Well this explains everthying about politics

[Cecilie1200]

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

(emphasis added)
How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

What is striking is how liberals vs conservatives fared.


In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

So basically, they devised a test in which they gave out conservative-oriented misinformation, and then they and you crowed about how "smart" leftists are for not believing something they're predisposed to disbelieve anyway. How utterly, completely NOT astounding or shocking.

Show me the study where the researchers gave both groups misinformation on how a cure for a disease using embryonic stem cells has been found, that the Obama stimulus actually benefited the economy, etc. and then we'll talk.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In his book "A Conflict of Visions", Thomas Sowell had this to say, which I found interesting and relevant to this topic:

One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues. This issues themselves may have no intrinsic connection with each other. They may range from military spending to drug laws to monetary policy to education. Yet the same familiar faces can be found glaring at each other from opposite sides of the political fence, again and again . . . A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These premises . . . are what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous, unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works.

In other words, although most of us would like to dismiss our opponents as "partisan", that's not really the case. The fact is that we each have a basic, underlying, mostly-unspoken sense of how the world works, and we instinctively reject anything that goes against it, much the way we would merely dismiss someone who tried to tell us that items fall up rather than down. And just as it would take most of us more than merely being shown a video of items falling up when dropped to change our lifelong belief in Earth's gravity, it takes more than merely being shown this or that alleged "proof" of the facts to alter our ingrained sense of how things are.

 

[Richard-H]

(emphasis added)
How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

What is striking is how liberals vs conservatives fared.


In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

So basically, they devised a test in which they gave out conservative-oriented misinformation, and then they and you crowed about how "smart" leftists are for not believing something they're predisposed to disbelieve anyway. How utterly, completely NOT astounding or shocking.

Show me the study where the researchers gave both groups misinformation on how a cure for a disease using embryonic stem cells has been found, that the Obama stimulus actually benefited the economy, etc. and then we'll talk.

Why is it that I suspect that you still believe that Global Warming' is a liberal concocted fraud?

 

[Christopher]

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

(emphasis added)
How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

I think this has to do at least partially with selective reasoning, which we are all guilty of on some level. Some more than others. We can selectively pick the facts that support our opinions or beliefs, or our experiences, or our training, etc; while, ignoring other facts that could prove our opinions or beliefs incorrect.

Yes, actually changing minds takes the person to be ready for the change. Like the quote in my signature, I believe we will only truly see things more clearly the more we prepare ourselves to openly and honestly receive and accept all the information and facts about a particular subject.

 

[Richard-H]

it takes more than merely being shown this or that alleged "proof" of the facts to alter our ingrained sense of how things are.

Have you ever considered that your "ingrained sense of how things are" is dictated by your hereditary instincts that were formed millions of years ago when people lived as hunter gatherers?

That the entire evolution of humankind is based on the intelletual understanding of facts and reality overriding this "ingrained sense of how things are"?

That the process of accepting facts and reality and rejecting this instinctual "ingrained sense of how things are" is generally known as "growing up"?

You should try it!

 

[rdean]

"Facts" are slippery things.
Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. THis is fact.
Iran has threatened Israel's existence. This is also fact.
Obama's response has been to set deadlines for Iran to talk. They have ignored or mocked every one of them. These are all facts.
The natural conclusion ought to be that Obama's policy here is a failure. But someone else will say the natural conclusion is we haven't dangled the right carrot just yet. These are completely opposite conclusions from the same facts.

Yea facts.

Fact, it talks nuclear material that is more than 90% pure to make a working nuclear weapon.

Fact, Iraq has thousands of centrifuges (maybe as many as 6 thousand) that so far, has gotten it less than 20% pure, barely enough to take a hospital X-ray.

Fact, Iran will never develop a bomb unless they get help from former Soviet scientists, or scientists from North Korea. Why? Because they are a religious theocracy.

Fact, the likelihood of Iran building a nuclear weapon is about as likely as Republicans building a nuclear weapon.

Fact, to do difficult things in science, you have to like science. You have to study science. You should probably give up your belief in "magical creation" and "Noah's Ark".

 

[Flopper]

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

(emphasis added)
How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

And we need two studies to tell us this? Anyone who has spent 10 minutes on this message board knows this is be true.

 

[JBeukema]

Fact, Iran will never develop a bomb unless they get help from former Soviet scientists, or scientists from North Korea. Why? Because they are a religious theocracy.

I challenge your 'fact' that theocracy necessarily makes impossible the development a nuclear weapon.

I demand evidence of this.

Fact, the likelihood of Iran building a nuclear weapon is about as likely as Republicans building a nuclear weapon.

How did you derive these probabilities? Can we see your math, please?

Fact, to do difficult things in science, you have to like science

Einstein reportedly disliked math, yet he seems to have been quite good at it. Math and science are closely related, as much science requires advanced mathematics to understand and further. I asser that this casts serious doubt upon your assumption.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(emphasis added)
How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

What is striking is how liberals vs conservatives fared.


In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

So basically, they devised a test in which they gave out conservative-oriented misinformation, and then they and you crowed about how "smart" leftists are for not believing something they're predisposed to disbelieve anyway. How utterly, completely NOT astounding or shocking.

Show me the study where the researchers gave both groups misinformation on how a cure for a disease using embryonic stem cells has been found, that the Obama stimulus actually benefited the economy, etc. and then we'll talk.

take the dumb test.
never mind. it's hopeless


---

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/cecilie1200.html

 

[JBeukema]

Oh, btw, the late bus just picked me up on the typo in the title. Can a mod fix that, please?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is striking is how liberals vs conservatives fared.


In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

So basically, they devised a test in which they gave out conservative-oriented misinformation, and then they and you crowed about how "smart" leftists are for not believing something they're predisposed to disbelieve anyway. How utterly, completely NOT astounding or shocking.

