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

[editec]

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

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

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

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

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

The moment we're invested in a particular ideology, we seek out evidence which supports it, that is true.

And naturally we greatly increase the validity of what we agree with, and discount that which doesn't support our ideology.

Yes, this is human nature.


It's HARD to change one's mind about things which we dearly hold to be true.

I think I've managed to do it once in my entire life.

Glad I did, but it was definitely NOT something I managed to do all at once.

It took YEARS of reality informing me that I was wrong to get me to admit that what I believed was wrong.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

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


Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

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

Group Think

Amazon.com: Sanctions for evil;: Sources of social destructiveness (Beacon paperback) (9780807041673): Books

gee that sounds like the powers that be here in California.........

 

[saveliberty]

Or the White House.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

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

Group Think

Amazon.com: Sanctions for evil;: Sources of social destructiveness (Beacon paperback) (9780807041673): Books

I don't think I've ever read a better description of Right Wing Radio and its listenership.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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

COWARD

He's like a dog with a bone. I don't need that kind of crap. The last time he went after me, he spent hours on end saying the same goddamned thing over and over. Maurauder is the type who will zero in on a perceived enemy and go into full locked and loaded attack mode and won't quit until the other (me in that instance) simply throws in the towel. Then, I suppose, for some sick reason, he thinks he's "won." Well I just decided to let him wallow in his own bloated ego. He can talk to himself or join his own GROUPTHINK discussion, evident on this board. What a fucking hypocritical joke THAT argument is!!

 

[Si modo]

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

Abstract:

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

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

From the general discussion part of the paper:

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

And

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



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

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

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

This is a non-partisan comment

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

Interesting. Sounds similar to what I discussed in a religious thread about a month ago - beliefs are compartmentalized from cognitive functions and are based on emotions. It's too bad the OP (taken from some article to which has yet to be linked) seems to assume that all persons have no cognition-based attitudes.

Thanks for the reference.

 

[veritas]

This thread is a mess. As for ad hominems it takes the prize. It gets another award for jumping to conclusions and making totally off the wall bootstrappings that are not even in the same ballpark as the OP.

Is there a word for a typed echo chamber?

 

[midcan5]

Yet, the OP excuses groupthink.

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

I'm missing the groupthink? ....

Why would you ask that?

Simply because I don't see groupthink here, it must be the filter we all use on reality. The OP is about persuasion and salesmanship, weird but I still remember the Fuller Brush man, mom had a hard time turning them down even though we had nothing, so often she would offer them coffee if all the baying brats weren't on a rampage.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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

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

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

it sure was

I titled the thread that way because it most certainly IS "most people." I suggest you re-read the posts here. Has there been a single person who normally opposes me on everything who doesn't also do it here? And the reason for that is it behooves any of you to agree with me, even on the most simple theory of human behavior.

I rest my case.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yet, the OP excuses groupthink.

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

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

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

So now I'm "desperate"?? You're really a piece of work, sweetie.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't find it there either, but there are several references to it in a Google search by other columnists who, by the way, say the same thing I do. The only reason I can think of as to why it can't be found in The Atlantic is that Lane Wallace might be a contributing writer and not on staff. But here is the link to THE WEEK (which is a weekly synopsis of top news stories worldwide, columnists and editorials, all gleaned from other publications. It's a handy, slim magazine that keeps you up to date without the necessity of plowing through the hundreds of other hard copy and Internet publications. Usually, it's very easy to track back to the original.

The Week Magazine - News reviews and opinion, arts, entertainment & political cartoons

 

[Si modo]

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

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

So now I'm "desperate"?? You're really a piece of work, sweetie.

Dearie, honey flanks, because you cannot stand being called out on your lack of logic, babycakes. One can smell your desperation to deflect to the even more illogical, darling.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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

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

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

Here are some glaring examples:

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

Don't forget your response:

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

Notice your "shrieking Leftist tirade."

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

Jeezus, grasping at straws. The first link referred to the Philadelphia Inquirer, and I did post the link. Can't help it if it didn't work, but a few extra seconds and you could have found it yourself. (I've since posted one that does work.)

