Just noticed a conservative trait---mistaking qualitative data for "feelings"

[rudy23]

Twice this week in my office, an incident with a conservative clearly illustrated something I'd been noticing and trying to articulate for years.

What I've noticed is that conservative-minded people will often confuse a debate between quantitative and qualitative data with the debate over thinking vs. feeling.

In one situation, my boss said since he was a "data minded" person, he couldn't take action against a slothful coworker unless there were some numbers showing her to be ineffective (even though anyone with two eyes can see her slacking off, being rude, blaming others, etc.)

I asked him, "What color is my shirt? (brown) Is that a fact or a feeling? (fact) Well, there were no numbers involved. How could that be a fact by your definition?"

I've noticed that Repukes love to write off qualitative data as "feeling" or "opinion" anytime it benefits them to take those abstractions like "human empathy" off the table. If they can reduce everything to cold numbers, they take the sin out of selfishness.

I think most do this unknowingly (or instinctively they just know they're framing things in a way that helps them), but I think some have mastered the art of this, and are using it to game the political debate. They do it to move the debate away from human empathy, or anything observed with the intuitive part of the brain. They can mock, and emasculate anyone who brings anything besides numbers into the debate, if it benefits them.

[Carl Skan]

1. Flawed comparison.

Speaking from experience, your boss said that because he knows he has to cover his ass against a wrongful termination lawsuit. Asking a judge what color his shirt is wouldn't do him much good. It doesn't matter what he "knows" is a fact if it can't be proven in court.

Unfortunately, that sort of turns your entire post on its head.

[rudy23]

3. In our state, employers don't need a reason to fire someone.

That factor wasn't relevant to my discussion with him, nor this analogy.

[Carl Skan]

4. I live in Texas

Which is a right to work state as well. You don't fire somebody without being able to document the reason you fired them ESPECIALLY women or minorities.

If you don't realize how what I said is relevant to the situation considering the fact that your boss gave the boiler plate CYA response (been there, done that, numerous times), you haven't been in management before.

[rudy23]

5. What if a worker says "F You" to a boss?

Is that not a documentable reason to fire someone? Does it involve any numbers? That's what I'm getting at.

Although, there certainly is some of what you're talking about in there. No, it's not the perfect analogy, but it reminded me of a zillion other times in my life I've dealt with a stubborn repuke who writes off all qualitative data as "emotional."

[Echo In Light]

2. Precisely why rightists use projection: accuse the Left of "relying on emotion instead of fact."

What you're alluding to actually represents a monumental stumbling block for people of all walks of life when they're confronted w/data they find unfavorable i.e. doesn't fit neatly into pre-conceptualized beliefs of Self, society, country, etc that stem from external sources w/various agenda, yet have shaped the mind's perceptions for many yrs so that even a belief that would be blatantly false to someone examining it objectively from without can appear quite logical and reasonable to those who've long accepted it as "reality."