Do Facts hurt the contemporary political debate?

[Olde Europe]

because i was explaining why i "generalized" after telling someone they always stereotype. you seem to have missed where i said fair point on your side for calling me on that. but again, i was explaining what i see as a difference and you're still hellbent on ensuring someone answers YOUR questions YOUR way.

if you can't understand what i am saying, thats again, on you.

now - to answer your question - dunno. i don't tag people one way or another. if they're obviously a cheerleader for one side or the other, they get slid to ignore. YOU are on ignore and i only see this now cause i turn it off for the page and yes, you're still doing the same old shit you always do that made me put you on ignore to begin with.

to directly answer your question - i don't even follow trump saying it's a chinese hoax. why you feel that everyone who is up on what you seem to be up on is again, YOUR issue. for the most part - and again i'm going to generalize here cause individuality seems to escape your concept of thought - conservatives feel that climate change may be happening but it's not 100% due to mankind. "THE LEFT" as we generalize again tends to throw their hands up and call WE'RE DEAD IN 10 YEARS *OF WHICH* al gore has been saying for what, 3 decades now? isn't miami supposed to be underwater by now?

now to put in in terms you may understand, ZERO. and that's because i likely have people talking about it on ignore and i never see the threads either. so now run around and claim HA HA TOLD YOU NO ONE as you will likely miss where i have simply not seen that conversation in here.

god damn you're dense.

I registered your "fair point". Now you want a brownie, or what?

This thread, which you seem to have forgotten, is about conservatives and their way of dealing with facts, facts that stand in the way of their ideology, or conflict with their identity in particular.

Climate change is one of these facts, and one of the more prominent ones. You have my respect for admitting you've seen not one of your fellow conservatives contradicting Trump's dismissal of climate change as a Chinese hoax. Neither have I seen a single one. Pointing out a fact that pertains to all members of a group isn't "stereotyping", though. It's telling the truth. "Chinese hoax" is just one of Trump's myriad of obvious lies, and conservatives (as far as we both have seen) go with the ideology, and against the facts. That's what it is, what the OP's study said, and what we have established.

Ain't having a debate grand?

Oh, and BTW, no one is saying we're all dead in 10 years. All they are saying is that we have about ten years left to counter-act and avert the worst of climate change - which will hit humankind mostly during the second half of this century. You have fallen for a particularly imbecilic rightarded talking point. And no, Miami is not supposed to be underwater by now; it is in significant part going to be underwater as sea levels are rising half inch by half inch, and accelerating.

 

[Cellblock2429]

because i was explaining why i "generalized" after telling someone they always stereotype. you seem to have missed where i said fair point on your side for calling me on that. but again, i was explaining what i see as a difference and you're still hellbent on ensuring someone answers YOUR questions YOUR way.

if you can't understand what i am saying, thats again, on you.

now - to answer your question - dunno. i don't tag people one way or another. if they're obviously a cheerleader for one side or the other, they get slid to ignore. YOU are on ignore and i only see this now cause i turn it off for the page and yes, you're still doing the same old shit you always do that made me put you on ignore to begin with.

to directly answer your question - i don't even follow trump saying it's a chinese hoax. why you feel that everyone who is up on what you seem to be up on is again, YOUR issue. for the most part - and again i'm going to generalize here cause individuality seems to escape your concept of thought - conservatives feel that climate change may be happening but it's not 100% due to mankind. "THE LEFT" as we generalize again tends to throw their hands up and call WE'RE DEAD IN 10 YEARS *OF WHICH* al gore has been saying for what, 3 decades now? isn't miami supposed to be underwater by now?

now to put in in terms you may understand, ZERO. and that's because i likely have people talking about it on ignore and i never see the threads either. so now run around and claim HA HA TOLD YOU NO ONE as you will likely miss where i have simply not seen that conversation in here.

god damn you're dense.

I registered your "fair point". Now you want a brownie, or what?

