Desirability Bias

[zombie]

But I still think that, at least to me, the point is more that both sides are basically assuming that no argument made by the other side is worth examining or entering into as it is just assumed they hold the right answer.

in regard to democrats and republicans? (or conservatives and liberals) or in regard to hmfers? (or other communities)

[showa58taro]

But I still think that, at least to me, the point is more that both sides are basically assuming that no argument made by the other side is worth examining or entering into as it is just assumed they hold the right answer.

in regard to democrats and republicans? (or conservatives and liberals) or in regard to hmfers? (or other communities)

Politically, I think it works for both the larger population and within HMF. I don't think I've felt like Foo or Reign or Jason have really engaged in any substantive discussion with me, and I feel like every obvious piece of evidence I give they just dismiss with "lolliberals" or "Fake news" or whatever the mot-du-jour is. Desirability bias at its finest.

Its like a microcosm.

[zombie]

Confirmation bias is believing things that conform to our world view, mainly. In the case of modern politics the confirmation bias also arises from the bubble you live in where the echo-chamber reinforces what you assume.

A great example of that, I do not take many pro-Tory arguments seriously and find flaws in them but will be happy to hear Labour arguments, for the upcoming UK election. And if you look at my facebook feed, it is overwhelmingly pro-Corbyn vs being a Theresa May led one. BUT I think that she is likely to win it regardless, even though I can't see why that is possible. But I'm basically reading things that confirm my view of Corbyn being a better choice than May.

is that not also how you characterized desirability bias?

"That certainly seems to confirm the same basic principle that I want Foo to be wrong, regardless of what I find, and he no doubt assumes I am also always wrong or off base no matter what excellent facts or articles I can cite to prove things." <--- taken from your opening post.

[zombie]

But I still think that, at least to me, the point is more that both sides are basically assuming that no argument made by the other side is worth examining or entering into as it is just assumed they hold the right answer.

in regard to democrats and republicans? (or conservatives and liberals) or in regard to hmfers? (or other communities)

Politically, I think it works for both the larger population and within HMF. I don't think I've felt like Foo or Reign or Jason have really engaged in any substantive discussion with me, and I feel like every obvious piece of evidence I give they just dismiss with "lolliberals" or "Fake news" or whatever the mot-du-jour is. Desirability bias at its finest.

Its like a microcosm.

i've tried to discuss and debate things with you, and with others, that don't always fit my political view though. some will and some won't. and i think that reign does try to understand your point of view, more often than foo or jason do, honestly.

do you see a way to counter that, or to work toward them engaging more with you, and your topics and points of view? if you feel like i fail at that too, let me know where i'm getting it wrong as well?

[Tiggnutz]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

There is no longer a middle and that is dangerous in politics and I can't see a way out of it except people becoming so disappointed and disgusted by their parties that the party is forced to change.

Are you suggesting that politics has moved to the left and right but not the people?

Yes their is no one to speak for the middle anymore only far left and far right.

[zombie]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

There is no longer a middle and that is dangerous in politics and I can't see a way out of it except people becoming so disappointed and disgusted by their parties that the party is forced to change.

Are you suggesting that politics has moved to the left and right but not the people?

Yes their is no one to speak for the middle anymore only far left and far right.

i think that it's more that moderates are just less likely to speak up, which is definitely a problem.

[Foo]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

There is no longer a middle and that is dangerous in politics and I can't see a way out of it except people becoming so disappointed and disgusted by their parties that the party is forced to change.

To be honest, Trump and Hillary both occupy the middle. Center left and center right.

Trump's budget and general views are mildly conservative. His presentation is sometimes more extreme.

[Foo]

I am far right, in that I would cut half the people off of disability within two years, and make many significant cuts.

The public are such whiny titty babies that they consider a 2% increase in a departmental budget versus a 5% increase to be a draconian cut.

[showa58taro]

Confirmation bias is believing things that conform to our world view, mainly. In the case of modern politics the confirmation bias also arises from the bubble you live in where the echo-chamber reinforces what you assume.

A great example of that, I do not take many pro-Tory arguments seriously and find flaws in them but will be happy to hear Labour arguments, for the upcoming UK election. And if you look at my facebook feed, it is overwhelmingly pro-Corbyn vs being a Theresa May led one. BUT I think that she is likely to win it regardless, even though I can't see why that is possible. But I'm basically reading things that confirm my view of Corbyn being a better choice than May.

is that not also how you characterized desirability bias?

"That certainly seems to confirm the same basic principle that I want Foo to be wrong, regardless of what I find, and he no doubt assumes I am also always wrong or off base no matter what excellent facts or articles I can cite to prove things." <--- taken from your opening post.