The second is hardly a case of "shrieking" for the sake of "shrieking." You felt the need to add a dumb shrill about 'Obamabots' (the usual nonsense), and I reacted. I do tend to react when my buttons are pushed, such as your inflammatory statement above. Why was that necessary, except to make you feel smug and make me angry? Nevermind. Some people never get how they demonstrate complete hypocrisy even when it's staring right back at them from their monitors.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Feel better now you've gotten your screed reprinted?

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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

Two words. Wingnut dingbats.

Yup. "Group think" personified. Right here, right now, ladies and gentlemen!

 

[MaggieMae]

Interesting. Sounds similar to what I discussed in a religious thread about a month ago - beliefs are compartmentalized from cognitive functions and are based on emotions. It's too bad the OP (taken from some article to which has yet to be linked) seems to assume that all persons have no cognition-based attitudes.

Thanks for the reference.

But of course the article posted in the OP did not imply ALL people are one way or another. It merely suggested, as the study did (of only 140 people, as some other commentator reported), that people don't like to be shown they might be wrong (on anything, not just politics). You are a perfect, PERFECT, example of that. It seems you believe that same emotion to be true when it comes to religion, but you disagree with me because...well because I'm me...and you don't LIKE my politics. NOW do you get it?

 

[saveliberty]

Beliefs are viewed as "wrong" by others, not the person with the belief. I believe God created the universe and all within it. That belief is viewed as wrong by many. There are "facts", "theories" and "laws of nature" which have convinced these people my belief is wrong. Yet every once in a while, one of these facts is confronted with another fact which opposes the conclusion.

Beliefs can motivate people to explore things that were held as truth and eventually found to have another truth. I choose to take facts filtered through by beliefs and the Constitution to arrive at what I will support.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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

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

COWARD

He's like a dog with a bone. I don't need that kind of crap. The last time he went after me, he spent hours on end saying the same goddamned thing over and over. Maurauder is the type who will zero in on a perceived enemy and go into full locked and loaded attack mode and won't quit until the other (me in that instance) simply throws in the towel. Then, I suppose, for some sick reason, he thinks he's "won." Well I just decided to let him wallow in his own bloated ego. He can talk to himself or join his own GROUPTHINK discussion, evident on this board. What a fucking hypocritical joke THAT argument is!!

Complete nonsense.

You merely hate it when your positions are shredded, your ideas blown away, and you get all butthurt over it.

The article in the OP is YOU sugarpants, not anyone else.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I titled the thread that way because it most certainly IS "most people."

It IS NOT most people. That's the point.

You honestly believe you can paint with such a broad brush and not be challenged on it? Your thread title didn't say "most" people. It says this:

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

So now we add liar to the list of invectives for you.

Your main problem is dishonesty, Maggie, even with yourself. One can spot people like you online very easily even without reading their posts. Because they have siglines, custom user titles, and the like with the words "honest," "truth," "free thinker" and such..... And what you see is always the opposite of what they claim.

Because if one feels the need to self-brand in that manner, it's actually their inner conscience screaming for help!

 

[Si modo]

Interesting. Sounds similar to what I discussed in a religious thread about a month ago - beliefs are compartmentalized from cognitive functions and are based on emotions. It's too bad the OP (taken from some article to which has yet to be linked) seems to assume that all persons have no cognition-based attitudes.

Thanks for the reference.

But of course the article posted in the OP did not imply ALL people are one way or another. It merely suggested, as the study did (of only 140 people, as some other commentator reported), that people don't like to be shown they might be wrong (on anything, not just politics). You are a perfect, PERFECT, example of that. It seems you believe that same emotion to be true when it comes to religion, but you disagree with me because...well because I'm me...and you don't LIKE my politics. NOW do you get it?

What article? You haven't linked to any article in your OP or even later when asked to do so.

"This is us and everybody else". LMAO.

The only logical conclusion is that you just make up shit and keep posting it. Your dishonesty is well established and your desperate weaseling after having your OP shredded with rationality is pathetic.