OT: Have you ever changed your mind?

[briansd1]

Of course, I change my mind.

I used to be a young Republican if you can believe that.

Then I discovered that there’s no need to be so personally focused and greedy all the time.

Dad was always a Democrat and we talked politics all the time when we were kids. At first I wanted to be different.

Mom was a good housewife and never talked politics.

Grand-parents were arch conservatives.

[CBad]

I predict anyone taking that left/right brain quiz will get an even split of 16/16. The test is jacked up; no matter how you fill it out you get that score (unless you don’t answer all the questions). Am I right or left brained for figuring this out? Also, if I’m proven wrong and someone gets gets a different score I will change my mind and admit I’m wrong.

[CBad]

I predict anyone taking that left/right brain quiz will get an even split of 16/16. The test is jacked up; no matter how you fill it out you get that score (unless you don’t answer all the questions). Am I right or left brained for figuring this out? Also, if I’m proven wrong and someone gets gets a different score I will change my mind and admit I’m wrong.

[CBad]

I predict anyone taking that left/right brain quiz will get an even split of 16/16. The test is jacked up; no matter how you fill it out you get that score (unless you don’t answer all the questions). Am I right or left brained for figuring this out? Also, if I’m proven wrong and someone gets gets a different score I will change my mind and admit I’m wrong.

[CBad]

I predict anyone taking that left/right brain quiz will get an even split of 16/16. The test is jacked up; no matter how you fill it out you get that score (unless you don’t answer all the questions). Am I right or left brained for figuring this out? Also, if I’m proven wrong and someone gets gets a different score I will change my mind and admit I’m wrong.

[CBad]

I predict anyone taking that left/right brain quiz will get an even split of 16/16. The test is jacked up; no matter how you fill it out you get that score (unless you don’t answer all the questions). Am I right or left brained for figuring this out? Also, if I’m proven wrong and someone gets gets a different score I will change my mind and admit I’m wrong.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?sudsredirect=true

This is afascinating article on why facts simply don’t change people’s minds.

Personally, I have changed my mind a lot on big issues over the course of my life. hell, even recently. I don’t feel threatened I don’t think by facts of new ideas. but evidently fear of changing one’s mind is a very normal human reaction.

This article may explain some of the discussions we have here…[/quote]

Great article, Scaredy. Doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s human instinct to want to be “right”, and to have others express views that reflect your own. Look at Fox News. They have enjoyed spectacular success by recognizing that there was a huge group of people that had a particular sociopolitical viewpoint that lacked the imprimatur of a legit news organization. I have friends and acquaintances who place *all* their faith in every report coming out of Fox News (even when Fox contradicts itself), but who will not believe a word that comes from the thousands of other major news outlet.

For them and others similarly-minded, I have this handy tip: If an article in 300 daily newspapers and on virtually every major television newscast reports that your favorite politician misappropriated $250K in campaign funds, it’s not mainstream media bias and he’s not being treated unfairly because Fox News says he is. When a web blog reports that the entertainment industry is boycotting and ruining the career of an entertainer because of her courage in expressing her views over the past six months, try to consider the possibility that her “courage” is actually an attempt to get back into the public eye after an absence of 8 years. Your blind assumption that an alternative news source is always trustworthy is no better than the blind faith in the mainstream media you accuse others of having. Questioning is good, but it has to be across the board. Otherwise, you’re not searching for information, and you’re certainly not seeking the truth. You just want confirmation of your own views.

In the old days, it took courage to hold onto an extreme opinion. In those pre-Web days, the strongly-opinionated felt more isolated. Now, however, you just have to log onto the internet and google up some like-minded buddies. No matter how far-fetched or radical, one can always find “evidence” to support their viewpoints. I am seriously disturbed by the growing number of people who complain bitterly that the “mainstream media” are being untruthful and inaccurate, and then opine that bloggers are a more than satisfactory replacement for news organizations.

