I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person.

I don't think that at all. How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once once has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion (including one's own, saying the same things over and over), and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

They are utter simpletons who see the matter binarily, much as they see sporting contests. "A" lost and "B" won is all the consideration they care to give.

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people. This affliction literally distorts both perceptions (what comes in and the nature of that prism) and thought processes (how it is then analyzed and how conclusions are formed). That's why the afflicted are so passionate - they truly believe what they are saying. In their own way, they are being honest and truthful.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff? And most importantly, does their affliction cause them to block out all contrary evidence and data like that, and only see one pure end of an argument? That's why I'll sometimes tell them, "I absolutely believe that you absolutely believe that."

And literally, I believe that those of us who are not ideological like that are not smarter than them by any measure. We have simply been fortunate enough to avoid the affliction. So far, we'll see, who knows.
.

The intellect one doesn't use manifests no differently than does the intellect one lacks.
-- Xelor​

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people.

I am willing to agree that it's not purely a function of intellect or one's lack thereof.; however, in the abstract, it appears a huge plurality (if not majority) of people have the acuity needed to discern what matters are, at their core, partisan/political and what matters are not, yet they renounce using their cognitive abilities when they address those questions as matters of politics and pathos rather than as matters to which should be applied logos. In my observation, what those people do is bring their brains to bear to formulate specious arguments, arguments that by dint of one or more of their premises must necessarily lead to the individuals' desired conclusions rather than to sound conclusions. Put another way, what they do is use their intellects to craft valid arguments that are unsound.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff?

Well, some of them do and some of them don't. I construe whether they do or don't to be a function of the interrelationship among humility, will, intellect and knowledge and not a function of a disease's/affliction's machinations.

• Humility --> One must refrain from accepting that what is good or best for oneself must also be good/best for everyone else, nearly everyone else or most folks.
• Will --> One must have the fortitude to consider a matter objectively, without qualitative preconceptions, and one must have the will to obtain as much information as is available pertaining to the matter.
• Knowledge --> One must possess the raw information pertaining to the matter in question.

Intellect comes into play both in evaluating a given matter and insofar as it is the "power" one uses to know that, within oneself, there is an imbalance among the above qualities and recognizing as much, act to, for the issue under consideration, effect balance among them. One either (1) abrogates certain aspects of one's intellect, resulting in one inaptly and inaccurately evaluating the matter, thus arriving at unsound conclusions about it, or (2) simply hasn't the intellect, in which case, yes, one suffers from a psychological/physiological affliction, namely some measure and form of intellectual disability.

Now, how many people indeed are intellectually disabled? Well, my cursory investigation into the matter leads me to think something less than 5% of the population are. I know that when I find myself asking the question you do, I'd prefer to think that the person(s) in question are not thus afflicted, but maybe they are. Could it be that the preponderance of thus afflicted individuals hold elected and appointed offices in government?

Hell, no, though a small few of them may be, albeit not to an extent that they are profoundly so disabled. That leaves to conclude that most individuals who appear not to "realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true" are dissembling willfully and deliberately being disingenuous. Inasmuch as one must possess at least an average measure of adult-level knowledge and intellect to do that; thus one's doing so is not the function of an affliction.

In a nutshell, it just goes back to the power of ideology, something for which I'm in greater awe every single day.

It's about: Perceptions (the prism through which information is absorbed) and thought processes (the very structure of the mental schematic that information then passes through).

Compare the above process with a deeply religious person and an atheist; I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person. The prism through which it has passed has given it an entirely different set of fundamental characteristics. Then, the mental schematic through which it passes is structured differently as well.

The result? And this is key => both people's ideology have distorted the information in completely different directions, and both people's distorted opinions are perfectly honest and sincere. That's why they can be so passionate, perfectly intelligent, even though those very thought processes are betraying them by ignoring and avoiding contrary information.

Obviously, I could be completely wrong here. But this is a real fascination with me, and I'll tell ya, USMB is a perfect little Petri dish for observing this.
.

I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person.

I don't think that at all. How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once once has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people. This affliction literally distorts both perceptions (what comes in and the nature of that prism) and thought processes (how it is then analyzed and how conclusions are formed). That's why the afflicted are so passionate - they truly believe what they are saying. In their own way, they are being honest and truthful.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff? And most importantly, does their affliction cause them to block out all contrary evidence and data like that, and only see one pure end of an argument? That's why I'll sometimes tell them, "I absolutely believe that you absolutely believe that."

And literally, I believe that those of us who are not ideological like that are not smarter than them by any measure. We have simply been fortunate enough to avoid the affliction. So far, we'll see, who knows.
.

The intellect one doesn't use manifests no differently than does the intellect one lacks.
-- Xelor​

I don't believe partisan behavior is a function of intelligence, or lack thereof. I literally look at it as an affliction that can infect even perfectly intelligent people.

