"the backfire effect"--us conservatism and the problem of dissonant information - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 07-23-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I would never have the intent of harming innocent people. My goal would be to do the most good.

I understand you wouldn't intentionally do so, but you're discounting other variables in your process. Like I said, if Saddam presented a minuscule risk, something greater than zero, but not by much, you seem to think we're justified in defending ourselves. The problem is that by defending ourselves from a possible minuscule threat, we've ended up killing a lot of Iraqi civilians in reality. Just as you propose there could be consequences for not acting, there are consequences for acting. Do you see what I mean?

aceventura3 · 07-23-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

strangely enough, much of the thread turned into a demonstration of this.
the reason i find it strange is that the thread is about this backfire phenomenon, so you'd think would be the last place we'd get to read a performance of exactly what the study is about particularly one that is framed as a refutation of the study's conclusions.

I am not sure who you think has been refuting the study's conclusions, but I (starting with my post #14) attempted to put the finding of the study in the context of my thought process. As illustrated in my post #67, no matter how clearly I present my thoughts relative to my emotional response to "facts", it fall on deaf ears. The key is in addressing the proper question. Until you do that, everything else is simply an exercise in futility. so, on the question of Saddam and Iraq, my guttural, feeling is he was a threat. Will is presenting his "factual" arguments saying he was not a threat. I tell him he is not responding to the correct question, and even if it is not rational to him, he tries to ignore the reality of what drives my decisions and my responses. On the other hand, I accept his point of view even though I think it is as irrational as he thinks my point of view is. I conclude I have a more empathetic and open point of view than he does, although liberals live with the pretense of the opposite.

---------- Post added at 01:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I understand you wouldn't intentionally do so, but you're discounting other variables in your process.

I don't ignore them or unduly discount them, neither did Bush. Many things were attempted prior to military action. The risks of not acting were too high, the consequences of doing nothing were not reversible, not fixable.

biznatch · 07-23-2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Will is presenting his "factual" arguments saying he was not a threat. I tell him he is not responding to the correct question, and even if it is not rational to him, he tries to ignore the reality of what drives my decisions and my responses. On the other hand, I accept his point of view even though I think it is as irrational as he thinks my point of view is. I conclude I have a more empathetic and open point of view than he does, although liberals live with the pretense of the opposite

Let's say Obama felt some country was a threat, and attacked it, in the process losing thousands of civilian and military lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars.
If evidence came out later that the country never was a threat in the first place, or a minor one, wouldn't you be pissed?

aceventura3 · 07-24-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biznatch

Let's say Obama felt some country was a threat, and attacked it, in the process losing thousands of civilian and military lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars.
If evidence came out later that the country never was a threat in the first place, or a minor one, wouldn't you be pissed?

Yes.

---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

ace: That comment wasn't directed at you. I will say, I now understand why having a conversation with you is like trying to grab steam. Why you can shift positions and side-step the corners you get backed into, and then deny any shift. I now completely understand why it's been so frustrating to interact with you.

I thought about this, and I have come to a different conclusion and I think my conclusion is insightful regarding this whole discussion.

I think some see these exchanges in terms of winners and losers. Some see these exchanges as opportunities to better understand opposing views. People who try to "win" an exchange with me seem to be the one's who get the most frustrated.

In many instances I will clearly state the most important core element forming my view. I do engage in the elements of an issue that are not at the core, this may be the basis of what you call grabbing at steam because eventually I will go back to the core element. The core elements are often indestructible. However, it is interesting that the people who can actually have an impact on changing my views are people who have actually invested time and effort into understanding how I think.

So, Roach's OP on this subject is interesting in the fact that someone is actually trying to understand "conservative" thought processes, but in doing so those who read the conclusions interpret the results the wrong way and actually lessen their ability to influence "conservative" thought. For example, using a few recent topics:

*I say that I felt Iraq under Saddam was a threat. I am told my "feelings" on this matter are not important - but I act on those feelings by working on Bush's campaign, voting for him and supporting our military action in Iraq. If, peace loving liberals wanted to influence me, the approach would not be to hit me with a bunch of facts that may or may not be proven true, but to focus on why I feel Iraq under Saddam was a threat.

*I say that as a small business owner in California that I felt like the enemy. I am told my "feelings" are wrong - but I act on those feelings by moving out of the state. If liberals in California wanted to influence me, the approach would not to be to hit me with a bunch of facts that may or may not apply to my experience, but to focus on why I felt like the enemy as a business owner.

*I say that as a conservative the more I feel that the liberal media unfairly attacks Palin, the more she will have my support. I am told there is something wrong with me for supporting her. If liberals really wanted her to go away they should stop the attacks understanding how and why people respond in certain ways regarding the attacks.

Some simply get a good laugh at how irrational they think I am or "conservatives" in general. After the laughter they are often amazed that we have engaged in a war, that we don't have national health care, that we have done nothing regarding "global warming", that investment banks report record profits within months of receiving billions in bailout money, etc, etc, etc.

I again ask, who is in denial?

dc_dux · 07-24-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...

*I say that I felt Iraq under Saddam was a threat....

*I say that as a small business owner in California that I felt like the enemy....

*I say that as a conservative the more I feel that the liberal media unfairly attacks Palin,...

Some simply get a good laugh at how irrational they think I am .....

I again ask, who is in denial?

ace....I do understand that there are those who firmly believe that emotions should rule over objective judgments...and clouding the facts be damned.

Unfortunately, the result is often as ratbastid described it....attempts at discussions with such persons are "like trying to grab steam"... attempting to converse when the emotional "feeling" party will consistently "shift positions and side-step the corners" to avoid the facts...and then "deny any shift."

Perhaps that is why it is so humorous to some.

added:
Not a personal attack...simply an observation of discussion styles.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....I do understand that there are those who firmly believe that emotions should rule over objective judgments...and clouding the facts be damned.