About ten years ago, when it became apparent that the amount of information on the Internet and other outlets was being completely overwhelmed by the volume of misinformation, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania started a program called FactCheck. FactCheck.org was hailed by all as an invaluable resource, and utilized by politicians and candidates for public office as an unimpeachable source of information. The honeymoon lasted about 18 months. Despite the fact that FactCheck.org provides ample evidence of exhaustive searches in checking out the validity of information, their accuracy, honesty, and freedom from bias was called into question when the evidence was not favorable to particular groups. So, naturally, there had to be a “new” fact-checking website that would be completely unbiased, but that, peculiarly, seemed to publish findings that were consistently favorable to one party and consistently negative to another. The party it favored, and its followers, had no qualms about using the new site to provide legitimacy to its claims. What is remarkable to me is that people of a particular political bent will zero in on one story that is negative to their party or candidate, and manage to completely disregard the 40 positive ones that have been published in the prior two weeks by the same media outlet.

Many people have extremely strong opinions these days. As I mentioned earlier, it’s human instinct to want to be right. And these days, anyone can be. Legitimacy for your views, no matter how extreme or inaccurate can be had for the mere cost of a Google search. And don’t underestimate the value of denial. After all, everyone know that if you don’t acknowledge facts, they can’t be valid. Right? You can create your own little alternative view universe, in which all of the “smart” people – the ones with common sense – think exactly as you do. And where you can preach your own particular sociopolitical gospel to the nonbelievers, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s the “truth”.

The sad part is that it is getting increasingly difficult – indeed, almost impossible – to find valid sources of information on the Internet. It’s full of “information” sites and blogs that are actually people’s opinions, or worse, plagiarization of other people’s opinions. Worse yet are the news organizations for whom traditional news reporting has become an unprofitable sideline, and is treated as such. They’re tripping over themselves taking pages out of the Fox News playbook. Their programming schedule is chock full of commentary shows with buffoonish characters bloviating endlessly on topics exhausted two weeks before.

My top choices for news and information these days are the PBS NewsHour, the Daily Show, and the Onion. It’s gotten so the headlines of the Onion are indistinguishable from those of the mainstream media, and if I’m going to be entertained, I want it to be from a source with talented staff.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?sudsredirect=true

This is afascinating article on why facts simply don’t change people’s minds.

Personally, I have changed my mind a lot on big issues over the course of my life. hell, even recently. I don’t feel threatened I don’t think by facts of new ideas. but evidently fear of changing one’s mind is a very normal human reaction.

This article may explain some of the discussions we have here…[/quote]

Great article, Scaredy. Doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s human instinct to want to be “right”, and to have others express views that reflect your own. Look at Fox News. They have enjoyed spectacular success by recognizing that there was a huge group of people that had a particular sociopolitical viewpoint that lacked the imprimatur of a legit news organization. I have friends and acquaintances who place *all* their faith in every report coming out of Fox News (even when Fox contradicts itself), but who will not believe a word that comes from the thousands of other major news outlet.

For them and others similarly-minded, I have this handy tip: If an article in 300 daily newspapers and on virtually every major television newscast reports that your favorite politician misappropriated $250K in campaign funds, it’s not mainstream media bias and he’s not being treated unfairly because Fox News says he is. When a web blog reports that the entertainment industry is boycotting and ruining the career of an entertainer because of her courage in expressing her views over the past six months, try to consider the possibility that her “courage” is actually an attempt to get back into the public eye after an absence of 8 years. Your blind assumption that an alternative news source is always trustworthy is no better than the blind faith in the mainstream media you accuse others of having. Questioning is good, but it has to be across the board. Otherwise, you’re not searching for information, and you’re certainly not seeking the truth. You just want confirmation of your own views.

