How facts backfire. Is fighting ignorance just a lost cause?

I’ve been watching quite a bit of Christopher Hitchens on Youtube since he got sick, and in one of the clips he talked about the American Revolution and how after more than 200 years, the ideas and founding principles it originated are still in effect and the Republic it created is still standing, thriving and functioning as originally intended. He mentioned the Chinese Revolution and how it has morphed into something quite unlike the original plan. He asked where the Russian Revolution is now. What became of the Cuban Revolution and other Latin American revolutions, and so forth. They have all failed or had to change into something other than what was originally intended.

He went on to say that the principles and ideas the country was founded on - individual rights vs. group or state’s rights, supported by a Bill of Rights that describes and empowers them and makes them legible and available to everyone; separation of church and state; the separation of the Executive, the Judicial and the Congressional branches of government, etc. - are still in effect and functioning just as they were set up to do at the start.

And he went on to say further that there’s hardly a country in the world that wouldn’t benefit by adopting these principles, and I agree wholeheartedly. For all its faults and rough-and-tumble politics and seeming difficulties, the U.S. system of government has been the one that has stood the test of time and provided the greatest amount of personal freedom for its citizens of any modern country.

Thus it comes as no surprise to hear people such as yourself and certain others of a leftward political bent want to do away with it in favor of a more dictatorial or authoritarian type of government which will force people to live according to your wishes rather than their own. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - liberalism, for all its alleged support of individual freedoms - is the greatest threat to individual freedoms that this country faces today. And your words, and those of Blalron and others who presume to take the position that common citizens are incompetent of self-determination and must or should therefore be governed by an elite which knows better than they do what’s best for them, are the best evidence that this is so.

Therefore I’ve come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is largely correct when he says that Republicans must not give an inch to the left in this country and that liberals and Democrats must be opposed and defeated at all costs, even if in the short term the populace benefits from their programs (this last is from me, not Limbaugh).

We have a situation now where government is taking over more and more of our businesses, our income, our health care and general welfare, and how much of someone else’s money we get. Eventually we’ll find our individual freedoms subsumed to those dictated by a government whose functionaries think like Blalron and Commissar and others who think they know better than the average man what is best for him and/or what he should receive and how he should live.

Power To The People! Vote Republican!!!

~ Che Artist

Could you link to where Blalron says that we should be “governed by an elite”? I’m not finding it in this thread.

Thanks.

I think deeply held beliefs, as opposed to be the foundations of a worldview, are more accurately described as the foundations of one’s identity – think about how we craft an image of ourselves, as that which we are and that which we aren’t: through association and dissociation. I’m like this, not like that, etc. Somewhere at the intersection of all the groups we consider ourselves part of, and the sets of beliefs that unify these groups (that make them distinct groups in the first place), there are we, there we find our own identity. That’s just not something facts apply to. If our beliefs truly were meant to present an accurate image of the world, only then should one expect new and contradictory facts expect to change them; however, if our beliefs are conceived of as a way to locate ourselves within some ‘space of identity’, facts – or even truths – have no bearing on them. Contrariwise, any argument against our core belief is an argument against our being, our self, in a way; even if couched in objective fact, it is a personal attack, or at least perceived as such. That we protect ourselves from this is then only natural. For much the same reason, we can almost always find justification for the actions of those close to us, while condemning equivalent actions of those farther away in identity space; it’s not hypocrisy so much as a question of perspective.

It is the misidentification of those two roles of beliefs – as representing the world; or as tools to delineate our identity – that lies at the heart of the issue.

I remember when these came out a couple years ago. It seems like the good old you can lead a horse to water but… principle.

The Founding Fathers you adore so much were elites. They apparently knew better than everyone else. And America has been run by elites ever since. What country’s institutional structures aren’t run by elites? Bolivia? The people you criticize think these elites should that think like them, then everything would be better. But that’s fairly universal.

You were one of the research cases, right?! You must have been exposed to tons of corrected facts to get to this point. I like Hitchens too, except when he’s absolutely wrong, and being a horse’s ass. But then… oh wait, I was going to expose you to some more corrected facts. Sorry, you’ve had enough. Let me know how the Rushy Pubby thing works out for you.

Always remember that 50% of people are below average intelligence.

A lot of such people - and doubtless a fair few others - prefer to trust in the views they hold that have been engendered, over time, by people they trust. They are distrustful of ‘book learning’ because they don’t have the skills required to place new facts in the correct context and decide whether something that contradicts a currently held view is correct in context or whether it may be being misapplied and could itself be contradicted by further information.

Take as an example the current pope. When he was selected there was, immediately, a big fuss about the fact that as a child he’d been a member of the Hitler youth. That could be taken to provide a prima facie case that he was an unsuitable choice.