This thread, which you seem to have forgotten, is about conservatives and their way of dealing with facts, facts that stand in the way of their ideology, or conflict with their identity in particular.

Climate change is one of these facts, and one of the more prominent ones. You have my respect for admitting you've seen not one of your fellow conservatives contradicting Trump's dismissal of climate change as a Chinese hoax. Neither have I seen a single one. Pointing out a fact that pertains to all members of a group isn't "stereotyping", though. It's telling the truth. "Chinese hoax" is just one of Trump's myriad of obvious lies, and conservatives (as far as we both have seen) go with the ideology, and against the facts. That's what it is, what the OP's study said, and what we have established.

Ain't having a debate grand?

Oh, and BTW, no one is saying we're all dead in 10 years. All they are saying is that we have about ten years left to counter-act and avert the worst of climate change - which will hit humankind mostly during the second half of this century. You have fallen for a particularly imbecilic rightarded talking point. And no, Miami is not supposed to be underwater by now; it is in significant part going to be underwater as sea levels are rising half inch by half inch, and accelerating.

/—-/ No one is buying your predictions of doom and gloom. 7 Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

 

[iceberg]

because i was explaining why i "generalized" after telling someone they always stereotype. you seem to have missed where i said fair point on your side for calling me on that. but again, i was explaining what i see as a difference and you're still hellbent on ensuring someone answers YOUR questions YOUR way.

if you can't understand what i am saying, thats again, on you.

now - to answer your question - dunno. i don't tag people one way or another. if they're obviously a cheerleader for one side or the other, they get slid to ignore. YOU are on ignore and i only see this now cause i turn it off for the page and yes, you're still doing the same old shit you always do that made me put you on ignore to begin with.

to directly answer your question - i don't even follow trump saying it's a chinese hoax. why you feel that everyone who is up on what you seem to be up on is again, YOUR issue. for the most part - and again i'm going to generalize here cause individuality seems to escape your concept of thought - conservatives feel that climate change may be happening but it's not 100% due to mankind. "THE LEFT" as we generalize again tends to throw their hands up and call WE'RE DEAD IN 10 YEARS *OF WHICH* al gore has been saying for what, 3 decades now? isn't miami supposed to be underwater by now?

now to put in in terms you may understand, ZERO. and that's because i likely have people talking about it on ignore and i never see the threads either. so now run around and claim HA HA TOLD YOU NO ONE as you will likely miss where i have simply not seen that conversation in here.

god damn you're dense.

I registered your "fair point". Now you want a brownie, or what?

This thread, which you seem to have forgotten, is about conservatives and their way of dealing with facts, facts that stand in the way of their ideology, or conflict with their identity in particular.

Climate change is one of these facts, and one of the more prominent ones. You have my respect for admitting you've seen not one of your fellow conservatives contradicting Trump's dismissal of climate change as a Chinese hoax. Neither have I seen a single one. Pointing out a fact that pertains to all members of a group isn't "stereotyping", though. It's telling the truth. "Chinese hoax" is just one of Trump's myriad of obvious lies, and conservatives (as far as we both have seen) go with the ideology, and against the facts. That's what it is, what the OP's study said, and what we have established.

Ain't having a debate grand?

Oh, and BTW, no one is saying we're all dead in 10 years. All they are saying is that we have about ten years left to counter-act and avert the worst of climate change - which will hit humankind mostly during the second half of this century. You have fallen for a particularly imbecilic rightarded talking point. And no, Miami is not supposed to be underwater by now; it is in significant part going to be underwater as sea levels are rising half inch by half inch, and accelerating.

oh i dunno - what do you have in your brownies??? we could talk.

as for exaggurated claims - i'll stand by my assertion that they are happening.

Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 13 Years Later — None Happened! | Humans Are Free
13 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions, let’s close by examining just how accurate his “science” proved to be on his way to the bank.

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!

2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.