This is another example of my point. This comment implies that what has formed my core belief has no basis in facts and that I have no respect for facts. In my mind this comment sets the tone of what follows. I simply become more entrenched in my view. I perceive this as an attack on my view. And as roach's study suggests in my view when a conservative's core view is attacked that view becomes more entrenched. Given, the learning opportunity and given the number of times I have pointed this out to people here on TFP, I can only assume there really is no interest in increased understanding, perhaps only an attempt to score points and make others look irrational.

Quote:

Unfortunately, the result is often as ratbastid described it....attempts at discussions with such persons are "like trying to grab steam"... attempting to converse when the emotional "feeling" party will consistently "shift positions and side-step the corners" to avoid the facts...and then "deny any shift."

Perhaps that is why it is so humorous to some.

added:
Not a personal attack...simply an observation of discussion styles.

I rarely shift positions. Perhaps you folks should come up with a better way to describe what you mean.

{added}

Also regarding "facts" - The Prof. Gates arrest proves interesting. There was only one set of facts, but given those facts - two people responded in very different ways - both with foundational legitimacy and both can be interpreted as being irrational.

ratbastid · 07-24-2009, 08:58 AM

Also, what makes you think your emotions aren't even more open to manipulation? Really, LITERALLY, all I have to do is float an American Flag graphic behind something to make a significant portion of the country agree with it. Appeals to fear, terror, nationalism, etc... These are all emotional manipulations.

To say "I feel something, and therefore to hell with facts" seems to me an inherently blind way to live.

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I rarely shift positions. Perhaps you folks should come up with a better way to describe what you mean.

Go re-read the sex education portion of the Sara Palin Quits thread. In that thread, you were staunchly for Palin's sex education policy, and also described how you thought sex ed should be conducted, and yet you were for Palin's policy with is the polar opposite of what you thought it should be, except that you support real sex ed, and also support Palin's policy, except where it might turn out to be in conflict with your views, which you don't know about, and even when pointed out to you, you see no conflict.

How is a reasonable, fact-based person supposed to interact with such bobbing and weaving?

aceventura3 · 07-24-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Also, what makes you think your emotions aren't even more open to manipulation?

They are open to manipulation. That is the first stage of controlling the issue, acknowledgment. I acknowledge this "fact" do you?

Recognizing that I can be manipulated and recognizing that I have been manipulated in the past I looked at what happened, how and why.

What I have learned is the following:

Stay away from women who can cry at will.
Don't negotiate anything in the presence of the aroma of cinnamon.
Make important decisions in the morning after a good night sleep.
If I get angry, walk away or at least try.
If what I hear sounds to good to be true it is.
Trust must be earned.

Quote:

Really, LITERALLY, all I have to do is float an American Flag graphic behind something to make a significant portion of the country agree with it. Appeals to fear, terror, nationalism, etc... These are all emotional manipulations.

Or, as a lady selling crafts said to me once. She said she could sell anything, all she needed to do was glue big eyes on it. I did not buy one of the rocks she was selling with big eyes glued on it, but I did watch as others did.

Quote:

To say "I feel something, and therefore to hell with facts" seems to me an inherently blind way to live.

I agree.

But, I am assuming you are suggesting that is the way I live. To the contrary and all I said was that I never ignore "feelings" or emotion. It plays a major role in what happens in the world. However, some have taken the position that "feelings" or emotions are not important and want me to believe that all they do is act on the "facts" without any emotional content.

Like I said at one point, the color blue elicits an emotional response in me, I know it does, I don't understand why, but I don't pretend that it is not real.

Quote:

Go re-read the sex education portion of the Sara Palin Quits thread. In that thread, you were staunchly for Palin's sex education policy, and also described how you thought sex ed should be conducted, and yet you were for Palin's policy with is the polar opposite of what you thought it should be, except that you support real sex ed, and also support Palin's policy, except where it might turn out to be in conflict with your views, which you don't know about, and even when pointed out to you, you see no conflict.

How is a reasonable, fact-based person supposed to interact with such bobbing and weaving?

I thought I was clear on that issue. I support abstinence only for children, so does she. I do not support "explicit" sex education, based on what I assume it means, she does not either. I support science based sex education and so does she. We differ on some of the subtle points as it relates to sex and marriage. But, I don't think teens should get married. And I don't think they should be engaging in sex. The question of sex and marriage is for adults and is a personal issue. Palin would support teaching children that marriage should come before sex. I simply believe trust comes before sex. I would leave the question of marriage for a home or church discussion, not a school discussion.

{added} Speaking of emotional manipulation I came across this little cartoon. Simply say it pays to understand "emotion":

Video - Clip: Warren Buffett's "Secret Millionaire's Club" - WSJ.com

Willravel · 07-24-2009, 02:09 PM

Let's break down the ability to assess risks. There are two factors:
Risk: the chances of something going wrong
Hazard: the consequence of something going wrong
If you are barbecuing, you have a relatively high risk of being burned by a small ember on your skin, but a relatively low hazard as the injury is temporary and doesn't reach a high level on the pain scale. On the other hand, if you go swimming in the ocean there is a very low risk of being attacked by a shark, but the hazard is quite high.

For each of these, I can gather and process information to determine likelihood:

I know that on average there are only 69 shark attacks per year resulting in an average of 4 deaths. Compare this to the annual number of people that are in oceans that might have sharks in them, and I can attain a rough estimate of the statistical odds of being attacked. They're quite low. Is this number subjective? Not at all. It is based completely in reality, the reality we both share. If 4 people died last year in shark attacks in my reality, 4 people died last year in shark attacks in your reality. While small factors can altar the statistics, such as diving in shark invested waters with an open cut and several raw steaks, for the sake of argument let's just say I'm your average Pacific swimmer.

The hazard, on the other hand, is severe. Even minor shark attacks can bring with them severe lacerations, damaging an individual severely.