In the old days, it took courage to hold onto an extreme opinion. In those pre-Web days, the strongly-opinionated felt more isolated. Now, however, you just have to log onto the internet and google up some like-minded buddies. No matter how far-fetched or radical, one can always find “evidence” to support their viewpoints. I am seriously disturbed by the growing number of people who complain bitterly that the “mainstream media” are being untruthful and inaccurate, and then opine that bloggers are a more than satisfactory replacement for news organizations.

About ten years ago, when it became apparent that the amount of information on the Internet and other outlets was being completely overwhelmed by the volume of misinformation, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania started a program called FactCheck. FactCheck.org was hailed by all as an invaluable resource, and utilized by politicians and candidates for public office as an unimpeachable source of information. The honeymoon lasted about 18 months. Despite the fact that FactCheck.org provides ample evidence of exhaustive searches in checking out the validity of information, their accuracy, honesty, and freedom from bias was called into question when the evidence was not favorable to particular groups. So, naturally, there had to be a “new” fact-checking website that would be completely unbiased, but that, peculiarly, seemed to publish findings that were consistently favorable to one party and consistently negative to another. The party it favored, and its followers, had no qualms about using the new site to provide legitimacy to its claims. What is remarkable to me is that people of a particular political bent will zero in on one story that is negative to their party or candidate, and manage to completely disregard the 40 positive ones that have been published in the prior two weeks by the same media outlet.

Many people have extremely strong opinions these days. As I mentioned earlier, it’s human instinct to want to be right. And these days, anyone can be. Legitimacy for your views, no matter how extreme or inaccurate can be had for the mere cost of a Google search. And don’t underestimate the value of denial. After all, everyone know that if you don’t acknowledge facts, they can’t be valid. Right? You can create your own little alternative view universe, in which all of the “smart” people – the ones with common sense – think exactly as you do. And where you can preach your own particular sociopolitical gospel to the nonbelievers, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s the “truth”.

The sad part is that it is getting increasingly difficult – indeed, almost impossible – to find valid sources of information on the Internet. It’s full of “information” sites and blogs that are actually people’s opinions, or worse, plagiarization of other people’s opinions. Worse yet are the news organizations for whom traditional news reporting has become an unprofitable sideline, and is treated as such. They’re tripping over themselves taking pages out of the Fox News playbook. Their programming schedule is chock full of commentary shows with buffoonish characters bloviating endlessly on topics exhausted two weeks before.

My top choices for news and information these days are the PBS NewsHour, the Daily Show, and the Onion. It’s gotten so the headlines of the Onion are indistinguishable from those of the mainstream media, and if I’m going to be entertained, I want it to be from a source with talented staff.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?sudsredirect=true

This is afascinating article on why facts simply don’t change people’s minds.

Personally, I have changed my mind a lot on big issues over the course of my life. hell, even recently. I don’t feel threatened I don’t think by facts of new ideas. but evidently fear of changing one’s mind is a very normal human reaction.

This article may explain some of the discussions we have here…[/quote]

Great article, Scaredy. Doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s human instinct to want to be “right”, and to have others express views that reflect your own. Look at Fox News. They have enjoyed spectacular success by recognizing that there was a huge group of people that had a particular sociopolitical viewpoint that lacked the imprimatur of a legit news organization. I have friends and acquaintances who place *all* their faith in every report coming out of Fox News (even when Fox contradicts itself), but who will not believe a word that comes from the thousands of other major news outlet.

For them and others similarly-minded, I have this handy tip: If an article in 300 daily newspapers and on virtually every major television newscast reports that your favorite politician misappropriated $250K in campaign funds, it’s not mainstream media bias and he’s not being treated unfairly because Fox News says he is. When a web blog reports that the entertainment industry is boycotting and ruining the career of an entertainer because of her courage in expressing her views over the past six months, try to consider the possibility that her “courage” is actually an attempt to get back into the public eye after an absence of 8 years. Your blind assumption that an alternative news source is always trustworthy is no better than the blind faith in the mainstream media you accuse others of having. Questioning is good, but it has to be across the board. Otherwise, you’re not searching for information, and you’re certainly not seeking the truth. You just want confirmation of your own views.

