Simply Some Thoughts for "Thought"

[skeptic]

Almost nothing will ever have one hundred percent agreement; even the most obvious subjects will be debated by "someone" using skewed and twisted logic (at least to them).

 

We teach second graders how to try and discern "opinion" from "fact"; yet very often that skill seems to be lacking in these discussions. Our existence is mostly some shade of grey.

 

We can deny all we want, but we all have some type of "prejudice"; it just depends on how you perceive something and how you were raised. How we respond to that prejudice is the real problem, not having it.

 

Very few of us can claim, in reality, that emotion does not sometimes shade our thought process (or lack of it occasionally), and therefore our response.

 

Just because we disagree about things does not make those with whom we disagree "stupid, ignorant, dumb, perverted, and so on. It is simply a disagreement!

 

"Compromise" is not one sided; and it is useless without allowing it to happen at some point.

 

Statistics are dependent on "opinion"; they do not make opinion. Experts can make anything seem to be supported in one direction or another. The actual "study" subject, the questions, the people queried, how they were queried (and even where and when), individual bias, the size of the study, and many other variable all are part of the outcome.

 

If you reach far enough you are likely to find some type of connection between two ideas or persons. Whether you believe absolutely in creation or in evolution, at some point we all share ancestors in one form or another.

 

 

I am sure others can add many additional things to this list. My point is that all too often we cannot seem to get past our first "knee jerk" to some ideas or conceptions. But, at some point, we need to accept that we can argue to the depth of eternity, but we will not convince everyone we are right, accept we may be wrong.

At some point, usually within the first two or three pages of comments here, we have reached a dead-end; the place where neither argument will realistically change the other side of the debate.

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Just because we disagree about things does not make those with whom we disagree "stupid, ignorant, dumb, perverted, and so on. It is simply a disagreement

 

Yah, skeptic, I get where you're coming from here, and I agree, but only to a point.

 

When it comes down to it, though, some ideas truly are stupid or ignorant, eh? Doesn't make the people dumb, because as you say people can be affected by prejudice and self-interest and group identity and all kinds of other interestin' psychology. . But da idea can still be genuinely stupid.

 

We see kids do dumb things and espouse stupid notions all the time in Scouting, eh? Doesn't make the lad dumb, just makes him inexperienced or silly. So we educate scouts. Sometimes in that process they, like all humans and especially teenagers, will argue with us until they turn blue and pass out. .

 

I'd argue that's not a bad thing, though. That lad might not admit it now, but having his dumb idea run into steadfast opposition from friends really does help him rethink things and come to new ideas down the road apace, or at least moderate his notions a bit. We often learn best by running into walls, or by discovering we're making increasingly ridiculous arguments in defense of an indefensible position. That takes time, though, and that's fine.

 

Plus in some professions, we believe adversarial argument between a couple of folks is da thing that will help a group of people watching come to the truth of the matter.

 

As for statistics and other scientific reporting, I'd disagree with yeh mildly. While it's true that lobbyists and advocates can fund poor studies, or selectively report results, or disingenuously spin what is reported, that's just what lobbyists and advocates do, eh? Yeh have to be a careful reader or listener. In actuality, the data and statistics are valuable, and help yeh get to the truth of the matter. They should make opinion, and true experts really can't make things say whatever they want and still be honest.

 

Beavah

 

[JoeBob]

Skeptic, you're completely right. (Er; correct?)

 

Every individual's 'facts' are colored by their own experience. I think that posts to the 'Issues & Politics' forum fall into the following categories:

 

1- Camaraderie: Getting support for your own 'facts' from like minded individuals.

2- Practice: Working out the language phrasing for an idea in order to best be able to convince others (in the real world) to join your point of view.

3- Sparring: Trying out your sharpened ideas on mental opponents.

4- Socializing: Got nothing better to do. (And can type almost as fast as they can think.)

 

 

Notice that I did not suggest that folks posted to this forum seeking to have their 'facts' proven false. I don't know if that personality type exists.

 

People seldom are moved to post when mostly they agree with a topic. They will add subtleties, if they think they're important. And they'll always jump in if they have major information to add if their side seems to be behind! Or if they feel that a group with they identify is being seriously maligned.

 

The subtlety that I'd like to add to your OP is that most serious busy people don't take the time to add to a topic unless they are already emotionally invested in the subject. And people thinking emotionally never have open minds; so we may as well acknowledge that we'll never change someone's position.