It should be noted that hazard cannot determine risk and risk cannot determine hazard. They are independent. Risk can be high along with hazard being high, Risk can be high with hazard being low, risk can be low with hazard being high, risk and hazard can both be low, and everything in between.

In order to determine the best response, you must asses the risk using both hazard and risk. If risk is quite high and hazard is quite low or nonexistent, you would be more likely to continue on. If risk is quite low or nonexistent and hazard is quite high, you would be more likely to continue on.

My point:
The hazard of nuclear war is extremely high, but you need an objective methodology in order to determine risk. Without that objective determination of risk, one cannot make a determination.

The best methodology of determining the risk of Iraq seeking, finding, attaining, enriching, creating a delivery system for, and firing a nuclear weapon at the US can be determined using available evidence. Were they seeking nuclear materials? So far there is at best circumstantial evidence; US officials say he was looking for them, but they didn't provide evidence and they've been caught being dishonest before. Did Iraq find and attain nuclear material? Again, there's really no direct evidence for this at all. While it's been suggested that Iraq may have moved some weapons into Syria before the invasion, this was never verified. Did they enrich uranium? There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had the ability to enrich uranium. Not even the administration claimed this was happening. Did they have a delivery system that could reach the US? There is no evidence that Iraq could even reach Jerusalem, let alone develop advanced intercontinental delivery systems. Obviously such a nuclear missile was never fired.

These are the facts. They include nothing subjective and nothing based in emotion.

aceventura3 · 07-25-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Let's break down the ability to assess risks. There are two factors:
Risk: the chances of something going wrong
Hazard: the consequence of something going wrong
If you are barbecuing, you have a relatively high risk of being burned by a small ember on your skin, but a relatively low hazard as the injury is temporary and doesn't reach a high level on the pain scale. On the other hand, if you go swimming in the ocean there is a very low risk of being attacked by a shark, but the hazard is quite high.

For each of these, I can gather and process information to determine likelihood:

I know that on average there are only 69 shark attacks per year resulting in an average of 4 deaths. Compare this to the annual number of people that are in oceans that might have sharks in them, and I can attain a rough estimate of the statistical odds of being attacked. They're quite low. Is this number subjective? Not at all. It is based completely in reality, the reality we both share. If 4 people died last year in shark attacks in my reality, 4 people died last year in shark attacks in your reality. While small factors can altar the statistics, such as diving in shark invested waters with an open cut and several raw steaks, for the sake of argument let's just say I'm your average Pacific swimmer.

The hazard, on the other hand, is severe. Even minor shark attacks can bring with them severe lacerations, damaging an individual severely.

It should be noted that hazard cannot determine risk and risk cannot determine hazard. They are independent. Risk can be high along with hazard being high, Risk can be high with hazard being low, risk can be low with hazard being high, risk and hazard can both be low, and everything in between.

In order to determine the best response, you must asses the risk using both hazard and risk. If risk is quite high and hazard is quite low or nonexistent, you would be more likely to continue on. If risk is quite low or nonexistent and hazard is quite high, you would be more likely to continue on.

My point:
The hazard of nuclear war is extremely high, but you need an objective methodology in order to determine risk. Without that objective determination of risk, one cannot make a determination.

The best methodology of determining the risk of Iraq seeking, finding, attaining, enriching, creating a delivery system for, and firing a nuclear weapon at the US can be determined using available evidence. Were they seeking nuclear materials? So far there is at best circumstantial evidence; US officials say he was looking for them, but they didn't provide evidence and they've been caught being dishonest before. Did Iraq find and attain nuclear material? Again, there's really no direct evidence for this at all. While it's been suggested that Iraq may have moved some weapons into Syria before the invasion, this was never verified. Did they enrich uranium? There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had the ability to enrich uranium. Not even the administration claimed this was happening. Did they have a delivery system that could reach the US? There is no evidence that Iraq could even reach Jerusalem, let alone develop advanced intercontinental delivery systems. Obviously such a nuclear missile was never fired.

These are the facts. They include nothing subjective and nothing based in emotion.

Your analysis fails to address the human response to the "facts" as you presented them. An individual response to assessed risk and hazard are subjective. Clearly, given the same information, lacking absolute certainty, your individual response is and will be predictably different than mine. You have to answer this question for your analysis to be complete - my answer is "emotion". My answer is that emotion plays a more important part than the math. In fact most people don't do a systematic mathematical approach to risk and hazard assessment further lessening the importance, most people go on "gut" or intuitive assessments of risk and hazard.

Given what you presented above, I am surprised at your response to my point about the odds of an occurrence relative to the value, which is basically what you have presented above in a more professorial manner. But, what you present above failed to make the connection with real human decision making. I must say that I am impressed.

Willravel · 07-25-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Your analysis fails to address the human response to the "facts" as you presented them.

Human response is neither a factor in risk nor hazard. They are each attained through objective fact. Once you have them, you have enough information to determine the appropriate response. If emotion makes you act in any way contrary to the evidence, you've made a mistake.

aceventura3 · 07-27-2009, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Human response is neither a factor in risk nor hazard. They are each attained through objective fact. Once you have them, you have enough information to determine the appropriate response. If emotion makes you act in any way contrary to the evidence, you've made a mistake.

Interesting.

When considering risk and hazard, using the laws of large numbers, two informed individuals would logically be expected to arrive at the same conclusion on how to respond to risk and hazard. If that is a given, then a single super computer could be used to solve all of our risk and hazard questions. Human input would not be required because there is a theoretical "correct" answer. However, there are far to many variables, even for a super computer to take into consideration. Subjective assumptions have to be included into the equations. These subjective assumptions have an emotional basis.

For example, in life insurance. At birth the risks and hazards can be calculated for expected mortality. Further more demographic analysis, psychological testing, intelligence testing and some other factors can project things like expected income. Macro economic analysis can project things like CPI, taxes, personal consumption patterns, etc. We could plug all that information into a computer and when a person finishes school we should be able to come up with the "correct" amount of life insurance that person needs and we should be able to come up with the "correct" premium to be paid to provide the "correct" amount of coverage. But, what actually happens? And when we look at all that "factual" data and apply it to the decisions being made by an individual, how does it become meaningful to that particular individual? Oh, and keep in mind this is just on simple decision to be made on a person looking at risk and hazards to buy a life insurance policy.