9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10. The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.

they're on rinse / repeat now.

the climate *is* changing. not many are denying that. just the how's and why's behind it. THE LEFT (to generalize) makes this a priority and does all this grandstanding that in my mind, devalues a solid point. we SHOULD do more to care for our planet. the plastics in the oceans are causing some of the biggest issues to date. our own "trash" is becoming insurmountable it would seem. i would 100% agree our environment needs to be a higher priority, but i won't subscribe to WAH WE'VE GOT "X" NUMBER OF YEARS for anything because not a single one of those doom and gloom predictions have come true.

as per usual with people like this who grandstand and scream DOOM GLOOM, when proven wrong they rewrite history.

Gore Rewrites 'Inconvenient' Claim About NYC Flooding in Sequel Promo

so just tell me why i should really pay a whole lot of attention to anyone wearing the wooden banners over their shoulders saying THE END IS NEAR when that mindset has yet to be right on a single one of their predictions?

if florida is underwater by now, please let me know. i'll need to get my family out of orlando before they drown.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

How do you come to that conclusion. Fact, no study was cited. Fact, if study was conducted, what was the bias of the study. What was the goal of the study? Tons of other questions remain about the study, however you are quick to bite that is a factual study. Why? Because it fits your agenda.

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.

I am paying attention. You have a poster that has had only 50 posts since 2015, come on the board, claims he has a study, provides no link to the study, provides no source of the study, we don't know if there was a study, we don't know who conducted the study, we have no idea of the agenda of the study, yet you accept it as fact? The only reason you do, it is because it fits your agenda.

Seems that you don't really need facts, you just proved the study if the word was left instead of conservative. Thanks.

Of course none of that is relevant to the point.

I had just as many facts as the OP. You proved the point. Irreverent to the facts, you took this study as fact. There is absolutely no proof this study was ever conducted. You took it on as a fact, why were you so excited to take this on as fact? Maybe it matches ideology?

Maybe it matches ideology?

So what? That certainly doesn't change any findings.
Obviously it makes you defensive.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

Irrelevant.

 

[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.

"the problem with the cons" - stereotype
"cons are far too fragile" is a stereotype you wish to push.
"they don't accept anything as fact" is a stereotype
"they feel" - stereotype
They exist soley" - stereotype

you can't and won't treat people as individuals. you group people up into your own categories and address them as such. it fucking sucks dude.

hell all you do is stereotype and then get pissed off when people push back and say they're not who you think they are and you dive straight to DOPE YOU ARE WHO I THINK YOU ARE!!!! even though they say they're not, don't agree with what you SAY they agree with, and certainly don't feel like you ASSUME they do BECAUSE you stereotype.

all i can say at this point is you just don't understand what a stereotype is. along with 18 million other things but this one is screaming from you right now.

Your fragility is apparent.

 

[Olde Europe]

oh i dunno - what do you have in your brownies??? we could talk.

as for exaggurated claims - i'll stand by my assertion that they are happening.

Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 13 Years Later — None Happened! | Humans Are Free
13 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions, let’s close by examining just how accurate his “science” proved to be on his way to the bank.

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!

2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.

9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10. The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.

they're on rinse / repeat now.

the climate *is* changing. not many are denying that. just the how's and why's behind it. THE LEFT (to generalize) makes this a priority and does all this grandstanding that in my mind, devalues a solid point. we SHOULD do more to care for our planet. the plastics in the oceans are causing some of the biggest issues to date. our own "trash" is becoming insurmountable it would seem. i would 100% agree our environment needs to be a higher priority, but i won't subscribe to WAH WE'VE GOT "X" NUMBER OF YEARS for anything because not a single one of those doom and gloom predictions have come true.

as per usual with people like this who grandstand and scream DOOM GLOOM, when proven wrong they rewrite history.

Gore Rewrites 'Inconvenient' Claim About NYC Flooding in Sequel Promo

so just tell me why i should really pay a whole lot of attention to anyone wearing the wooden banners over their shoulders saying THE END IS NEAR when that mindset has yet to be right on a single one of their predictions?

if florida is underwater by now, please let me know. i'll need to get my family out of orlando before they drown.