I am willing to agree that it's not purely a function of intellect or one's lack thereof.; however, in the abstract, it appears a huge plurality (if not majority) of people have the acuity needed to discern what matters are, at their core, partisan/political and what matters are not, yet they renounce using their cognitive abilities when they address those questions as matters of politics and pathos rather than as matters to which should be applied logos. In my observation, what those people do is bring their brains to bear to formulate specious arguments, arguments that by dint of one or more of their premises must necessarily lead to the individuals' desired conclusions rather than to sound conclusions. Put another way, what they do is use their intellects to craft valid arguments that are unsound.

So sometimes I struggle when trying to communicate with them - surely they realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true, surely they know they're being intellectually dishonest - or do they really believe this stuff?

Well, some of them do and some of them don't. I construe whether they do or don't to be a function of the interrelationship among humility, will, intellect and knowledge and not a function of a disease's/affliction's machinations.

• Humility --> One must refrain from accepting that what is good or best for oneself must also be good/best for everyone else, nearly everyone else or most folks.
• Will --> One must have the fortitude to consider a matter objectively, without qualitative preconceptions, and one must have the will to obtain as much information as is available pertaining to the matter.
• Knowledge --> One must possess the raw information pertaining to the matter in question.

Intellect comes into play both in evaluating a given matter and insofar as it is the "power" one uses to know that, within oneself, there is an imbalance among the above qualities and recognizing as much, act to, for the issue under consideration, effect balance among them. One either (1) abrogates certain aspects of one's intellect, resulting in one inaptly and inaccurately evaluating the matter, thus arriving at unsound conclusions about it, or (2) simply hasn't the intellect, in which case, yes, one suffers from a psychological/physiological affliction, namely some measure and form of intellectual disability.

Now, how many people indeed are intellectually disabled? Well, my cursory investigation into the matter leads me to think something less than 5% of the population are. I know that when I find myself asking the question you do, I'd prefer to think that the person(s) in question are not thus afflicted, but maybe they are. Could it be that the preponderance of thus afflicted individuals hold elected and appointed offices in government?

Hell, no, though a small few of them may be, albeit not to an extent that they are profoundly so disabled. That leaves to conclude that most individuals who appear not to "realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true" are dissembling willfully and deliberately being disingenuous. Inasmuch as one must possess at least an average measure of adult-level knowledge and intellect to do that; thus one's doing so is not the function of an affliction.

In a nutshell, it just goes back to the power of ideology, something for which I'm in greater awe every single day.

It's about: Perceptions (the prism through which information is absorbed) and thought processes (the very structure of the mental schematic that information then passes through).

Compare the above process with a deeply religious person and an atheist; I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person. The prism through which it has passed has given it an entirely different set of fundamental characteristics. Then, the mental schematic through which it passes is structured differently as well.

The result? And this is key => both people's ideology have distorted the information in completely different directions, and both people's distorted opinions are perfectly honest and sincere. That's why they can be so passionate, perfectly intelligent, even though those very thought processes are betraying them by ignoring and avoiding contrary information.

Obviously, I could be completely wrong here. But this is a real fascination with me, and I'll tell ya, USMB is a perfect little Petri dish for observing this.
.

I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person.

I don't think that at all. How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once once has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
.

 

[MPS777]

The intellect one doesn't use manifests no differently than does the intellect one lacks.
-- Xelor​

I am willing to agree that it's not purely a function of intellect or one's lack thereof.; however, in the abstract, it appears a huge plurality (if not majority) of people have the acuity needed to discern what matters are, at their core, partisan/political and what matters are not, yet they renounce using their cognitive abilities when they address those questions as matters of politics and pathos rather than as matters to which should be applied logos. In my observation, what those people do is bring their brains to bear to formulate specious arguments, arguments that by dint of one or more of their premises must necessarily lead to the individuals' desired conclusions rather than to sound conclusions. Put another way, what they do is use their intellects to craft valid arguments that are unsound.

Well, some of them do and some of them don't. I construe whether they do or don't to be a function of the interrelationship among humility, will, intellect and knowledge and not a function of a disease's/affliction's machinations.

• Humility --> One must refrain from accepting that what is good or best for oneself must also be good/best for everyone else, nearly everyone else or most folks.
• Will --> One must have the fortitude to consider a matter objectively, without qualitative preconceptions, and one must have the will to obtain as much information as is available pertaining to the matter.
• Knowledge --> One must possess the raw information pertaining to the matter in question.