Willravel · 07-27-2009, 09:44 AM

Subjective assumptions do not necessarily have an emotional basis. They may carry with them bias, but to assume that bias is always emotional is incorrect.

aceventura3 · 07-27-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Subjective assumptions do not necessarily have an emotional basis. They may carry with them bias, but to assume that bias is always emotional is incorrect.

What is a bias as you see it? I see having a bias as something subjective that distorts a persons view of objective information.

For example, continuing with the life insurance example: If you decide to purchase half as much life insurance as I do (assuming we fit in the same categories that should objectively lead us to the same amount), who am I to say your choice is wrong? who are you to say my choice is wrong? Assuming we both looked at the same information, I think it is reasonable that we may come to different conclusions. We are different, we have different biases, we have different emotional responses to risks and hazards.

Making the link to our favorite topic - the Iraq threat or non-threat. If your choice is to take no action to insure against the risks and hazards presented by Iraq under Saddam, who am I to say you are wrong? If my choice is to take action to insure against the risks and hazards presented by Iraq under Saddam who are you to say I am wrong? Theoretically, you get one vote and I get one vote. If I get the majority of people to see it the way I do, something gets done. I get people to see it my way, certainly by including facts, but I have to make an emotional connection to those facts. It seems Bush understood that, he even got liberals to emotionally connect to his arguments. And, he has people like me who will argue the point ad nauseam. Roach's study seems to try to understand why - and I am giving you my understanding of why.

Willravel · 07-27-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What is a bias as you see it? I see having a bias as something subjective that distorts a persons view of objective information.

Bias is simply being prone to a particular perspective or ideology. It something we all have, but the less we have of it, the more objective we can be. It interferes with the ability to be impartial and objective. In order to overcome personal bias, we (humans) have developed various verifiable methodologies to determine objective facts about the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

For example, continuing with the life insurance example: If you decide to purchase half as much life insurance as I do (assuming we fit in the same categories that should objectively lead us to the same amount), who am I to say your choice is wrong? who are you to say my choice is wrong? Assuming we both looked at the same information, I think it is reasonable that we may come to different conclusions. We are different, we have different biases, we have different emotional responses to risks and hazards.

I don't the the life insurance example fits well, but for the sake of argument I'll use it. Assuming you've been tested using various verifiable methods, methods that have been demonstrated to provide a certain reliability, that there is an outcome based on these methods, it is logical to trust these methods taking into account their reliability of success. If a certain test has an 87% likelihood of being correct, you can trust that outcome 87%. If it has a 99.9999% likelihood of being correct, you can trust that outcome 99.9999%. Should something happen that is unlikely, it would automatically be a part of whatever percent is incorrect, something you can take into account as an unlikely but possible outcome. If your life insurance says you're about 96% likely to live to be 83 and likely won't have a heart attack, and you have a heart attack, your insurance isn't wrong, you're simply in that 4%. Still, if the methodology that determined that 96% likelihood was based in sound methodology, nothing outside of that methodology or to disprove that methodology has occurred. It's all a simple matter of likelihood.

If, in your hypothetical situation, we were presented with the exact same figures of likelihood and one of us chose to agree with them and one did not, it's likely a bias came into play. Here's where it gets funny: it's entirely possible that the person with the bias could end up making the right decision ultimate, but he will have made that correct decision accidentally, which means it was the wrong decision. It was a gamble where the bias was put up against verifiable methodology, and in such a gamble the smart money is on the latter.

Let's say that you were to wager me that you could toss a coin and get heads 5 times in a row. If you win, you get $100. If I win, I get $10. Simple math tells me that the odds of 5 consecutive head tosses are one in 32, which means the odds are strongly in my favor. I will make the bet, even knowing that there's a chance I lose I will lose much more than I stand to gain simply because the odds favor my outcome more than yours even to the point of superseding the factor of 10 difference between risk/reward. There may be some outside factor I cannot perceive, but based on all the information I have, I'm making the prudent and logically defensible choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Making the link to our favorite topic - the Iraq threat or non-threat. If your choice is to take no action to insure against the risks and hazards presented by Iraq under Saddam, who am I to say you are wrong? If my choice is to take action to insure against the risks and hazards presented by Iraq under Saddam who are you to say I am wrong?

I'm the one using deductive reasoning. If there is little verifiable evidence that Saddam is a threat, how can I conclude that the risk is higher than the absolute risk of losing soldiers if we go to war? That's simple enough. As soon as objective methodology is adopted by one side and not the other, the side with it gains a logical upper hand. Ruling by rough approximation and bias cannot be as reliable as verifiable methodology.

I'll put it in different terms. One man says the earth is 4.7 billion years old. Another man says the earth is 6,015 years old. The first person is using verifiable geological and physical methodology to determine the age of the earth, the second person is using the biased source of the Bible. As science isn't a democracy, there aren't two votes to be counted, there are two theories to be tested. Both are processed using the verifiable methodology of the scientific method, and the crucible burns away the fallacy of the young earth so that only the truth remains.

aceventura3 · 07-27-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Let's say that you were to wager me that you could toss a coin and get heads 5 times in a row. If you win, you get $100. If I win, I get $10. Simple math tells me that the odds of 5 consecutive head tosses are one in 32, which means the odds are strongly in my favor. I will make the bet, even knowing that there's a chance I lose I will lose much more than I stand to gain simply because the odds favor my outcome more than yours even to the point of superseding the factor of 10 difference between risk/reward. There may be some outside factor I cannot perceive, but based on all the information I have, I'm making the prudent and logically defensible choice.