After a while it became general knowledge that from 1936 membership of the organisation was compulsory for German youth so he had no choice in the matter.

It’s easy to see how any devout Roman Catholic would have been subjected to an emotional roller coaster if s/he had taken the initial revelation at face value, unaware of other facts necessary to place it in context.

First, we do live in a democracy. Second, we do not always entrust the reins of power to intelligent people. For example, you may have heard of a man named George W. Bush.

When was the last time you directly voted on whether or not a law would pass? We certainly have a democratic process but that doesn’t make us a democracy. Perhaps I’m being a bit pedantic though.

On a similar note, from this week’s Onion:

Man Already Knows Everything He Needs To Know About Muslims

You are correct. The USA is a republic, not a democracy.

Although I am still enjoying the irony of an unrepentant Communist posting to a thread about how partisans don’t learn.

“The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history”.

Regards,
Shodan

It’s not just stupid people.

It’s been said that new scientific theories don’t gain acceptance by convincing those who currently believe in the old theories that the new theories are correct. They gain acceptance when the believers in the old theories die out and when the younger generation that looks at the evidence without preconceived ideas finds the new theory more compelling.

And that’s how it is with other issues as well. You are not going to convince many Democrats to become Republicans or vice versa (for example). But you might make a compelling case to people who haven’t yet decided whether they should become Democrats or Republicans, and that’s your only hope.

I also became sort of depressed when I read that article. But then I realized I don’t give a shit what other people do and went on with my life.

It seems to be a common misconception that a republic cannot be a democracy. Similarly that a monarchy cannot be a democracy.

A republic is a state where the sovereignty rests with the people. As opposed to a monarchy or empire where it resides with the monarch or emperor.

A democracy is a system of government whereby a state is ruled by either it’s populace or their representatives.
Thus:

Britain, Spain = Monarchy and democracy.
Germany, US = Republic and democracy.
Saudi Arabia = Monarchy not democracy.
China = Republic not democracy (in that the Chinese cannot chose their government.)

This sounds cool, but what other people do can have a huge impact on your life.

There’s nothing new here, social scientists have been studying the phenomenon since at least the 1950s.

Why do you think advertising is so damn manipulative? It’s not because all producets are the same; it’s because advertisers know that simply explaining why Brand X is better isn’t going to motivate people to change from Brand Y. People have emotions, sensory responses and belief frameworks as well as factual knowledge. Focusing on one while ignoring the others isn’t going to get you anywhere.

Hahaha! (my bolding).

What is it now, all of 234 years even if you accept that the system hasn’t changed since the birth of the US?!

More on topic, it really is no surprise, especially in partisan politics where the objective is very rarely the ‘truth’, but much more often an attempt to paint oneselves in a good light and/or diminish the good standing of another. Some people might think that such an approach, in itself, isn’t anything like a useful way to run a country (or a brothel, come to think of it) - but it may well be that it’s the best we have so far…

I’m pretty sure I’ve been hearing evidence for this for almost 20 years now. And I’ve personally seen that people aren’t persuaded logically, but emotionally.

But, I’m not as concerned that people aren’t swayed by new facts.

Facts can be wrong or misleading, as evidenced above. And it may take time, thought, and other data to put them in perspective. New facts aren’t always a reason to change your mind. Accepting new facts is. Because then you have to fit them into your chain of logic. However, my experience is that that usually doesn’t change anyone’s mind either.

However, even knowing this, I keep trying to convince people logically rather than appealing to emotional arguments… (I must have an emotional attachment to logical arguements.)

Once about 10 years ago, I was having an online discussion, and showing someone the logical conclusion of his starting premise. And frustrated that it was taking so long to convince him, but he eventually changed his mind; and I was pleased with myself. Next, he had a logical argument, to which I thought his conclusion was silly. I figured if I could show him it was, he would have to change his premise, right? Right?

I think his conclusion was: Steal a candy bar, you can die. (refering to shopkeepers being able to defend their merchandise.) I replied something like: You really think people should be able to kill each other over a matter of a dollar? You realize, if that is the standard, based on human behavior, about half the population would not be willing to kill in that situation, and about half the population would be willing to kill for even less, right?
I convinced him his conclusion was wrong, and I was pleased with myself again. Then a couple days later I saw that he was still using the premise that led to a conclusion he no longer held in other arguments. I had to roll my eyes and sigh.

I try not to use emotional arguments since I believe in having logically consistent beliefs. Consequently, I don’t often change people’s minds. I keep trying though.

I like your description.

I wonder if he could actually back up the underlined section nowadays.

To some degree we’re all like this. How many of us have participated in a debate (online or otherwise) and refused to immediately acknowledge a contradictory fact? What I’d like to know is whether people changed their mind over a period of time.

You’re absolutely right. I volunteer to be your dictator.

The problem is, that other people vote.