Intellect comes into play both in evaluating a given matter and insofar as it is the "power" one uses to know that, within oneself, there is an imbalance among the above qualities and recognizing as much, act to, for the issue under consideration, effect balance among them. One either (1) abrogates certain aspects of one's intellect, resulting in one inaptly and inaccurately evaluating the matter, thus arriving at unsound conclusions about it, or (2) simply hasn't the intellect, in which case, yes, one suffers from a psychological/physiological affliction, namely some measure and form of intellectual disability.

Now, how many people indeed are intellectually disabled? Well, my cursory investigation into the matter leads me to think something less than 5% of the population are. I know that when I find myself asking the question you do, I'd prefer to think that the person(s) in question are not thus afflicted, but maybe they are. Could it be that the preponderance of thus afflicted individuals hold elected and appointed offices in government?

Hell, no, though a small few of them may be, albeit not to an extent that they are profoundly so disabled. That leaves to conclude that most individuals who appear not to "realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true" are dissembling willfully and deliberately being disingenuous. Inasmuch as one must possess at least an average measure of adult-level knowledge and intellect to do that; thus one's doing so is not the function of an affliction.

In a nutshell, it just goes back to the power of ideology, something for which I'm in greater awe every single day.

It's about: Perceptions (the prism through which information is absorbed) and thought processes (the very structure of the mental schematic that information then passes through).

Compare the above process with a deeply religious person and an atheist; I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person. The prism through which it has passed has given it an entirely different set of fundamental characteristics. Then, the mental schematic through which it passes is structured differently as well.

The result? And this is key => both people's ideology have distorted the information in completely different directions, and both people's distorted opinions are perfectly honest and sincere. That's why they can be so passionate, perfectly intelligent, even though those very thought processes are betraying them by ignoring and avoiding contrary information.

Obviously, I could be completely wrong here. But this is a real fascination with me, and I'll tell ya, USMB is a perfect little Petri dish for observing this.
.

I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person.

I don't think that at all. How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once once has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
.

I would identify people who exhibit such behavior as polemicists. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the term, polemic behaviors have been recognized since ancient times. Wikipedia has a primer on it (see following link): Polemic - Wikipedia

The way I see it, in any given society, there will probably always be subset of polemicists. Thus we, living in a nation of around 300 million people, are going to have a higher total number of polemicists than nations with smaller populations.

But then when the Internet is added to the scenario, it gives such people places to “gather” and rhetorically “battle”. Therefore we’re going to witness large “polemicist battles” here merely as a result of our large aggregate number of such people.

 

[Mac1958]

In a nutshell, it just goes back to the power of ideology, something for which I'm in greater awe every single day.

It's about: Perceptions (the prism through which information is absorbed) and thought processes (the very structure of the mental schematic that information then passes through).

Compare the above process with a deeply religious person and an atheist; I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person. The prism through which it has passed has given it an entirely different set of fundamental characteristics. Then, the mental schematic through which it passes is structured differently as well.

The result? And this is key => both people's ideology have distorted the information in completely different directions, and both people's distorted opinions are perfectly honest and sincere. That's why they can be so passionate, perfectly intelligent, even though those very thought processes are betraying them by ignoring and avoiding contrary information.

Obviously, I could be completely wrong here. But this is a real fascination with me, and I'll tell ya, USMB is a perfect little Petri dish for observing this.
.

I think that, right away, before information is even processed, it looks different to each person.

I don't think that at all. How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once once has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.

Fair point.

This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion, and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
.

one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, and become consumed by them.

That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.

It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
.

I would identify people who exhibit such behavior as polemicists. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the term, polemic behaviors have been recognized since ancient times. Wikipedia has a primer on it (see following link): Polemic - Wikipedia

The way I see it, in any given society, there will probably always be subset of polemicists. Thus we, living in a nation of around 300 million people, are going to have a higher total number of polemicists than nations with smaller populations.

But then when the Internet is added to the scenario, it gives such people places to “gather” and rhetorically “battle”. Therefore we’re going to witness large “polemicist battles” here merely as a result of our large aggregate number of such people.

Good stuff, thanks.

What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture. It's almost impossible to escape it now, as it has infected popular culture, TV, sports, you name it. The average guy or gal on the street is liable to launch into a polemic tirade at the drop of a hat, and I do think that's a newer phenomenon.

Thoughts?
.

 

[petro]

Approximately 100 million voters don't bother to show up at vote. Neither party can lay claim to a mandate under these circumstances.
If Americans don't bother to show up at polls...they deserve a government that doesn't bother to show up. Our turnout is among the lowest in the developed world.
I only see extreme pendulum swings in our future based on hyper- partisan politics.
While political opinion is injected into literally every discussion in the media, I know of far too many people who simply just check out.
"I don't have time for political crap"..."oh. I never pay attention to all that"...and a favorite "nothing ever changes, doesn't matter, why bother."
If American's remain apathetic our institutions will remain the same.