When in doubt, shout – why shaking someone’s beliefs turns them into stronger advocates

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Oct 21, 2010 8:00 AM GMT
    When in doubt, shout – why shaking someone’s beliefs turns them into stronger advocates


    http://alturl.com/rkmah

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-%E2%80%93-why-shaking-someone%E2%80%99s-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/

    I love stuff like this icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 1:20 PM GMT
    Good article. I've found arguments to be completely futile. Calm debates just a little less so.
  • nv7_

    Posts: 1453

    Oct 21, 2010 4:55 PM GMT
    cold saidGood read.

    For those of you who can't be bothered clicking and reading the article - in summary:
    (a) humans don't like to be proved wrong; and
    (b) humans are stubborn cunts.


    This. Whether it's football, or Ford vs. Chevy, or God vs. no god, or politics, or.... icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 5:19 PM GMT
    This is all about conformance theory.

    People are idiots, and will hang onto to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    It shows that human beings have a LONG way to go.

    It's encouraging that young people are more and more walking away from the malarkey, but, it's also interesting to note that they're walking away from it not because it's false, but, because the organizations are too political.

    If you ever try to talk rationally with someone immersed in a false belief system you quickly discover that they "dig in" and that getting them to think rationally becomes increasing difficult. People are truly irrational idiots.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 21, 2010 5:24 PM GMT
    chuckystud saidThis is all about conformance theory.

    People are idiots, and will hang onto to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    It shows that human beings have a LONG way to go.

    It's encouraging that young people are more and more walking away from the malarkey, but, it's also interesting to note that they're walking away from it not because it's false, but, because the organizations are too political.



    OMG! Just a few hours ago, while going through a boring briefing, I daydreamed a little and thought about something to what you're saying. Conservatives are conformists and try to fit in with the status quo. Liberals challenge ideas with new ideas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 5:42 PM GMT
    muscles4muscles saidGood article. I've found arguments to be completely futile. Calm debates just a little less so.

    Even more true on the internet.

    Currently debating whether it's even more true than that on RJ.icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 5:47 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    OMG! Just a few hours ago, while going through a boring briefing, I daydreamed a little and thought about something to what you're saying. Conservatives are conformists and try to fit in with the status quo. Liberals challenge ideas with new ideas.


    OH NO YOU DIDent
    flameon01.jpg
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Oct 21, 2010 5:59 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    chuckystud saidThis is all about conformance theory.

    People are idiots, and will hang onto to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    It shows that human beings have a LONG way to go.

    It's encouraging that young people are more and more walking away from the malarkey, but, it's also interesting to note that they're walking away from it not because it's false, but, because the organizations are too political.



    OMG! Just a few hours ago, while going through a boring briefing, I daydreamed a little and thought about something to what you're saying. Conservatives are conformists and try to fit in with the status quo. Liberals challenge ideas with new ideas.


    Honestly, I think it is part of the human condition....some people more than others....but I think that everyone does this to a certain extent. It is important to be aware of it so that we can at least try and catch ourselves when we do do it.
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    Oct 21, 2010 8:07 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said Conservatives are conformists and try to fit in with the status quo. Liberals challenge ideas with new ideas.


    Yeah...... right....... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Frightening as they may be, conservatives are floating many new ideas.

    Also, what happened to the hordes of college students who couldn't get enough of Obama in '08? Have they just lost their attention spans and moved on to the next trend? Don't they know that they get to stay under their family's health plan until they're 26? For that alone they should be out in hordes getting out the vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 8:49 PM GMT
    mke_bt said
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said Conservatives are conformists and try to fit in with the status quo. Liberals challenge ideas with new ideas.


    Yeah...... right....... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Frightening as they may be, conservatives are floating many new ideas.

    Also, what happened to the hordes of college students who couldn't get enough of Obama in '08? Have they just lost their attention spans and moved on to the next trend? Don't they know that they get to stay under their family's health plan until they're 26? For that alone they should be out in hordes getting out the vote.


    This ^^ just proves how lost everybody is in America.

