Do Facts hurt the contemporary political debate?

[SpinDr79]

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

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

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

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

I agree with the divisive nature in America today, like cold civil war calibre. I happen to lean at least 75 % liberal on the issues and when talking with those who identify with Republican party mostly, wearing MAGA hats etc, as soon as I introduce evidence of any kind (even to the point of not saying anything, leaving outs in case they don't want to go that deep) and just say, "what are your thoughts on xyz," I have noted a theme (not using absolutes but just observational theme) of a shut down that never used to be there when Bush or Clinton or even Obama's administration was at the helm. Maybe it's just me and others are having no difficulty getting down to the nitty gritty with the issues. But before we can "attack issues" as you say I have to be able to disseminate information without the other party shutting down. Any advice?

 

[pknopp]

Truth and facts means little to the vast majority. The only thing that matters is getting "their" party in power and the odd thing about that is outside of a bit of social issues there is really very little differences in the two parties.

Bush/Obama/Trump have all pretty much done the same thing with the only difference being how they present it.

As an example, someone will condemn Bush's wars and I'll ask about Obama's wars and I'm told he never did start any. Someone will note that under the Obama administration we drove down rates and I'll note that Trump wants to do the very same thing. The person will note that Trump can't lower rates himself. Well, neither could have Obama.

Obama held people in holding areas just like Trump (the difference is Trump likes to brag about it). Obama prosecuted more employers than Trump but Trump is supposed to be the one actually addressing immigration.

And never mind that none of them ever had a problem with a lie leaving their lips but people will find a way to excuse the "lies" their guy told while condemning the other.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

There are two critical issues at play here.

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

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

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

"Right media successfully "trained" right-wing...."
There you go again.
CNN/MSNBC - no one needed any "training" to see they are egregiously one sided. They lie by omission and misrepresentation with false narratives every single day.
People were leaving these two sources before Trump was elected.

The rest of your post is fine, but yuo still have to interject bias in alluding that the right "had to be trained"...

 

[Mac1958]

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

There are two critical issues at play here.

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

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

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

"Right media successfully "trained" right-wing...."
There you go again.
CNN/MSNBC - no one needed any "training" to see they are egregiously one sided. They lie by omission and misrepresentation with false narratives every single day.
People were leaving these two sources before Trump was elected.

The rest of your post is fine, but yuo still have to interject bias in alluding that the right "had to be trained"...

You guys can pretend that talk radio doesn't saturate your opinions and words. I listen to it regularly, have so for years, and it's pretty obvious. Believe whatever you want.
.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

There are two critical issues at play here.

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

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

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

"Right media successfully "trained" right-wing...."
There you go again.
CNN/MSNBC - no one needed any "training" to see they are egregiously one sided. They lie by omission and misrepresentation with false narratives every single day.
People were leaving these two sources before Trump was elected.

The rest of your post is fine, but yuo still have to interject bias in alluding that the right "had to be trained"...

You guys can pretend that talk radio doesn't saturate your opinions and words. I listen to it regularly, have so for years, and it's pretty obvious. Believe whatever you want.
.

I haven't listened to talk radio in years. Years... like over 10, maybe 15.
I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch any news. All of them are garbage. All of them.
Their only purpose is to divide us so we don't talk about the common things that effects us ALL.
It has worked flawlessly.

 

[SweetTea]

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

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

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

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

I agree with the divisive nature in America today, like cold civil war calibre. I happen to lean at least 75 % liberal on the issues and when talking with those who identify with Republican party mostly, wearing MAGA hats etc, as soon as I introduce evidence of any kind (even to the point of not saying anything, leaving outs in case they don't want to go that deep) and just say, "what are your thoughts on xyz," I have noted a theme (not using absolutes but just observational theme) of a shut down that never used to be there when Bush or Clinton or even Obama's administration was at the helm. Maybe it's just me and others are having no difficulty getting down to the nitty gritty with the issues. But before we can "attack issues" as you say I have to be able to disseminate information without the other party shutting down. Any advice?

My experience is exactly opposite. I am 75%+ conservative and when I speak to a liberal and try to have a civil conversation, it goes South very quickly when they are backed into a corner, particualry with regards to racism. There are many facts and figures that serve to disprove "white privilege" and rampant racism, but bringing up these facts inevitably ends in them implying or calling me a racist.

