There is no arguing with conservatives

[newmac]

There's No Arguing With Conservatives ... No, Seriously, Scientific Studies Prove It
Dan Sweeney Dan Sweeney Tue Sep 16, 8:07 pm ET

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse. A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

If you've ever gotten in an argument with your conservative friends (assuming you haven't offered each other a mutual Carville-Matalin-style political ceasefire to preserve the friendship), you've probably seen this "backfire effect" in action. The more you try to tell people that Sarah Palin is lying when she says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the more they believe she was telling the truth. The more you try to explain how similar McCain's policies are to Bush's, the more they maintain he's "the original maverick."

The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?

I ain't got the answers, ace, except to say this: When arguing with conservatives in front of on-the-fence independents, remember that you're not trying to convince the conservative to actually buy into silly notions like facts and reason. You're highlighting the differences between left and right for the outside observer. If the other guy insists on political views that belong only in Disney World's Fantasyland, other folks will realize what's happening.

But if there is no third party, do yourself a favor and save your breath. As the study demonstrates, you're only making matters worse. Consider that aforementioned ceasefire. It is football season, after all. There's plenty of other things to argue about. Go Mizzou!

[YOY]

1. You can argue with a fiscal conservative.

Fiscal conservatives can read numbers. The bottom line rules and numbers do not lie or spin. I have done it and won. They can be swayed with logic.

"Social Conservatives" aka Fambly Values Theocrats are another story as are idiotic nationalists that believe their country an "do no wrong."

[An Intellectual]

3. It depends on the type fiscal conservative. There are some...

... who actually feel the current crisis was caused by regulation and government! What's their fix? Deregulate! No amount of arguing sways them; it doesn't matter how obvious it is that greed caused this.

Then, of course, there are the fiscal conservative libertarians who literally want government to collapse (agorism). Yep, they actually want corporations to run the world!

It doesn't matter how intellectual you are, you aren't going to convince these people; their philosophy is built on a hatred of minorities and the poor.

[YOY]

4. THe latter you described is not a fiscal conservative. It is a (capital L) Libertarian.

AKA a complete idiot who read too much Ayn Rand and thinks her ideas were just skippy but anyone more socially minded is an "idealist". I find it odd that most of them work in IT and are socially backward. I'm a geek myself but I work balancing budgets.

The was no regulation that lead us to the point. Anyone who spouts the first point is just parroting talking heads and not a "fiscal conservative".

I have argued with true fiscal conservatives and won. Anyone who can read a spreadsheet or understand a budget can be won. Numbers don't lie. If they cannot read numbers and has likely neither a degree in economics, finance, accounting, nor is any type of MBA then they need to get an impartial education in the matter before opening their yaps. If they persist in pushing the matter and have the degree they are on the profit side of a potential collapse and not looking at long term gains or steady revenue but a short term boom for personal profit...in essence a liar and a cheat.

[An Intellectual]

5. About what topic was the argument? What did you show the rightist?

[YOY]

7. Recently? That the current path of deregulation has directly led to the mortgage crisis

(that would include most adjustable rate loans) and in turn the current financial crisis that requires Federal bailout as well as being coupled with the federal "borrow and spend" on less than profitable endeavors all leading to massive national debt with the middle class holding the bag.

Others? Well in a nutshell discussions with reasonable fiscal conservatives have included...

That "caveat emptor" is just fine as long as one understand that the public generally assumes that the products that they consume are not dangerous to them on any level. Lack of regulation in any sector (let alone slight or even moderate) has led to this. The consumer is blamed for the faulty product and suffers incredibly...not the producer. That guy sometimes gets a bailout. Little accountability of the corproate entity is to be seen.

"Privatization" of basic needs that usually cannot be exported (health care come to mind as does education) has led to a system where profits have been squeezed from the public in a manner that are actually costing them more than a public service in lieu of a privately run system that runs on exclusivity and maximization of profits.

Throw in "Reaganomic" trickled economics down that have persistently been shown to screw the best source of investors (the middle class) and you've got a recipe for failure. The tax man isn't competing for your slice of the pie. He's got a number and needs to get it...no more and no less. Economic oligarchies will work together to maximize profits continually across the board.

That the national deficit has increased far more under so-called "fiscal conservatives" than under so-called "tax and spend" liberals. Any one who calls Clinton a liberal is an idiot. The man was everything a "conservative" is supposed to be.

and the "I can't beleive I'm explaining this to you" topic of it is important to invest in infrastructure.

Usually it's more of a debate but I have come out in a better position at the end of more than a few...

The "rightist"...that's an interesting term. I was talking about a fiscal conservative...not a fascist Ann Coulter reader. Sure you're in the right place?

[An Intellectual]

9. Thanks for your information. Oh, and for the record...

..."rightist" is, in my mind at least, a more derogatory term for "right-winger"; I didn't realize that "Ann Coulter readers" used it.

[Glorfindel]

2. "Never try to teach a pig to dance; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Same principle with conservatives. Let them wallow.

[lelgt60]

6. Many here are far more "conservative" than many republicans

I agree with your point, but...

I'm definitely see myself as conservative. It all depends on what you want to conserve.

To paraphrase Einstein..., I think government should be doing as little as necessary, but no less. They do need to provide for a safety net for less fortunate people, make sure essential services get done efficiently, insure a fair, honest, transparent marketplace, provide for the common DEFENSE, and prevent individuals or corporations for fouling our air, water, food supply, etc.

Bushco are definitely NOT fiscal conservatives, or any other kind of conservative. They're nothing.

I really like the term Progressive, rather than Liberal/Conservative. To me, progress means making thinkgs better today than they were yesterday. Who can argue with that?

Mizzou sucks.

[groovedaddy]

8. Reminds me of the quote: "Not all conservatives are stupid people...

but all stupid people are conservative."
So I guess it depends on which of these conservatives you are speaking with.

[Enthusiast]

10. This hits the nail right on the head.

I have tried to reason with my rigid thinking Republican friend. We are no longer friends. He would believe any contrived argument coming from the Bush Administration.

It's epidemic in scope. Half of the country wallows in this shit that passes for reality.

[libodem]

11. Whom ever dies with the most toys wins

isn't that all that really matters in the end? As long as conservatives can justify unbridled greed, to grab up more than anybody else, and then hoard it, that's all the logic they need. No wonder the way they think and present arguments drives me nuts. I'm glad to to see some proof.

[lelgt60]

12. Well, there are plenty of super rich liberals...

But I agree there needs to be a cap of some sort on accumulated wealth.

Also I agree that it is primarily a conservative argument that there is some sort of "right" to accumulate unlimted wealth and that preventing unlimited wealth accumulation would remove incentive to work.

Both ridiculous, unfounded arguments.