". . . if people start with a particular opinion or view on a subject, any counter-evidence can create 'cognitive dissonance'--discomfort caused by the presence of two irreconcilable ideas in the mind at once. One way of resolving the dissonance would be to change or alter the originally held opinion. But the researchers found that many people instead choose to change the conflicting evidence--selectively seeking out information or arguments that support their position while arguing around or ignoring any opposing evidence, even if that means using questionable or contorted logic.
. . . .
". . . .'the brute fact that people identify their opinions with themselves; to admit having been wrong is to have lost the argument, and (as Vince Lombardi said), every time you lose, you die a little.' . . . . 'there is no more destructive force in human affairs--not greed, not hatred--than the desire to have been right.'"
From All Evidence to the Contary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
This article made me smile, not with mirth.
"cognitive dissonance" is actually a bloody good definition of what I went through...
She made these allegations about me.
vs
I can't believe she made these allegations about me.
Us falsely accused don't get the liberty of choosing which church to adhere to.
AfOR
That's definitely some solid logic,but of course, we don't have to convince any feminists of the truth,do we?
Once we convince the people who can be swayed by logical argumentation of the truth,it does not matter what the feminists believe.
They will be beaten if only a few thousand people come to know the truth.
If only 1 in 4 of the people they attempt to peddle their misandry to on a daily basis tell them to shove their hateful propaganda back into the orifice that it came out of, the feminist political organ will most assuredly die.
Once we convince the people who can be swayed by logical argumentation of the truth,
I read the article and did not see any numbers about the relative percentages of people who hold onto beliefs no matter how much evidence to the contrary gets shoved into their faces, versus those who are actually swayed by argument and evidence.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
The strange semi-circular paradox in the phenomenon described in the article is no group in the world more unreasonably and irrationally clings to their beliefs in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary than those who insist that the "reasonable and rational" approach will eventually prevail.
I cannot think of a single example from history, and contempory culture, if anything, should convince anyone who can look it objectively that such things are not happening and are not likely to happen.
Prejudice is fed by ego. Destroy the ego and the mind is open to truth.
"'there is no more destructive force in human affairs--not greed, not hatred [than the desire to be right']"
I think that's carrying it a little too far. But feminists have it sealed with the hatred - otherwise known as misandry.
As an aside, this article gives and exact description of what Amy Alkon (the 'Advice Goddess') does on her blog, for example she claims to be scientific and always requires scientific evidence, but when confronted with that which does not agree with her opinion, she disregards or trivializes it, or uses contorted logic to explain it away. For example when I presented her with some of the info in Moxon's book.
should say, "gives AN exact description..."
They know the truth, but will never admit it because they get too much mileage out of pretending to be victims. Not every woman is a false rape accuser, but tens of millions of women pretend to be the victims of unfair treatment by men even though they're not. And men enable this because they want to look good.
By the way, the person who wrote this article and whoever does the research probably does exactly what they are complaining about. That is the way with psychologists...they pretend like they are immune 'observers'.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Two--accused-of-gang.5701306.jp
TWO of the men accused of gang-raping a 21-year-old woman have walked free from court after all the charges against them were dropped.
Advocate Depute Joanna Cherry told the High Court in Perth she was not seeking convictions against Ryan Dunn, 17, and Robert Miller, 20.
The dramatic development came on the fifth day of the trial which initially had four men accused of raping the woman in her former home in Bathgate in February this year.
The trial continued against Steven O'Rourke and James Hyndman, and the jury were told by the woman's ex-boyfriend that she confessed to making the story up.
The 21-year-old man told the court:
"She said she was lying about everything. When I asked her again she repeated it. She was lying about everything that happened, and said the boys hadn't done anything."
O'Rourke, 24, and Hyndman, 23, both of HMP Edinburgh, deny raping the 21-year-old woman in her former home in Bathgate, on 10 or 11 February this year.
The trial, before Lord Turnbull, continues.
AfOR
"...there is no more destructive force in human affairs -- not greed, not hatred -- than the desire to have been right."
We have to be careful that we defend what is objectively verifiable with a sense of "rightness," even if someone might take the above statement and claim that we ourselves are "trying to be right." There is such a thing as objective reality, and we get in touch with it when we dispassionately consider facts and evidence.
We should proudly stand up for what we know to be true and right -- all the more because we base our stance upon the facts. Let's not ever concede the truth simply to appease people who want to control us by perverting the intention of the quote at the beginning of this comment.
"There is such a thing as objective reality, and we get in touch with it when we dispassionately consider facts and evidence."
100% correct. Many people these days act like there is something 'wrong' with a person who is sure of something. In fact, this author is probably one of those people. He hates people who are sure of themselves.
Unfortunately, we live in a day and age where the philosophy seems to be, "everybody has their own opinion, so nobody is right", and "perception is more important than reality."
ZTP
Related to this article is the a big gripe about the Dalai Lama. More than a few times he will say one thing on an issue then when he learns more or is presented with facts to the contrary change his mind. This frustrates some people who say he should make up his mind and keep it made up.
I think readers here would find this booklet from the Foundation for Critical Thinking to be useful:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/store-page.cfm?P=products&ItemID=167&catalogID=224&cateID=132
http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM-MediaBias1.pdf
An excerpt from the pdf sample above:
"The Thinker's Guide For Conscientious Citizens on How to Detect Media Bias & Propaganda
In National and World News
Dear Reader,
The logic behind bias and propaganda in the news media is simple and it is the same the world over. Each society and culture has a unique world view. This colors what they see and how they see it. News media in the cultures of the world reflect
the world view of the culture they write for. But the truth of what is happening in the world is much more complicated than what appears to be true in any culture.
To be a critical reader of the news media in any society, one must come to terms with this truth and read accordingly. Critical thinking is a complex set of skills that reverses what is natural and instinctive in human thought.
The uncritical mind is unconsciously driven to identify truth in accordance with the following tacit maxims:
• “It’s true if I believe it.”
• “It’s true if we believe it.”
• “It’s true if we want to believe it.”
• “It’s true if it serves our vested interest to believe it.”
The critical mind consciously seeks the truth in accordance with the following instinct-correcting maxims:
• “I believe it, but it may not be true.”
• “We believe it, but we may be wrong.”
• “We want to believe it, but we may be prejudiced by our desire.”
• “It serves our vested interest to believe it, but our vested interest has nothing to do with the truth.”
Mainstream news coverage in a society operates with the following maxims:
• “This is how it appears to us from our point of view; therefore, this is the way it is.”
• “These are the facts that support our way of looking at this; therefore, these are the most important facts.”
• “These countries are friendly to us; therefore, these countries deserve praise.”
• “These countries are unfriendly to us; therefore, these countries deserve criticism.”
• “These are the stories most interesting or sensational to our readers; therefore, these are the most important stories in the news.”
Critical readers of the news reverse each of these maxims. This Mini-Guide explains how to do this and thus reduce the influence of bias and propaganda on the mind.
Richard Paul Linda Elder
Center for Critical Thinking Foundation for Critical Thinking"
--
As for my own biases, I am reminded of my favourite quote from the movie As Good As It Gets, where Jack Nicholson plays a novelist named Melvin Udall....
Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
False Rape.
Created by feminism, fought by MRAs.
I am proud to be an "MRA moron".
Post a Comment