This is us, and it's everybody else too...

[MaggieMae]

That sums it up nicely.

Since this whole thread has already been distorted, seems you're here 24/7, and have managed over 3,400 postings in less than a month. Must be nice to have all that spare time.

This is the 'quality' I am used to from you. You are consistent, and still without a thought of your own.

How would you know that with only one month as a member? Ironically, when I do post my own thoughts, I'm attacked by shrieking righties demanding my SOURCE!! So I often post my own opinions based on a linked source, then get attacked by shrieks of BIAS!!

You, however, jump in wherever you can with your usual empty critiques, a perfect example being this one.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

And what is up with "EL RUSHBO"!!!??? I mean he sounds like a guy who speaks about himself in the THIRD PERSON. I find people who refer to themselves in the "THIRD PERSON" to be pretty odd people to say the least.

 

[MaggieMae]

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"" David Foster Wallace

I was watching Hugh Hewitt on Cspan's in-depth recently - as a liberal I try to understand the conservative's viewpoint - I found the man an obnoxious know it all who would not even listen to caller's comments before talking over them. It reminded me of many conservatives on USMB. I even started a op on HH which I may eventually post.

Hewitt could not even acknowledge those who disagreed with him and his praise of various politicians and writers was always about those on the republican side of the issue. The man, as David Foster writes below, was unable to get outside the template or default setting that framed his reality, even for a second. This is worth a read:

"...the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance...

DAVID FOSTER WALLACE, IN HIS OWN WORDS | More Intelligent Life

Yet, the OP excuses groupthink.

As a person who thinks for herself, I see no reason to excuse and/or enable lack of individual and critical thought.

Who suggested you should? The OP speaks of attitudes, period. It really isn't rocket science.

 

[DiveCon]

They have a pretty good rivalry going with the gullible warming cargo cultists.

but then a lot of them are BOTH

How many are both Dive Con? Betcha you can gin up some statistics on that can't ya?

fuck off moron

 

[DiveCon]

They have a pretty good rivalry going with the gullible warming cargo cultists.

but then a lot of them are BOTH

So who should I bow to? Glenn Beck? The right's very own Messiah?

not hardly
but then you are too fucking stupid to get it

 

[DiveCon]

This message is hidden because Midnight Marauder is on your ignore list.

Go find someone else to pedal your irrelevant bullshit on. I don't have time to waste on some idiot whose only goal is to find a hole in what I say, and when he can't he goes off on some wild tangent. You do it every time, Maurader. Very appropriate screen name, by the way. Buh bye!

COWARD

 

[DiveCon]

This message is hidden because Midnight Marauder is on your ignore list.

Go find someone else to pedal your irrelevant bullshit on. I don't have time to waste on some idiot whose only goal is to find a hole in what I say, and when he can't he goes off on some wild tangent. You do it every time, Maurader. Very appropriate screen name, by the way. Buh bye!

Your whole proposition was blown out of the water not by just me, but by other posters in the thread as well. "This is us, and it's everybody else too..." clearly you're speaking only for yourself here, right?

Because it sure as hell doesn't apply to MOST people.

it sure was

 

[Si modo]

Since this whole thread has already been distorted, seems you're here 24/7, and have managed over 3,400 postings in less than a month. Must be nice to have all that spare time.

This is the 'quality' I am used to from you. You are consistent, and still without a thought of your own.

How would you know that with only one month as a member? Ironically, when I do post my own thoughts, I'm attacked by shrieking righties demanding my SOURCE!! So I often post my own opinions based on a linked source, then get attacked by shrieks of BIAS!!

You, however, jump in wherever you can with your usual empty critiques, a perfect example being this one.

Most of what I've seen from you is your confusion between what a claim is and what an opinion is; your regurgitation of others' ideas without any independent and/or critical thought on your part; your propensity to show how vacuous you truly are by posting ad hominems (as above to my on topic comment); your lies; and your hypocrisy.

You have yet to demonstrate much of any substance since I have been posting here.

 

[Si modo]

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"" David Foster Wallace

I was watching Hugh Hewitt on Cspan's in-depth recently - as a liberal I try to understand the conservative's viewpoint - I found the man an obnoxious know it all who would not even listen to caller's comments before talking over them. It reminded me of many conservatives on USMB. I even started a op on HH which I may eventually post.

Hewitt could not even acknowledge those who disagreed with him and his praise of various politicians and writers was always about those on the republican side of the issue. The man, as David Foster writes below, was unable to get outside the template or default setting that framed his reality, even for a second. This is worth a read:

"...the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance...

