WHY are republicans so susceptible

[serryjw]

to the talking head propaganda? They all say the same thing and BELIEVE it. My head is ready to explode. I finished a 1 week emailing debate on all subjects with my 58 year old (male) 1st cousin in NY. Even on DU we can't agree...how does the RW agree on everything Rush says?

[pat_k]

1. Funny you should ask. . .

Just posted something on another thread on the subject:

Belief people v. Knowledge people. . .

[serryjw]

13. Try this

quote.........
People always confuse faith with belief. Belief is the acceptance of truth so long as it fits your preconceived opinions. Faith is the acceptance of truth no matter what it may turn out to be. One clings to one's beliefs, but faith lets go, as in a "leap of faith".
end quote......
http://selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?f=33&i=164246&t=164246


I think that the right vs left is faith vs fact. WE deal in fact ad nauseum, they don't. Bushit, Cheney or Rove tells them something and they accept it on faith......ask no questions. Based on the above....Iraq..they have changed the REASON for the invasion and STILL the RWers accept the reasons??

[pat_k]

20. The beliefs that are adopted by belief people are not theories . . .

. . .therefore; there is no need for internal consistency.

Changing the reasons for war isn't a problem for a belief person because it is the conclusion/assertion ("We must attack Iraq or bad things will happen") that is adopted, not the premise or basis.

In a sense, a belief person is adopting their beliefs on faith from an authority figure, but there is no need for the beliefs to fit any preconceived opinions. Belief people have no trouble at all simultaneously holding completely contradictory beliefs.

Understanding the "belief person" process in terms of faith may help us conceptualize what's going on with "them," but I think I'm having a little trouble with it because I tend to use the terms in different contexts.

As I use them, generally:

• Faith/Confidence refers to something that operates in the realm of possibility or unknown/unknowable. The object of faith is typically an outcome predictions or aspiration (I will go to heaven; We will successfully lobby Democrats to demand Impeachment; I will get that job.)



• Belief refers to a conclusion or assertion about our world, whether objectively "true" or not, they are generally present-oriented, testable, often static, assertions. (Dogs bite, Bush lies, the Sky is Green, Healthcare is not a commodity, Tax Kickbacks to the American Aristocracy have a negative social and economic impact).

Belief-people adopt beliefs/assertions/conclusions/statements from other people wholesale. A belief person may construct some sort of justification after the fact, but since the belief is not drawn from the elements employed to justify it, proving or disproving those elements has little or no impact on the belief. For a belief person, beliefs are not conclusions at all, because the belief/assertion is not based on any premise, so in that sense, it is "faith-based" but I don't think the belief-person considers their beliefs to be "faith-based."

For knowledge people, whether the ideas are adopted from other people or from experience, the conclusions/assertions operate as theories -- i.e., they are based on a set of premises that are subject to testing against other beliefs, experience, and acquired knowledge.

For "belief people" the process of adopting their beliefs about their world is people-based. This is why belief people tend to attack a belief by attacking the people they view as the source, not the facts that support the belief.

Just as a person with a photographic memory has a different experience from the rest of us "forgetters," belief people simply have a different way of seeing and experiencing the world. (Belief people are from Mars, knowledge people are from Venus sort of thing. Knowledge people can observe the "belief person" phenomenon, and can make predictions, but will never truly "get" what is going on.)

If you listen to Al Franken, Luther, his dittohead friend is a classic example of a belief person. I posted a Franken/Luther dialog with commentary as an example of how common "belief person" characteristics operate -- and to suggest more effective ways of dealing with someone who exhibits these characteristics.

Dialog + commentary starts in Post #3625 and continues in Post #3626 and Post #3628

-----------------------------
BTW. Just to be clear. All of us operate as belief people in some aspects of our lives, so being a "belief-person" is actually a situational thing.

In the political realm, being a "belief person" is not exclusive to the fascist side of the spectrum. There are belief people across the political spectrum. There are positive and negative authority figures. Belief people can adopt beliefs that are grounded in reality (if the authority's beliefs are grounded in reality) or beliefs that are not.

On the other hand, knowledge people are less likely to adopt beliefs and opinions that are at odds with reality, so very few knowledge people adopt political views that are at odds with reality, counter-productive, or just plain fascist.