 

Accept that, and you can enjoy the sparring!

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

back when Saturday Night Live was funny, Jane Curtin and Dan Ackroyd did "Point CounterPoint" which consisted of two "Political" Commentators "debating" an issue. The part that I thought was so so so hilarious is they never did make a point about the issue, they just insulted each other. I thought it was brilliant satire on how not to conduct a political debate, I didnt think it would be seen as prescience for future political debate

 

Jane, you magnificently ignorant.... person!

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

RE: "We can deny all we want, but we all have some type of "prejudice"; it just depends on how you perceive something and how you were raised. How we respond to that prejudice is the real problem, not having it."

 

It's true that we're all much more likely to be influenced by factors that influence us than we are to be influenced by ones that don't. But how little such statements clarify can be clearly obscured in statements expressing not just prejudice about prejudice but also prejudice about how the response to prejudice is more problematic than the prejudice itself, as is done in the above quote which itself expresses a prejudice asserting that one's response to the prejudice that one is prejudiced to believe one has is more of a problem than the prejudice that one is prejudiced to believe one has.

 

It only leaves us to wonder... how should we respond to the prejudice that the problem with prejudice is more the response to the prejudice than the prejudice itself when that very prejudice is itself a prejudice, which according this maxim we ought be concerned about how we respond.... particularly when the prejudice about response to prejudice isn't developed as far as suggesting what kinds of responses are even available as options, much less what the consequences of selecting one option or another might be?

 

Accuse me of using "skewed and twisted logic" but what else have we got here unless this maxim's twin elements, the omnipresence of prejudice, and the importance of our response to it, are themselves exempt from what the maxim posits...

 

...in which case, it can only be true if it is false.

 

In other words.... huh?

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

I spent the last few years developing an immunity to iocane powder.

 

[JoeBob]

As you wish!

[SSScout]

 

My name is not Iago Montoya, I don't think you killed my father, you can keep on living.

 

 

[pchadbo]

"Statistics are dependent on "opinion"; they do not make opinion. Experts can make anything seem to be supported in one direction or another. The actual "study" subject, the questions, the people queried, how they were queried (and even where and when), individual bias, the size of the study, and many other variable all are part of the outcome."

 

Heard a different version of this: Figures don't lie but liars figure.

 

I also agree that the tradition of thoughtful and informed exchange of ideas, that a debate orginally was in the Socratic tradition, has been reduced to "I can shout louder and have more creative insults, so I win."

 

A lively, respectful, debate around a campfire is one of life's great joys. When it gets personal, it is horrifying.

 

If we all keep the Scout Law in mind during these excanges we could go a long way toward civility.

[packsaddle]

"It's true that we're all much more likely to be influenced by factors that influence us than we are to be influenced by ones that don't."

Wow! This one is going into a lecture for sure.

[Eamonn]

One of my favorite TV shows is Jeopardy.

I'm sometimes amazed that when it goes in re-run, I get the same things wrong as I did the first time I seen it.

I suppose that either I'm just very dumb? Or there has to be some reason why even after receiving the right answer I still continue to not get it right.

 

When it comes to prejudice?

This is a tough one.

I go along with the idea that adding diversity makes us better.

The idea of people coming from different backgrounds, different cultures and having different ideas and view points working toward a common goal. Is a good thing.

 

I sometimes get a little confused that while accepting that diversity is good.

Pointing out what makes us different is often seen as being harmful.

 

Challenge is a good thing.

Having someone challenge my ideas and my opinions is good.

Good because in defending my ideas and opinions I'm forced to think about them and get the little gray cells working.

While the person who is challenging my ideas and my opinions more than lightly knows that the chances of him making me change is very small.

The opportunity to examine and take a hard look at these thoughts is worthwhile.

 

Many years back I used to teach history. (English History.)

The text we were teaching from were very one sided.

Rarely if ever was it stated that the English were ever wrong and bits that didn't show the English in a good light were never dwell-ed upon.

 

I think that it's kinda of strange that I'm willing to discuss and defend my views on politics but when it comes to my religion and my idea of God. - That becomes an area where I'm a lot less comfortable.

 

Over the years as I've aged I think or like to think? That I'm far less judgmental than I used to be.

In the past when someone failed to agree with me, I not only seen them as being wrong but added that they were "Something" for being wrong.

Today while I might still see them as being wrong, I'm not as fast to add any kind of a label.

Ea