How to Humble a Wing Nut

[Moonbeam]

It's funny how this thread has attracted responces from the same type of people it was refering to.

Well the good news is that there may be a cure. You can start by defining those same type of people and everything you know about them.

 

[shortylickens]

op is class A troll.

 

[Moonbeam]

op is class A troll.

At least you didn't have to justify your opinion. Just the fact that you have it is proof enough for you. I thought his post was one of the most important I have seen and that he could have been inspired to post it only because he has a developed capacity to reflect on things. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your post was utter garbage, a meaningless and empty personal opinion that contributed nada to the thread. You probably just wanted to demonstrate you blind you are to ignore the evidence that fits you to a tee as an irrational wing nut, no?

 

[Jhhnn]

Good info and the study falls in line with what a lot of folks I speak to believe about promoting greater understanding (inherently moderate) to achieve better results in political discussions. To actually achieve this in large scale across the country would require a paradigm shift in media reporting and politicians behavior and conduct towards one another. The catch is that paradigm shift needs to start with the masses, not the few currently in media and politics.

Tbh, without term limits and with money's main motivator to politics, a lot of leverage for change is removed from the masses and granted to special interests. A controlled message is a hard one to break.

How does such a paradigm shift occur among people who've never had an original idea in their lives, (who nonetheless believe that they do), who fervently believe in things they don't understand in the slightest? How can that possibly be achieved w/o leadership respectful of their interests rather than leadership seductively pandering to their base instincts?

 

[BlueWolf47]

I would say we need to elect more scientists. That would help keep some of the discourse more rational.

 

[DrPizza]

It's funny how this thread has attracted responces from the same type of people it was refering to.

Could you explain exactly why you think as that this thread has attracted them?

 

[Moonbeam]

How does such a paradigm shift occur among people who've never had an original idea in their lives, (who nonetheless believe that they do), who fervently believe in things they don't understand in the slightest? How can that possibly be achieved w/o leadership respectful of their interests rather than leadership seductively pandering to their base instincts?

The science seems to suggest that humility might work, that in the light of self reflection on our profoundly ignorant state, we catch a more moderate position. Of course you can't just tell a fool he knows nothing because he will become highly offended. The truth hurts as it were, so the fool has to see he's the fool himself. It's like the first time I ever saw a therapist he told me I was defensive, but I immediately told him I wasn't. How could I be, being defensive is a bad thing. I wasn't about to let some air head criticize me.

One nice thing about the discussion forum is that you're supposed to defend your position which leaves a lot of folk in this forum totally lost. So many here have never wondered for a second why they think like they do or how to logically support what they believe. There is nothing there but brainwashing.

 

[Attic]

How does such a paradigm shift occur among people who've never had an original idea in their lives, (who nonetheless believe that they do), who fervently believe in things they don't understand in the slightest? How can that possibly be achieved w/o leadership respectful of their interests rather than leadership seductively pandering to their base instincts?

Moonbeam got a lot of it in his response, but I grant you the solution is a bit wrapped in catch 22 given leaderships ability and success in pandering. I consider the pandering at best good natured at worst intentional deception, deception in both cases though.

On a very basic level I think the change in discourse that would lead to change in leadership and break the cycle is bred from first respecting a different viewpoint and then discussing openly and honestly information that challenges and supports the differing viewpoints. We typically do all of this but leave out the honesty part, which kinda puts us back to square one over and over again.

There's a number of reasons finding the truth (being honest in awareness) becomes difficult. It's complicated and finding the truth becomes difficult (or a burden) due to the power that deception grants its user.

 

[1prophet]

The problem comes when people intertwine the beliefs they hold with their egos,

which in turn makes it very difficult for them even when the beliefs they hold are shown to be false or misguided at best,

they take the questioning of their beliefs as a personal attack on themselves and unless they have the necessary humility to overcome their egos they lash back no matter how irrational it is in order to protect their egos.

Rich, poor, dumb, smart, liberal, conservative, etc., all are subject to their ego, but it seems the rich and more intelligent/higher social status have the greatest struggle to overcome since they usually have the biggest egos.

In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse.

For thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this region was made manifest.

At the beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings.

At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith.

For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers.

After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down.

 

[Matt1970]

Could you explain exactly why you think as that this thread has attracted them?

