You can give me 134 reasons why I ought to like something, but it is still my right not to.

[Stinky The Clown]

Yes, it is very reasonable to attempt to change minds based on facts. But it is also possible, and not the least unreasonable, to hold a position based on emotion.

"I dislike cod liver oil, and won't take it."

"Cod liver oil will prevent cancer."
"Cod liver oil will stop male pattern baldness."
"Cod liver oil has shown to be an effective decay preventive dentifrice when used is a conscientiously applied program of prophylactic dental care."
"Cod liver oil can control underarm perspiration stains on little black dresses."

Etc.

The more these facts get repeated, the less effective they are. The less effective they are, the more vehement are the citers. That vehemence is often received, not as passionate support for cod liver oil, but simply as a growing annoyance, like an increase in the mosquito population on one's back deck.

None of that changes emotionally held positions. And laugh if you wish, but emotion is how many politicians make it to high office. Who was the smarter man, better suited to the presidency: Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan?

How much of Barack Obama's support is based on facts and how much on emotionally based beliefs? Please don't misread me. Emotionally held positions are no less real, no less viable, no less valuable, than fact based opinions. In fact, thy may be better because they're much more visceral.

I guess my point is that if you wish to change minds, try a different tactic. If you just want to keep pissing people off, keep doing what you're doing.

This applies to anyone who debates issues. I can tell you with complete certainty, this applies to me as much as anyone else. There is a great deal of emotion behind what I think about things.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Spoken like a true corporatist.

How much did they pay you to say that?








:dunce:

[Nye Bevan]

5. Where did the OP even *mention* corporations? (nt)

[Buzz Clik]

8. LOL!

[Nye Bevan]

6. Dupe

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I must say, I have no idea if you're serious or not. If you're not, then my humor meter needs .....

..... calibration.

Sorry to have to ask, but were you serious or not?

[Buzz Clik]

14. Not.

I am called a corporatist every day at DU, mostly with venom. Just thought I'd give you a jab for showing rational thought.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. hahaha

Some days, when I get up, my heir seems to get tangled, tightening my scalp, and cutting off rational thought.

That was "heir". I have no "hair"

Its all good. :thumbsup:

:hi:

[JoePhilly]

2. What debating tactic changes the mind of a person who throws out the facts

and makes their determination based on emotions?

People certainly have the right to reach their conclusion based on emotions. Generally speaking, if that's what they do, there is little point in debating them with facts ...

Unless ... there are others who might actually be interested in the facts, observing. Then, why not place "your facts", against "the others" emotions, side by side?

After all, this is an internet forum with lots of speakers, and lurkers ... its not my kitchen with two people sitting alone, across a table from one another. In that case, not worth it.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Emotionally held positions rooted in fact are likely pretty hardened

Not always, but probably this is the more common situation.

[JoePhilly]

18. If they are rooted in fact, calling them "Emotional" positions seems to be

wrong. And I'll explain why.

Case 1) As you note, the position is grounded in fact. The emotional aspect follows after. This is a factual position with an emotional element. Further, I'd suggest that ALL factual positions include an emotional component. That emotional component might be very positive on one extreme, neutral, or very negative on the other extreme. But the emotion does not drive the position, the facts do. The emotion is simply how one's feel about the facts.

Case 2) If you start first with an emotional position, and then you seek only confining evidence as your "facts", while also dismissing other data, the position is purely emotional, because the facts do not matter.

We had 2 threads like this in the past 2 days. A guy posted a question asking DU what actions Obama has taken that "pleased" them. From the start he said he had no examples. So people posted their examples of things Obama has done that pleased them. He dismissed them all. Not one of the items "pleased" him. When I asked him directly how, objectively speaking, he could not be pleased about say, equal pay for women, or repeal of DADT, or kids being covered for pre-existing conditions ... he said that, well, there were other issues that angered him so much, that it prevented him from being "pleased" about anything else.

That's an emotionally based position. For each of those positive items I mention above (and for all of the others that were posted), he could not be pleased about any one of them, because of his emotions about other issues. The facts did not matter. As such, there would be no way to change his mind on any specific issue. Not one was "pleasing".

[Jim__]

19. Try finding an emotional hook to your facts.

Fact: If we keep emitting CO2 at our current rate, then the Artic ice cap will melt.

Maybe a more emotional hook: If we keep pumping out CO2 at our current rate, then in 25 years the land we're standing on will be under water.

Those statements could be based on the same set of facts. I think the 2nd statement has a more emotional appeal.

[JoePhilly]

57. That view does connect with my other responses in this thread.

Every factual position includes an emotional element. For the individual. The emotion may be very positive on one extreme, neutral, or very negative on the other extreme.

But I would also suggest that if you use the emotional element to cause the "other" to discard additional facts, then we start to move into FOX News land, in which the facts matter LESS then the emotions which are used to discard related facts.

