• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How Facts Backfire

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
71
Not surprisingly, every single person on my ignore list has found their way into this thread, just as they found their way onto said list by being the worst offenders in their lack of ability to accept facts as facts and bring their opinions into alignment with reality.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm stubborn about my opinions. I'd like to think that this is because my opinions are based on a careful evaluation of available information and the utilization of logic to arrive at my conclusions. However, when I'm presented with (or, almost as often, discover for myself) a fact which contradicts what I thought was true, I will and often have changed my opinion to accommodate this new information.

I have to admit, I am amazed that you can read that article, describe accurately its effects, and not recognize that you are just as human as the people in the study.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Because his technicality changes the truth value of the statement in question?

His point seems to have flown over your head, that because the truth of the statement is complex and relies on many unstated qualifications, such as "manufactured after 1991," many people are correct to refuse to change their opinions after just one statement. He demonstrated how both of the statements could be right or wrong depending on prior assumptions. But I think you again prove the OP correct, you are ignoring what he brought up, and restating your previously held beliefs.
Think about the principle underlying what you're saying: That unless a statement is 100.00000000 . . . . % correct, it can be qualified, modified, disputed. Yet if that's the standard, meaningful discourse becomes impossible. Because almost NOTHING that can be expresssed as a reasonably finite statement is 100% true. For example:

The law states that you must stop at a red light.

That's not 100% true, because there are exceptions that apply to emergency vehicles, and even to private citizens dealing with emergencies. And the meaning of "law" is unclear. If it refers to, say, divorce law, then "the law" says nothing about stopping at red lights. Also, what "red light" is being referred to? Surely the law doesn't say you have to stop at a red Christmas light. And on and on and on.

If you want to have meaningful dialogues, then the intent of what someone else is expressing is 99% of the battle. If you insist on focusing on the 1%, you've made a decision that you don't want to engage in meaningful dialogues.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Kind of wondering it myself (Though, AFAIK I haven't really ever attacked Cyclo's stance)

My ignore list is pretty much reserved for 9/11 truthers.
Nope, neither of you. It's a pretty short list. And I was actually mistaken - the conservative posters on my list haven't posted in this thread yet. They may have gotten scared away by the appearance of "Facts" in the thread title. :p
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I have to admit, I am amazed that you can read that article, describe accurately its effects, and not recognize that you are just as human as the people in the study.
Finally someone caught on! I was trying to state explicitly what we all think about ourselves: that we think things through a lot more thoroughly than everyone else so that our positions are obviously the right ones. There are people here who would still hold tight to their positions even if the truth hit them like a Mack truck, while I think the rest of us at least consider what other people post and, even if we resist initially, will eventually be swayed in the face of facts.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I'm just trying to get over someone clinging to the "WMD in Iraq" argument.
Werepossum is correct, as I pointed out a long, long time ago in this thread. Without knowing the exact phrasing of the questions used in the study, I can't say whether it's legitimate or not, so I have to rely on the fact that it was peer-reviewed (not always a great indicator of reliability, but the best we can do for the purposes of this thread).
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,631
3,126
126
Finally someone caught on! I was trying to state explicitly what we all think about ourselves: that we think things through a lot more thoroughly than everyone else so that our positions are obviously the right ones. There are people here who would still hold tight to their positions even if the truth hit them like a Mack truck, while I think the rest of us at least consider what other people post and, even if we resist initially, will eventually be swayed in the face of facts.
The problem is quite a few times those who we disagree with have also thought things through and still come to a position that is totally opposed to our position!

You know we get back to this who -- whose facts are we going to believe?
Then we get the argument there can only be one set of true facts.
Yet we know that if that were truly the case there would eventually be no individual thought because we would all bew forced to believe thge same thing....


here let me make bold and point out where you are wrong in what you are saying....see the above quoted box -- I sorry there is a whole lot taken for granted in what you are saying...
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,293
0
76
This is a good article and the gist of which has been known to many people for some time. The reality is, most facts reinforce people's own mistaken beliefs, and usually people start with opinions and seek (and twist) facts to support them. Our political discourse in this country is so dysfunctional it's like things are now completely scripted with actors from central casting and the audience feeding off meaningless snippets.

Politicians don't give speeches anymore, they give talking point arguments. Politician A doesn't need to give a real speech, he can make a list and just say "Argument 3," then everyone could save a lot of time... and Politician B could come along and say, "I trump your Argument 3 with my Argument 12!" That's basically where we're at, and everyone loves it.

Very very few are saying anything of consequence. This is frightening. The right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer to the right question. We are missing the boat in a bad way. John Jay said, "The Constitution was created for an intelligent people." Knowledge is the model of governance for our system of government. Individuals govern themselves according to knowledge. Deductive and inductive logic, reason, FACTS. Not beliefs. Not certainty.

