|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence based smear campaigns | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
What tickles me is that the back fire effect only seems to work for right wingers Funny, the study does not indicate that. You appear to just be pulling it out of your ass.
Seems it does say that.
The 'supporting' quote comes from the blog article, and does not support the claim that this ONLY works for right wingers. The actual study explitly states:
quote: Unless you are just being deliberately funny and deliberately digging in when you received a correction. Because that would be exceptionally well played. But if you are just backfiring, then perhaps you should actually read the actual paper. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Ya got me.
I'll apologise to Phage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
My apologies, Phage.
I was pulling your chain a bit too much, I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Lefties won't change their conclusions and liberals are very evidence based in their thinking. Not sure if this bit's a joke, but it you're gonna present such a controversial claim so at odds with day to day experience, you need to provide some sort of evidence for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Larni writes: I was pulling your chain a bit too much, I think. Heh.. Mod beat me to it, I was about to ask if you were running your own experiment in this thread...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
This means that right wingers have very little chance of changing their minds; especially when provided with evidence to the contrary to their beliefs. Is it then pointless arguing with right wing people because any evidence that is presented that is counter to their beliefs will actually strengthen them? Couldn't the same thing be said of left-wingers too? Isn't this painting with an awfully big brush, as if you have pro-right tendencies that you will forever be locked in a right-wing box? One could even point out that the flaw in this social experiment is that it's self-refuting, in that it demonizes a certain political spectrum by hypocritically doing the very thing they allege the other side is doing. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
So, think of the most liberal friend you have. Can you illustrate a scenario in which this friend would exhibit the same characteristics as the "study" in question portrays for conservatism? Yes, absolutely. I know people who refuse to believe that Obama has contributed more to the national debt than any U.S. president in history (even more than the bloated whore, Bush, and that's after adjusting for inflation), even when clear evidence proves it. Some people don't like to admit they're wrong when they've invested so much time on a person or a position they've committed themselves to, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I see this as being a human problem, not something consigned soley to "right-wingers." That's absurd and self-refuting concept. This whole social "experiment" is suspect of the very thing it claims against others -- blinded by bias. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I see this as being a human problem, not something consigned soley to "right-wingers." That's absurd and self-refuting concept. This whole social "experiment" is suspect of the very thing it claims against others -- blinded by bias. That's more a problem of the way the experiment is reported than the experiment itself. If you read the quotes Modulous posted, the experimenters were quite explicit that no definitive conclusions can be drawn about whether this effect is different across the political spectrum. Whenever we talk about differences between 'conservatives and liberals' or 'left and right', I think it's important to remember that the package of ideas lumped under these headings are not in any sense universal. To take some examples that spring to mind that are usually considered right/left issues in the US, it was the right-wing conservative government here in the Czech Republic that made this the first country in the old Eastern bloc to legalise gay marriage, and it was the left-wing Sandinista administration in Nicaragua that outlawed abortion, to the cheers of their supporters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes, absolutely. I know people who refuse to believe that Obama has contributed more to the national debt than any U.S. president in history (even more than the bloated whore, Bush, and that's after adjusting for inflation), even when clear evidence proves it. Seems to me that whether or not your claim is true and whether it is something that reflects poorly on Obama is a matter of what you are actually measuring. Do you have any interesting links to threads on the net where someone has raised this issue and people have refused to believe that so we can see if it looks like it is bias that is at work rather than a disagreement over 'real' terms, % of GDP, or if they are bickering as to who is to blame for that occurring? The thing we won't be able to do is to see if the people you are talking about 'backfire' regarding the position or whether or not they simply disregard the correction since it is that phenomenon which the study is is addressing: and it is not something that can be detected without a great deal of care. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That's more a problem of the way the experiment is reported than the experiment itself. If you read the quotes Modulous posted, the experimenters were quite explicit that no definitive conclusions can be drawn about whether this effect is different across the political spectrum. Which should then lead the question what the purpose of the experiment was to begin with if not a smear.
Whenever we talk about differences between 'conservatives and liberals' or 'left and right', I think it's important to remember that the package of ideas lumped under these headings are not in any sense universal. To take some examples that spring to mind that are usually considered right/left issues in the US, it was the right-wing conservative government here in the Czech Republic that made this the first country in the old Eastern bloc to legalise gay marriage, and it was the left-wing Sandinista administration in Nicaragua that outlawed abortion, to the cheers of their supporters. You're right, Left/Right terms are often muddled, especially internationally. I think then we have to look at it in terms of what most Western nations identify it as being. Since I take both left and right positions, generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I don't consider myself as either Right or Left on the political spectrum. I view myself as a Constitutional Moderate or a Libertarian. But my country is deeply divided politically and I feel these kind of experiements only further lead to disunity. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Which should then lead the question what the purpose of the experiment was to begin with if not a smear. The full paper is available online. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Seems to me that whether or not your claim is true and whether it is something that reflects poorly on Obama is a matter of what you are actually measuring. My statement is directly in context with the question posed to the audience in regard to personal experience.
Do you have any interesting links to threads on the net where someone has raised this issue and people have refused to believe that so we can see if it looks like it is bias that is at work rather than a disagreement over 'real' terms, % of GDP, or if they are bickering as to who is to blame for that occurring? The question was raised from a personal perspective. I don't know how the average "leftist" would respond.
The thing we won't be able to do is to see if the people you are talking about 'backfire' regarding the position or whether or not they simply disregard the correction since it is that phenomenon which the study is is addressing: and it is not something that can be detected without a great deal of care. I agree, which leads me to question 1. What the political persuasion of the experimenters is and 2. What the purpose of the experiment is. I personally have seen much cognitive dissonance coming from the Right to include the most ridiculous instances of protective Bush (which really is them trying to save face for backing him). That is not in question. The question is why this wouldn't apply to the other foot. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The question was raised from a personal perspective. I don't know how the average "leftist" would respond. Do you mean personal in the fleshy vocal communication thing? You haven't seen the phenomenon online?
I agree, which leads me to question 1. What the political persuasion of the experimenters is and 2. What the purpose of the experiment is. We cross posted, I addressed this in Message 41. You can hear one of the people involved talk about the study as a podcast on his blog. He says in that interview that 'this is a human problem' and 'We are not targeting conservatives'. I am not sure what the political persuasion of the authors is. It is a politically neutral study so I don't know why that would matter. Their names are Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, I suppose you could google them, read their stuff and try and come to a conclusion on that.
I personally have seen much cognitive dissonance coming from the Right to include the most ridiculous instances of protective Bush (which really is them trying to save face for backing him). That is not in question. The question is why this wouldn't apply to the other foot. It may well do. The paper does not imply that this is ruled out, and cites several other papers that do indicate some political effect in liberals. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The paper does not imply that this is ruled out, and cites several other papers that do indicate some political effect in liberals. I've read through a bit of the paper and have to say that it is well-written and took a lot in to consideration. So in those regards I am impressed. I also found one of the answers to my question:
quote: "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member
|
Larni writes: My apologies, Phage.I was pulling your chain a bit too much, I think. Apology accepted. It isn't the first time that I have fallen prey to the difficulty conveying satire online.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024