Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
False Beliefs
A few teasers from this rather frightening little article:
Study demonstrates how we support our false beliefs
[The study focused] on one of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election:the strength and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Although this belief influenced the 2004 election, they claim it did not result from pro-Bush propaganda, but from an urgent need by many Americans to seek justification for a war already in progress.
............
"Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.
"In fact, ... for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.
"The study demonstrates voters' ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information[.]"
.......
The study addresses what it refers to as a "serious challenge to democratic theory and practice that results when citizens with incorrect information cannot form appropriate preferences or evaluate the preferences of others."
http://www.brainmysteries.com/research/Study_demonstrates_how_we_support_our_false_beliefs.asp
Study demonstrates how we support our false beliefs
[The study focused] on one of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election:the strength and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Although this belief influenced the 2004 election, they claim it did not result from pro-Bush propaganda, but from an urgent need by many Americans to seek justification for a war already in progress.
............
"Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.
"In fact, ... for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.
"The study demonstrates voters' ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information[.]"
.......
The study addresses what it refers to as a "serious challenge to democratic theory and practice that results when citizens with incorrect information cannot form appropriate preferences or evaluate the preferences of others."
http://www.brainmysteries.com/research/Study_demonstrates_how_we_support_our_false_beliefs.asp
0
Comments
Palzang
People want a motivation to believe in an ongoing war, well, you don't need one. Once the declaration is made, just keep your mouths shut, let the soldiers do their jobs, and don't repeatedly write your congressperson and tell them to bring us home. We'd be so much closer to being done if the news agencies of every NATO nation were'nt busy telling the world that XX% of the nations population is against this war. the GWOT has turned into a vietnam, and it's all because people who like the Right to free speech don't like the responsibility that comes with it, ergo, keep your mouth shut sometimes.
I swear, once I get to Berkley, I"m going to hit the first war protestor I come across square on the lip, especially if they come across as the anti soldier type. I'm so sick of not being to just fight htis war and get it done with because of the politics and the protestors.
To clarify my opening statements, my new stance is that if you can't finish it, don't start it, period. The next war, I'll be shoulder to shoulder with everyone of you guys in the protests, right up to the point the legal declaration is made.
BTW, it's good to stop in while I have the chance.
I remember when the planes hit the trade center the instant thing out of so many mouths was "Let's get 'em." And it made me literally sick to my stomach. I found people's reactions more disturbing than the actual event. The people in the trade center were already gone, but the people around me were departing before my eyes.
"Let's get 'em." The gut reaction is not sustainable. I believe a good leader would tell people to calm down and think before we act. It doesn't mean action is wrong.
On that note! I've become really irritated with the daily jive about the president's approval rating. Occasionally, leaders are unpopular.
And btw, Bushi, there has been no declaration of war, so technically and legally we are not at war, just like in Vietnam. No president would ever ask for a declaration of war anymore because it would make them legally responsible to Congress to justify it, and they ain't about to do that. So it's just politics as usual, claiming to fight the holy war on "terror" while actually setting us up for yet another defeat. So what if a few thousand soldiers get killed? Washington still has room for plenty more monuments. It's essentially a no-win proposition from the get-go.
So welcome to the real world, dear Bushi! Ain't samsara grand?
Palzang
You can punch me too if it'll make you feel better. I'm not anti-soldier, but I'm definitely against the war. I don't care whether it's declared or not, I didn't give my consent as a citizen of the U.S. to invade Afghanistan, so I'm not about to simply shut up about my opposition to it and support it without question or dissent in some kind of blind nationalism.
Sorry, bushi, I think blind nationalism is dangerous. It's the hallmark of fascism. I don't agree with the war or how it's been conducted, and I'm not about to be be bullied into silence.
Fivebells, 3 things:
1) it is possible to win this war. Don't let all the Cronkite wannabes fool you, we can actually engage teh Taliban and destroy them once and for all. It is mere politics that keeps us from doing it, as A) the Casualty count on our side would be a little high (>2000), and
2)It is actually irresponsible to protest an ongoing war in any public manner, because it only serves to encourage the guerilla side of the conflict, and motivates them to keep on fighting. It is extremely irresponsible of the media to continue covering the war in such a negative light. These actions are costing soldiers' lives every day, merely because the Taliban and al Qaeda get the idea that we will eventually run away. Someone higher ranking in this theater, who I usually respect greatly (someone other than Gen. Petraeus), made a stupid decision, which is to stop focusing on the number of Enemy captured or killed when it comes to the media. We need to take the stance that terrorists will eventually be captured or killed. We need to create a pshychology of hopelessness against the Taliban. Because of the culture of protest we spent the last 6 years creating, everything we've needed to do, the Taliban has accomplished instead, and completely taken what was an impossible situation and found advantage.
3. See what I said to Jason about symbology. The fantasized protestor is not so much a real person, but an expression of my frustration at a situation spinning badly out of control now. I don't remember where I said it, but refer to my remark about "more rank than brains".
blessings to you
Anyway, it's not worth arguing about, too much, because mere economics will force the US to find more cost-effective ways to relate to the world, soon enough.
Okay, so you're saying we did too much too fast when we went into Afghanistan in 2001, despite the fact that we toppled a draconian, medieval regime at the cost of less than 10 casualties (did any servicemen die in the initial invasion?). Oh, and we did that to a country that is over 6,000 miles away. This is a mind-boggling feat!
Had you been president in October of 2001, what would have been your course of action?
But then you say that we essentially were not doing enough in Afghanistan, or at least not spending enough of our resources there. So which is it? Were we doing too much or not enough?
