People predisposing themselves to a side before seeing any evidence

turgon

What I see a lot is people coming onto debates already on one side of it. What they do is pick up on all evidence that supports their side and ignore anything to the contrary.

What is pretty clear a lot of the time is that they dont have any reason to be on that side. They just want to be. What happens then is a turnaround sort of scenario. Instead of basing their position on the facts, they pick their position and then find things to support it.

So take prostitution. A poster I know comes on predisposed to be anti-prostitution. He then back peddles trying to find reasons to support his view, coming out with a load of nonsense. Instead of ignoring the facts and reason that are placed in front of him.

Why is this? Why do people pre-dispose themselves to one side?

Another example: Lisbon Treaty. Its pretty obvious some people are just anti-Lisbon because they want to be. I was even like that last year. Like Ganley. Hes anti Ireland losing a commission and anti there being so many commissioners. I mean, wtf!

nyarlothothep

Perhaps self interest. They pick a side because they feel part of a wider community of speakers. Or perhaps personality. Some people will doggedly go with the status quo and status quo logic because that is their cognitive set up. Personally speaking I remember having an argument about legalizing drugs. I found the opposing argument convincing though I ran it around several tests and scenarios. So because the logic of the argument was so compelling I basically granted that yes, all drugs shouldn't be legalized.

Ostrom

turgon wrote: »

What I see a lot is people coming onto debates already on one side of it. What they do is pick up on all evidence that supports their side and ignore anything to the contrary.

What is pretty clear a lot of the time is that they dont have any reason to be on that side. They just want to be. What happens then is a turnaround sort of scenario. Instead of basing their position on the facts, they pick their position and then find things to support it.

So take prostitution. A poster I know comes on predisposed to be anti-prostitution. He then back peddles trying to find reasons to support his view, coming out with a load of nonsense. Instead of ignoring the facts and reason that are placed in front of him.

Why is this? Why do people pre-dispose themselves to one side?

Another example: Lisbon Treaty. Its pretty obvious some people are just anti-Lisbon because they want to be. I was even like that last year. Like Ganley. Hes anti Ireland losing a commission and anti there being so many commissioners. I mean, wtf!

This may be oversimpllifying, but I think wikipedia has a big part to play.

Its easier than ever to fight your corner from assumption and build an 'argument' the wrong way. I'm more concerned about what counts for evidence here. A few minutes between posts seems enough to find something, skim, assess its validity and 'argue' back.

Someone linked to a wiki piece in the abortion thread with three citations, one from australia (the piece was written as a generalisable universal), one from twenty years ago, and another based on raw USGSS data, which is almost unusable without some cleaning/supplementary qualitative work.

I remember seeing another argument somewhere (CT possibliy, not as much here - I really cant remember), and someone wrote 'I need to see proper evidence, a youtube video?'

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

So take prostitution. A poster I know comes on predisposed to be anti-prostitution. He then back peddles trying to find reasons to support his view, coming out with a load of nonsense. Instead of ignoring the facts and reason that are placed in front of him.

I hope you dont mean me, my arguments didnt waiver, although they went on for a looong looong time

Why is this? Why do people pre-dispose themselves to one side?

Well human decision making (as ive just learned in the last couple of days) is a lot more arbitrary then it is usually conceived of as being. There may be influences in the way the argument has been made, who is making the argument, and in what setting the argument is being made, which influence the actions of the arguer moreso then does any "rational" weighing of seemingly objective evidence.

turgon

Joycey wrote: »

I hope you dont mean me, my arguments didnt waiver, although they went on for a looong looong time

I think it might have been? Were you the one saying illegal prostitution would increase if legalized prostitution was brought in? I dont want to get into that argument here though.


Self interest it is, but I cant put my finger on why they think it is in their self interest. It just seems kind of random. Maybe its a human trait to want to be steadfast, but I thinks its quite destructive.

It can be highly annoying, as these people will never engage in any reasonable debate. The reason I started this rant thread was because I can "attacked" by 4 or 5 Lisbon No-side posters over a comment I made. They all (possibly deliberately) misinterpreted my comment. Given that it seems most No-siders base their position on some pre-disposition I was pretty peeved taht I was getting the rough end of this illogical practice.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Yeah. You see I dont mind people havin opinions I disagree once they can outline reasonable reasons. For example DF is opposed to the EU in terms of political union because he believes in government at the lowest level due to his libertarian views, which is fine (and no doubt he would be able to describe that much more eloquently). But some people seem to be anti-EU for no reason at all!! Its as if they like being different for the sake of being different.

Taking DF's example of Cuba. Frequenters of the Politics board will know that there are quite a few Communists posting there. Communists who will deny that Cuba is actually communist. Yet these same people will go on to Cuba threads and praise everything they can find that is good about Cuba. And everything that is wrong with Cuba is because of the US embargo. They seem predisposed to praise Cuba even though, seeming as its not communist, they should be opposed to it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

It comes down to the first impression or perception that people have of a subject. The first thing they learn about it from whichever source becomes cast in cement. Anything which disagrees with that opinion/statistic is subject to scorn and must be clarified beyond belief for it to be refuted.

Take the Israeli-palestinian conflict. I read Leon Uris's exodus when I was 10 years old and formed a serious belief about the Jewish right to exist there, and the suffering they received. I blind-sighted myself to all other factors, and even though i could acknowledge Israeli responsibility I felt it was overshadowed by other factors. It took roughly 6 months arguing on Boards before I changed my viewpoint on the subject to be a lot more balanced, recognising the responsibility of both sides, and the level of propaganda both sides spew out.