In the old days, it took courage to hold onto an extreme opinion. In those pre-Web days, the strongly-opinionated felt more isolated. Now, however, you just have to log onto the internet and google up some like-minded buddies. No matter how far-fetched or radical, one can always find “evidence” to support their viewpoints. I am seriously disturbed by the growing number of people who complain bitterly that the “mainstream media” are being untruthful and inaccurate, and then opine that bloggers are a more than satisfactory replacement for news organizations.

About ten years ago, when it became apparent that the amount of information on the Internet and other outlets was being completely overwhelmed by the volume of misinformation, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania started a program called FactCheck. FactCheck.org was hailed by all as an invaluable resource, and utilized by politicians and candidates for public office as an unimpeachable source of information. The honeymoon lasted about 18 months. Despite the fact that FactCheck.org provides ample evidence of exhaustive searches in checking out the validity of information, their accuracy, honesty, and freedom from bias was called into question when the evidence was not favorable to particular groups. So, naturally, there had to be a “new” fact-checking website that would be completely unbiased, but that, peculiarly, seemed to publish findings that were consistently favorable to one party and consistently negative to another. The party it favored, and its followers, had no qualms about using the new site to provide legitimacy to its claims. What is remarkable to me is that people of a particular political bent will zero in on one story that is negative to their party or candidate, and manage to completely disregard the 40 positive ones that have been published in the prior two weeks by the same media outlet.

Many people have extremely strong opinions these days. As I mentioned earlier, it’s human instinct to want to be right. And these days, anyone can be. Legitimacy for your views, no matter how extreme or inaccurate can be had for the mere cost of a Google search. And don’t underestimate the value of denial. After all, everyone know that if you don’t acknowledge facts, they can’t be valid. Right? You can create your own little alternative view universe, in which all of the “smart” people – the ones with common sense – think exactly as you do. And where you can preach your own particular sociopolitical gospel to the nonbelievers, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s the “truth”.

The sad part is that it is getting increasingly difficult – indeed, almost impossible – to find valid sources of information on the Internet. It’s full of “information” sites and blogs that are actually people’s opinions, or worse, plagiarization of other people’s opinions. Worse yet are the news organizations for whom traditional news reporting has become an unprofitable sideline, and is treated as such. They’re tripping over themselves taking pages out of the Fox News playbook. Their programming schedule is chock full of commentary shows with buffoonish characters bloviating endlessly on topics exhausted two weeks before.

My top choices for news and information these days are the PBS NewsHour, the Daily Show, and the Onion. It’s gotten so the headlines of the Onion are indistinguishable from those of the mainstream media, and if I’m going to be entertained, I want it to be from a source with talented staff.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?sudsredirect=true

This is afascinating article on why facts simply don’t change people’s minds.

Personally, I have changed my mind a lot on big issues over the course of my life. hell, even recently. I don’t feel threatened I don’t think by facts of new ideas. but evidently fear of changing one’s mind is a very normal human reaction.

This article may explain some of the discussions we have here…[/quote]

Great article, Scaredy. Doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s human instinct to want to be “right”, and to have others express views that reflect your own. Look at Fox News. They have enjoyed spectacular success by recognizing that there was a huge group of people that had a particular sociopolitical viewpoint that lacked the imprimatur of a legit news organization. I have friends and acquaintances who place *all* their faith in every report coming out of Fox News (even when Fox contradicts itself), but who will not believe a word that comes from the thousands of other major news outlet.

For them and others similarly-minded, I have this handy tip: If an article in 300 daily newspapers and on virtually every major television newscast reports that your favorite politician misappropriated $250K in campaign funds, it’s not mainstream media bias and he’s not being treated unfairly because Fox News says he is. When a web blog reports that the entertainment industry is boycotting and ruining the career of an entertainer because of her courage in expressing her views over the past six months, try to consider the possibility that her “courage” is actually an attempt to get back into the public eye after an absence of 8 years. Your blind assumption that an alternative news source is always trustworthy is no better than the blind faith in the mainstream media you accuse others of having. Questioning is good, but it has to be across the board. Otherwise, you’re not searching for information, and you’re certainly not seeking the truth. You just want confirmation of your own views.