In your example, the fair bet for me is $3.125 to win $100. I would not $10 to win $100 when the odds are 1 in 32 against me winning. However, people make those bets all day and night long, knowing the "facts", knowing the odds - why? Your position on this subject has no reasonable explanation for Las Vegas. Mine does - emotion. Your position has no reasonable explanation for financial and commodity markets. Mine does - emotion. Your position has no reasonable explanation for profits and losses in the insurance industry. Mine does - emotion. Your position has no explanation for why people like me don't care about the 47 million without health insurance. Mine does, emotion (my emotional response to the statistic is to explain it away, i.e. things like 18 million of them could buy health insurance if they chose to, while advocates don't make the emotional connection of why the statistic should matter to people like me. So, again I give you a practical application of what is at issue regarding the way people form opinions and take certain actions on issues. It all about emotion. Come on, say it with me - e m o t i o n.

It has been fun.

Willravel · 07-27-2009, 03:25 PM

Proper methodology doesn't exclude the factoring in the emotional and biased thinking. We have more than enough data on Saddam to determine within certain margins of error his actions. Just because something is emotional doesn't mean it cannot be predicted. Casino's have careful and incredibly accurate data on people making emotional and biased decisions, so much so that they can plan complex budgets around income from gambling. If they can create methods of deduction from something as flippant and illogical as gambling, you don't think that such methodology can be applied to the actions of world leaders?

Here:
Game Theory .net - Resources for Learning and Teaching Strategy for Business and Life

This will come in great handy for you, I hope you use the resource.

aceventura3 · 07-27-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Proper methodology doesn't exclude the factoring in the emotional and biased thinking.

For me being adamant is a blessing and a curse, or as some of my closest friends say - Ace...you are a stubborn, bull headed, SOB, who doesn't know when to leave well enough alone...why can't you just walk away! My reply - Gee, I don't know...

Proper methodology???
Factoring in the emotional and biased thinking???

What is the "proper" methodology for applying emotion to a question or problem? Isn't that purely subjective or intuitive? Isn't that the intangible that makes Warren Buffet, Warren Buffet? Isn't that the intangible that made Alexander the Great, Alexander the Great? Isn't that the intangible that makes some men great and others failures when they all have the same "facts"?

Willravel · 07-27-2009, 04:21 PM

While as individuals you and I should seek to be rid of biases that might cloud your judgment*, you must also realize that the rest of the world might not be the same way. To not factor that in is to ignore a fairly substantial set of variables.

I can't answer your question easily at all. The short answer has a lot of it has to do with previous actions and a lot has to do with the ability to put yourself in another person's place and frame of mind and predict based on what you believe the person would do. This takes a lot of practice, I'm still not even all that good at it, but I was able to predict what Saddam would do: he was always going to run and hide. It doesn't take a maestro of game theory to read a dictator like that, just the ability to play chop sticks. I feel like I'm getting off topic, though. The bottom line, the simple truth is that Saddam didn't have the capability to launch an attack on the US, and there were tremendously significant obstacles in attaining or developing the technology to do so even if he wanted to. All of this can be demonstrated through citing articles full of factual information and deducing the situation based solely on those facts. All of this has been demonstrated on TFP repeatedly.

*I don't mean become Vulcan, though. Emotions provide the flavor of life, and are necessary for contentment and balance. It's just important to ensure that emotion doesn't prevent you from making important decisions which have serious consequences.

FelixP · 07-27-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It's all about the distribution of liberals vs. conservatives in this regard. Just how many liberal conspiracy theorists are there? Does this study reflect on the average conservative? Do conspiracy theorists reflect on the average liberal?

Sing the praises brother.

ratbastid · 07-30-2009, 03:51 AM

This made me laugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hereticalideas.com

Is Barack Obama An American Citizen?
By Alex Knapp

Those who claim that Obama is a citizen rely too heavily on the metaphysical premise that reality is perceivable and knowable.
July 24, 2009

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, a rumor began circulating on fringe internet websites that Barack Obama was not, in fact, an American citizen. It was claimed that he was not born in the state of Hawaii, and because his mother was not yet nineteen and his father a British citizen, this meant that Barack Obama was not, legally, a citizen of the United States.

Despite its fringe nature, those who believe this to be true (often called “Birthers”) have been very loud in the media as of late. CNN host Lou Dobbs has expressed his skepticism that Obama is an American citizen. So, too, have prominent conservatives Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and Liz Cheney.

It might seem, to the average person, that the “Birthers” must have a tough time proving their case. After all, Barack Obama has released his Certification of Live Birth (pictured above), which meets all the requirements for proving one’s citizenship to the State Department. The authenticity of the certificate has been verified by Hawaii state government. Moreover, Barack Obama’s birth announcement was found in two newspapers at the time, and such notices were provided directly by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Faced with this overwhelming evidence, the average person will no doubt shrug and consider the case closed. There is no question that the evidence points to the conclusion that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is therefore a “natural-born citizen.”

No question, that is, if you accept the dominant paradigm of metaphysical realism. That is, the idea that things exist independent of the mind and that those things are perceivable and knowable. Moreover, those who insist that Barack Obama is an American citizen also rely on philosophic naturalism–the idea that reality is subject to objective, knowable natural laws that can’t be tampered with.

However, if one rejects these two philosophic concepts, it’s quite easy to demonstrate that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States.

Cognitive Relativism Shows That Obama Is Not A Citizen

Cognitive relativism is a school of philosophic thought that holds that an idea is only true if it is true within a particular conceptual framework that is subjective to an individual or a particular social group. With respect to the Birthers, then, we can see how Barack Obama is not an American citizen. The conceptual framework makes this an impossibility. After all, according to the Birthers, it is impossible for the short-form Certification of Live Birth to be acceptable proof that Barack Obama because their conceptual framework simply doesn’t allow for this to be true.