The thing that bugs me about the sudden shunning of Afghanistan by the Left and Right is that many of these naysayers said that Iraq was the immoral, greedy war, and that we should focus on Afghanistan more. The latter was of course the "good fight" or at least more noble. But once these same folks finally find themselves in power, they don't want anything to do with it. Once again, the same old chants of "It's hopeless!" and "All is lost!" start coming back. Or that it's no longer the "good fight." It only was so when they weren't in power.
I agree with Bushinoki that we can if not destroy, at least severely cripple and hopefully make impotent the Taliban in Central Asia. But we never will. An unwilling and duplicitous Pakistani government does not seem very intent on fighting an enemy that resides only a hundred miles from its capital. If Pakistan had the cajones for the fight, it could march into its border regions and annihilate the Taliban's remaining strongholds. But it won't. And neither will a jittery and impatient American public.
And you honestly think that invading a third sovereign nation in the region is a good idea? One that won't further reinforce the imagine of America as an imperialistic country attacking predominately Muslim countries in the Middle East? One that won't instigate more hatred and violence against America and, consequently, more terrorists?
I don't actually feel that we did rush into Afghanistan, I was simply using Bushinoki's own words. Poor choice on my part perhaps.
See I actually do support actions in Afghanistan, always have. It is my position that in unjustly invading Iraq we turned our focus from our true target and let him slip out from under us. All of Bush's rhetoric about finding bin Laden, about "smoking him out of his hole" turned out to be just that, rhetoric of the empty variety.
Palzang
Speaking for myself, no, and I've never held any delusions of such. I'm more concerned with bringing the perpetrators of a specific act to justice (although the chance for that has probably long passed).
Justice?
Please go on, explain to me what you understand for justice...
Well for me it would be finding those who order and carry out such attacks on innocent lives, bringing them before a court of law, and them spending their lives in prison.
But what good does putting them behind bars accomplish for humanity (baring the fact that it would prevent them from attacking again.)
If justice was only to prevent future attacks it wouldn't be called justice. Justice implies that that someone did something wrong and will be punished for their actions. I am young and unwise, but I can not see much gain in justice. Justice does not take back the bad deeds. Justice does not liberate the victims. Instead, justice, gives the victims a chance to be happy for someone else's misfortune (an unhealthy feeling no doubt!)
Some may say not to worry, Karma will catch up with these people. But I don't think that is the right view. I don't think Karma is a force of justice, but instead I think Karma is a force of teaching. If I do bad things in this life; I won't turn into a slug, but instead be given the chance to learn from like mistakes in my next life.
That's pretty much it honestly. That's all that can be done really.
Ultimately my idea of justice is one of restoration. You damage someone's property you make it right by repairing, replacing, or compensating them for that property. You harm someone physically you do what you can for them to counter the damage you've done. Unfortunately the reality is that such things simply are not possible in a great many crimes. What could Osama bin Laden possibly do, or what could possibly be done to him, to even begin to counter the damage he's done and the lives he's ruined? Nothing. I suppose, ideally, his fortunes could be seized and used to aid the families of his victims, but we know that isn't going to happen. So locking him up and preventing him for masterminding such acts again is the best we can do. It's not justice, but it's all we've got.
It is interesting that in many of the stories of the former Karmapas, one of the things they used to do was go around to the prisons and let everybody free. There are no reports of society falling apart or mass criminal waves happening as a result...
Palzang
Well, it's not really all we've got, is it? We also have the Dharma...
Palzang
I don't know where I stand on this topic, pro war ,or not.
I saw a guy get beheaded by terrorists.
I tried to imagine how much frustration and hate it takes to do that to a captive unarmed civilian. The sound the guy made was...the worst..
Why do they hate so much, is it because we fuck them? probably. Is it because they have a SHIT place in the world...probably.. why do we hate them? because they hated us and wronged us, and we hate them. and wronged them..a ridiculous cycle throughout history, doesnt matter who started it..
The guy who cut this guys head off must have been personally touched by it, or brainswashed.
We can't have that. I wish I never saw that. I wish an American soldier like our buddy there would have sniped this guy in the face...the problem is you gotta get his entire innocent family too after, because people hold grudges,
this reminds me of Sun Tzu's, art of war, he said something like "defeat an enemy completely, and swiftly totally..," or else there will be sons and daughters who will grow up and counter-fuck you. the cycle is ridiculous
It doesn't help most of these people follow to the death a ....a.....(whatever adjective religion)... (in my opinion), i don't mean any offense but, I give more credit to the guys who worship the giant flying spaghetti monster...
maybe they are too rooted in tradition..
maybe they have a bad position in the world and life
maybe they are victims of metaphorically gangrape..and propaganda.
WE are for sure partly to blame too...
I just wish their religion was Buddhism...and everyone elses..
I dunno who said it but "you can't beat hate with hate, you can only beat hate with love"
Hoo-rah
It doesn't help the word "terrorist" is frought with ambiguity up one side and down the other. Let us not forget that the British considered General George Washington to be a terrorist. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". Palzang is correct, the only enemies we should primarily be concerned with are those within us...our own collective ignorance, fear and stupidity.
Confucious was once asked, "Master, should we reward evil with kindness?"
The Master then answered, "How then would you reward kindness? Reward kindness with kindness...reward evil with justice."
-From The Analectics of Confucious (Kung-Fu Tse)
Lets not point the blame at anyone or any religious tradition. Because Islam is actually a very peaceful religion, but there are fanatics in every religion. What if the "terrorist" watched TV and saw only "west borough baptist" for a view on Christianity?
Also "Buddhism" is probably not for everyone. So instead of wishing for world wide Buddhism, maybe wish for world wide compassion and understanding.
I don't put much weight on the words of any 'master" unless I can find it in myself to agree with them.
It sounds good, Validus, but does not hold up on closer examination: kindness is always kindness but one state's 'justice' is next door's oppression.