Today people are belief oriented (not knowledge oriented) and those people can never be free. And I mean free in every sense of the word.

Aristotle said 'Ignorance of the mind is tyranny of the state.' You must look at good ideas AND bad ideas... be open to honest inquiry, build knowledge with facts and based opinions on reality. It's a good topic OP but 95% of P&N will not get it because they have no real, in-depth training in history, civics, and philosophy. You see, everyone is an expert around here.
Roger that cw, some of the wisest words on P&N in a long time... don't worry about nobody replying, I got your back.









:whiste:

:cool:
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
remember when cyclowizard wanted to dig up Manhattan and put 5 sets of competing sewer pipes in so as companies can compete for shit? that one was GOOD.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
71
Think about the principle underlying what you're saying: That unless a statement is 100.00000000 . . . . % correct, it can be qualified, modified, disputed. Yet if that's the standard, meaningful discourse becomes impossible. Because almost NOTHING that can be expresssed as a reasonably finite statement is 100% true. For example:

The law states that you must stop at a red light.

That's not 100% true, because there are exceptions that apply to emergency vehicles, and even to private citizens dealing with emergencies. And the meaning of "law" is unclear. If it refers to, say, divorce law, then "the law" says nothing about stopping at red lights. Also, what "red light" is being referred to? Surely the law doesn't say you have to stop at a red Christmas light. And on and on and on.

If you want to have meaningful dialogues, then the intent of what someone else is expressing is 99% of the battle. If you insist on focusing on the 1%, you've made a decision that you don't want to engage in meaningful dialogues.
Your ignoring the point he is trying to make, namely that the issues are not a cut and dry binary situation. Up until this thread I have always wondered what happened to the chemical weapons Saddam used on the Kurds, and the statement we found "no WMDs" bothered me because I knew Saddam had some WMDs at one point in time, because I have seen the pictures of the people they killed. I never knew that they meant "we found no WMDs made after 1991." That critical distinction makes much more sense to me, but when you leave it unstated, it really changes the context of the statement.

And moving on to the second statement, Tax revenue did not go up after the tax cuts, he makes his point much clearer and demonstrates very well how both statements can be "true" based on different base assumptions that went unstated.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
remember when cyclowizard wanted to dig up Manhattan and put 5 sets of competing sewer pipes in so as companies can compete for shit? that one was GOOD.
This article was written primarily about braindead knuckledraggers like you - people whose head almost explodes when presented with an opposing thought or fact. Thanks for proving my point. :D:thumbsup:
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
Werepossum is correct, as I pointed out a long, long time ago in this thread. Without knowing the exact phrasing of the questions used in the study, I can't say whether it's legitimate or not, so I have to rely on the fact that it was peer-reviewed (not always a great indicator of reliability, but the best we can do for the purposes of this thread).
Yes. They found shells with remnants of mustard gas (IIRC). Said chemical agent was deemed less dangerous than anything found under the average american's sink. If either of you consider that "WMD" then don't know what to tell you except you should have invaded every subdivision of US suburbs.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Yes. They found shells with remnants of mustard gas (IIRC). Said chemical agent was deemed less dangerous than anything found under the average american's sink. If either of you consider that "WMD" then don't know what to tell you except you should have invaded every subdivision of US suburbs.
I linked you directly to the UN report and, rather than even consulting the facts, you rely on your "IIRC." You then cling tightly to your position, make some ignorant offhand remarks to poison the well for anyone who might disagree with you, and you're off. Again, thanks for proving my point.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
The IIRC was in respect to the agent found. And nothing in that linked thread was any proof that anything was found. Just you getting your ass handed to you. I don't have the time to read an entire UN report. If anything of any interest had actually been found, W and his cronies would have been showing it off to Geraldo on a prime time special. Did that happen? No.

And you're proving your own point. This thread is a self fulfilling prophecy. And highly ironic.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The IIRC was in respect to the agent found. And nothing in that linked thread was any proof that anything was found. Just you getting your ass handed to you. I don't have the time to read an entire UN report. If anything of any interest had actually been found, W and his cronies would have been showing it off to Geraldo on a prime time special. Did that happen? No.

And you're proving your own point. This thread is a self fulfilling prophecy. And highly ironic.
You don't have time for the facts? Gotcha.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
You don't have time for the facts? Gotcha.
Ahem ...

The IIRC was in respect to the agent found. And nothing in that linked thread was any proof that anything was found. Just you getting your ass handed to you. I don't have the time to read an entire UN report. If anything of any interest had actually been found, W and his cronies would have been showing it off to Geraldo on a prime time special. Did that happen? No.

And you're proving your own point. This thread is a self fulfilling prophecy. And highly ironic.
Link me otherwise. Since its so readily available it shouldn't be that difficult. Don't worry, I'll wait.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
71
Ahem ...