I see, you have all your rightarded talking points lined up against the facts, and Al Gore still is not a climate scientist. Neither is any of the authors of your "sources". But they tell you what you'd like to hear, what aligns with your ideology and identity, and so you are rebleating what they blow up your arse.

Don't be a tool, iceberg. It doesn't fly well with your otherwise proudly proclaimed status as an independent thinker.

 

[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.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

It's not the "left's" narrative of Russia.

That is the right's narrative. Don't you see that?

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

How do you come to that conclusion. Fact, no study was cited. Fact, if study was conducted, what was the bias of the study. What was the goal of the study? Tons of other questions remain about the study, however you are quick to bite that is a factual study. Why? Because it fits your agenda.

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.

I am paying attention. You have a poster that has had only 50 posts since 2015, come on the board, claims he has a study, provides no link to the study, provides no source of the study, we don't know if there was a study, we don't know who conducted the study, we have no idea of the agenda of the study, yet you accept it as fact? The only reason you do, it is because it fits your agenda.

Seems that you don't really need facts, you just proved the study if the word was left instead of conservative. Thanks.

Of course none of that is relevant to the point.

I had just as many facts as the OP. You proved the point. Irreverent to the facts, you took this study as fact. There is absolutely no proof this study was ever conducted. You took it on as a fact, why were you so excited to take this on as fact? Maybe it matches ideology?

Maybe it matches ideology?

So what? That certainly doesn't change any findings.
Obviously it makes you defensive.

No proof of findings, no proof of the study. You are batting .000 on facts.

 

[iceberg]

oh i dunno - what do you have in your brownies??? we could talk.

as for exaggurated claims - i'll stand by my assertion that they are happening.

Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 13 Years Later — None Happened! | Humans Are Free
13 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions, let’s close by examining just how accurate his “science” proved to be on his way to the bank.

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!

2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.

9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10. The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.

they're on rinse / repeat now.

the climate *is* changing. not many are denying that. just the how's and why's behind it. THE LEFT (to generalize) makes this a priority and does all this grandstanding that in my mind, devalues a solid point. we SHOULD do more to care for our planet. the plastics in the oceans are causing some of the biggest issues to date. our own "trash" is becoming insurmountable it would seem. i would 100% agree our environment needs to be a higher priority, but i won't subscribe to WAH WE'VE GOT "X" NUMBER OF YEARS for anything because not a single one of those doom and gloom predictions have come true.

as per usual with people like this who grandstand and scream DOOM GLOOM, when proven wrong they rewrite history.

Gore Rewrites 'Inconvenient' Claim About NYC Flooding in Sequel Promo

so just tell me why i should really pay a whole lot of attention to anyone wearing the wooden banners over their shoulders saying THE END IS NEAR when that mindset has yet to be right on a single one of their predictions?

if florida is underwater by now, please let me know. i'll need to get my family out of orlando before they drown.

I see, you have all your rightarded talking points lined up against the facts, and Al Gore still is not a climate scientist. Neither is any of the authors of your "sources". But they tell you what you'd like to hear, what aligns with your ideology and identity, and so you are rebleating what they blow up your arse.

Don't be a tool, iceberg. It doesn't fly well with your otherwise proudly proclaimed status as an independent thinker.

and this is why i won't take any convo with you seriously. you're only going to attack and disagree and pull some reason to do so out of your already-full-of-shit ass.

you don't want to talk over issues in order to come to a consensus, you want to attack people, esp anyone you view to be "on the right". given all that i will now go back to my landmark phrase to people like you and leave.

fuck off.

 

[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.

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.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

It's not the "left's" narrative of Russia.

That is the right's narrative. Don't you see that?

please show me the vast amount of people on the right who investigated trump for RUSSIA collusion.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

Irrelevant.

No facts, no study! At least you don’t let facts or lack there of get in your way of your bias and prejudice.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

because PEOPLE tend to use things that validate their mindset w/o question and question the things that don't. HUMAN trait we all share.