Show me the study where the researchers gave both groups misinformation on how a cure for a disease using embryonic stem cells has been found, that the Obama stimulus actually benefited the economy, etc. and then we'll talk.

Why is it that I suspect that you still believe that Global Warming' is a liberal concocted fraud?

Either because you're a perceptive human being who recognizes a brilliant, insightful person when you read her posts, or because you're an arrogant 'tard who thinks disagreeing with his "great wisdom" is tantamount to heresy. Take your pick.

Now that we've settled that, are you planning to address the point, or just stand around, expecting everyone to just infer that anything you don't like is automatically wrong, and therefore needs no refutation?

 

[Cecilie1200]

it takes more than merely being shown this or that alleged "proof" of the facts to alter our ingrained sense of how things are.

Have you ever considered that your "ingrained sense of how things are" is dictated by your hereditary instincts that were formed millions of years ago when people lived as hunter gatherers?

No, because unlike you, I'm not an ignorant dipshit who spouts half-baked, unrelated bullshit in an attempt to sound intelligent, thereby ignoring the fact that if your dimwitted assertion were true, there wouldn't be more than one vision of how the world works.

Next time, try relating your response to the WHOLE post, rather than one sentence that you desperately want to misinterpret into something utterly different than what's being said, dumbass.

That the entire evolution of humankind is based on the intelletual understanding of facts and reality overriding this "ingrained sense of how things are"?

What the holy fuck are you even babbling about at this point?

That the process of accepting facts and reality and rejecting this instinctual "ingrained sense of how things are" is generally known as "growing up"?

You should try it!

Right after you try thinking WITHOUT your head up your ass, mouthbreather. Little tip: posts that actually make some fucking sense AND relate to the posts they allege to answer get you a lot farther around here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is striking is how liberals vs conservatives fared.


In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

So basically, they devised a test in which they gave out conservative-oriented misinformation, and then they and you crowed about how "smart" leftists are for not believing something they're predisposed to disbelieve anyway. How utterly, completely NOT astounding or shocking.

Show me the study where the researchers gave both groups misinformation on how a cure for a disease using embryonic stem cells has been found, that the Obama stimulus actually benefited the economy, etc. and then we'll talk.

take the dumb test.
never mind. it's hopeless


---

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/cecilie1200.html

When you have no response, laugh inanely and hope everyone will think THAT means something.

What is that, page 2 of the Leftist Handbook?

 

[fyrenza]

Only if the Title Page is counted as page 1...

 

[sparky]

facts?

if facts actually mattered, there would be no more wars

~S~

 

[G.T.]

Birthers.

 

[JBeukema]

facts?

if facts actually mattered, there would be no more wars

~S~

I disagree.

If the fact is that there are two of us and the fact is there is only enough food/water for one of us- we're goin' to war.

 

[Richard-H]

it takes more than merely being shown this or that alleged "proof" of the facts to alter our ingrained sense of how things are.

Have you ever considered that your "ingrained sense of how things are" is dictated by your hereditary instincts that were formed millions of years ago when people lived as hunter gatherers?

No, because unlike you, I'm not an ignorant dipshit who spouts half-baked, unrelated bullshit in an attempt to sound intelligent, thereby ignoring the fact that if your dimwitted assertion were true, there wouldn't be more than one vision of how the world works.

Next time, try relating your response to the WHOLE post, rather than one sentence that you desperately want to misinterpret into something utterly different than what's being said, dumbass.

That the entire evolution of humankind is based on the intelletual understanding of facts and reality overriding this "ingrained sense of how things are"?

What the holy fuck are you even babbling about at this point?

That the process of accepting facts and reality and rejecting this instinctual "ingrained sense of how things are" is generally known as "growing up"?

You should try it!

Right after you try thinking WITHOUT your head up your ass, mouthbreather. Little tip: posts that actually make some fucking sense AND relate to the posts they allege to answer get you a lot farther around here.

Wow, looks like I hit a sensitive spot now didn't I?

Do these facts that people keep pointing out always get you so mad?

Anger as a knee jerk response to any intelligent argument that you don't like is just sooo primitive....

Thanks for proving my point!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

facts?

if facts actually mattered, there would be no more wars

~S~

I disagree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Have you ever considered that your "ingrained sense of how things are" is dictated by your hereditary instincts that were formed millions of years ago when people lived as hunter gatherers?

No, because unlike you, I'm not an ignorant dipshit who spouts half-baked, unrelated bullshit in an attempt to sound intelligent, thereby ignoring the fact that if your dimwitted assertion were true, there wouldn't be more than one vision of how the world works.

Next time, try relating your response to the WHOLE post, rather than one sentence that you desperately want to misinterpret into something utterly different than what's being said, dumbass.



What the holy fuck are you even babbling about at this point?

That the process of accepting facts and reality and rejecting this instinctual "ingrained sense of how things are" is generally known as "growing up"?

You should try it!

Right after you try thinking WITHOUT your head up your ass, mouthbreather. Little tip: posts that actually make some fucking sense AND relate to the posts they allege to answer get you a lot farther around here.

Wow, looks like I hit a sensitive spot now didn't I?

Do these facts that people keep pointing out always get you so mad?

Anger as a knee jerk response to any intelligent argument that you don't like is just sooo primitive....

Thanks for proving my point!!!

Your point was that you can annoy people by babbling incomprehensible bullshit, and then claim to have brilliantly "hit a sensitive spot"? The only sensitive spot you hit is that I have zero patience with blithering idiots, and if possible, even less patience with the ones who believe themselves to be profound. Any teenager in America can be a burden on social interaction. It's not much of an accomplishment.

Now get busy on producing a post that bears a passing resemblance to coherent English.