Link me otherwise. Since its so readily available it shouldn't be that difficult. Don't worry, I'll wait.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#7

Relevant text
There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs.


They did find WMDs, just not ones made after 1991. Which answers some questions I had always had. So, here are two true statements from the facts I believe to be true.

We did find WMDs in Iraq. We did not find any evidence that Saddam had been constructing WMDs after 1991.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
This article was written primarily about braindead knuckledraggers like you - people whose head almost explodes when presented with an opposing thought or fact. Thanks for proving my point. :D:thumbsup:
awww cw you didnt ignore me ():) kiss kiss
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#7

Relevant text [/B]

They did find WMDs, just not ones made after 1991. Which answers some questions I had always had. So, here are two true statements from the facts I believe to be true.

We did find WMDs in Iraq. We did not find any evidence that Saddam had been constructing WMDs after 1991.
Link doesn't work for me ...

That was addressed in ISGs testimony before congress. They were deemed ineffective. So, not really WMDs.

Read my damn link you lazy bastard.
You mean the one that didn't prove anything??? Links for you :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/03/03/rove-admits-no-wmd-found-in-iraq/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2003_Iraq_War

Full disclosure, one link did say "WE FOUND THEM OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!11!" but it was world news daily ...
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
You mean the one that didn't prove anything??? Links for you :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/03/03/rove-admits-no-wmd-found-in-iraq/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2003_Iraq_War

Full disclosure, one link did say "WE FOUND THEM OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!11!" but it was world news daily ...
In other words, you can't figure out how to click the link I posted because you're legally retarded or you can't read. To avoid the former excuse (because it seems more likely), I'll quote the parts which were already bolded for you in the linked page:
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq?s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq?s Foreign Minister stated that ?all imported quantities of growth media were declared?. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results.

Executive Summary:

Iraq complied with Resolution 1441 to a limited extent, even in the face of military action. There are still thousands of missiles and thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for by Iraq. Note that they needed only to provide evidence of the whereabouts of these munitions, even if they had not been destroyed, but they did not. Further, intelligence from several countries indicated that mobile labs and underground facilities were used to create chemical and biological weapons. The inspectors were never given access to underground facilities, despite compulsion under threat of force to do so.
So, you can either take the facts from UNMOVIC and reformulate your opinion accordingly, or you can continue maintaining a position which is in direct contradiction to well-known fact.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
Lulz.

Saw it the first time. Try and reconcile that with my links and see what conclusion you get ... hint, start with "Why would Rove say that if anything had been found?"
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,414
4,211
136
Originally Posted by cwjerome
This is a good article and the gist of which has been known to many people for some time. The reality is, most facts reinforce people's own mistaken beliefs, and usually people start with opinions and seek (and twist) facts to support them. Our political discourse in this country is so dysfunctional it's like things are now completely scripted with actors from central casting and the audience feeding off meaningless snippets.

Politicians don't give speeches anymore, they give talking point arguments. Politician A doesn't need to give a real speech, he can make a list and just say "Argument 3," then everyone could save a lot of time... and Politician B could come along and say, "I trump your Argument 3 with my Argument 12!" That's basically where we're at, and everyone loves it.

Very very few are saying anything of consequence. This is frightening. The right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer to the right question. We are missing the boat in a bad way. John Jay said, "The Constitution was created for an intelligent people." Knowledge is the model of governance for our system of government. Individuals govern themselves according to knowledge. Deductive and inductive logic, reason, FACTS. Not beliefs. Not certainty.

Today people are belief oriented (not knowledge oriented) and those people can never be free. And I mean free in every sense of the word.

Aristotle said 'Ignorance of the mind is tyranny of the state.' You must look at good ideas AND bad ideas... be open to honest inquiry, build knowledge with facts and based opinions on reality. It's a good topic OP but 95% of P&N will not get it because they have no real, in-depth training in history, civics, and philosophy. You see, everyone is an expert around here.
Roger that cw, some of the wisest words on P&N in a long time... don't worry about nobody replying, I got your back.









:whiste:

:cool:
And with THIS the other posters were forced to conclude that the bright but sorely lacking in basic self-insight CW did indeed have an undeniably virulent case of AWHDD, attention whore happiness deficit disorder. :awe:
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
The article isn't really all that surprising to individuals familiar with psychology or systems theory. It's fairly simple, people in our culture fear change and the unknown, and will fight very hard to maintain homeostasis in the current system. Even people who believe they think logically and rationally will behave in "irrational" ways in many situations. Our society devalues expressing many emotions, treating them as if they are a secondary human element. Emotions are a core part of who we are as a person and they serve a vital role in survival. If we were more aware of them and how they impact our thinking, we might be more aware of our own biases.

The second part of it is this: it is absolutely un-American to admit to being wrong. Think of how shocked you are anytime someone actually does, and how you tend to view that person afterward.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY