Two basic kinds of people, actually. Those who make decisions and come to conclusions based only on "facts" - which can be wrong or manipulated, of course. And then there are those who make those decisions and come to conclusions by evaluating the facts they find by the light of principles.
People who live by principle usually think rationally and are not easily swayed by changing "facts." People who seek only to follow the herd and take the "will of the majority" for their principles will not benefit from facts, particularly, whether they are ultimately accurate enough.
Many of the "facts" the article used for examples are extremely subject to interpretation depending on a person's principles.
For example, the question about the % of money spent on welfare did not change people's minds when "corrected" most likely because the % is irrelevant if they feel that such things are funded through theft, and therefore always wrong regardless of the amount. Not to mention that many things not called "welfare" actually amount to that - so their "correct" answer is a matter of opinion anyway.
The article did go on to say that most of those who wouldn't "change" had a negative opinion of welfare. No kidding. I have a VERY negative opinion about theft, in any form.
Nice try, Authorized Journalist, but the people in government also happen to be human. It's otherwise a level playing field, but I happen to have the advantage of knowing more about my life than anyone else.
An additional factor may be that the American people are becoming numb to misrepresentations and outright lies in the media. Corrected soi-disant "facts" are the norm and will be revised again later, so why believe them now? The information age does not bring us more knowledge, but makes the life cycle of lies shorter
Two basic kinds of people, actually. Those who make decisions and come to conclusions based only on "facts" - which can be wrong or manipulated, of course. And then there are those who make those decisions and come to conclusions by evaluating the facts they find by the light of principles.
ReplyDeletePeople who live by principle usually think rationally and are not easily swayed by changing "facts." People who seek only to follow the herd and take the "will of the majority" for their principles will not benefit from facts, particularly, whether they are ultimately accurate enough.
Many of the "facts" the article used for examples are extremely subject to interpretation depending on a person's principles.
To continue:
ReplyDeleteFor example, the question about the % of money spent on welfare did not change people's minds when "corrected" most likely because the % is irrelevant if they feel that such things are funded through theft, and therefore always wrong regardless of the amount. Not to mention that many things not called "welfare" actually amount to that - so their "correct" answer is a matter of opinion anyway.
The article did go on to say that most of those who wouldn't "change" had a negative opinion of welfare. No kidding. I have a VERY negative opinion about theft, in any form.
Nice try, Authorized Journalist, but the people in government also happen to be human. It's otherwise a level playing field, but I happen to have the advantage of knowing more about my life than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteignoring facts and reality leads to death. Darwin speaks.
ReplyDeleteAn additional factor may be that the American people are becoming numb to misrepresentations and outright lies in the media. Corrected soi-disant "facts" are the norm and will be revised again later, so why believe them now?
ReplyDeleteThe information age does not bring us more knowledge, but makes the life cycle of lies shorter