Also, in your example, the first fact is less specific than the second. In a sense, it includes added data. In comparison, I personally believe the first one. I wonder about the 25 year prediction in the second. Will Kansas be under water in 25 years, I doubt that.

I do agree the emotion matters. My issue is whether the facts drive the position, or the emotion does. The former is more objective, the second is not.

[MineralMan]

3. OK. I don't think anyone said you couldn't hold some emotional

position on anything. You're welcome to your position. If you post it publicly, though, people will post information and facts to counter your emotional response. That's the nature of these forums.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Who said someone said something?

More importantly, please don't presume to lecture me or speak so condescendingly to me.

Thanks very much for understanding my requests to you.

Good day.

[MineralMan]

24. You know, either DU is a forum, where people can post

what they want to say, or it is not. My understanding is that it is just such a forum. I wasn't lecturing you in any way. I was posting my thoughts about your original post. I was speaking in general regarding emotional responses, not specifically to you. As someone who frequently posts factual information about issues some feel emotional about, that's my style of posting, just as an emotional response is the style of others. Both are acceptable on DU, but neither precludes the other. As I said, you can post whatever you want on DU. So can I. Our styles are different.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Here's the deal, without rancor or disrespect . . . .

. . . . . what you can do is often different from what you ought to do. I have decided that it is healthier for all concerned to stay out of your threads. I would most appreciate simple reciprocity. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice man, but I find you personally offputting. I would consider it a great personal favor if you would simply not speak to me. I'm not asking you to agree. I'm not trying to change your mind in any way. I am simply asking for a courtesy. Please leave me alone. I should think it has been clear to you for some time that I am not personally fond of you. That isn't likely to change any time in the foreseeable future. So what I am asking for is a polite agreement to go our separate ways.

Of course, you're free to post anywhere, including in my threads and in response to me. You're perfectly free to ignore my sincere request and keep on attempting to engage me. There is nothing I can do about it and, as you say, it is perfectly within the rules and represents the essence of what this or any discussion site is about. Just please know in advance that such replies will be mostly (I dislike speaking in absolutes) ignored. I will continue to see it as a personal annoyance, which, you can now see, would be the result of your doing it. We'll see if that's your wish.

Again, this is said in a spirit of seeking a favor. I mean you no disrespect and apologize if my direct request is taken badly. It is not my intent to upset you.

[MineralMan]

30. For the most part, I already stay out of your threads.

I'll continue to do that. However, I will reserve my privilege of responding when I see something I want to respond to. That rarely happens. I'm not upset. I rarely get upset.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Then we agree.

Thank you. As I said, I appreciate it.

[eomer]

4. Many people's opinions are based on being fed lies and/or having facts hidden from them.

That would be the case with Carter versus Reagan. Many people would hold a different opinion if they were operating from the actual facts rather than from a myth created by years of propaganda.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. There are also lots of people who know the facts.

Some coldly calculate on their basis. Others use them to form an emotional position.

Neither is wrong.

None of it is black and white.

[n2doc]

7. The problem isn't facts. The problem is facts that matter

One can list lots of facts- there has been a drop in cases of alcohol poisoning in xxxx since 2008, or whatnot. If you don't live there or care about that particular thing, then that fact isn't going to do much for you. On the other hand, a fact like no increase in social security payments since 2009 just might have a definite effect on you or someone you know.

There are a lot of "accomplishments" and "facts" trotted out that really don't amount to a hill of beans to 99.9% of voters.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I think you've hit upon a very important point.

[BobbyBoring]

26. There's also

A lot of facts and accomplishments that are neither facts or accomplishments that people base emotional beliefs on. That's where the problems really start:evilgrin:

[HereSince1628]

9. You know, some evolutionary mechanisms are operating in all this

Somethings are much easier to learn than others. Some things are amazingly fast to learn, even erroneously learn, and some things are almost impossible to unlearn. This is a part of our evolutionary endowment. I'm not saying that we can't learn or relearn, I'm saying how we learn and how we forget/readjust our 'knowing' is not a matter in which we have complete freedom.

Humans are born with no knowledge of what foods are safe and which are not. We learn through culture and through trial and error. Trial and error is pretty risky business. Through evolution we have gained the ability to associate foods and illness. The tip of our tongue is set up to test food for sweetness prior to ingesting it...something that a fruit eating ancestor would have found very useful. We have a gag reflex that is evoked if we bite into something that is strongly bitter or sour. We learn very quickly. If you get nauseous, you blame the last thing you ingested. If it is purple jelly beans, you can develop an aversion to them that could be in place the entire rest of your life. You may have been sick from that steak tartar you ate the night before, but it's the last thing, the purple jelly beans that get blamed.