In my opinion, I think it is different. It is subtle, but it is different. Confirmation is believing what I already think and ascribing it value because it is what I think.

Desirability is ascribing it value because it is what I want to think, and therefore it has added value to me for its improvement of the outcome I desire, rather than just one that I hold as a definitive belief.

[showa58taro]

But I still think that, at least to me, the point is more that both sides are basically assuming that no argument made by the other side is worth examining or entering into as it is just assumed they hold the right answer.

in regard to democrats and republicans? (or conservatives and liberals) or in regard to hmfers? (or other communities)

Politically, I think it works for both the larger population and within HMF. I don't think I've felt like Foo or Reign or Jason have really engaged in any substantive discussion with me, and I feel like every obvious piece of evidence I give they just dismiss with "lolliberals" or "Fake news" or whatever the mot-du-jour is. Desirability bias at its finest.

Its like a microcosm.

i've tried to discuss and debate things with you, and with others, that don't always fit my political view though. some will and some won't. and i think that reign does try to understand your point of view, more often than foo or jason do, honestly.

do you see a way to counter that, or to work toward them engaging more with you, and your topics and points of view? if you feel like i fail at that too, let me know where i'm getting it wrong as well?

Worth clarifying, this is no dig at HMF or any of the members there. I think it is an interesting thing to note that we view the world this way.

As to whether there is an answer, I think that people should start reading and accepting differing view-points as at least having validity, even if not the right answer. I think I try to do that with most things, but not with all.

[showa58taro]

i think that internet communities and the members involved tend to be polarized one way or the other, and they argue their points more aggressively or stubbornly than they would in day to day life, at least for the most part. and i say that with only hmf to point to, really. i'm not really a part of any other communities with any regularity, so yeah. but, here, it's pretty combative. we tend to state an opinion, and when that is questioned or disputed, we dig in. it escalates as the discussion becomes an argument. the process of that is polarizing. but do you think that it extends beyond internet communities?

or am i missing the point that you're trying to make?

I think the dogging in is part of it, but I think it extends further. It's why Trump won't even ask Democrats to input into the healthcare or tax bills, why Democrats have filibustered everything without consideration. It's why Breitbart runs only one-sided articles, though luckily their rreadership is plummeting. Victory for journalism I guess.

I think it's endemic, and I think it comes from a position of comfort, and that people need to find more ways to get out of their comfort zones. By actively engaging in real discussion, which I think is happening less and less.

There is no longer a middle and that is dangerous in politics and I can't see a way out of it except people becoming so disappointed and disgusted by their parties that the party is forced to change.

Are you suggesting that politics has moved to the left and right but not the people?

Yes their is no one to speak for the middle anymore only far left and far right.

Interesting. I would have argued that politics has just matched the people diverging, rather than the other way around. As in, people have become more extreme in their views of what is needed in the US, and the Democrat and Republican politicans can only respond to that to try and win votes.

[zombie]

In my opinion, I think it is different. It is subtle, but it is different. Confirmation is believing what I already think and ascribing it value because it is what I think.

Desirability is ascribing it value because it is what I want to think, and therefore it has added value to me for its improvement of the outcome I desire, rather than just one that I hold as a definitive belief.

so then, wanting hillary to win but thinking trump will win adds value to the lives of those involved in that study? i think it would do the opposite, no?

but i get the difference now, in how you described it here.

[showa58taro]

In my opinion, I think it is different. It is subtle, but it is different. Confirmation is believing what I already think and ascribing it value because it is what I think.

Desirability is ascribing it value because it is what I want to think, and therefore it has added value to me for its improvement of the outcome I desire, rather than just one that I hold as a definitive belief.

so then, wanting hillary to win but thinking trump will win adds value to the lives of those involved in that study? i think it would do the opposite, no?

but i get the difference now, in how you described it here.

Effectively, the ones that want something will find a much higher value to ascribe to something if it improves things towards that desire from a point of loss. Confirmation bias has no such trigger, it just says you read what you believe in already, and seek out more of it.

[Reign in Blood]

But I still think that, at least to me, the point is more that both sides are basically assuming that no argument made by the other side is worth examining or entering into as it is just assumed they hold the right answer.

in regard to democrats and republicans? (or conservatives and liberals) or in regard to hmfers? (or other communities)

Politically, I think it works for both the larger population and within HMF. I don't think I've felt like Foo or Reign or Jason have really engaged in any substantive discussion with me, and I feel like every obvious piece of evidence I give they just dismiss with "lolliberals" or "Fake news" or whatever the mot-du-jour is. Desirability bias at its finest.