DAVID FOSTER WALLACE, IN HIS OWN WORDS | More Intelligent Life

Yet, the OP excuses groupthink.

As a person who thinks for herself, I see no reason to excuse and/or enable lack of individual and critical thought.

Who suggested you should? The OP speaks of attitudes, period. It really isn't rocket science.

I suppose attitudes don't involve much thought, either, for you. You're right; it's not rocket science. But when one is as desperate as you seem to be, all thought is abandoned and they just spew nonsense.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I guess I would answer EVERYBODY is SOMEBODY! LOL!

That's no answer. That's infantile.

Do you or do you not believe the broad-brush generalization presented in the OP?

Dude I was really going for FUNNY that's why I put the LOL at the end.

Do you or do you not believe the broad-brush generalization presented in the OP?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I'm attacked by shrieking righties

Feel free to list these, and also show us some of the "attacks."

Oh and, you still never linked the article you ripped off and pasted in the OP. You're aware that might be a copyright violation?

Why don't you want the folks to see the source of the garbage you post?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

"Why Fact Can't Compete With Belief"
(excerpt from The Atlantic, and appearing in THE WEEK, 10/09/09):

Why do people cling to an opinion even after they're presented with contradictory evidence? The easy answer, of course, is simply that people are irrational. But the way in which they're irrational is telling.

In a new study, Social Science Researchers have found that people employ 'motivated reasoning' to fend off any evidence that their strongly held beliefs are wrong. Many people feel that they ARE their opinions, and hate to lose arguments. As Vince Lombardi once said "Every time you lose, you die a little."

So when confronted with new, troubling information, ideologues selectively interpret the facts or use 'contorted logic' to make the conflicting evidence just go away.

In the study, even when presented with compelling, factual data from a trusted source, many subjects still found ways to dismiss it. In fact, researchers found that exposing people to contradictory information actually intensified their existing beliefs, making them more rigid and entrenched...Needless to say, the findings do not offer much hope of changing anyone else's mind with facts or rational discussion.

How about posting the link to the article? I don't see any such article on theatlantic.com

 

[Harry Dresden]

I like you MM at least you back up your shit which, sadly, most don't.

.....i can find a few posters on the left who dont think MM's "backups" are worth a dam..........hey just sayin.....

 

[xsited1]

Since this whole thread has already been distorted, seems you're here 24/7, and have managed over 3,400 postings in less than a month. Must be nice to have all that spare time.

This is the 'quality' I am used to from you. You are consistent, and still without a thought of your own.

How would you know that with only one month as a member? Ironically, when I do post my own thoughts, I'm attacked by shrieking righties demanding my SOURCE!! So I often post my own opinions based on a linked source, then get attacked by shrieks of BIAS!!

You, however, jump in wherever you can with your usual empty critiques, a perfect example being this one.

You post your own opinions based on a linked source and then don't claim them as your own.

Here are some glaring examples:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...erybody-else-too-post1633860.html#post1633860

Don't forget your response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1633906-post2.html

Notice your "shrieking Leftist tirade."

You need to get your act together. Perhaps professional help is warranted. No need to get angry. But seriously, seek help.

 

[Annie]

"Why Fact Can't Compete With Belief"
(excerpt from The Atlantic, and appearing in THE WEEK, 10/09/09):

Why do people cling to an opinion even after they're presented with contradictory evidence? The easy answer, of course, is simply that people are irrational. But the way in which they're irrational is telling.

In a new study, Social Science Researchers have found that people employ 'motivated reasoning' to fend off any evidence that their strongly held beliefs are wrong. Many people feel that they ARE their opinions, and hate to lose arguments. As Vince Lombardi once said "Every time you lose, you die a little."

So when confronted with new, troubling information, ideologues selectively interpret the facts or use 'contorted logic' to make the conflicting evidence just go away.

In the study, even when presented with compelling, factual data from a trusted source, many subjects still found ways to dismiss it. In fact, researchers found that exposing people to contradictory information actually intensified their existing beliefs, making them more rigid and entrenched...Needless to say, the findings do not offer much hope of changing anyone else's mind with facts or rational discussion.

Are you referring to all the information that Obama is doing so many things that his supporters never thought he'd do? Things that will cause their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren to fall further from middle class? That would leave them a world much less safe?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I like you MM at least you back up your shit which, sadly, most don't.

.....i can find a few posters on the left who dont think MM's "backups" are worth a dam..........hey just sayin.....

