Do Facts hurt the contemporary political debate?

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

OMG

It’s this sort off bullshit that makes me laugh. Pussies like Joe just flat out lying.

 

[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.

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.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

 

[iceberg]

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.

what's stupid is you don't see the left doing the very same thing. people, by nature, stereotype. this isn't right or left, it's all of us.

anything short of that is just you being ignorant of habits everyone shares.

 

[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.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

 

[Olde Europe]

what's stupid is you don't see the left doing the very same thing. people, by nature, stereotype. this isn't right or left, it's all of us.

anything short of that is just you being ignorant of habits everyone shares.

You know, iceberg, you are right. We shouldn't be talking about "the left" (see above), or "the right", for that matter.

That doesn't change the fact that the current thread concerned itself with a study on conservatives being treated to facts, and their reaction to them. Do tell, since you seem to be struggling for some sort of reasonably grounded perspective: Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?

 

[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.

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.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

 

[pknopp]

what's stupid is you don't see the left doing the very same thing. people, by nature, stereotype. this isn't right or left, it's all of us.

anything short of that is just you being ignorant of habits everyone shares.

You know, iceberg, you are right. We shouldn't be talking about "the left" (see above), or "the right", for that matter.

That doesn't change the fact that the current thread concerned itself with a study on conservatives being treated to facts, and their reaction to them. Do tell, since you seem to be struggling for some sort of reasonably grounded perspective: Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?

For a majority, neither side cares about the facts. I suppose it's fair to ask a "partisan" if they believe their side believes in facts and then ask them a fact and see.

What do you think about Obama's wars? (Syria, Libya and Yemen)

 

[DBA]

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.

Oh boy, another Republicans and Conservatives are racist sentiment from a lefty nut. Go figure.

 

[DBA]

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.

You seriously don't believe liberals do exactly the same thing with regards to how they respond based on presentation? The entire PC movement was started by liberals who can't deal with reality and are easily offended. It is like walking on eggshells talking to a liberal about politics because anything that is said could potentially trigger a violent emotional response, factual or not.

 

[DBA]

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Sure, that is why we are the party for the "rich", because "rich" folks are incapable of competently processing information. After all, being successful doesn't involve any competency. We all just got lucky in life.

 

[Olde Europe]

For a majority, neither side cares about the facts.

Thanks for sharing your mantra, yet again. Being here less than a month, and with more than 2000 postings under your belt already, how often did you type the exact same bullshit with, at most, slight differences in wording? Roughly? 500 times? 700? More? I mean, being unable to see the earth-shaking differences between the Obama and Trump administrations doesn't mean you got something of value to say. It just means you've either not been watching very closely, or you are a shill trying to normalize the abnormality of Trump.

 

[whitehall]

As long as it's only democrats debating each other the (MSM) moderators will throw them softballs instead of facts. Things might change when they narrow the field down but for now it's just bland junk guaranteed not to embarrass the candidates.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

As long as it's only democrats debating each other the (MSM) moderators will throw them softballs instead of facts. Things might change when they narrow the field down but for now it's just bland junk guaranteed not to embarrass the candidates.

It's not working

 

[pknopp]

For a majority, neither side cares about the facts.

Thanks for sharing your mantra, yet again. Being here less than a month, and with more than 2000 postings under your belt already, how often did you type the exact same bullshit with, at most, slight differences in wording? Roughly? 500 times? 700? More? I mean, being unable to see the earth-shaking differences between the Obama and Trump administrations doesn't mean you got something of value to say. It just means you've either not been watching very closely, or you are a shill trying to normalize the abnormality of Trump.

Right, you are going to ignore the facts. I asked you a simple question. You ignored it and made the reply about me. This is why Trump is president.

 

[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.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Sure, that is why we are the party for the "rich", because "rich" folks are incapable of competently processing information. After all, being successful doesn't involve any competency. We all just got lucky in life.

Case in point.

 

[DBA]

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.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

The study is ludicrous. You could do the same study in another country with a different group of people and get the same result. The point of the study was to try to paint Conservatives in a bad light. It is rather obvious.

 

[DBA]

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Sure, that is why we are the party for the "rich", because "rich" folks are incapable of competently processing information. After all, being successful doesn't involve any competency. We all just got lucky in life.

Case in point.

Logic and consistency is not a hallmark of the liberal platform. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

 

[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.

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

That's the crux of the dynamic. The ability to process information competently so as to discern fact from fiction. Reality over narrative.

Barr's narrative of the Mueller report vs Mueller's testimony is a perfect example.