Accordingly, it must then be true that Barack Obama’s step-Grandmother saw him born in Kenya, even though she specifically denies that claim. Sarah Obama’s denial simply does not fit in with the conceptual framework of the Birthers, and so what she says cannot be true, and Barack Obama must have been born in Kenya. It’s a simple as that. Thus, because Barack Obama was born in Kenya, the law in 1961 means that his mother’s citizenship was not sufficient to grant American citizenship to Barack Obama. Therefore, Barack Obama is not a citizen.

The Law Of Attraction Shows That Obama Is Not A Citizen

Proving that Barack Obama is not an American citizen is not necessarily dependent on cognitive relativism. Other explanations exist as well. For example, in her book The Secret, Rhonda Byrne has discovered the heretofore unknown “Law of Attraction.” This “Law”, which according to Byrne underlies the entire functioning of the universe, states that thoughts themselves have an “energy” that is capable of controlling the universe by “attracting” reality to one’s thoughts. This is not easy, but it can happen with just a few steps:

1. Know what you want and ask the universe for it.

2. Feel and behave as if the object of your desire is on its way.

3. Be open to receiving it.

For the Birthers, what they want is unequivocal proof that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is therefore not a citizen. Now, if the Birthers follow these three steps, the universe will make it happen. Indeed, since the Law of Attraction underlies the universe (no matter what science and reason dictate), it is very clear that when the Birthers follow these three steps, the very structure of space-time will alter. We will find Obama’s certified birth certificate fade, Back to the Future style, replaced with documents showing that he was really born in Kenya.

Impeachment will soon follow.

The Norse Myths Show That Obama Is Not A Citizen

Another metaphysical possibility demonstrating that Obama is not a citizen is Norse Mythology. Prominent in Norse myth is the God Loki, who is a trickster god associated with fire and magic. Loki, like other gods, has enormous power over the universe. Indeed, in the Marvel Comics saga Ultimates 2, it was revealed that Loki has the power to shuffle the very fabric of space and time itself, making things disappear from perception. Loki used these powers in the Ultimates 2 saga to ensure that Thor was captured and imprisoned so that he could not interfere with Loki’s conquest of Asgard.

Clearly, Loki could have used his powers to change the fabric of space-time in order to make it appear that Obama was born in Hawaii when he, in fact, wasn’t. But why would Loki do such a thing? Simple. Loki is fated, according to Norse myth, to bring about Ragnarok–the end of the world. However, it is clear from the sagas that Ragnarok must be preceded by Fimbulvetr, the winter of winters. Fimbulvetr is described as being three years of winter with no summer in between.

What does this have to do with Obama? It’s simple. Obama has been essential in pushing through cap and trade legislation through the United States Congress, and his Administration has made it a major part of its agenda. But as Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle point out in their tome Fallen Angels, preventing the greenhouse effect would lead the Earth into a devastating ice age. In other words, Obama’s Cap and Trade Agenda will directly lead to Fimbulvetr. As no real American would sponsor legislation that would lead to the Twilight of the Gods, it was necessary for Loki to use his powers to make Obama appear to be an American citizen so that Obama’s election to the Presidency would be assured.

Clearly, Loki’s influence into American Presidential elections should be stopped and Obama should be immediately impeached for making use of a foreign power to obtain the Presidency.

Conclusion

While traditional adherence to quaint philosophic concepts might make it appear that the evidence overwhelmingly favors the conclusion that Barack Obama is a United States citizen, it is clear that this cannot be the case so long as we don’t pay any attention to the idea that there is an objective reality.

Cognitive Relativism, the Law of Attraction, and Norse Mythology all provide plausible philosophic justification for ignoring evidence and logic. Accordingly, because Obama’s claim to American citizenship is only supported by evidence and logic, he must not be an American citizen. Thus, Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

It’s perfectly logical.

Is Barack Obama An American Citizen? | Heretical Ideas Magazine

roachboy · 07-30-2009, 04:05 AM

i must say that of all the curious effects of implosion that have visited themselves on conservative ideology, the retreat into some facile relativism is the most interesting.

on the one hand, you have an economic ideology which links to a vision of the social world that naturalizes frame conditions--like infrastructure---so which reproduces a photographic understanding of the world. what's real is what moves between fixed points. what explains that fixity is nature or some god.

on the other, you get a voluntarism: it is thus because i will it.

it's hard to understand how these two positions fit together except in the context of implosion, and that as a way of dealing with implosion by erasing the possibility of experiencing it.

aceventura3 · 07-30-2009, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i must say that of all the curious effects of implosion that have visited themselves on conservative ideology, the retreat into some facile relativism is the most interesting.

Or, we throw a bunch of shit on the wall and see what sticks. Seems that the left leaning media doesn't know what to respond to first: the utter disbelief that some people are still saying Obama is not a citizen; the utter disbelief that some people think Obama is a racist; the utter disbelief that Palin has support; The utter disbelief that some people think the heath care plan has the goal of letting senor citizens die rather than getting treatment; the utter disbelief that Chaney is not a nice lovable man. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would have to say this may be a brilliant strategy, Kind of like Chinese water torture, drip, drip, drip, drip until the person goes insane. Roach, how close to the edge are you?

roachboy · 07-30-2009, 08:28 AM

let me be clear, ace: i think conservatism is a joke.

i'm interested in a kind of anthropological way about the fact that an ideology as incoherent as conservatism manages to attract a demographic. i think it's an interesting analytic matter, so from time to time i like to poke at it as a problem, try to figure it out. what holds this nonsense together? what are the patterns of investment that you can see that enable people to cobble together a sense of coherence from within this space?

i end up doing these thought experiments here because my contempt for the content of conservative ideology rules out my doing anything more formal with them. so i don't do sociological work on contemporary american conservatism--which i could do---primarily because i know that i think it such a farce that it renders an analytic positions problematic. so a priori, i would tend to overprivelege the power of repetition and the media apparatus that enables it. this because i figure no-one in their right mind can think this way.

but i do have a more serious interest in how ideological frames of reference operate, so i learn stuff from these thought experiments that makes it way into the other work i do...

my principal motivation for these experiments, then, moves in an entirely different direction than you might imagine.

but whatever.
i'm sure none of this will matter to you and like some sad old trotskyite you will prefer to imagine your viewpoint as somehow still the center of the world because it's yours.