But that's not what I'm doing. That's what you're doing. You're attributing a motive to my behavior that is not in evidence. Either by my admission or by action. You've taken the available information and concocted a narrative that validates your mindset.

 

[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.

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

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

"the problem with the cons" - stereotype
"cons are far too fragile" is a stereotype you wish to push.
"they don't accept anything as fact" is a stereotype
"they feel" - stereotype
They exist soley" - stereotype

you can't and won't treat people as individuals. you group people up into your own categories and address them as such. it fucking sucks dude.

hell all you do is stereotype and then get pissed off when people push back and say they're not who you think they are and you dive straight to DOPE YOU ARE WHO I THINK YOU ARE!!!! even though they say they're not, don't agree with what you SAY they agree with, and certainly don't feel like you ASSUME they do BECAUSE you stereotype.

all i can say at this point is you just don't understand what a stereotype is. along with 18 million other things but this one is screaming from you right now.

Your fragility is apparent.

and your ignorance is massive.

fuck off.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Then

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

Just wow. You did not even bother to separate them.

Thanks for the example of my point.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

Then

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

Just wow. You did not even bother to separate them.

Thanks for the example of my point.

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.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

because PEOPLE tend to use things that validate their mindset w/o question and question the things that don't. HUMAN trait we all share.

But that's not what I'm doing. That's what you're doing. You're attributing a motive to my behavior that is not in evidence. Either by my admission or by action. You've taken the available information and concocted a narrative that validates your mindset.

And you have taken a study, that may not exist and accepted it as fact because it validates your narrative. Since the OP has ran away from the thread we have no idea the study in fact exists, yet you act like it does. Why is that?

Now, time for you to reject my position because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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.

oh jesus not again
\
\

Your own Truth does not matter if it isn't based on facts

Im looking at you to JUSSIE!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

How do you come to that conclusion. Fact, no study was cited. Fact, if study was conducted, what was the bias of the study. What was the goal of the study? Tons of other questions remain about the study, however you are quick to bite that is a factual study. Why? Because it fits your agenda.

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.

I am paying attention. You have a poster that has had only 50 posts since 2015, come on the board, claims he has a study, provides no link to the study, provides no source of the study, we don't know if there was a study, we don't know who conducted the study, we have no idea of the agenda of the study, yet you accept it as fact? The only reason you do, it is because it fits your agenda.

Seems that you don't really need facts, you just proved the study if the word was left instead of conservative. Thanks.

Of course none of that is relevant to the point.

I had just as many facts as the OP. You proved the point. Irreverent to the facts, you took this study as fact. There is absolutely no proof this study was ever conducted. You took it on as a fact, why were you so excited to take this on as fact? Maybe it matches ideology?

Maybe it matches ideology?

So what? That certainly doesn't change any findings.
Obviously it makes you defensive.

No proof of findings, no proof of the study. You are batting .000 on facts.

You have yet to make a point.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

"the problem with the cons" - stereotype
"cons are far too fragile" is a stereotype you wish to push.
"they don't accept anything as fact" is a stereotype
"they feel" - stereotype
They exist soley" - stereotype

you can't and won't treat people as individuals. you group people up into your own categories and address them as such. it fucking sucks dude.

hell all you do is stereotype and then get pissed off when people push back and say they're not who you think they are and you dive straight to DOPE YOU ARE WHO I THINK YOU ARE!!!! even though they say they're not, don't agree with what you SAY they agree with, and certainly don't feel like you ASSUME they do BECAUSE you stereotype.

all i can say at this point is you just don't understand what a stereotype is. along with 18 million other things but this one is screaming from you right now.

Your fragility is apparent.

and your ignorance is massive.

fuck off.

Fuck off ?
LOL...
You're attacking me, dope.

 

[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.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

It's not the "left's" narrative of Russia.

That is the right's narrative. Don't you see that?

please show me the vast amount of people on the right who investigated trump for RUSSIA collusion.

Who on the left did?