In other words, because a vast majority of the members of the opposition are belief people, doesn't mean that "our side" doesn't have its share of belief people.

[serryjw]

22. All 3 links are bad

please try again

[pat_k]

23. Discovered why. . .

Sorry about that. According to the following post, apparently, the archived thread was "cleaned up" on Wednesday (talk about timing)

http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?14@@.eea22d9/916

(It was the "George Bush: Public Enemy #1 XVIII: The Continuing Adventures of Commander Cuckoo-Bananas" thread)

I may have the source around somewhere. And will put in a request for it to be restored (there was a lot of great content in that thread in 2005)

[pat_k]

25. Franken-Luther Argument w/Commentary

When knowledge people try to influence belief people, they are unlikely to make progress unless they make some changes in how they communicate. I thought it might be helpful to illustrate some of these changes with a "real life" example.

A July 20, 2005 exchange between Al Franken and Mark Luther (the Franken Show's resident dittohead) provides a good example of a typical "knowledge person vs. belief person" exchange.

Summary of Franken-Luther Argument

The exchange is about Rush's characterization of Wilson's actions. Mark Luther believes Rush's assertions that:

• Point 1. In his 2/11/03 Op Ed, Wilson expressed agreement with Bush. That is, Wilson agreed that Saddam was a bad guy and we'd have to take him out.


• Point 2. Six months later Wilson is supposedly outraged about it. He changed his tune because he suddenly got hired on to the Kerry campaign as an advisor.

The conclusion is essentially that Wilson, not the Bush Regime, did something bad.

Franken takes apart the assertions:

• Counterpoint 1. To support the notion that Wilson agreed that we would have to take out Saddam, Rush read a quote from the 2/11/03 Op Ed. He implied the quote was the conclusion of of the piece. The quote was not an assertion that "we had to take Saddam out" (a point Luther concedes), and was actually from the middle of the piece. Contrary to Rush's characterization, Wilson concluded that
  
  "We should do everything possible to avoid the understandable temptation to send U.S. troops to fight a war of "liberation" that can be waged only by the Iraqis themselves. The projection of power need not equate with the projection of force."
  
  So, Rush is lying about the conclusion of the piece.


• Counterpoint 2. From Wilson's July 6, 2003 NYT piece: "The next day (after the State of the Union), I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case."
  
  Franken’s conclusion: "The reason Wilson 'changed his tune' is that in March, ElBaradei (IAEA Director General) revealed that the documents that served as the basis of the Niger Unraniam allegations (docs he had been begging from the US) were forgeries. After that, and only after that, Wilson contacted the WH and said "Hey, you guys made a mistake and need to correct it"
  
  After mentioning a couple other lies, the argument concludes with the following exchange.

Conclusion of Franken-Luther Argument w/Commentary

Franken: "What he (Rush) is implying here are a whole bunch of things that aren't true. And you know what, because you are a typical Rush listener, you draw the same conclusion that he wants you do draw. This is exactly the kind of thing he does all the time, and he fools you Mark. You are fooled."

Luther: Do you think we know everything there is to know about the Wilson/Plame affair yet?

PMK comment: This response is a red flag that you are dealing with a belief person. Luther has adopted Rush's conclusion. He believes what he believes. The conclusion is valid and there must be other facts out there that make it so.

Franken: That's not the question. The question is, do you feel misled?

PMK comment: Asking, "Do you feel misled?" is asking a belief person to reverse a belief they have adopted, and to do so in the same way a knowledge person would. It is not productive to seek admissions of error from belief people. When they adopt a new belief, they do so without such re-evaluation. Sometimes, they'll even deny they held a contrary belief before.

It would have been more effective to respond "Yes, we have all the facts."

A response like this is tough for knowledge-based people because they know that absolute knowledge is rare. But, we do in fact know everything necessary to reverse the beliefs Luther has adopted. As a belief person, Luther has not actually based his belief on the items Rush cited, so expecting him to revisit those items in light of the new information is unproductive. Luther has adopted Rush's conclusion. Once adopted as a belief, Luther will seek some "out" to hang on to it.