Willravel · 07-30-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

This made me laugh.

Is Barack Obama An American Citizen? | Heretical Ideas Magazine

I can see why, that's almost exactly what I'm talking about.

Man I've gotta go back to school....

aceventura3 · 07-30-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

let me be clear, ace: i think conservatism is a joke.

i'm interested in a kind of anthropological way about the fact that an ideology as incoherent as conservatism manages to attract a demographic. i think it's an interesting analytic matter, so from time to time i like to poke at it as a problem, try to figure it out. what holds this nonsense together? what are the patterns of investment that you can see that enable people to cobble together a sense of coherence from within this space?

I understand what you are doing. All I suggest is that the answers that you seek are most likely a lot simpler than your posts suggest.

At the most basic level do you think your theories on this subject require collusion, or do you think it is chance? Something in between? To what degree is it one or the other?

Derwood · 07-31-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to "keep your government hands off my Medicare." The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, "wasn’t having any of it."

It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now.

Facts seem to the be the enemy

Willravel · 07-31-2009, 02:12 PM

Yeah, keep the government out of my Medicare! And out of our classrooms! And out of the military! And don't you dare let the government get it's grubby little hands on the White House!

ratbastid · 07-31-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Facts seem to the be the enemy

Oh, it's worse than that. The ignorance and misinformation is actually being enhanced and hyped by elements of the right.

Case in point:
Obama Targets Boomers for Extermination

Quote:

Originally Posted by christiannewstoday.com

Obama Targets Boomers for Extermination

By: Nina May

In the 1948 Hitchcock movie, “Rope”, the very avant-garde theme of elitism and superior moral authority mirrors the current debate on Obama and the Democrat’s health care plan. In the film, two friends are taught that members of the world’s elite have a right to eliminate whomever they deem inferior. Testing this theory, the men decide to strangle a friend from the same boarding school. They hide his body in plain sight while throwing a party to honor him, ostensibly mocking those who love him. This of course was produced on the heels of the greatest holocaust the world has ever known with characters representing the polemic positions of both the victims and those who deemed them as less than worthy to live.

The health care bill that Obama proposes has this theme at its core and has in its crosshairs, the Baby Boomer engine that is pulling the derailed economy as it takes its final lap toward retirement. In less than two years, Baby Boomers will begin retiring in multitudes, expecting to reclaim the hard earned money they have been paying into Social Security. But this Health Care Bill, HR3200, has other plans for them.

Those 65 and older will be required to undergo mandatory “end of life” counseling to determine if they are worthy to continue to not only live, but take much needed resources from those who are younger and more worthy to receive them. Counselors will be trained to discuss how to end life sooner, how to decline nutrition and hydration, how to go into hospice, etc.

This will not be done without coercion. For those who have amassed assets enough to take care of themselves in their old age will have these assets confiscated in the name of fiscal responsibility, because by this time, every citizen will be entered into a national database under the guise of improved efficiency. This database will be run by a type of “star chamber,” appointed by the president, that will determine whether or not you deserve the much needed operation your personal doctor thinks you need. It is daunting to think that a panel of about 20 people will daily regulate, through a computer terminal, millions of people’s medical treatment.

But perhaps it will not be as difficult a task as the numbers would suggest. When the mother of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, had issues with the large numbers of blacks, she advocated for increased access to abortion and forced sterilization of young black women. Her further plans to exterminate those who were infirmed, handicapped or a drain on society, precipitated Hitler’s idea and methods for his “final solution.”

The Margaret Sangers and Joseph Menglas of today are positioned to sit on this “star chamber.” One is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama’s top advisor, Rham Emanuel. He is an advocate of “end of life” options and is on Obama’s Council of Comparative Effectiveness Research, a program developed to determine who is worthy to live and who isn’t.

Dr. Ezekiel believes medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia”. In the June 18, 2008 Journal of the AMA, he writes, “Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.”

In 2006 the Comparative Effectiveness Research denied the elderly a drug to cure macular degeneration until they had gone blind in one eye. These decisions will be made from Washington, in an impersonal, statistical fashion and seniors will be the victims. But remember, these draconian measures exempt our elected, most worthy officials, and their families, from the devastation of this proposed health care bill.

The reason it is imperative for the Democrats and Obama to make sure it passes, on the heels of their outrageous “stimulus” package, bank bailout and GM buyout, is that they are running out of money. Boomers today represent 28% of the U.S. population and soon, upon retirement, they will end their tax producing years and put a huge strain on the Social Security System. With 40 million fewer children today, there are fewer paying into the Social Security system to reimburse those eligible to receive their portion. This is one of the reasons behind the hidden provisions in this very dangerous health care bill.

We have seen this type of dictatorial behavior in the past, when one segment of society has determined itself to be more worthy of life than the rest. We have a choice to go the way of failed, deadly, socialist nations, or to let our voices be heard.

Nina May is the founder of Renaissance Women and host of the TV show, Renaissance Discoveries. She is a producer/director with Renaissance Women Productions, an artist, writer, and commentator producing daily radio commentaries for over 1200 stations.