I would love to have a civil conversation with a liberal who could provide facts and figures that would back their arguments. The problem is, the vast majority of their policies fail under this scrutiny. When they are challenged, they typically revert back to the racist argument. Evidently, to a leftist, literally everything can be tied back racism, sexism, etc.

I would also like to point out that facts are often spun. Fox is right-wing and they spin things. Virtually every other mainstream news outlest spins in the opposite direction. I watch CNN on occasion and found he topics and the way they are presented to be utterly ridiculous and biased to a point of being absurd. I was also in NYC for a week recently and noticed just how biased the newspapers and media was and can understand why people living there are so out of touch with reality if this is all the news they read/watch.

 

[Maxdeath]

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

There are two critical issues at play here.

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

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

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

I have to note here Mac that the left are just as bad or worse at decrying fake news and promoting their own information bubble. Look at some of the far left media and you see panels 24/7 blasting out their information.

 

[Dekster]

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

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

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

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

I agree with the divisive nature in America today, like cold civil war calibre. I happen to lean at least 75 % liberal on the issues and when talking with those who identify with Republican party mostly, wearing MAGA hats etc, as soon as I introduce evidence of any kind (even to the point of not saying anything, leaving outs in case they don't want to go that deep) and just say, "what are your thoughts on xyz," I have noted a theme (not using absolutes but just observational theme) of a shut down that never used to be there when Bush or Clinton or even Obama's administration was at the helm. Maybe it's just me and others are having no difficulty getting down to the nitty gritty with the issues. But before we can "attack issues" as you say I have to be able to disseminate information without the other party shutting down. Any advice?

Sure. Begin with providing a link to this study you are relying on.

 

[iceberg]

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

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

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

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

I agree with the divisive nature in America today, like cold civil war calibre. I happen to lean at least 75 % liberal on the issues and when talking with those who identify with Republican party mostly, wearing MAGA hats etc, as soon as I introduce evidence of any kind (even to the point of not saying anything, leaving outs in case they don't want to go that deep) and just say, "what are your thoughts on xyz," I have noted a theme (not using absolutes but just observational theme) of a shut down that never used to be there when Bush or Clinton or even Obama's administration was at the helm. Maybe it's just me and others are having no difficulty getting down to the nitty gritty with the issues. But before we can "attack issues" as you say I have to be able to disseminate information without the other party shutting down. Any advice?

well the problem comes around in full force when someone doesn't join in on attacking trump, for example. The left will go crazy on you and not in a good Heart style. you suddenly are racist, hate women, the environment, dogs, and anything else they can demonize you with. The right i've come to find isn't much better. They see someone on the left they also fall into stereotypes and force people into defending things they never said they believed in.

just because i support trump doesn't mean i agree with all the stupid shit he does. i support our presidents and if i want change, there are proper ways to go about it. we lost sight of that long ago and jumped straight into dogfights with each other. we're into revenge and identity politics and by it's very nature, that is highly divisive.

i can't make others change. they have to see it for themselves and WANT a higher level of understanding and cooperation. right now far too many don't. at least in the vocal category. i think those who stay out of political discussions just want the bullshit over and to get back to at least trying to attack issues.

i take people as they come. if they keep on the snark-train and never let up; ignored. i got no use for that and they've shown that's all they are. if they are here to attack and only attack, i move away from them also. i try to find people that disagree with me, but talk openly and exchange ideas around issues and how they would like to resolve them. i try to keep an open mind but it can shut down quickly if the other side isn't even trying to meet me 1/2 way.

i can't control what the world does. i can only control what i do. and i just don't play those games that much anymore. when others are tired of the fighting they'll stop reacting to clickbait type shit and move on and that tactic will fall back into the bag of tricks for later in life.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

There are two critical issues at play here.

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

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

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

"Right media successfully "trained" right-wing...."
There you go again.
CNN/MSNBC - no one needed any "training" to see they are egregiously one sided. They lie by omission and misrepresentation with false narratives every single day.
People were leaving these two sources before Trump was elected.

The rest of your post is fine, but yuo still have to interject bias in alluding that the right "had to be trained"...

