The montages about walls closing in and turning points are indeed depressing, especially when, if each claim were examined in context, I imagine most of them were regarding some pretty egregious conduct that really should have brought some significant consequences down on Trump. The man has been engaged in criminal conduct since before …
The montages about walls closing in and turning points are indeed depressing, especially when, if each claim were examined in context, I imagine most of them were regarding some pretty egregious conduct that really should have brought some significant consequences down on Trump. The man has been engaged in criminal conduct since before I was born, and has never really faced any serious consequences, which of course has led to five decades of steadily emboldened behavior. Not really the ideal profile for a US President.
As far as the Russel Moore piece exhorting his Christian brethren to ask WWJD, I feel compelled to share something that was just recently brought to my attention:
Apparently, in 2019, 19 of the top 20 Christian Facebook pages were run by Eastern European troll farms, like the folks out of Macedonia. These are a gullible lot, and it's not a huge surprise that they're total suckers for an amoral, shameless conman. I'm not optimistic they'll be coming around. And the more entrenched you become in these fantasies, the harder and more painful it becomes to admit you and your entire worldview were wrong.
You use the word "gullible" in your comment, which I agree with. But I would prefer a phrase Charlie has used: willfully gullible. I don't think the problem is merely being to dim to recognize a conman. There is something in the phenomenon that smells of wanting to be fooled.
This is essentially correct. You will often see me use terms like willful stupidity or willful ignorance in the same context.
The vast majority of these people are NOT fooled--in the sense that they have somehow been persuaded or convinced by external means to a belief. They believe because they WISH to believe. It fits in with their desires and their understanding of the world and their place in it.
Narrative. We are creatures of narrative, not of rationality or logic. This is why you can persuade people more effectively with an anecdote than with reams of actual hard data. They understand the story. They FEEL the story. They can put themselves in the story.
People want to believe that the Universe makes sense. That there is purpose and intentionality. That good and evil are not subjective or contextual (and that they are things separate and above human existence).
It makes them feel better. Feel secure. Know their place in the scheme of things. Reality has purpose and is controllable.
This is kind of beside the point, but have you noticed that many mysteries aren't actually solvable on the basis of the information provided? I always enjoyed reading Sherlock Holmes stories, but never really considered them mysteries... because you never got the necessary info to actually solve the crime until Holmes did his thing at the end.
Confirmation bias wouldn't be nearly the problem it is if confirming our biases weren't so satisfying. I agree they are willful, since there is plenty of good information out there, as well as bad, but too many of us aren't interested in the quality of information; we're interested in the information that tells us how right we are. And cultures that value faith above reason are ripe for exploitation by snake oil salesmen.
The montages about walls closing in and turning points are indeed depressing, especially when, if each claim were examined in context, I imagine most of them were regarding some pretty egregious conduct that really should have brought some significant consequences down on Trump. The man has been engaged in criminal conduct since before I was born, and has never really faced any serious consequences, which of course has led to five decades of steadily emboldened behavior. Not really the ideal profile for a US President.
As far as the Russel Moore piece exhorting his Christian brethren to ask WWJD, I feel compelled to share something that was just recently brought to my attention:
https://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/report-19-top-christian-pages-on-facebook-were-run-by-eastern-european-troll-farms.html
Apparently, in 2019, 19 of the top 20 Christian Facebook pages were run by Eastern European troll farms, like the folks out of Macedonia. These are a gullible lot, and it's not a huge surprise that they're total suckers for an amoral, shameless conman. I'm not optimistic they'll be coming around. And the more entrenched you become in these fantasies, the harder and more painful it becomes to admit you and your entire worldview were wrong.
You use the word "gullible" in your comment, which I agree with. But I would prefer a phrase Charlie has used: willfully gullible. I don't think the problem is merely being to dim to recognize a conman. There is something in the phenomenon that smells of wanting to be fooled.
This is essentially correct. You will often see me use terms like willful stupidity or willful ignorance in the same context.
The vast majority of these people are NOT fooled--in the sense that they have somehow been persuaded or convinced by external means to a belief. They believe because they WISH to believe. It fits in with their desires and their understanding of the world and their place in it.
Narrative. We are creatures of narrative, not of rationality or logic. This is why you can persuade people more effectively with an anecdote than with reams of actual hard data. They understand the story. They FEEL the story. They can put themselves in the story.
People want to believe that the Universe makes sense. That there is purpose and intentionality. That good and evil are not subjective or contextual (and that they are things separate and above human existence).
It makes them feel better. Feel secure. Know their place in the scheme of things. Reality has purpose and is controllable.
This is kind of beside the point, but have you noticed that many mysteries aren't actually solvable on the basis of the information provided? I always enjoyed reading Sherlock Holmes stories, but never really considered them mysteries... because you never got the necessary info to actually solve the crime until Holmes did his thing at the end.
Confirmation bias wouldn't be nearly the problem it is if confirming our biases weren't so satisfying. I agree they are willful, since there is plenty of good information out there, as well as bad, but too many of us aren't interested in the quality of information; we're interested in the information that tells us how right we are. And cultures that value faith above reason are ripe for exploitation by snake oil salesmen.