Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This article examines why you have people, such as here on CD, who 1) identify themselves with a group (conservative, liberal, libertarian, what have you) and then 2) spend a seemingly inordinate amount of time surfing the internet looking for articles, blogs, etc to 'support' their groups position; and finally 3) refuse to even consider a contrary view, even in the face of mounting evidence. It is called 'motivated reasoning'.
One of the most telling paragraphs:
"One of those mechanisms is figuring out how to believe what the group believes. Haidt sees the role that reason plays as akin to the job of the White House press secretary. He writes, “No matter how bad the policy, the secretary will find some way to praise or defend it. Sometimes you’ll hear an awkward pause as the secretary searches for the right words, but what you’ll never hear is: ‘Hey, that’s a great point! Maybe we should rethink this policy.’ Press secretaries can’t say that because they have no power to make or revise policy. They’re told what the policy is, and their job is to find evidence and arguments that will justify the policy to the public.” For that reason, Haidt told me, “once group loyalties are engaged, you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments. Thinking is mostly just rationalization, mostly just a search for supporting evidence.”"
It has become rare, on this board, to find anyone willing to engage in true debate. It is even rarer to see anyone accept some contrary fact and admit "Ok, perhaps I need to rethink my position".
Ii find it somewhat interesting that those who most enjoy calling other posters 'sheeple' engage in the exact behavior the article discusses. Such people have, emotionally, attached themselves to a 'group', and will defend any and all policies said group adopts.
Again from the article:
"According to the political-science literature, one of the key roles that political parties play is helping us navigate these decisions. In theory, we join parties because they share our values and our goals—values and goals that may have been passed on to us by the most important groups in our lives, such as our families and our communities—and so we trust that their policy judgments will match the ones we would come up with if we had unlimited time to study the issues. But parties, though based on a set of principles, aren’t disinterested teachers in search of truth. They’re organized groups looking to increase their power. Or, as the psychologists would put it, their reasoning may be motivated by something other than accuracy. And you can see the results among voters who pay the closest attention to the issues."
The last sentence refers to those who truly examine issues from all sides and make a reasoned judgement based upon their own values and beliefs. Their decision may coincide with a group they identify with, or may not. I believe they could be called the 'independents'.
This article examines why you have people, such as here on CD, who 1) identify themselves with a group (conservative, liberal, libertarian, what have you) and then 2) spend a seemingly inordinate amount of time surfing the internet looking for articles, blogs, etc to 'support' their groups position; and finally 3) refuse to even consider a contrary view, even in the face of mounting evidence. It is called 'motivated reasoning'.
One of the most telling paragraphs:
"One of those mechanisms is figuring out how to believe what the group believes. Haidt sees the role that reason plays as akin to the job of the White House press secretary. He writes, “No matter how bad the policy, the secretary will find some way to praise or defend it. Sometimes you’ll hear an awkward pause as the secretary searches for the right words, but what you’ll never hear is: ‘Hey, that’s a great point! Maybe we should rethink this policy.’ Press secretaries can’t say that because they have no power to make or revise policy. They’re told what the policy is, and their job is to find evidence and arguments that will justify the policy to the public.” For that reason, Haidt told me, “once group loyalties are engaged, you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments. Thinking is mostly just rationalization, mostly just a search for supporting evidence.”"
It has become rare, on this board, to find anyone willing to engage in true debate. It is even rarer to see anyone accept some contrary fact and admit "Ok, perhaps I need to rethink my position".
Ii find it somewhat interesting that those who most enjoy calling other posters 'sheeple' engage in the exact behavior the article discusses. Such people have, emotionally, attached themselves to a 'group', and will defend any and all policies said group adopts.
Again from the article:
"According to the political-science literature, one of the key roles that political parties play is helping us navigate these decisions. In theory, we join parties because they share our values and our goals—values and goals that may have been passed on to us by the most important groups in our lives, such as our families and our communities—and so we trust that their policy judgments will match the ones we would come up with if we had unlimited time to study the issues. But parties, though based on a set of principles, aren’t disinterested teachers in search of truth. They’re organized groups looking to increase their power. Or, as the psychologists would put it, their reasoning may be motivated by something other than accuracy. And you can see the results among voters who pay the closest attention to the issues."
