Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dan_kahan_the_american_culture_war_of_fact/" target="_blank">http://www.pointofinquiry.org/...of_fact/</a> On the Gov. Walker thread, skinnerbox discussed the punking of the governor and mawnck pointed out that this is likely to do nothing to convince people to think differently. The above link is to a podcast that is well worth your 30 minutes. It discusses why facts don't work to convince people (something mawnck has brought up here before) and includes some examples of why. If someone's values point them in a certain direction, that determines whether or not they accept or reject facts. While that might seem obvious, the important part here is learning how to convince people of facts. So here's an example the author in the podcast uses: Take two groups of climate change deniers/skeptics. Give them the exact same article detailing the evidence for climate change. But then, change the conclusion and recommendation. Include key words to appeal to or turn off the group. So, in group one, give them a conclusion that says something like, "What is needed is more free enterprise and less government interference to develop clean nuclear energy, which has been proven safe and can allow America to continue to be the world leader..." etc. Give group two the same article with the same evidence but a different conclusion. Say something like, "What's needed are more carbon restrictions and more federal oversight of big business to ensure that the environment is protected..." etc. Group one will overwhelmingly accept the reality of climate change; group two will overwhelmingly reject the evidence in the article. Same evidence, but radically different levels of acceptance. If liberals and Democrats want to convince people and get people on their side, they need to learn marketing and how to appeal to emotions.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Why? The republicans have done just fine with their preferred method - distortions, half-truths and outright lies. Seems to have been very effective. The difference is that people who are inclined to buy into conservative rhetoric are easier to mislead. These are the people who are willing to disregard any facts that run counter to their "gut". It's my observation that 'liberals' tend to base their beliefs on actual evidence and facts.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The difference is that people who are inclined to buy into conservative rhetoric are easier to mislead.<< (1) HuffPo's health and food section indicates otherwise. (2) Haven't listened yet, but perhaps the podcaster is making the point (however indirectly) that two can play at the misleading game .....
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Thanks for the link, ecdc. I subscribed to the podcast via iTunes. Looks to be an interesting series.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>(2) Haven't listened yet, but perhaps the podcaster is making the point (however indirectly) that two can play at the misleading game .....<< Basically, though he doesn't call it that and he doesn't come across as having a political slant one way or another. For me, this comes down to understanding human behavior and adjusting to that, or just going around all pissed off and outraged all the time that everybody is so bloody stupid. I'll fess up, I'm much more like the latter. I love skinner and gadzuux's posts around here. But...they're preaching to the choir. Conservatives won't look at them, not with any degree of seriousness. This is human nature and human behavior. We can grumble about it and bask in just how smart we are (even though we're just as susceptible) or we can learn a thing or two about it. If we're truly interested in moving the country forward - or at least our little corner of it - we can try and communicate with people in a more effective way.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>(1) HuffPo's health and food section indicates otherwise.<< <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/" target="_blank">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/</a> FTW! These guys routinely take HuffPo's absurd health section to task. It does show that liberals aren't immune to silliness. Another example the author in the podcast uses what people think scientific consensus is. So, conservatives tend to think scientific consensus is that global warming is bogus, even though the exact opposite is true. Unless you're a scientist who works for Exxon, you believe that global warming is real. Conversely, however, is the impact of long-term nuclear waste storage. Liberals believe that the scientific consensus is that this is bad and poisonous for the environment, but most scientists say otherwise.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This is human nature and human behavior. We can grumble about it and bask in just how smart we are (even though we're just as susceptible) or we can learn a thing or two about it. If we're truly interested in moving the country forward - or at least our little corner of it - we can try and communicate with people in a more effective way.<< Exactly. This is why I am always trying to get folks to take a more polite course on the boards in discussing religion, because the more polarizing the comments are on the subject, the more disrespect that gets tossed back and forth, the harder it is to find some reasonable common ground in terms of separating church and state. That said, I hasten to add that I am 100% guilty of doing this on any number of other subjects. ecdc brings up an excellent topic on this, it really is the only way forward if we ever hope to move beyond the oozing tar pit of debate we're all stuck in in the country.