In the old days, it took courage to hold onto an extreme opinion. In those pre-Web days, the strongly-opinionated felt more isolated. Now, however, you just have to log onto the internet and google up some like-minded buddies. No matter how far-fetched or radical, one can always find “evidence” to support their viewpoints. I am seriously disturbed by the growing number of people who complain bitterly that the “mainstream media” are being untruthful and inaccurate, and then opine that bloggers are a more than satisfactory replacement for news organizations.

About ten years ago, when it became apparent that the amount of information on the Internet and other outlets was being completely overwhelmed by the volume of misinformation, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania started a program called FactCheck. FactCheck.org was hailed by all as an invaluable resource, and utilized by politicians and candidates for public office as an unimpeachable source of information. The honeymoon lasted about 18 months. Despite the fact that FactCheck.org provides ample evidence of exhaustive searches in checking out the validity of information, their accuracy, honesty, and freedom from bias was called into question when the evidence was not favorable to particular groups. So, naturally, there had to be a “new” fact-checking website that would be completely unbiased, but that, peculiarly, seemed to publish findings that were consistently favorable to one party and consistently negative to another. The party it favored, and its followers, had no qualms about using the new site to provide legitimacy to its claims. What is remarkable to me is that people of a particular political bent will zero in on one story that is negative to their party or candidate, and manage to completely disregard the 40 positive ones that have been published in the prior two weeks by the same media outlet.

Many people have extremely strong opinions these days. As I mentioned earlier, it’s human instinct to want to be right. And these days, anyone can be. Legitimacy for your views, no matter how extreme or inaccurate can be had for the mere cost of a Google search. And don’t underestimate the value of denial. After all, everyone know that if you don’t acknowledge facts, they can’t be valid. Right? You can create your own little alternative view universe, in which all of the “smart” people – the ones with common sense – think exactly as you do. And where you can preach your own particular sociopolitical gospel to the nonbelievers, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s the “truth”.

The sad part is that it is getting increasingly difficult – indeed, almost impossible – to find valid sources of information on the Internet. It’s full of “information” sites and blogs that are actually people’s opinions, or worse, plagiarization of other people’s opinions. Worse yet are the news organizations for whom traditional news reporting has become an unprofitable sideline, and is treated as such. They’re tripping over themselves taking pages out of the Fox News playbook. Their programming schedule is chock full of commentary shows with buffoonish characters bloviating endlessly on topics exhausted two weeks before.

My top choices for news and information these days are the PBS NewsHour, the Daily Show, and the Onion. It’s gotten so the headlines of the Onion are indistinguishable from those of the mainstream media, and if I’m going to be entertained, I want it to be from a source with talented staff.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?sudsredirect=true

This is afascinating article on why facts simply don’t change people’s minds.

Personally, I have changed my mind a lot on big issues over the course of my life. hell, even recently. I don’t feel threatened I don’t think by facts of new ideas. but evidently fear of changing one’s mind is a very normal human reaction.

This article may explain some of the discussions we have here…[/quote]

Great article, Scaredy. Doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s human instinct to want to be “right”, and to have others express views that reflect your own. Look at Fox News. They have enjoyed spectacular success by recognizing that there was a huge group of people that had a particular sociopolitical viewpoint that lacked the imprimatur of a legit news organization. I have friends and acquaintances who place *all* their faith in every report coming out of Fox News (even when Fox contradicts itself), but who will not believe a word that comes from the thousands of other major news outlet.

