First, I came across this article on The Backfire Effect. I suggest you read it, its food for thought. The core idea of the article is that presenting conflicting evidence to folks with a belief based upon faulty evidence, heresay, rumor, faith, conspiracy, etc... doesn't convince the believer otherwise. It merely reinforces that belief.
This shouldn't be a shock to anyone who has had the pleasure of hanging out with a conspiracy theorist. Suggesting that 9/11 was not an inside job just makes you a sucker, fool and a patsy (or, in a worst case scenario, ONE OF THEM). But it doesn't need to be the case that one bring up something as inflammatory as 9/11 conspiracies or as ridiculous as Hitler-UFO-JFK conspiracy theories. Our everyday politics hinge on this entrenching of our beliefs.
Surely it can't be that all conservative beliefs are statistically and factually correct while all opposing liberal beliefs are wrong. And surely it cannot be that all liberal beliefs are statistically and factually correct while all conservative beliefs are wrong. Its not even a question of a "happy medium" somewhere between the two. Occasionally, someone is going to be wrong. One policy is going to reduce teen pregnancy and one is not, and statistics can help us figure this stuff out (anecdotes, while moving, are not hugely useful).
I know that I have knee-jerk reactions to all sorts of things. The article points out that this seemingly innate desire to argue and fight over what we already "know" or are comfortable "knowing" is essentially part of human nature, and our responses likely have their roots in evolutionary biology (see: something I'll readily accept because I don't find the idea that we're fancy apes at all offensive). But tell me that we've got all kinds of fossil fuel in shale, and I'll raise a skeptical eyebrow and quote you science I vaguely remember from middle school ( I honestly haven't read up on this issue very much).
This is basically how I see you people. Well, me. You're more like hobo chimps. |