Humans are also born into a gregarious social environment. Because humans live in groups we have evolved mechanisms that enable us to read each others intents. We have evolved mechanisms to hierarchically organize ourselves (recognize leaders) etc. Because we are 'smart', we also have developed culture with rules that facilitate group living.

Humans lie, and cheat fellow coalition members; we always have and we always will. So over time our ancestors evolved abilities to deal with lying and cheating group members, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY GROUP LEADERS. As a species we are highly sensitive to this phenomenon. OUR SPECIES EXPECTS OUR LEADERS TO TRY TO CHEAT/EXPLOIT US, we have evolved psychological mechanisms, and have developed cultural mechanisms to deal with this regular part of our daily existance. We are ALWAYS vigilant to the possibility of cheating coalition members. It's our nature.

Recently social psychologists have learned that the type of people who hang out on the internet in places like DU have, on average, psychological profiles that are unlike those of people who don't hang out in these places. People who spend a lot of time on the internet are very likely to have schizoid and schizotypal tendencies if not full blown schizotypal and schizoid personalities. These personality traits are ASSOCIATED WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T TRUST GROUP MEMBERSHIP and they tend to be strongly self-reliant. Which would mean they WILL believe in their own abilities and perceptions before they accept those of others--this would project that internet users are LESS PERSUADABLE.

IMHO, these things go a long distance in explaining why on DU there are always disappointed people who don't seem to be able to swim with the rest of the shoal and who stick to their opinions.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. People tend not to want others to try to change their minds about something.

There's more than a little ego involved. No matter how tactfully facts might be presented, the very presentation of those facts suggests that the other person's beliefs or opinions are wrong. So if I believe X is true and you come to me with a whole list of reliable facts about why Y is true and not X, I will feel that my competence and intelligence has been threatened (I believed X to be true, but if that's wrong maybe I'm stupid!), and I will want to protect my self-esteem by dismissing your facts as wrong or biased. If you tell me outright that I'm an idiot for believing X in the first place I will completely dismiss what you have to say. (This is also why we gravitate toward those who agree with us, and we prefer TV and newspaper editorialists who agree with us. I like Keith Olbermann Rachel Maddow -- they agree with me and confirm that what I believe is correct, and that makes me feel good, smart and well-informed. I dislike Fox News; they tell me I'm wrong and I don't like that. It's called "confirmation bias," and everyone is susceptible to it.)

So if you really want to persuade people, present your argument in a way that doesn't diminish them. Lay out your facts, preferably supported by credible sources, and walk away. Don't call Obama supporters cheerleaders; don't call critics haters. Your and my reason for holding an opinion always has emotional undercurrents and you will not lessen those by throwing more emotional fuel on the fire.

"We do not see things as they are; we see them as we are." - Anais Nin

[Stinky The Clown]

22. That's pretty much the point of my OP

Look through some threads and you'll often see the same two posters going back and forth endlessly. That accomplishes nothing positive. I dare say not a single mind is changed and that, quite counter to the probable intent, opinions just harden.

It is not impossible to imagine someone who loves or hates, let's say, Obama, based on the people who defend or detract.

We're all human.

[jberryhill]

20. Would you, could you, with a fox?

[Dappleganger]

21. Of course it's your right (and mine). I'm always reminded of a car accident...

there can be multiple stories from those involved and they all hold a bit of truth, except for the fucker who caused it and is lying is ass off trying to avoid responsibility. People need to band together (even those with different stories) to make sure the fucker pays because if they don't he could get off and we've all been played for fools.

[a la izquierda]

23. Well, dammit, I love cod liver oil and I won't rest...

until I force you to think exactly as I do. :9











Actually, I've never had the stuff, but as a vegetarian, I never will.


All seriousness, though, I come from, and also married into, a family of conservatives. I have learned how to get my point across, knowing full well I probably won't change minds. That's okay.

[howard112211]

25. Its ok if emotion is the main motivator of an opinion, as long as facts and logic support it as well

Yes, people often hold emotional opinions that are not backed by logic. Usually this ends up being dangerous.

[Davis_X_Machina]

27. No one here, Stinky...

...labors under the delusion that they can change your mind.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Really? Its disappointing that you think that.

The fact is, my mind is often changed as a direct result of conversations here on DU and elsewhere.

I am strongly opinionated, but not closed minded.

[Iggo]

32. Look, if you just donate and do the Firefox adblock thingy....

...wait. That's not what we're talking about?

[uppityperson]

33. k&r. People are emotional beings. We, including me, make decisions

based on our emotions backed up by facts. Figuring out how to appeal to emotions is a way to work towards changing minds.

Huh, I've agreed several times with you over the last few days, as well as a few other posters with whom usually conflict with. Neat.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Its called an open mind

We can all do well to keep one that's in good working order.

Me included.

:hi:

[LWolf]

34. If the 134 reasons don't address the reasons I vote, they are all irrelevant.

And at least some of those 134 reasons are not "fact;" they are propaganda.