For them and others similarly-minded, I have this handy tip: If an article in 300 daily newspapers and on virtually every major television newscast reports that your favorite politician misappropriated $250K in campaign funds, it’s not mainstream media bias and he’s not being treated unfairly because Fox News says he is. When a web blog reports that the entertainment industry is boycotting and ruining the career of an entertainer because of her courage in expressing her views over the past six months, try to consider the possibility that her “courage” is actually an attempt to get back into the public eye after an absence of 8 years. Your blind assumption that an alternative news source is always trustworthy is no better than the blind faith in the mainstream media you accuse others of having. Questioning is good, but it has to be across the board. Otherwise, you’re not searching for information, and you’re certainly not seeking the truth. You just want confirmation of your own views.

In the old days, it took courage to hold onto an extreme opinion. In those pre-Web days, the strongly-opinionated felt more isolated. Now, however, you just have to log onto the internet and google up some like-minded buddies. No matter how far-fetched or radical, one can always find “evidence” to support their viewpoints. I am seriously disturbed by the growing number of people who complain bitterly that the “mainstream media” are being untruthful and inaccurate, and then opine that bloggers are a more than satisfactory replacement for news organizations.

About ten years ago, when it became apparent that the amount of information on the Internet and other outlets was being completely overwhelmed by the volume of misinformation, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania started a program called FactCheck. FactCheck.org was hailed by all as an invaluable resource, and utilized by politicians and candidates for public office as an unimpeachable source of information. The honeymoon lasted about 18 months. Despite the fact that FactCheck.org provides ample evidence of exhaustive searches in checking out the validity of information, their accuracy, honesty, and freedom from bias was called into question when the evidence was not favorable to particular groups. So, naturally, there had to be a “new” fact-checking website that would be completely unbiased, but that, peculiarly, seemed to publish findings that were consistently favorable to one party and consistently negative to another. The party it favored, and its followers, had no qualms about using the new site to provide legitimacy to its claims. What is remarkable to me is that people of a particular political bent will zero in on one story that is negative to their party or candidate, and manage to completely disregard the 40 positive ones that have been published in the prior two weeks by the same media outlet.

Many people have extremely strong opinions these days. As I mentioned earlier, it’s human instinct to want to be right. And these days, anyone can be. Legitimacy for your views, no matter how extreme or inaccurate can be had for the mere cost of a Google search. And don’t underestimate the value of denial. After all, everyone know that if you don’t acknowledge facts, they can’t be valid. Right? You can create your own little alternative view universe, in which all of the “smart” people – the ones with common sense – think exactly as you do. And where you can preach your own particular sociopolitical gospel to the nonbelievers, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s the “truth”.

The sad part is that it is getting increasingly difficult – indeed, almost impossible – to find valid sources of information on the Internet. It’s full of “information” sites and blogs that are actually people’s opinions, or worse, plagiarization of other people’s opinions. Worse yet are the news organizations for whom traditional news reporting has become an unprofitable sideline, and is treated as such. They’re tripping over themselves taking pages out of the Fox News playbook. Their programming schedule is chock full of commentary shows with buffoonish characters bloviating endlessly on topics exhausted two weeks before.

My top choices for news and information these days are the PBS NewsHour, the Daily Show, and the Onion. It’s gotten so the headlines of the Onion are indistinguishable from those of the mainstream media, and if I’m going to be entertained, I want it to be from a source with talented staff.

[Coronita]

Lol… I’m changing my mind right now:)

http://piggington.com/well_folkslooks_like_interest_rates_for_loans_are_about_to_go_lo

[Coronita]

Lol… I’m changing my mind right now:)

http://piggington.com/well_folkslooks_like_interest_rates_for_loans_are_about_to_go_lo

[Coronita]

Lol… I’m changing my mind right now:)

http://piggington.com/well_folkslooks_like_interest_rates_for_loans_are_about_to_go_lo

[Coronita]

Lol… I’m changing my mind right now:)

http://piggington.com/well_folkslooks_like_interest_rates_for_loans_are_about_to_go_lo

[Author]

Posts