Most of the examples in that article are people being confronted with contrary statements. I didn't see anything about people being given the actual evidence behind the statements and being able to deduce for themselves. Obviously, you would tend to be skeptical of a statement that is contrary to what you already believe to be true. That doesn't mean you can't change your beliefs when you actually see research and results. Obviously you have to be smart enough to understand the evidence and draw logical conclusions, but being stupid is different from being unable to change your mind.
Most of the examples in that article are people being confronted with contrary statements. I didn't see anything about people being given the actual evidence behind the statements and being able to deduce for themselves. Obviously, you would tend to be skeptical of a statement that is contrary to what you already believe to be true. That doesn't mean you can't change your beliefs when you actually see research and results. Obviously you have to be smart enough to understand the evidence and draw logical conclusions, but being stupid is different from being unable to change your mind.
I believed that the Giza Complex was arranged in the same way as the Orion belt. I later learned that the correlation was entirely fabricated. My belief did change. ;^)
I believed that the Giza Complex was arranged in the same way as the Orion belt. I later learned that the correlation was entirely fabricated. My belief did change. ;^)
Yeah, but your entire identity and self worth are not tied up in the belief and the "logical" extensions of that belief. Erich von Däniken probably still holds onto the this.
I believed that the Giza Complex was arranged in the same way as the Orion belt. I later learned that the correlation was entirely fabricated. My belief did change. ;^)
I believed that the GZA Complex was arranged in the same way as the Giza Complex. I later learned that the Wu-Tang Clan ain't nuthin' ta fuck wit'. My belief did change.
Honestly my resistance is directly proportional to how much of an ass shit the person presenting it is. If some one presents evidence civilly I usually accept it without a hitch. If someone is being a major dick-anus, then I usually don't listen to or care about a word they have to say.
Most of the examples in that article are people being confronted with contrary statements. I didn't see anything about people being given the actual evidence behind the statements and being able to deduce for themselves. Obviously, you would tend to be skeptical of a statement that is contrary to what you already believe to be true. That doesn't mean you can't change your beliefs when you actually see research and results. Obviously you have to be smart enough to understand the evidence and draw logical conclusions, but being stupid is different from being unable to change your mind.
Well, here is the study about news correction that the article was talking about.
The study design really only applies to people who take their information from news articles, so the study is limited in that it doesn't account for people's tendencies towards heavy skepticism. It is also politicized pretty strongly, which I find personally disagreeable but can't really call a straight-out experimental fault.
I didn't see anything about people being given the actual evidence behind the statements and being able to deduce for themselves.
The thing is, sometimes, you're just wrong, and it's often those situations where people get the most defensive. I mean, if someone says, "That dog has 5 legs," and the dog has 4 legs, there's not a lot you can do except point at the dog and say, "Nope, 4 legs."
The specific corrections the study uses are along the lines of: "The article implied that [x] happened. [x] did not happen. Here is support." It's tough to really get more evidence than that, given the newspaper correction nature of the study, but the majority of the evidence correction is more of the "that dog has 4 legs" cut-and-dry type.
Not saying the study is perfect, but it's pretty much the most reasonable form of fact challenging I could expect from such a study. Now, a study about how much evidence it takes to change a belief - that would be interesting. Hard as hell to pull off and virtually impossible to control, but interesting.
The thing is, sometimes, you're just wrong, and it's often those situations where people get the most defensive. I mean, if someone says, "That dog has 5 legs," and the dog has 4 legs, there's not a lot you can do except point at the dog and say, "Nope, 4 legs."
The specific corrections the study uses are along the lines of: "The article implied that [x] happened. [x] did not happen. Here is support." It's tough to really get more evidence than that, given the newspaper correction nature of the study, but the majority of the evidence correction is more of the "that dog has 4 legs" cut-and-dry type.
Not saying the study is perfect, but it's pretty much the most reasonable form of fact challenging I could expect from such a study. Now, a study about how much evidence it takes to change a belief - that would be interesting. Hard as hell to pull off and virtually impossible to control, but interesting.
That's why the Socratic method has a lot success, instead of presenting your side and debunking their opinion you present questions that you ask them to answer. Forcing them to fully test their belief's and opinions. (Or it gets you drinking Hemlock) Also I've had a lot of success trying to find ground that you agree on first and then moving the goal posts per say to related topics while using the area we agree on as a bridge. You almost will never get someone to agree with you on a topic such as politics by just out and out saying the other guy is insane.