Presenting an "achievement" that I didn't want and don't think helps anything isn't likely to inspire me or win my vote, either.

[TahitiNut]

35. I think it was in 2003, or thereabouts, when I last saw ...

... someone post on DU who came to build a better understanding rather than parade their own opinions.

:shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

39. You're new around here, aren't you?

Ya nut!

:)

[Armstead]

41. You mean J. Carlos Jiacento?

...Kidding

[Rex]

46. I was thinking OMC

Good to see that one TSd.

[TahitiNut]

47. LOL!!

:rofl: Gawd ... that SOB really pulled my chain. What an infuriating fuck he was.

[Rex]

45. Not really if that is all you want to see, then you will.

I've seen a lot of thought provoking threads in all that time between 2003 and now. Most of the people that parade their own opinions (like OMC) are tombstoned or get torn apart in their own thread.

Lotsa good posts going on here...a lot of people just don't like the anti-Obama crowd so ragequit a long time ago.

[TahitiNut]

48. Q.E.D.

:dunce:

[Rex]

51. Oh the irony.

:rofl:

[catenary]

36. If visceral is better, we should have loved George W more

that's how he did his 'decidering'...

[Stinky The Clown]

37. The only way you can come to say what you said is to suspend reason

Why is it not possible to viscerally oppose young george?

You also assume that all visceral is based on lack of understanding or lack of facts.

An example in opposition to your premise:

Fact: Obama did not fight for single payer.

One interpretation of that is "Great! We can't afford it anyhow and it would cause me to lose my doctor and (all the otjher crap the right wing spewed)."
Another interpretation is "I am very disappointed in Obama and now find everything he does suspect. He's gonna hafta work REAL hard to gain my trust."

See? Same fact, two very different visceral reactions.

:hi:

[catenary]

42. I did not 'assume' that, actually -you- said it pretty much unequivocally:

I quote: "Emotionally held positions are no less real, no less viable, no less valuable, than fact based opinions. In fact, thy may be better because they're much more visceral."

I can't even begin to imagine how an opinion based on emotion could ever in any way be superior to one based on facts. I guess I've lived a sheltered life. :eyes:

[Armstead]

40. My emotional feeling is that I think President Obama is great....But he keeps pissing me off

I'm not sure how that fits into your template.

Especially since the things that I like about him and the things that piss me off about him are each based in a mix of fact and emotion.

It's a contradiction and a paradox. Or it's just life....

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. You'd like us to use truthiness with you, rather than truth?

OK, we'll remember that. That doesn't mean others feel the same as you, of course. But if you don't mind us lying to you as long as we appeal to your emotions, we can do that.

[darkstar3]

44. Reason and emotion are two entirely separate things.

The ability to properly reason out a postion on something based on facts you've acquired through various sources is very nearly the antithesis of a position based on emotion.

Furthermore, emotion-based positions are bad for discussion, whether in an online forum or in person, becuase they can neither be validated nor invalidated. Emotions simply are, and there is no right or wrong emotion to feel with regard to a chosen phenomenon. It is the non-validating quality of emotion-based positions that I believe makes your statement that it is "not the least unreasonable, to hold a position based on emotion" incorrect. I would also caution against putting reasoned out positions and emotionally-based positions on the same plane of "rightness", since emotions are far easier to manipulate than facts.

I do agree with you, though; presenting someone who holds an emotional position with facts in an effort to make them change is futile.

[Rex]

49. +1

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. Except that sometimes we can't tell the difference.

We may become so emotionally invested in the "truth" or correctness of a particular position (without necessarily even being aware of the depth of our emotional investment) that we accept some facts -- the ones that support our belief -- and reject any others that do not.

So even if you sincerely believe your argument is completely fact-based and objective, it might not be. Objective truth can be a slippery thing, and emotional factors often drive which facts are accepted as valid.

"We see things not as they are, but as we are."

[darkstar3]

56. Which completely supports my point that reason and emotion are separate.

When emotion enters into the evaluation of the correctness of a position, it compromises our ability to use reason.

I also strongly disagree with the idea that objective truth is slippery. Objective truth can be hard to uncover due to various factors, but one thing it is not is slippery.

[StarburstClock]

50. "Your ignorance is not as valid as my intelligence" -- unknown source

There's an entire field of psychology known as emotional intelligence, emotions are valid and are part of all humans. But ignorant and incorrect emotions are not just as valid as intelligent emotions, ignorant emotions are lies.

[Rex]

52. 'ignorant emotions are lies'

Can you give an example of this? Interesting way of looking at it.

[darkstar3]

54. Emotional intelligence has nothing to do with validating or invalidating emotions.

Emotional intelligence deals with the perception, modification, and correct classification of emotions. Ignorance, correctness, and validity don't enter into it.

[Initech]

55. This is what Fux News does on a daily basis.