Rather than expecting Luther to draw the correct knowledge-based conclusion from the new information, it would be more effective to assert the correct conclusion with confidence in a way that leaves no exits. For example, "Yes, we know everything we need to know. Rush is wrong. You are wrong. When Wilson learned that the administration had misled the nation and would not correct their mistake, he did the patriotic thing. He told the American people the truth."

Luther: No, I don't feel misled.

PMK comment: The exchange would have gone in a different direction had Franken responded as suggested above. Luther probably wouldn't have given up Rush's conclusions, but if Franken continued to respond in a way that left no outs, Luther's inability to find an exit would make it more difficult to hang onto the erroneous belief, particularly when a clearly stated opposing conclusion is rattling around in his head.

Franken: Well then you are a fool Mark, you are being a fool.

Luther: Well, maybe I am, but we all know this is complex enough that I don't think all the facts are out yet. I don't think anyone really knows the whole

PMK: When Luther says, "Maybe I am" he isn't thinking he could be a fool, so don't take it as a concession. He is thinking "Maybe I am, but I know I'm not." A direct response that closes the loophole is in order. Any "maybe, maybe not" response from a belief person should be addressed in this way. For example, in this case, Franken might have said, "No maybe about it. If you don't think Wilson was right to expose a lie that was leading us into a war, then you are a fool."

Franken: (talking over) He tells you this is the conclusion of the piece. He implies that a week after the thing he's supposed to be outraged by this. KNowing that in his Op Ed piece, he had said, immediately after the speech, he said, I was confused by this, I thought he must have been talking about some other country. Rush has to know that. Rush must have read the Op Ed piece. The piece he wrote in the Times.

Luther: I'll grant you that. I'll grant you that. Rush did report on that Op Ed piece to give it his own slant. And you have clarified that by reading

PMK: Although he "grants" Rush "slanted" some details, he still has loopholes -- e.g, we don't know everything -- that allow him to hang onto the belief that it was Wilson, not the Bush Regime that did something bad.

Franken: (talking over) And this was the piece that you selected Mark

Luther: That's right

Franken: and I'll show you time and time again this man is lying to you, and you are a fool for believing him.

Luther: Alright, but let's

PMK: Cutting off like this can be productive, but only after you have made statements that leave "no exit." You can leave belief person sputtering.

Franken: (talking over) All right, gotta go.

[tabatha]

17. knowledge people versus belief people

I have come to the same conclusion - in dealing with people encountered in life, either republican or democrat. I have also found it has a lot to do with id.

There are some people who like to be right because of what they believe and those like to do the right thing because of what they know. Almost without fail, the republicans I have come to know are the id - "I am right" kind. They tend to be people who believe they think that know what is right.

I have encountered a few who have made completely erroneous statements without knowing the underlying facts - because they believed something to be true (without even checking).

They also like to put people into boxes - I think it is easier that way for them to wrap their believed facts around people, and hence enhance their "I am right" feelings.

(Add nastiness, cattiness to this mix, and one has Ann Coulter).

The "knowledge" people usually are the most humble and will recognize when they are wrong - because for them, truth is stronger than id.

[pat_k]

26. For knowledge people, it is a given that absolute knowledge is an . .

. . elusive thing, so it is much tougher for them to lay down the law and assert their beliefs unequivocally.

Belief-people on the other hand have no such limitations. The "rightness" they exhibit may not be an ego thing -- it could simply be a consequence of the method by which belief people adopt their beliefs.

When you adopt your belief from another person -- today's authority figure -- and you adopt the belief wholesale, it MUST be right, otherwise, you wouldn't believe it would you?

Of course, two seconds later, you can flip with barely a blink, and believe the opposite -- either because the authority figure flipped, or because you rejected the authority figure in favor of a new one.

The dynamics are hard to fathom. All that most of us can do is observe the phenomenon with a strange kind of awe.

Example of a typical "knowledge person vs. belief person" exchange:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1440587&mesg_id=1441121

[mrcheerful]

2. Lobotomized

[Robbien]

3. It has been beaten into their little heads now

for the last ten/twenty years.

When the NYT is reporting unity of thought by the GOP is a good thing and individualist thought by the Dems is something to be mocked, it seems this GOP strategy works even on the press.

