US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4861

On August 31 2016 08:40 TheYango wrote:

Didn't the O'Brien later say that Trump in fact did have to pay his legal fees and that he was just blowing hot air when he said he didn't? Or am I thinking of something else?

On August 31 2016 10:47 Sbrubbles wrote:
It's interesting to check this thread every once in a while to see these arguments in which both sides refuse to give in while at the same time assume attitudes that will most likely turn off bystanders not already invested into one side. It's a highpoint in the futility of internet arguments.

Kahan calls this theory Identity-Protective Cognition: "As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values." Elsewhere, he puts it even more pithily: "What we believe about the facts," he writes, "tells us who we are." And the most important psychological imperative most of us have in a given day is protecting our idea of who we are, and our relationships with the people we trust and love.

On August 31 2016 18:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Political discussions are usually not very productive anyway.

Unless you talk to a truly remarkable person, you can be sure that most of what you say is lost when you talk politics. Either the person agrees and at best you just bond over a shared opinion or the person disagrees and won't listen to you.

There have been studies showing that presenting someone with facts that induce a cognitive dissonance most of the time strengthens the opinion of that person because our brain just hates contradictory information. That's how some people just won't ever stop believing that climate change is a hoax or that the earth is 6000 years old. The more you try the more they believe it.

Here is a really good article called "How politics makes us stupid"

On August 31 2016 20:40 nothingmuch wrote:
I have no idea- might as well ask why we're unable to abandon short term profits for long term gains/ prevent long term damage (see effect of humanity on global ecology/climate that has been known pretty much since the seventies).
Every parent would be able to throw themselves in front of their children to keep them from harm, but we fail to get of the metaphorical couch to prevent their harm in 30 (put in whatever number you like) years.
Humans evolved that way I guess, and while I personally think arguing/discussion should be a major school subject/ part of your first language education I'm not sure how much we're actually able to overcome such basic programming.

On August 31 2016 18:48 a_flayer wrote:

How can we fight this within ourselves? I often feel like I can see the point the other guys are making, but that doesn't deter me from arguing against it or even dismissing them in the argument itself. For example with the xDaunt argument I understand that Trump feels slighted by the media and can attempt legal recourse, but I don't think that should allow him to sue people into financial ruin or anything of the sort. In the EU thread I was arguing for Russia's views on Ukraine/Crimea, and I was beaten down by everyone who took the western side, and it's not like I couldn't see their (valid) points, but I couldn't stop from dismissing them in my arguments because I wanted to take the other side of the argument. And I would even find myself getting more extreme in my statements simply because I was being argued against. I didn't -want- to do that, what I wanted was for other people to get a more nuanced view of the whole situation. It makes me feel so stupid whenever I look back on it.

But Kahan would never deny that identity-protective cognition afflicts him too. In fact, recognizing that is core to his strategy of avoiding it. "I’m positive that at any given moment some fraction of the things I believe, I believe for identity-protective purposes," he says. "That gives you a kind of humility."

Recognizing the problem is not the same as fixing it, though. I asked Kahan how he tries to guard against identity protection in his everyday life. The answer, he said, is to try to find disagreement that doesn’t threaten you and your social group — and one way to do that is to consciously seek it out in your group. "I try to find people who I actually think are like me — people I’d like to hang out with — but they don’t believe the things that everyone else like me believes," he says. "If I find some people I identify with, I don’t find them as threatening when they disagree with me." It’s good advice, but it requires, as a prerequisite, a desire to expose yourself to uncomfortable evidence — and a confidence that the knowledge won’t hurt you.

And the idea that some bystander are reading those posts and it might have an impact on them are in my opinion very optimistic.

1- I read very articulated people from the same side (more or less) than me and from who I learn a LOT. Kwisach is an example, but also Plansix, Darkplasma or Kwark are all people that I enjoy reading because they know a great deal that I don't.

But Kahan would never deny that identity-protective cognition afflicts him too. In fact, recognizing that is core to his strategy of avoiding it. "I’m positive that at any given moment some fraction of the things I believe, I believe for identity-protective purposes," he says. "That gives you a kind of humility."

Recognizing the problem is not the same as fixing it, though. I asked Kahan how he tries to guard against identity protection in his everyday life. The answer, he said, is to try to find disagreement that doesn’t threaten you and your social group — and one way to do that is to consciously seek it out in your group. "I try to find people who I actually think are like me — people I’d like to hang out with — but they don’t believe the things that everyone else like me believes," he says. "If I find some people I identify with, I don’t find them as threatening when they disagree with me." It’s good advice, but it requires, as a prerequisite, a desire to expose yourself to uncomfortable evidence — and a confidence that the knowledge won’t hurt you.

On August 31 2016 21:55 a_flayer wrote:

That's funny, as I was making myself lunch I was thinking almost this exact same thing: "Maybe I should try to befriend at least 1 person from each religion, political orientation and so forth to get over this."

On August 31 2016 21:56 zlefin wrote:
Awww, I didn't make the list of helpful posters *cry*

On August 31 2016 21:59 RvB wrote:

I'm already confronted with too much leftist bs on TL. I can't bear more in real life :p

On August 31 2016 21:56 zlefin wrote:
Awww, I didn't make the list of helpful posters *cry*

More bystanders (if there are any) putting in the occasional comment about things being helpful does a lot for keeping up the morale.

I suppose we could also use the techniques that are better for convincing people on the other side, but those are a pain to use, and I don't remember them much at all.

On August 31 2016 22:12 Godwrath wrote:

Well, if it helps, you are on my personal list, since i have a hard time remembering the last time you got genuinely defensive when discussing something, and you actually try to talk, instead of just posting a rebuttal and be done with it.

On August 31 2016 22:08 Plansix wrote:
Personally, I try to remember that the people I discuss things with online are:

A: Real humans
B: Sometimes not on their A game and have bad days.
C: Have reasons for believing what they believe
D: Are not likely to completely change their view on the world due to one random discussion on the internet.

The thread is useful to at minimum learn small details about the world, at least at a surface level. I know more about how the UK government works due to these threads. And finance thanks to Kwark. I learned some stuff about GMOs. Though it didn’t truly alter my opinion GMO labeling, it did move my understanding on which GMOs should be labeled.

But the thread is useful the same way a documentary is useful. It’s nice to get a surface level view on a subject and see a few things. But if you are not going to emerge an expert after reading the thread.