No one can help them.... Truth and facts are anathema to them.

 

[Old Rocks]

That explains the Obamabots and Bushbots. Thankfully, the Bushbots are no longer a concern. Unfortunately, the Obamabots are a HUGE problem and they have the power to do whatever they want.

And the sooner the birthers figure this out, the better off they will be....

The birthers? Their numbers are so small and insignificant, they aren't even on the radar. The Obamabots are the problem now. Two words: Liberal Fascism.

Two words. Wingnut dingbats.

 

[midcan5]

Yet, the OP excuses groupthink.

As a person who thinks for herself, I see no reason to excuse and/or enable lack of individual and critical thought.

I'm missing the groupthink? If there is one key concept for every liberal it is the individual, it is why we disagree so often with the status quo, as the person, particularly minority people, often have no say in their own life decisions or options. I pulled my 'Sanctions for Evil' from the bookshelf to review the piece on GT. Liked this quote - please show me the GT.

"The main hypotheis concerning groupthink is this: The more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of an in-group of policy makers the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced with groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed at out-groups." Irving L. Janis


Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

Group Think

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sanctions-evil-Sources-destructiveness-paperback/dp/080704167X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256121571&sr=1-1-spell]Amazon.com: Sanctions for evil;: Sources of social destructiveness (Beacon paperback) (9780807041673): Books[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

Yet, the OP excuses groupthink.

As a person who thinks for herself, I see no reason to excuse and/or enable lack of individual and critical thought.

I'm missing the groupthink? ....

Why would you ask that?

 

[Diuretic]

The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. By: Edwards, Kari, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 0022-3514, 1990, Vol. 59, Issue 2

Abstract:

Two experiments examined the hypothesis that the sequence of affect and cognition in an attitude's formation is an important determinant of its subsequent resistance to affective and cognitive means of persuasion. Affect-based and cognition-based attitudes were induced and subsequently challenged by either affective or cognitive means of persuasion. The procedure used to create the 2
types of attitudes and the means of persuasion involved varying the sequence of affect and cognition while holding the content of communications constant. As predicted, affect-based attitudes exhibited more change under affective means of persuasion than under cognitive means of persuasion.

Cognition-based attitudes, on the other hand, exhibited equal change under both forms of persuasion. The interaction between attitude type and means of persuasion emerged both when affect was manipulated subliminally (Experiment 1) and when affect was manipulated supraliminally (Experiment 2). Moreover, in the 2nd experiment, affect-based attitudes were expressed with greater confidence than their cognition-based counterparts. Together, these findings underscore the theoretical as well as practical importance of distinguishing between affect- and cognition-based attitudes and, more generally, the need for influence attempts to make contact with an attitude's origin.

From the general discussion part of the paper:

Taken together, these studies suggest that the conditions under which an attitude is formed cast an influence on its ability to withstand counter-attitudinal communications. When affect precedes cognition in attitude formation, an attitude will be more vulnerable to affective means of persuasion than to cognitive means of persuasion. On the other hand, when cognition precedes affect in attitude formation, an attitude may be equally susceptible to affective and cognitive appeals. There is also evidence from Experiment 2 suggesting that an attitude
will be expressed with greater confidence or conviction when affect is primary or dominant in its acquisition.

And

Affect-based attitudes may be difficult to change by means of influence attempts composed of instances of information that are discrepant from the hedonic schema (cognitive persuasion) because these instances may be assimilated or even discounted. However, if an influence attempt engenders a contradictory
hedonic theory or schema (affective persuasion), pressures may arise to accommodate, and attitude change may occur.

For attitudes with cognitive origins, however, affective persuasion attempts are not likely to have this advantage. Persuasive appeals that engender a contradictory hedonic schema (affective persuasion) will be only moderately effective, as they address only one of the several dimensions of the cognitive
structure underlying the attitude. Appeals that are composed of specific instances of information about component attributes of the attitude object (cognitive persuasion), on the other hand, will be effective to the degree that they successfully refute or weaken the attitude's supporting cognitions.

It's a length paper, about 45 pages when printed out but those points above are what I was referring to in my post.

I read somewhere that we learn beliefs and facts in different ways and that if we want to change someone's beliefs we don't use the same "channel" that they used to form those beliefs.

Also this ability to ignore the facts seems to have more than a little cognitive dissonance in it.

This is a non-partisan comment

Interesting observation. Can you give us an illustration or example of the sort of 'channel' you mean?