Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:Seriously, dude, in future just try and think about your position and what you really believe. Getting caught up in just rejecting whatever the other person has written will make discussion a waste of time for you and your opponent.

You act like this isn't a waste of time when I'm not confused.

It is because people tend to adopt positions not based on facts but on personal prejudices.

There is some interesting psychological research which indicates that when someone has their views challenged by facts, they start to find fault with the facts.

http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/yeah-well-you-can-prove-anything-with-science/#more-1716

Another study -- unfortunately I have lost the link -- indicates that political views can become more entrenched when they are shown to be wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:Another study -- unfortunately I have lost the link -- indicates that political views can become more entrenched when they are shown to be wrong.

I'd like to see that.

I'd like to think that I am pretty thoughtful about my political views.

That study is a lie!

Anyway, I remember a study that showed when people that were heavily active in politics were shown speeches and the like the pleasure centers of their brain would activate. You can't just take someone high away like that by bringing facts into the situation!

I don't remember the specifics anymore but there was research that showed that it was human nature to want to protect a lie fiercely once it was evident that it was a lie. it was more likely for a person to dig themselves into a hole than to come clean.

Ahtman wrote:Anyway, I remember a study that showed when people that were heavily active in politics were shown speeches and the like the pleasure centers of their brain would activate. You can't just take someone high away like that by bringing facts into the situation!

Any speeches, or just just speeches they agreed with?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Hmm, interesting. I don't have an opinion, actually News in general disgusts me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1140665/Pictured-The-newborn-puppies-survived-thrown-icy-canal.html

omg I am now sad

but the puppies are cute!

Monster Rain wrote:You act like this isn't a waste of time when I'm not confused.

I think when people look to discuss interesting subjects, and that conversation doesn't sink into contrarianism, then it's basically the exact opposite of a waste of time.

That such a thing happens only rarely is not a reason to not take forum discussion seriously, but a reason to hold forum discussion to a high standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It is because people tend to adopt positions not based on facts but on personal prejudices.

There is some interesting psychological research which indicates that when someone has their views challenged by facts, they start to find fault with the facts.

http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/yeah-well-you-can-prove-anything-with-science/#more-1716

Another study -- unfortunately I have lost the link -- indicates that political views can become more entrenched when they are shown to be wrong.

I think I posted that study in a thread here, some time ago. It explains a lot, really.

sebster wrote:I think when people look to discuss interesting subjects, and that conversation doesn't sink into contrarianism, then it's basically the exact opposite of a waste of time.

Just for the sake of argument; had I been deliberately contrary, what would bringing it up two days after the fact have accomplished?

I suppose I could just flame people at the jump because I historically disagree with their opinions like some Dakkaites I know. Would that make me a more constructive poster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:That such a thing happens only rarely is not a reason to not take forum discussion seriously, but a reason to hold forum discussion to a high standard.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Monster Rain wrote:Just for the sake of argument; had I been deliberately contrary, what would bringing it up two days after the fact have accomplished?

"Just for the sake of argument".... ? Um, you were contrary, whether it was deliberate or not we can't say, but we do know that you were asked if something was reasonable you said it wasn't, then later suggested that same thing yourself.

Why bring it up? Because I'd hoped encourage you to take a less aggressive approach to your threads, and maybe that'll encourage you to be more constructive in future, and the conversation you enter would be the better for it.

I suppose I could just flame people at the jump because I historically disagree with their opinions like some Dakkaites I know. Would that make me a more constructive poster?

Yes, it would. You should do that.

Won't someone please think of the children?

You've used that meme poorly there. It's used to make fun of people who are attempting to avoid debate by shortcutting to specious, emotionally loaded arguments.

Ouze wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?

Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?

Whoa whoa whoa! I was merely asking, I have yet to see a definitive answer either way.

sebster wrote:Why bring it up? Because I'd hoped encourage you to take a less aggressive approach to your threads, and maybe that'll encourage you to be more constructive in future, and the conversation you enter would be the better for it.

some handsome devil wrote:I suppose I could just flame people at the jump because I historically disagree with their opinions like some Dakkaites I know. Would that make me a more constructive poster?

sebster wrote:Yes, it would. You should do that.