Humans don't like to admit they're wrong, when they're convinced that they're currently right. It takes time & effort to get past this. It also takes a willingness to accept that the world or a concept isn't always the way that we see it. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who just can't do that.

Also on boards and other online sites, there are people that take a stance just to enjoy the conflict that ensues. It doesn't really matter to them whether their stance is correct, they just want to get a reaction from people. :rolleyes:

Macha

Bertrand Russell summed it up well:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

Bertrand Russell summed it up well:

Fair enough quotation. Although there is more to it than that. The mind accepts things without question under certain circumstances. Like the period when a person wakes up from sleep. Our minds are more susceptible to suggestion at these times. There are other similar circumstances where the mind will accept information, and it really depends on the individuals mindset whether to question such information. Subliminal messaging, hypnosis and NLP can influence a persons thoughts in many areas regardless of whether their instinct is more accepting of them or not.

rantyface

Talking to friends recently about this.

It seems that those of us who studied science became less strong-minded, and started to doubt everything, even our own opinions on things. We prefer the back and forth and acting as devil's advocate to find everything out. I take a pro Lisbon stance or an anti Lisbon stance (it's weak) depending who I'm talking to, to test their arguments. This doesn't apply to ranting and raving, where you're supposed to rant unreasonably.

Those who studied humanities are even more strong minded now, and I've found out that a lot of their assignments are "Do you agree with this statement? Discuss", so they are trained in taking a side, then backing it up.

There is simply no point in doing that in science because the truth comes out eventually and you just look like an idiot. And your experiments won't work if you ignore why they're not working, or insist that your hunch is right and waste time trying to do something impossible.

Joycey

No that wasnt me in the prostitution thread Turgon, I was a good bit back now. I was rooting for decriminalisation of the seller but not outright legalisation.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please, point me towards irrefutable evidence of anything, say, about Cuba, anything at all, from its existence upwards.

The whole notion of "evidence" rests on a subjective interpretation of whatever is given through the senses. This non-objectivity occurs to an even greater extent when the "evidence" is presented through the written word. Not only do you have to deal with the fact that the very language we use means different things to different people (not an issue when talking about a table, but when it comes to Communist/Democracy in Cuba our definition of the terms vastly changes the meaning of the "evidence" or statement which is being argued over), but you also have to contend with the fact that the section of the natural world which has been abstracted from and represented through language may actually be slightly different from its abstracted representation. For example, it is this possibility for scepticism which allows you to doubt Cuban state figures, or Michael Moore's analysis of events or whatever, which you may or may not be correct in doing.

I would imagine that if we got everybody who had posted in the last 20 pages or so of that communism thread to write down on a piece of paper what they meant by the word communism you wouldnt get two responses the same. Is it any wonder that we end up in a complete deadlock, especially when the debate is taking place in such a disconnected, impersonal setting as the internet, when there isnt a strong need for reconciliation between the opposing parties. Likewise, no heirarchy really emerges or is enforcable among the arguers, which is something highly removed from a typical face to face social situation, whereby one group may well establish its dominance over another. There are many reasons why arguments in general, but especially over the internet tend to degenerate into name-calling or abuse or just complete deadlock.

As far as I can see, the best way to deal with it is to try to develop a sense of community within the discussion, so that rather then it being an argument between diametrically opposed positions, everybody is engaged in a project of reconciliation between two (or more) seemingly opposing sides, but which are actually motivated by some of the same concerns. So attempt to establish common ground, like in the prostitution thread, try to examine exactly what people's motivations are for wanting prostitution illegalised or legalised, and you will tend to find that both positions come from a desire to protect the seller of the service (or possibly both parties). If you work along the thread of your argument until you find that your view and the other persons diverges then you will either see that they really are irreconcilable or else you can attempt to moderate one view or the other so the discussion can develop. Either way, you have taken the discussion out of the realm of pure abstraction in talking about grand principles, and are instead talking about the realities of implementation, which allows for actual evidence to be brought to the table.

Ostrom

rantyface wrote: »

Talking to friends recently about this.

It seems that those of us who studied science became less strong-minded, and started to doubt everything, even our own opinions on things. We prefer the back and forth and acting as devil's advocate to find everything out. I take a pro Lisbon stance or an anti Lisbon stance (it's weak) depending who I'm talking to, to test their arguments. This doesn't apply to ranting and raving, where you're supposed to rant unreasonably.

Those who studied humanities are even more strong minded now, and I've found out that a lot of their assignments are "Do you agree with this statement? Discuss", so they are trained in taking a side, then backing it up.

There is simply no point in doing that in science because the truth comes out eventually and you just look like an idiot. And your experiments won't work if you ignore why they're not working, or insist that your hunch is right and waste time trying to do something impossible.

An unfortunate point to make, but one I am reluctant to admit.

I don't agree with a 'humanities vs. science' position to the extent that discipline may dictate opinion. I have found (I studied engineering and am now in sociology) that in an academic context, humanities students tend to become explicitly politicized more so, and much earlier in academic life than science students, which has a huge influence in term of ideological argument.

Unfortunately, the answer format you cited here generally translates to a normative response - rarely do you tend to see the dominant position (within the question) challenged, which is unfortunate. Perhaps it has something to do with the scientific method being made as explicit as it is so early on, many humanities students go a number of years without being exposed to research methods, or any of the philosophical underpinnings of logic/argument.