    Go get your dictionary and look up the verb "to conserve".

    The opposite of conservative is progressive, the opposite of liberal is authoritarian.

    It's interesting how a country that really only talks about semantics can't even get those semantics right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 8:52 PM GMT
    Yup, the Inquisition and Counter-Reformation also had plenty of novel ideas too...in the service of rooting out heresy and bringing people back to the old ways.icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 9:14 PM GMT
    Tazo995 said
    mke_bt said
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said Conservatives are conformists and try to fit in with the status quo. Liberals challenge ideas with new ideas.


    Yeah...... right....... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Frightening as they may be, conservatives are floating many new ideas.

    Also, what happened to the hordes of college students who couldn't get enough of Obama in '08? Have they just lost their attention spans and moved on to the next trend? Don't they know that they get to stay under their family's health plan until they're 26? For that alone they should be out in hordes getting out the vote.


    This ^^ just proves how lost everybody is in America.

    Go get your dictionary and look up the verb "to conserve".

    The opposite of conservative is progressive, the opposite of liberal is authoritarian.

    It's interesting how a country that really only talks about semantics can't even get those semantics right.


    You may just have demonstrated the research. The unfortunate reality is that the words have lost their meaning. Look at the very idea of "progressive" and what it means in today's political context. It is more of the status quo, preservation of unions, centralization of economic and political power. The idea of smaller government is a relatively new one (whether or not it actually gets put into practice by its political advocates is another issue altogether).

    The phrase "sometimes it takes a Nixon to go to China" seems apt in this case. That sometimes it takes an advocate of an opposite position to result in change (which may be opposite than the views originally advocated). Look at the supposed anti-war movement that dissipated following the election - in fact any remnants seemed to be largely vilified and ridiculed by the media (e.g. Cindy Sheehan) while the supposedly liberal and progressive Democrats were content to keep and even escalate provisions in the Patriot Act. Then there's DADT which has taken the supposedly conservative log cabin Republicans to challenge.

    Cognitive dissonance is definitely an interesting phenomenon. As the research shows it can reinforce rather than change people's views. There is plenty of "shouting" here on these forums to be sure, but the shouting is hardly constrained to any ideology or perspective - and if anything it mostly comes from supposed progressives probably simply based on sheer population sizes. Why do those like yourself simply assume that you hold the correct and enlightened view?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 9:22 PM GMT
    mke_bt said
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said Conservatives are conformists and try to fit in with the status quo. Liberals challenge ideas with new ideas.


    Yeah...... right....... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Frightening as they may be, conservatives are floating many new ideas.

    Also, what happened to the hordes of college students who couldn't get enough of Obama in '08? Have they just lost their attention spans and moved on to the next trend? Don't they know that they get to stay under their family's health plan until they're 26? For that alone they should be out in hordes getting out the vote.


    Yeah, actually, we're pretty busy studying for mind blowing-ly difficult quizes and exams and working through inordinate amounts of homework and lab reports at all times except breaks so keeping up with Mr. Change (if change is defined as maintaining the status quo) is pretty low on the totem pole of things to do at the moment.

    Speaking of lab reports... icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 9:24 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Tazo995 said
    mke_bt said
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said Why do those like yourself simply assume that you hold the correct and enlightened view?



    So assuming that the question is partially directed at me I'll have a go at answering it...

    Basically, it's the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Anyone who uses religion to arrive at *any* conclusion is wrong, cause the basic guiding assumption is wrong.

    I'm not saying I'm more "enlightened" than others, I'm just saying that my opinions are opinions where they are subjective, and logic and scientifically proven when it comes to disproving the general guiding assumptions religious people adhere to.

    And as far as opinions go... I'm just right cause I think I'm right, which in my world makes me right icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 9:47 PM GMT
    Tazo995 said
    riddler78 said
    Tazo995 said
    mke_bt said
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said Why do those like yourself simply assume that you hold the correct and enlightened view?



    So assuming that the question is partially directed at me I'll have a go at answering it...