Contact: Nancy Green at nvgreen123@aol.com or call 240-403-4064. (skype interviews available)

07-30-2009, 04:05 AM	#102 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i must say that of all the curious effects of implosion that have visited themselves on conservative ideology, the retreat into some facile relativism is the most interesting. on the one hand, you have an economic ideology which links to a vision of the social world that naturalizes frame conditions--like infrastructure---so which reproduces a photographic understanding of the world. what's real is what moves between fixed points. what explains that fixity is nature or some god. on the other, you get a voluntarism: it is thus because i will it. it's hard to understand how these two positions fit together except in the context of implosion, and that as a way of dealing with implosion by erasing the possibility of experiencing it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-30-2009, 08:28 AM	#104 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	let me be clear, ace: i think conservatism is a joke. i'm interested in a kind of anthropological way about the fact that an ideology as incoherent as conservatism manages to attract a demographic. i think it's an interesting analytic matter, so from time to time i like to poke at it as a problem, try to figure it out. what holds this nonsense together? what are the patterns of investment that you can see that enable people to cobble together a sense of coherence from within this space? i end up doing these thought experiments here because my contempt for the content of conservative ideology rules out my doing anything more formal with them. so i don't do sociological work on contemporary american conservatism--which i could do---primarily because i know that i think it such a farce that it renders an analytic positions problematic. so a priori, i would tend to overprivelege the power of repetition and the media apparatus that enables it. this because i figure no-one in their right mind can think this way. but i do have a more serious interest in how ideological frames of reference operate, so i learn stuff from these thought experiments that makes it way into the other work i do... my principal motivation for these experiments, then, moves in an entirely different direction than you might imagine. but whatever. i'm sure none of this will matter to you and like some sad old trotskyite you will prefer to imagine your viewpoint as somehow still the center of the world because it's yours. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-24-2009, 02:09 PM	#89 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Let's break down the ability to assess risks. There are two factors: Risk: the chances of something going wrong Hazard: the consequence of something going wrong If you are barbecuing, you have a relatively high risk of being burned by a small ember on your skin, but a relatively low hazard as the injury is temporary and doesn't reach a high level on the pain scale. On the other hand, if you go swimming in the ocean there is a very low risk of being attacked by a shark, but the hazard is quite high. For each of these, I can gather and process information to determine likelihood: I know that on average there are only 69 shark attacks per year resulting in an average of 4 deaths. Compare this to the annual number of people that are in oceans that might have sharks in them, and I can attain a rough estimate of the statistical odds of being attacked. They're quite low. Is this number subjective? Not at all. It is based completely in reality, the reality we both share. If 4 people died last year in shark attacks in my reality, 4 people died last year in shark attacks in your reality. While small factors can altar the statistics, such as diving in shark invested waters with an open cut and several raw steaks, for the sake of argument let's just say I'm your average Pacific swimmer. The hazard, on the other hand, is severe. Even minor shark attacks can bring with them severe lacerations, damaging an individual severely. It should be noted that hazard cannot determine risk and risk cannot determine hazard. They are independent. Risk can be high along with hazard being high, Risk can be high with hazard being low, risk can be low with hazard being high, risk and hazard can both be low, and everything in between. In order to determine the best response, you must asses the risk using both hazard and risk. If risk is quite high and hazard is quite low or nonexistent, you would be more likely to continue on. If risk is quite low or nonexistent and hazard is quite high, you would be more likely to continue on. My point: The hazard of nuclear war is extremely high, but you need an objective methodology in order to determine risk. Without that objective determination of risk, one cannot make a determination. The best methodology of determining the risk of Iraq seeking, finding, attaining, enriching, creating a delivery system for, and firing a nuclear weapon at the US can be determined using available evidence. Were they seeking nuclear materials? So far there is at best circumstantial evidence; US officials say he was looking for them, but they didn't provide evidence and they've been caught being dishonest before. Did Iraq find and attain nuclear material? Again, there's really no direct evidence for this at all. While it's been suggested that Iraq may have moved some weapons into Syria before the invasion, this was never verified. Did they enrich uranium? There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had the ability to enrich uranium. Not even the administration claimed this was happening. Did they have a delivery system that could reach the US? There is no evidence that Iraq could even reach Jerusalem, let alone develop advanced intercontinental delivery systems. Obviously such a nuclear missile was never fired. These are the facts. They include nothing subjective and nothing based in emotion.

07-27-2009, 09:44 AM	#93 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Subjective assumptions do not necessarily have an emotional basis. They may carry with them bias, but to assume that bias is always emotional is incorrect.

07-27-2009, 03:25 PM	#97 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Proper methodology doesn't exclude the factoring in the emotional and biased thinking. We have more than enough data on Saddam to determine within certain margins of error his actions. Just because something is emotional doesn't mean it cannot be predicted. Casino's have careful and incredibly accurate data on people making emotional and biased decisions, so much so that they can plan complex budgets around income from gambling. If they can create methods of deduction from something as flippant and illogical as gambling, you don't think that such methodology can be applied to the actions of world leaders? Here: Game Theory .net - Resources for Learning and Teaching Strategy for Business and Life This will come in great handy for you, I hope you use the resource.

07-27-2009, 04:21 PM	#99 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	While as individuals you and I should seek to be rid of biases that might cloud your judgment, you must also realize that the rest of the world might not be the same way. To not factor that in is to ignore a fairly substantial set of variables. I can't answer your question easily at all. The short answer has a lot of it has to do with previous actions and a lot has to do with the ability to put yourself in another person's place and frame of mind and predict based on what you believe the person would do. This takes a lot of practice, I'm still not even all that good at it, but I was able to predict what Saddam would do: he was always going to run and hide. It doesn't take a maestro of game theory to read a dictator like that, just the ability to play chop sticks. I feel like I'm getting off topic, though. The bottom line, the simple truth is that Saddam didn't have the capability to launch an attack on the US, and there were tremendously significant obstacles in attaining or developing the technology to do so even if he wanted to. All of this can be demonstrated through citing articles full of factual information and deducing the situation based solely on those facts. All of this has been demonstrated on TFP repeatedly. I don't mean become Vulcan, though. Emotions provide the flavor of life, and are necessary for contentment and balance. It's just important to ensure that emotion doesn't prevent you from making important decisions which have serious consequences.

07-31-2009, 02:12 PM	#108 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Yeah, keep the government out of my Medicare! And out of our classrooms! And out of the military! And don't you dare let the government get it's grubby little hands on the White House!