Its like a microcosm.

i've tried to discuss and debate things with you, and with others, that don't always fit my political view though. some will and some won't. and i think that reign does try to understand your point of view, more often than foo or jason do, honestly.

do you see a way to counter that, or to work toward them engaging more with you, and your topics and points of view? if you feel like i fail at that too, let me know where i'm getting it wrong as well?

Thank you, zombs! I was about to rage on my fine feathered Swedish-Japanese-English friend here!

As for the discussion, I can definitely see that playing apart, more in some than others. For me, I don't think it's so much sticking my fingers in my ears going la, la, la I don't want to hear that or summat. As there have been times an argument or article is presented and I go huh, never really thought of it that way. For here, I think because we are educated people (except for J-Mac, the big dummy!) and so fundamentally different on certain stances, I don't see how we would sway each other? With your example of guns, yeah you can pose good arguments and statistics about gun violence and I can concede it's a problem, I'm still not gonna agree we should ban gun/ownership, and I am not even a gun guy with no desire to have to own one.

[zombie]

Worth clarifying, this is no dig at HMF or any of the members there. I think it is an interesting thing to note that we view the world this way.

As to whether there is an answer, I think that people should start reading and accepting differing view-points as at least having validity, even if not the right answer. I think I try to do that with most things, but not with all.

i think that trying to understand the viewpoint of others can only help, even if you don't accept it, or think that it's right. shutting out someone's view entirely with silly memes or "lol idiot" type responses is only going to make the issue worse. it's only going to make people feel more embattled and more polarized.

[showa58taro]

But I still think that, at least to me, the point is more that both sides are basically assuming that no argument made by the other side is worth examining or entering into as it is just assumed they hold the right answer.

in regard to democrats and republicans? (or conservatives and liberals) or in regard to hmfers? (or other communities)

Politically, I think it works for both the larger population and within HMF. I don't think I've felt like Foo or Reign or Jason have really engaged in any substantive discussion with me, and I feel like every obvious piece of evidence I give they just dismiss with "lolliberals" or "Fake news" or whatever the mot-du-jour is. Desirability bias at its finest.

Its like a microcosm.

i've tried to discuss and debate things with you, and with others, that don't always fit my political view though. some will and some won't. and i think that reign does try to understand your point of view, more often than foo or jason do, honestly.

do you see a way to counter that, or to work toward them engaging more with you, and your topics and points of view? if you feel like i fail at that too, let me know where i'm getting it wrong as well?

Thank you, zombs! I was about to rage on my fine feathered Swedish-Japanese-English friend here!

As for the discussion, I can definitely see that playing apart, more in some than others. For me, I don't think it's so much sticking my fingers in my ears going la, la, la I don't want to hear that or summat. As there have been times an argument or article is presented and I go huh, never really thought of it that way. For here, I think because we are educated people (except for J-Mac, the big dummy!) and so fundamentally different on certain stances, I don't see how we would sway each other? With your example of guns, yeah you can pose good arguments and statistics about gun violence and I can concede it's a problem, I'm still not gonna agree we should ban gun/ownership, and I am not even a gun guy with no desire to have to own one.

I think it's a fun distinction between the facts, and the solutions. I feel like Foo and I don't even agree on basic facts and their implications, whereas you and I probably can agree on some facts but not on the solution, but I can respect that you put that level of discussion in.

Bear in mind I've had 10 hours of sleep over the last 72 hours or so and work is hellish, so I may not be coherent or giving a sound view.

[Tiggnutz]

I thought pulling out of the Paris Accord was stupid just strategically stupid it only makes us look bad and achieves nothing of consequence. Shit like this seriously makes me question the intelligence of the people in the White House. There's proof I'm not biased.

[showa58taro]

I thought pulling out of the Paris Accord was stupid just strategically stupid it only makes us look bad and achieves nothing of consequence. Shit like this seriously makes me question the intelligence of the people in the White House. There's proof I'm not biased.

You are very reasonable.

[Foo]

I would have stayed in and said we will match any efforts of the lowest effort member. So instead of giving the most and getting the least, we are on equal footing with the others.

Other nations can send us money. We can agree to cut emissions in 15 years or whenever it is convenient. Then sit there and act like we are an equal member.

Basically, finally become a true member of the international community!

[Tiggnutz]

I would have stayed in and said we will match any efforts of the lowest effort member. So instead of giving the most and getting the least, we are on equal footing with the others.

Other nations can send us money. We can agree to cut emissions in 15 years or whenever it is convenient. Then sit there and act like we are an equal member.

Basically, finally become a true member of the international community!

That would of worked better the guidelines were self set and could of been altered and with the right amount of bullshit it could of been altered for decades instead we look like dick holes.