    Basically, it's the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Anyone who uses religion to arrive at *any* conclusion is wrong, cause the basic guiding assumption is wrong.

    I'm not saying I'm more "enlightened" than others, I'm just saying that my opinions are opinions where they are subjective, and logic and scientifically proven when it comes to disproving the general guiding assumptions religious people adhere to.

    And as far as opinions go... I'm just right cause I think I'm right, which in my world makes me right icon_razz.gif



    He's right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 9:56 PM GMT
    The article linked to the OP is absolutely right.

    Take Richard Dawkins for example...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 10:21 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidThe idea of smaller government is a relatively new one (whether or not it actually gets put into practice by its political advocates is another issue altogether).


    See that's just it: the idea of a smaller government is NOT a new idea. Remember the roots of the progressive movement, how they were responses to institutionalized child labor, endless work weeks, strike busting (with local and state government support), and the robber barons of the 19th and early 20th centuries? Guess who was for smaller government then?

    The smaller government movement that libertarians claim to be a new phenomenon is older than the New Deal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 10:39 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    riddler78 saidThe idea of smaller government is a relatively new one (whether or not it actually gets put into practice by its political advocates is another issue altogether).


    See that's just it: the idea of a smaller government is NOT a new idea. Remember the roots of the progressive movement, how they were responses to institutionalized child labor, endless work weeks, strike busting (with local and state government support), and the robber barons of the 19th and early 20th centuries? Guess who was for smaller government then?

    The smaller government movement that libertarians claim to be a new phenomenon is older than the New Deal.


    Sorry, look at the facts. Corporatism and autocracies hold more in common with supposed liberalism than libertarianism for the simple fact that liberalism depends on and encourages the centralization of power in order to work. Guess who depended on governments back then in order to hold and grow power?

    The phenomenon you describe were truly progressive in the actual definition of the word than how it is today. Advocates in small government - at least the libertarians and economic "conservatives" requires rule of law and equality of property rights for all - rich and poor which was not the case back then. Though, now that you bring it up, the ruling ideas of the day were dominated by utopian views that starred governments working in lockstep with or taking over industry (see Edward Bellamy).

    That being said, it is interesting that you feel compelled to look at times before the New Deal to advocate progressivism as a "new" idea. The reality as far as true economic progress goes is that less government intervention is directly tied to greater economic growth - and that's a fairly new idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 10:57 PM GMT
    riddler78 said The reality as far as true economic progress goes is that less government intervention is directly tied to greater economic growth - and that's a fairly new idea.


    In the long run, yes. In the short term, you have South Sea bubbles and Great Depressions.
    Smart government intervention and regulation is directly tied to greater economic growth.

    http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_34593_45263475_1_1_1_1,00.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 10:59 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said The reality as far as true economic progress goes is that less government intervention is directly tied to greater economic growth - and that's a fairly new idea.


    In the long run, yes. In the short term, you have South Sea bubbles and Great Depressions.
    Smart government intervention and regulation is directly tied to greater economic growth.

    http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_34593_45263475_1_1_1_1,00.html

    You have far more faith than I do in relying in government leaders to determine what constitutes "smart" intervention. And therein lies the crux of the difference between supposed "progressives" and economic libertarians - not to mention the fundamental difference of how value and wealth are created. Fool me once...

    (This being said, markets and economic liberty require property rights - further, as you probably well know the OECD is hardly an impartial observer - almost consistently arguing for higher taxes and less tax competition.)
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Oct 21, 2010 11:11 PM GMT
    Off-topic Sidenote: removing government created safeguards in the financial industry is one of the main reasons why we are in such a huge financial mess now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 11:15 PM GMT
    metta8 saidOff-topic Sidenote: removing government created safeguards in the financial industry is one of the main reasons why we are in such a huge financial mess now.


    Sorry, can you give me an example? I assume you are referring to Glass-Steagall. Can you be specific of what was removed in Glass-Steagall that encouraged/allowed for rampant unregulated speculation?