The last sentence refers to those who truly examine issues from all sides and make a reasoned judgement based upon their own values and beliefs. Their decision may coincide with a group they identify with, or may not. I believe they could be called the 'independents'.
Anyway, the article is food for thought.
I've read the article and it's a good one.
Sadly, the issue is pretty complex and most people lack either the:
1) ability to ever really understand the complexities of such insurance systems.
2) Too partisan to do anything more than choose sides regardless of facts or thinking.
In general, I support a national healthcare plan on the basis that people already cannot be refused treatment at emergency rooms etc. and so many pay no premiums but still incur costs that are passed along to everyone in inflated costs. This is similar to leakage aka shoplifting in the retail world.
I'd rather have the uninsured pay *something* in and help support the system and also gain preventative and other benefits from it. Even if we have to tier benefits so that some get more basic healthcare than others....just like some people drive cadillacs to work and some take the bus. It's better than what we have now, I'd be happy with some progress.
Sadly, the issue is pretty complex and most people lack either the:
1) ability to ever really understand the complexities of such insurance systems.
2) Too partisan to do anything more than choose sides regardless of facts or thinking.
In general, I support a national healthcare plan on the basis that people already cannot be refused treatment at emergency rooms etc. and so many pay no premiums but still incur costs that are passed along to everyone in inflated costs. This is similar to leakage aka shoplifting in the retail world.
I'd rather have the uninsured pay *something* in and help support the system and also gain preventative and other benefits from it. Even if we have to tier benefits so that some get more basic healthcare than others....just like some people drive cadillacs to work and some take the bus. It's better than what we have now, I'd be happy with some progress.
I will note to other readers that while the article starts out examining why various politicians or political groups 'flip flopped' on the Individual Mandate, the article is not really about the heathcare act, but why, when a group changes policies, individuals within said group will also adopt the new policy without wondering why they are now against what they had previously been for, or vise versa.
I will note to other readers that while the article starts out examining why various politicians or political groups 'flip flopped' on the Individual Mandate, the article is not really about the heathcare act, but why, when a group changes policies, individuals within said group will also adopt the new policy without wondering why they are now against what they had previously been for, or vise versa.
^^^^Absolutely.
Heck, look at the faux anti-war movement of 2008.....DEAD DEAD DEAD....and yet we still have afghanistan, guantanamo, Lybia involvment etc.
and the faux fiscal conservatives that suddenly realized how much wars etc. cost once Obama got in office.
I will note to other readers that while the article starts out examining why various politicians or political groups 'flip flopped' on the Individual Mandate, the article is not really about the heathcare act, but why, when a group changes policies, individuals within said group will also adopt the new policy without wondering why they are now against what they had previously been for, or vise versa.
Exactly like when MSNBC was slamming fossil fuels because of CO2 emissions, then when Al Gore invests a ton of money into NG, they all of a sudden are now running commercials on how great NG is when it produces as much CO2 as other fossil fuels. I know exactly what you are saying.
For the person asking which issue this article was in: I get the New Yorker on my Kindle. However, it should be the June 11th issue (the New Yorker, a weekly magazine, comes out on Mondays).
2) Too partisan to do anything more than choose sides regardless of facts or thinking.
It has been dubbed "partisan" solely for political reasons.
"Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar."
- Mitt Romney, Op-ed on USA Today, July 2009
I dare him to repeat those words today.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 06-20-2012 at 10:28 AM..
Any particular reason why the New Yorker intentionally omitted the fact that the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 was optional, and not forced? It allowed people to opt out, without penalty, for any number of reasons.
That's quite different from Obamacare's pay up or be penalized.
Any particular reason why the New Yorker intentionally omitted the fact that the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 was optional, and not forced? It allowed people to opt out, without penalty, for any number of reasons.
That's quite different from Obamacare's pay up or be penalized.
While the article certainly discussed the health care act, I thought the overall theme was about how people and political parties would flip on positions and then engage in rationalization to justify said flipping. In other words, it used the health care act as an example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
