regarding facts, truthiness, and all that good shtuff

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...someone-when-facts-fail/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_MB_OP


the funny thing about this at this point, of course, is that because both sides of the forums are pretty locked in at this point, they'll both assume it's the other side at fault

 

yeah, you would say that, you filthy [insert derogatory term for the other side here]

 

unrelated though, i'm about to be gone for a week or so. happy hanukkah, merry christmas, or if any of you Firkers do something else have a good time with that instead


and give me your runes for christmas thx

 

My world view is too weird for facts to change the outcome much.

 

That poor, poor whale.

 

I was gung-ho for Iraq cause I believed it was "righteous" payback. Boy was I fooled.

The final 1-2 years of GW Bush prez I realized the enormity of my error. Guess I am a hawkish dove now, or maybe a vegetarian vampire. (Most of my rednecky friends still think that invading Iraq was noble and such). But yes, I too am probably still guilty of the points laid out in the article. Nice share.

 

The only worthwhile part of the article (and the whole reason I read it...):

1. keep emotions out of the exchange,
2. discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad Hitlerum),
3. listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately,
4. show respect,
5. acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion, and
6. try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.

Yup.

Also about Iraq, I honestly couldn't care less about whether the U.S. wanted Oil, or was going after un/real WMD's.
That place needed help asap, and the UN wasn't doing enough (imo). Did more people die from the war than would have under the previous regime? Maybe. Was it worth the risk? I think so.

 

For those on the left who need help knowing which rule to focus on, I added nametags.

1. keep emotions out of the exchange, (Astamir)
2. discuss, don't attack (BurnPyro)
3. listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately (Boozha)
4. show respect (Geressen)
5. acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion (Ipox)
6. try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews (Sokolov)


and Geressen simply because your responses are so predictable I made this for you to easily cut and paste.

1. keep emotions out of the exchange, (Ragic)
2. discuss, don't attack (Ragic)
3. listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately (Ragic)
4. show respect (Ragic)
5. acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion (Ragic)
6. try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews (Ragic)

 

I feel left out of Ragic's list. Does that mean I am perfect?

 

1. Gaverion
2. Gaverion
3. Gaverion

feel better?

 

All 3 of the best posters are me, what an honor!

 

I agree you should use that list Ragic.

everything I say is fact, you are a ****.

 

you should have used my cut and paste anyway. your reply was Bane Shift.

 

Speak for yourself.

See, from my perspective, the GOP separates its facts and its emotions, and so has to bases to draw in voters from, while the left mixes the two together and draws voters in using that. They both use emotions, just differently. I think this previous election is a good example of how the opposite of your experience can also be true:
Hillary's campaign was largely fueled by hatred of Trump for his personal character (emotions). (there were other things, but as far as the liberal media seemed to be concerned, that was the one that mattered)
Trump's campaign was largely fueled by the belief that Trump would stay true to his promises and platform (factual based). (yes, I know you may think otherwise, but really, the HUGE majority of Trump voters I met were very reasonable people, they were just too afraid of backlash for supporting Trump to actually let people know without being asked)
Of course, that's all based on personal experience, from both of us.

Again, you can't discuss with someone who just calls you a moron or that you worship America. (yes, someone that wants to be a jerk isn't going to be helpful, I was just letting you know I experience the same thing)

I empathize.

It's not about whether they deserve respect: "They won't care about what you know unless they know you care about them." That's it. You don't have to actually respect them, but if you openly disrespect them, you become just as bad as them. Two wrongs don't make a right. (Two lefts don't make a right either, same with two leftists making a righty... This is too fun).

5. acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion"

I guess? I don't remember you being specific about honestly, but maybe indirectly? I struggle with this one a lot, mainly because I usually don't understand why someone would hold BLANK opinion.
I'm confused about why it doesn't matter though, can you explain further?

"try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews."

I think it's worded wrongly: "Realize that changing facts doesn't always equal changing worldviews." For example, whenever I receive new information, I try to determine how and if it fits into what I already believe. If it doesn't, I try to see if "shifting around" my beliefs will allow it in. This annoyed a college friend of mine to no end, because he thought that once I accepted some fact as true, I would agree wholly with him.

You should realize that you likely won't convince anyone of anything, but you should strive to do so anyway, BECAUSE: The tiniest part of what you say may affect someone's beliefs, even if only a small bit. It will always be worth it. (You've said some things sometimes that made me change my beliefs ever so slightly).


All these rules can be summed up like so: Always give you best.

 

Media IS the campaign. Trump could control his msg in the general. Hillary apparently couldn't or didn't think it more important than bashing Trump. If you REALLY think all you have to do is put out a policy paper on your website then that's just foolish. As evidenced by the result. I remember Trumps first 100 days speech during the general. If Hillary gave an equivalent speech during the general then it was so boring that she might as well not have.

Media isn't the campaign.... Are you serious?

 

Any possibility that might at least partially be because the people you talk to that share more in common with your own worldview are less likely to insult you than those whom hold a much more divergent worldview?