Thoughts on... some kind of grouping ('culture' isn't right, but I don't know what is)
Semi-random thoughts on our political process. Many of our politicians seem to like trying to convince people of a certain thing (often that something-or-other unpleasant was because of someone other than them).
I'm pretty sure that we don't have a good enough grasp of the principles of causality to actually say how much impact any one factor has, and so pretty much anyone can spin an event to support their position. See, for example, "The economy is collapsing because we didn't have enough government regulation" vs. "The economy is collapsing because we had too much government regulation"
So I suspect that it is less about how many people they can convince to come over to their position as it is about how many people they can find who want to believe the same thing and are looking for facts to support those beliefs.
Wanting to believe (or believing) something is an incredibly powerful thing. It's also a dangerous thing, I think, because it seems that people are often willing to suspend their powers of critical thinking when offered some bit of evidence--either for or against--whatever thing they want to believe. If offered something flimsy that supports their belief, they won't poke at it too hard for fear of causing it to fall down and their beliefs to be dashed. If offered something sturdy that undermines their belief, they won't poke at it too hard for fear of discovering how sturdy it really is, and instead look for ways to denounce it as fraud, phony, untrue--again, because they want so badly for their beliefs not to be dashed.
This is certainly not true for all people all of the time. I suspect it is not even true for any person all of the time. But at the same time, I also suspect that it is true for most people most of the time, and also that it is true for all people at least now and then.
... This has the potential to be a very twisty road to pursue.
I'm pretty sure that we don't have a good enough grasp of the principles of causality to actually say how much impact any one factor has, and so pretty much anyone can spin an event to support their position. See, for example, "The economy is collapsing because we didn't have enough government regulation" vs. "The economy is collapsing because we had too much government regulation"
So I suspect that it is less about how many people they can convince to come over to their position as it is about how many people they can find who want to believe the same thing and are looking for facts to support those beliefs.
Wanting to believe (or believing) something is an incredibly powerful thing. It's also a dangerous thing, I think, because it seems that people are often willing to suspend their powers of critical thinking when offered some bit of evidence--either for or against--whatever thing they want to believe. If offered something flimsy that supports their belief, they won't poke at it too hard for fear of causing it to fall down and their beliefs to be dashed. If offered something sturdy that undermines their belief, they won't poke at it too hard for fear of discovering how sturdy it really is, and instead look for ways to denounce it as fraud, phony, untrue--again, because they want so badly for their beliefs not to be dashed.
This is certainly not true for all people all of the time. I suspect it is not even true for any person all of the time. But at the same time, I also suspect that it is true for most people most of the time, and also that it is true for all people at least now and then.
... This has the potential to be a very twisty road to pursue.