We'll have to agree to disagree as to what makes a conversation better.

Sexual Tyrannosaurus wrote:Won't someone please think of the children?

You've used that meme poorly there. It's used to make fun of people who are attempting to avoid debate by shortcutting to specious, emotionally loaded arguments.

What meme? I was making fun of someone who was putting way too much gravitas on something that didn't matter to anyone that happened two days ago.

Stormrider wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?

Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?

Whoa whoa whoa! I was merely asking, I have yet to see a definitive answer either way.

You mean Al Franken isn't a muslim with the death panel from 9/11 in his trunk?

Geeze, I am so confuzzled right now.

halonachos wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?

Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?

Whoa whoa whoa! I was merely asking, I have yet to see a definitive answer either way.

You mean Al Franken isn't a muslim with the death panel from 9/11 in his trunk?

Can you prove that he isn't?

Hmmm?

Monster Rain wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree as to what makes a conversation better.

Are you really coming down on the side of pointless contrarianism over discussion? Wow, you'll really say just about anything to avoid accepting someone else's point.

Let's try something here... I think puppies are cute. Do you agree or disagree?

What meme? I was making fun of someone who was putting way too much gravitas on something that didn't matter to anyone that happened two days ago.

"Won't someone think of the children" is a common internet meme. It isn't used to make fun of someone you feel is placing excessive gravitas on a situation, it is used to to make fun of someone who's attempting to avoid logic and reason and instead invoke an emotional, but specious or even non-sensical argument.

Monster Rain wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Didn't this guy renounce his citizenship?

Why do people keep repeating this, like it's true? I don't understand how... permeable reality has become of late. Death panels. Obama's a muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Saddam was behind 9/11. Al Franken won because someone found a bunch of votes in the trunk of a car. Has it always been this way - that if you want something to be true, just repeat it enough until it is?

Whoa whoa whoa! I was merely asking, I have yet to see a definitive answer either way.

You mean Al Franken isn't a muslim with the death panel from 9/11 in his trunk?

Can you prove that he isn't?

Hmmm?

My suspension of disbelief allows it.

sebster wrote:Let's try something here... I think puppies are cute. Do you agree or disagree?

Define "puppies."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:My suspension of disbelief allows it.

Is he a scientific nazi muslim death panelist, or a magical one?

Monster Rain wrote:Define "puppies."

They're cute things that are cute.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Define "puppies."

They're cute things that are cute.

Let it be known that at this point I am 100 percent and without reservation accepting sebster's point and agreeing with him.

I feel like we had a real breakthrough just now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:"Won't someone think of the children" is a common internet meme. It isn't used to make fun of someone you feel is placing excessive gravitas on a situation, it is used to to make fun of someone who's attempting to avoid logic and reason and instead invoke an emotional, but specious or even non-sensical argument.

What would an appropriate meme be?

Monster Rain wrote:What would an appropriate meme be?

"Lighten up, Francis"

If only I were more internet savvy, all this unfortunate disagreement could have been avoided.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:What would an appropriate meme be?

"Lighten up, Francis"

I love that joke.

@ Monster Rain: the thing is, here in the bowels of Dakka, it's worth knowing who is trolling just to troll, and who actually has a point. There's a small collection of guys here that actually have a pretty solid perspective and post stuff worth reading, even if you don't agree. if somebody is just throwing elbows cause it's fun, then you handle them a bit different.

Maybe I'm being overly generous with myself, but I think I contribute something meaningful occasionally.

I'm not going to deny that. Nearly everybody posts something valuable occasionally.

The thing is, there are posters that I know i can engage with, that won't screw around during a serious discussion, that will admit when they were wrong, will be magnamanious when I'm wrong, and post far more useful stuff than flames. I'm more willing to discuss ideas with them, than with somebody who does a lot of arguing for the sake of arguing.