The Socratic Method is more an effective rhetorical weapon to win Duels of Wits (warning, pdf) than a way to arrive at immutable truths (see The Republic for the horrible utopian mess they arrive at "logically"). And the thing about rhetoric is that you can win with all flash and no substance (see pretty much every elected official in the last 30 years if not all of them), even, or perhaps especially, if your opponent is all substance an no flash.
Duly noted. Aside from listing her job description as an "syndicated advice columnist and journalist" on her blog, she was rather vague on the specifics.
Duly noted. Aside from listing her job description as an "syndicated advice columnist and journalist" on her blog, she was rather vague on the specifics.
Yeah, this woman is as much a "journalist" as a witch doctor is a real doctor.
The whole time I was watching the Republican debate tonight, I just wanted one of the stupid moderators to interrupt the candidate's answer to ask "HOW?"
It's easy to say that you'd create jobs and fix the economy, but tell me how you're going to fucking do it!
I am hardly a political expert, but when I mentioned the Republican primaries and a woman in her forties says "Why are they bothering? It is just going to be McCain and that Palin woman again," I wanted to scream. What the hell? This woman has two children, a grand child, a long career as a paralegal (and at least a two year degree), her own jewelry business, owns a home, etc. How can a functioning adult be this completely unaware? Ugh.
The horrifying part is that whomever gets selected is going to be worse than McCain/Palin could ever hope to be. My worst fear is Perry/Bachmann actually winning the elections in the end. I would literally have to find a new country.
We can only hope for a primary challenge from Hillary. Or Obama could do be the "adult in the room" like LBJ was and not run for reelection.
Why is it that Democrats are in such a rush to be first that they don't spend a little bit of extra time insuring that their "first" is a capable first? Democrats had a chance to send either the first woman or first black man into the presidency and they chose the less qualified candidate? Why?
A Hillary/Obama ticket would have won in 2008 and Obama could have then run in 2016.
Obama is most likely going to lose in 2012. The best you can hope for is that he losses to Romney.
We can only hope for a primary challenge from Hillary
Are you kidding?
Or Obama could do be the "adult in the room" like LBJ was and not run for reelection.
Are you kidding?
Why is it that Democrats are in such a rush to be first that they don't spend a little bit of extra time insuring that their "first" is a capable first?
That doesn't even make sense.
they chose the less qualified candidate? Why?
I highly doubt Clinton could have done any better, and in fact she was more right-leaning than I should like. What would she have done differently?
Obama is most likely going to lose in 2012.
I doubt it. It will be close, but the Teabaggers are very likely to push an unelectable candidate into the fight.
I highly doubt Clinton could have done any better, and in fact she was more right-leaning than I should like. What would she have done differently?
She would have ripped off the head of the first billy goat and sent it back to the other two with a note saying, "don't try to cross my fucking bridge!"
In what is not a surprise to anyone anymore, the candidates were lying through their teeth about each other and Obama during the debate. Adding to the seething pile of horrifying puss and skreed that is the Republibagger hopefulls, as if it wasn't bad enough, Bachmann also insinuated that the government shouldn't make anyone inoculate their kids.
Comments
No, really. You don't.
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
It's a bit of a read, but very good and insightful.
Article on Political Views
The study design really only applies to people who take their information from news articles, so the study is limited in that it doesn't account for people's tendencies towards heavy skepticism. It is also politicized pretty strongly, which I find personally disagreeable but can't really call a straight-out experimental fault.
The specific corrections the study uses are along the lines of: "The article implied that [x] happened. [x] did not happen. Here is support." It's tough to really get more evidence than that, given the newspaper correction nature of the study, but the majority of the evidence correction is more of the "that dog has 4 legs" cut-and-dry type.
Not saying the study is perfect, but it's pretty much the most reasonable form of fact challenging I could expect from such a study. Now, a study about how much evidence it takes to change a belief - that would be interesting. Hard as hell to pull off and virtually impossible to control, but interesting.
What the fuck.
It's easy to say that you'd create jobs and fix the economy, but tell me how you're going to fucking do it!
Why is it that Democrats are in such a rush to be first that they don't spend a little bit of extra time insuring that their "first" is a capable first? Democrats had a chance to send either the first woman or first black man into the presidency and they chose the less qualified candidate? Why?
A Hillary/Obama ticket would have won in 2008 and Obama could have then run in 2016.
Obama is most likely going to lose in 2012. The best you can hope for is that he losses to Romney.
Rick Perry slashed funds to the agencies that fight wild fires in Texas, then asked Obama for disaster relief and heaps of federal money. I hope Texas enjoys it's well deserved rattlesnake invasion.