No, but thanks for asking.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The problem comes when people intertwine the beliefs they hold with their egos,

which in turn makes it very difficult for them even when the beliefs they hold are shown to be false or misguided at best,

they take the questioning of their beliefs as a personal attack on themselves and unless they have the necessary humility to overcome their egos they lash back no matter how irrational it is in order to protect their egos.

Rich, poor, dumb, smart, liberal, conservative, etc., all are subject to their ego, but it seems the rich and more intelligent/higher social status have the greatest struggle to overcome since they usually have the biggest egos.

I skipped right over that.


And read Matt's reply first
Then went back and read your post
:thumbsup:

 

[Atreus21]

Most of us do now. If any of you are actually interested in any of Moonbeam's posts, you can just kim over it and summerize as they are all the same.

You secretly hate yourself.
You have a brain defect.
You are slime of the earth.
I love you for it.

All of Moonbeam's posts are like Nickleback songs.

Dude, THAT was funny.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

op is class A troll.

No intent to troll...I just thought it was an interesting study. BTW...did you read the part about motivated reasoning?

Motivated reasoning helps to account for two defining characteristics of wing nuts and their fellow travelers: a readiness to attack people’s good faith, rather than their actual arguments, and an eagerness to make the worst, rather than the best, of opposing positions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The problem comes when people intertwine the beliefs they hold with their egos,

which in turn makes it very difficult for them even when the beliefs they hold are shown to be false or misguided at best,

they take the questioning of their beliefs as a personal attack on themselves and unless they have the necessary humility to overcome their egos they lash back no matter how irrational it is in order to protect their egos.

Rich, poor, dumb, smart, liberal, conservative, etc., all are subject to their ego, but it seems the rich and more intelligent/higher social status have the greatest struggle to overcome since they usually have the biggest egos.

I think you're spot on here. :thumbsup:

 

[JTsyo]

I would say we need to elect more scientists. That would help keep some of the discourse more rational.

How many scientist want to be politicians? Most of the technical people I know hate politics. Even at work there are those that distance themselves from office politics and just focus on the work.

 

[BlueWolf47]

How many scientist want to be politicians? Most of the technical people I know hate politics. Even at work there are those that distance themselves from office politics and just focus on the work.

Completely agree. Electing scientists was mostly wishful thinking on my part.

 

[HumblePie]

Wow this turned into a call out thread rather quickly. Still, interesting OP, but a bit of what I would call "common sense duh" from my experience. If you ask people to actually explain in great detail why they believe something they are very adamant about you'll get one of three possibilities.

1) Someone that has a strong view because they have a bunch of supporting evidence. You'll get a well reasoned response, which may or may not have a few "problems." On the whole this is someone you can have a rational discussion with on the issue of debate.

2) Someone that has not argument or merits for their view. When asked for a detailed explanation and break down, they do an internalization of what they know. They end uo realizing they have no good argument for what they believe and may readily seek actual information to either bolster or dissuade them from their previous belief.

3) You get a troll. Someone that doesn't care if they have a rational view or not. They have no problem with lying, making shit up, or just deflecting. There is zero chance of seeking a rational discussion with this person.




On some issues of "wing nuttery" it's easier to find people from category 1 and 2. In other issues of "wing nuttery" you'll find a plethora of trolls. Again what I call a common sense DUH.

 

[woolfe9998]

Agree...however, I thought the study did offer some interesting insight into the human condition.

Right, I wasn't criticizing your posting of the study. I suspect it's conclusion is accurate. I just find it frustrating that often it seems that little can be done in the real world to act upon information like this.

 

[sm625]

Second paragraph states that you might be a wingnut if you think big banks run the Department of the Treasury. HAHAHA. No you might be a rational person, the same sort of rational person who would rightfully call this corporate rag what it is. Bloomberg can suck off socialist obama while giving fascist GWB a reacharound.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Second paragraph states that you might be a wingnut if you think big banks run the Department of the Treasury. HAHAHA. No you might be a rational person, the same sort of rational person who would rightfully call this corporate rag what it is. Bloomberg can suck off socialist obama while giving fascist GWB a reacharound.

Ya, im not sure if thats a very good example of a wingnut. Many of the top officials in treasuries around the world are ex goldmansaches employes. Also you cannot ignore the effective lobbying the banks employ. They also seem to be invulnerable to criminal prosecutions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Right, I wasn't criticizing your posting of the study. I suspect it's conclusion is accurate. I just find it frustrating that often it seems that little can be done in the real world to act upon information like this.

I am willing to bet I will know exactly what to do if I can first cure myself.