[specimenfred1984]

4. They're Bigots, It's That Simple

They look for hatred, here's a short list of what they hate to prove it:

Dems, Independents, Libertarians, The French, Scientists, Pro-choice people, Environmentalists, Unions, Regulators, Hollywierd, North Easterners, Coffee drinkers, The 'lib' media, Agnostics, Atheists, Welfare recipients - except for red states, Anyone who speaks out against Bush, Anyone who's anti war, Muslims, Intellectuals, Canadians, Lawyers – except red state lawyers, Doom & gloomers, Feminists, Gays, Race mixers, Rappers, Rockers, Pot users, Volvo drivers, Non-torturers, WMD non-believers, People with alternate lifestyles, Vegetarians, Progressives, Artists, Single parents, Evolutionists, Decorated Viet Nam vets, ex-republicans, MoveOn.org, Bill Moyers, PBS, Blue states, Minorities, Protestors, Election monitors, Social Security, the Constitution, the UN, Medicare and Medicaid, FDR, Clinton, Kennedys, Iranians, Jews, George Soros, Al Franken, M. Moore, J. Garafolo, CBS, ACLU, NAACP, San Francisco and the ever-present COMMIES and SCUMBAGS!

Nobody will ever admit they are a bigot, especially to a friend. But they will tell you the 5000 things they hate.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

5. I'm so glad someone asked this! Ok. First. They *get it* about staying on

message! In public they rip each other apart! They *get it* that the 11th commandment is DO NOT CRITICIZE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN! They know it's a show! They know it's marketing!

The question should be "Why do the Democrats only kill there own?"

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Erika]

8. Intellectual curiousity in the search for truth

Terms the right wing can't begin to even comprehend.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

9. I still think it's staying on message.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[serryjw]

16. I love reading, learning

I can amuse myself on any subject for hours on the internet. An insatiable quest for knowledge

[serryjw]

10. Because we think?

We don't march lock step. We have all developed ability to critically evaluate information. We have spent 5 years worldwide coming up with info on 9-11. We trust no one or nothing that is told to us without checking and re-checking. RW would never do this.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

12. They get it!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Erika]

6. They are afraid of their own shadow

or looking beyond their own beliefs. We are not talking about intellectually curious people here. They got their security blanket and they are going to stick with it.

[The Anti-Neo Con]

7. Conformity.

They're taught to always uphold the status quo and to never question authority.

[serryjw]

15. I have wondered whether that is

taught in business school?

[alittlelark]

11. My mother is one... she is weak

She has little to no sense of 'self' and gravitates to those who speak in concrete terms. I forgive her, but she was a wretched mother (my 2 siblings can attest to that), she left us w/o notice and moved into the gated apt. complex her lover was living in. My father cried for 2 weeks. She has since had worse 'intimates' - but all were 'good christian men'.:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

She also has a self admitted lack of creativity.

[Erika]

18. Convenient morality...A fundie syndrome

It must have been so Hard for Hillary to stay with Bill but she stuck to her deep marriage committment and did so. I've always been so disappointed she was put down for staying with her marriage.

Now Newt, Livingston, Barr, Burton, etc. just never chose to keep a committment.

[aquaman]

14. Simple.....

Because they are some dumb fucks....

[Erika]

19. yes, to put it simply.

Your'e so succinct.

[Mountainman]

21. Because they are not enligtened. They need others to do their thinging

for them.

read this:

Immanuel Kant:
What is Enlightenment?, 1784
Was ist Äufklarung?

Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage s man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!"- that is the motto of enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me.

That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind (and by the entire fair sex) - quite apart from its being arduous is seen to by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily frightens them away from all further trials.

For any single individua1 to work himself out of the life under tutelage which has become almost his nature is very difficult. He has come to be fond of his state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out. Statutes and formulas, those mechanical tools of the rational employment or rather misemployment of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting tutelage. Whoever throws them off makes only an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch because he is not accustomed to that kind of free motion. Therefore, there are few who have succeeded by their own exercise of mind both in freeing themselves from incompetence and in achieving a steady pace.

more
http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/kant-whatis.html

[Bluebear]

24. They are TREMENDOUSLY incurious.

They live in a world created by Paul Harvey, the Reader's Digest, the World Book, Sermonette, everything you hear on FOX is true. Mix that with a sense that 'someone is out to get your job due to affirmative action' racism and xenophobia and gays are going to get into your church and hot damn!