    Me suspects you've been a victim of the "shouting": ref: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2008/09/clear-as-glass-steagall/4145/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 12:07 AM GMT
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#High-risk_mortgage_loans_and_lending.2Fborrowing_practices
    Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described the run on the shadow banking system as the "core of what happened" to cause the crisis. "As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that they were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible—and they should have responded by extending regulations and the financial safety net to cover these new institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank."

    ...The Economist reported in March 2010: "Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were non-banks that were crippled by a silent run among panicky overnight "repo" lenders, many of them money market funds uncertain about the quality of securitized collateral they were holding. Mass redemptions from these funds after Lehman's failure froze short-term funding for big firms.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_responses_to_the_subprime_crisis

    I don't see any solutions proposed that would relax regulations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 12:18 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#High-risk_mortgage_loans_and_lending.2Fborrowing_practices
    Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described the run on the shadow banking system as the "core of what happened" to cause the crisis. "As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that they were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible—and they should have responded by extending regulations and the financial safety net to cover these new institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank."

    ...The Economist reported in March 2010: "Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were non-banks that were crippled by a silent run among panicky overnight "repo" lenders, many of them money market funds uncertain about the quality of securitized collateral they were holding. Mass redemptions from these funds after Lehman's failure froze short-term funding for big firms.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_responses_to_the_subprime_crisis

    I don't see any solutions proposed that would relax regulations.


    Are you arguing this was the result of deregulation or the repeal of Glass-Steagall? I mean if you are, if anything, this text shows the opposite - that these were areas that were unregulated (as the texts suggest). But herein lies a questionable "fact". All banks are exposed to a certain level of liquidity risk (that's the risk of a bank run) - for the simple fact that they almost all play on the lending long while borrowing short to some degree. But what caused the run was the uncertainty and lack of transparency of the financial instruments and their respective values.

    Further, I generally find it rich that Krugman is cited for anything other than his work on trade for which he got the Nobel. His mistakes in his polemics are regrettable. I mean you might as well also note that he was a former director of Enron. As for that simple rule, any reasonable person can see how it's far from simple to implement - all of finance is just one massive continuum.

    Incidentally, I'm not sure what your point was with respect to that last parting shot. Are you making the argument that because a specific solution has not been proposed by the infinite wisdom of government officials and politicians, it must therefore not be a viable one? I'm not sure that relaxing regulations is the appropriate response either - but as Megan McArdle points out the strongest institutions after the crisis were not the traditional banks but the diversified ones that were allowed as a result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Oct 22, 2010 12:25 AM GMT
    Actually, I would argue that whether being liberal or being conservative is more in line with being conformist depends entirely on the environment in which it is expressed.

    Being liberal in a Fortune 500 boardroom is going to involve not conforming to the general trend.

    Being conservative as a student at Reed College is also going to involve not conforming to the general trend.

    In general, it has long been my contention that time spent within an ideological echo chamber tends to lead to less well articulated reasons for one's positions if one agrees with the general consensus in the location. This has been my experience in multiple different arenas. The college educated conservatives I know are, on average, better able to explain why they hold such political position than are the college educated liberals, for the very reason that the conservatives had their views challenged consistently throughout their college education, while the liberals did not. The same holds for gay guys I know who grew up in disapproving environments versus those that grew up in accepting environments (controlling for their later educational attainment), because first hand experience with the arguments from the other side have made them better at refuting the actual arguments made, rather than the straw men those who have only ever personally experienced an accepting environment envision.

    Simply put, holding a view contrary to the majority of the people around you leads to more challenges to your way of thinking, and more thought behind your own views, than going along with the crowd. So whether any particular view is more or less conformist really depends on what the crowd's like.

    Sadly, we focus our efforts on diversity on things that make for convenient check boxes: race, gender, sometimes economics or geography or orientation. We leave aside questions of values people hold, which I tend to feel lead to significantly greater diversity of thought than merely assembling a range of people of different skin tones who hold a particular view in common.

    Cue people attacking me from both political parties in 3...2...1...