You guys can pretend that talk radio doesn't saturate your opinions and words. I listen to it regularly, have so for years, and it's pretty obvious. Believe whatever you want.
.

The only talk radio, or talk TV I watch or listen to is sports talk. I gave up political talk shows year ago. The conservative and liberal talk show I found distorted the truth to fit their view points. Neither is honest. Sports talk is much more interesting.

 

[MarathonMike]

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

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

We have "Libertarians" supporting protectionism and concentration camps.

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

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

So what do conservatives stand for anymore exactly?

That's a good question! Conservatives are quite a diverse group in contrast to Liberals who seem to be nearly 100% uniform in their beliefs. To me a true Conservative believes in conserving the values that brought America from a isolated agrarian country to the world's superpower. Those values are IMO family, fierce independence, Christian morality, pride in oneself and pride in being an American.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

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

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

I agree with the divisive nature in America today, like cold civil war calibre. I happen to lean at least 75 % liberal on the issues and when talking with those who identify with Republican party mostly, wearing MAGA hats etc, as soon as I introduce evidence of any kind (even to the point of not saying anything, leaving outs in case they don't want to go that deep) and just say, "what are your thoughts on xyz," I have noted a theme (not using absolutes but just observational theme) of a shut down that never used to be there when Bush or Clinton or even Obama's administration was at the helm. Maybe it's just me and others are having no difficulty getting down to the nitty gritty with the issues. But before we can "attack issues" as you say I have to be able to disseminate information without the other party shutting down. Any advice?

I see what you are saying however I see no difference in the left or the right. I do find your not linking the study a bit dishonest because the groups who develop the studying also have an agenda and that oftentimes distorts and directs outcomes. A lot depends on intent as that creates bias.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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

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

You have to aim this at conservatives because we all know that "FACTS" to a liberal is like garlic to a vampire.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

It's an interesting idea. I've personally tried many different approaches with little success.
Cons are far too fragile. They don't accept anything as fact. Especially when they feel boxed in by them. They exist soley in their preconceived realities.
Without having read any of the comments, I would guess you won't get a straight answer. They will no doubt reject the premise outright.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

Don't forget....those "facts" they tell us they used.....are no more than left wing "facts" that you see here.....made up silliness that are not based in truth or reality..... I have seen a lot of "facts" that support left wing goals...and "fact" is not even close to what they are...

For example..... on my issue...gun control...they will tell you it is a "fact" that the gun confiscation in Australia reduced mass shootings and gun crime..... that is a "fact" for the left.....but it isn't even close to being true....so.....this thread is dumb.

 

[2aguy]

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

When we have that let us know...the only one who actually did that was a democrat.....

 

[Olde Europe]

Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a),

and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing).


The conservatives that were presented

(a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented

(b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.

What your study actually shows is that

(a) if you conceal from conservatives you are harassing them with facts by way of pouring white, nationalistic sauce over them, they find them digestible.

(b) Treating them to facts without that saucy bullshit triggers an adverse reaction, almost an allergy.

So, since you've not wallowed in that white, saucy bullshit and not concealed the dreaded facts - commonly known to have a liberal bias - you've pre-formed the conservatives' answers. That was a major failure on your part. You should have sexed up your facts with some "America First!" sauce, pledged your undying support for the sacred 2nd Amendment, and draped a tapestry of American flags over them. The reaction would have been markedly different.

 

[wamose]

Joe Biden himself said it the best when he said "Democrats prefer truth over facts". Viva Trump

 

[iceberg]

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

when you have assholes who have no solution and call leadership NAZI cause they don't like them and then go even more extreme with Concentration Camp shit, you get a prime example of people who want to ***** and extremify everything vs. make a better country for us all.

 

[Olde Europe]

There are two critical issues at play here.

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

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

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

Gawd almighty...

This was a thread about how conservatives respond to facts presented to them which might - scratch that - inevitably will run counter to their preferred narratives, contingent on the way in which these facts are being presented. This was not - NOT - yet another opportunity to ride your (long dead, BTW) hobby horse all over he place. Putting your predetermined conclusion in bold face doesn't make it true. It just demonstrates that, no matter how often your skewed perspective and your delusions are pointed out to you, you won't listen, and just insist on the aforementioned conclusions more stridently, insulting everybody's intelligence yet again.