TexasCHLforum.com

...are so resolute in their beliefs, even in the face of strong statistical evidence to the contrary?

There's an article in the DMN (8/8/10) that might explain part of the reason: Researchers at the Univ. of Michigan have discovered that people with misinformed beliefs, when exposed to evidence contrary to those beliefs, rarely change their minds. In fact, many of the misinformed actually become more convinced that their mistaken beliefs are, in fact, correct!

This would certainly explain the mindset of politicians who, despite solid statistical evidence that anti-gun laws do not decrease crime rates, continue to rally for anti-gun legislation. I always thought it was because they were stupid. Instead, it's a defense mechanism for politicians who can't stand to say that they're wrong.

Can't find a free link to the DMN article, but the article is a reprint from the Boston Globe, here.

kahrfreak wrote:...are so resolute in their beliefs, even in the face of strong statistical evidence to the contrary?

There's an article in the DMN (8/8/10) I always thought it was because they were stupid. Instead, it's a defense mechanism for politicians who can't stand to say that they're wrong.

.

I think your first assessmant is correct. As to why they act stupidly could very likely be an egotistical/egocentric reaction. The action reflects stupidity the cause is not the act. IMHO

Main Entry: 1stu·pid
Pronunciation: \ˈstü-pəd, ˈstyü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupēre to be numb, be astonished — more at type
Date: 1541
1 a : slow of mind : obtuse b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>

I think there is more in the category than politicians.

A good friend and work colleague and I had many discussions while we were working and traveling together. She was a rabid anti-gun so we didn't bring that topic up much. She was very well educated, highly intelligent, very perceptive and not at all political. She just held strongly to a group of ultra-Progressive views on everything from energy to marriage. When presented with evident, she always seemed to revert to her "feelings". She just felt that guns were wrong or the burning coal for electricity was wrong. No facts needed.

When you get underneath the surface, most of these folks hold very conflicting views within themselves. She was against burning coal because "if just one person died because of lung problems, that would be one too many." On the other hand, she drove like a maniac. When I mentioned the 10s of thousands that were killed on the highways because of driving like hers, she would conveniently change the subject.

I would have loved to she how she reacted if the the Hummer hijacker in another thread on the forum had stuck a gun in her face to take her car. Like those that install burglar alarms AFTER they've been robbed, I suspect that she might have had a different point of view.

I think they just want an object to be responsible for their criminal supporters actions.

The article points out that the phenomenon is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid... ...cognitive dissonance."

Cognitive dissonance is that acutely uncomfortable feeling that occurs when the empirical facts do not square with a cherished belief or perception. Since facts are impartial, the observer who is experiencing the dissonance has two choices. One choice is to admit being wrong in one's perceptions or belief and reorder those things based on the facts. The other choice is to dispute the facts (most commonly by attacking the messenger) and then hang onto those beliefs or perceptions even more tightly.

The second choice is what the article is talking about as a natural defense mechanism.

I have my own theory as to why this is.... Well, actually, I have two theories. The first is that all this is explainable because we live in a fallen world. But, that theory will not resonate with people who do not share my faith; so my other theory is that people are unable to admit they are wrong because they attach their self esteem to how right they view themselves to be. Therefore, if they are wrong, then they are also bad, and unworthy - the very two characteristics they ascribe to people they are opposed to. They can't just disagree and still respect the other. The other person must be also bad (evil)/unworthy/untrustworthy/what have you; because if the other person were good/holy/worthy/trustworthy, then they would have to actually consider that they themselves might be wrong.

(In fact, as a side note: this is the biggest stumbling block to Christian faith for most non-believers... ...the notion that they are not good/holy/worthy/trustworthy as they see themselves.)

Admitting fault or wrongness is in the realm of the humble, and humility is a commodity in very short supply. Like the Owner's Manual says: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)

chasfm11 wrote:I think there is more in the category than politicians.

A good friend and work colleague and I had many discussions while we were working and traveling together. She was a rabid anti-gun so we didn't bring that topic up much. She was very well educated, highly intelligent, very perceptive and not at all political. She just held strongly to a group of ultra-Progressive views on everything from energy to marriage. When presented with evident, she always seemed to revert to her "feelings". She just felt that guns were wrong or the burning coal for electricity was wrong. No facts needed.

When you get underneath the surface, most of these folks hold very conflicting views within themselves. She was against burning coal because "if just one person died because of lung problems, that would be one too many." On the other hand, she drove like a maniac. When I mentioned the 10s of thousands that were killed on the highways because of driving like hers, she would conveniently change the subject.

I would have loved to she how she reacted if the the Hummer hijacker in another thread on the forum had stuck a gun in her face to take her car. Like those that install burglar alarms AFTER they've been robbed, I suspect that she might have had a different point of view.

AndyC posted a humorous account of a female friend that drastically changed her opinion when somebody stole HER stuff.

There's an article in the DMN (8/8/10) that might explain part of the reason: Researchers at the Univ. of Michigan have discovered that people with misinformed beliefs, when exposed to evidence contrary to those beliefs, rarely change their minds. In fact, many of the misinformed actually become more convinced that their mistaken beliefs are, in fact, correct!

How can we be sure its the other side thats misinformed? Sure, on this forum my statement is going to seem crazy, but from a neutral viewpoint it would seem to indicate that our side is at least as extreme. Coming out so confident that those who disagree with you must be suffering from this delusional self defense mechanism makes me smile =)

tallmike wrote:How can we be sure its the other side thats misinformed? Sure, on this forum my statement is going to seem crazy, but from a neutral viewpoint it would seem to indicate that our side is at least as extreme.

Yes, our side is at least as extreme, or at least our side has elements that are just as extreme as the extreme elements of the other side. I'll give you that.
But the vast majority of actual evidence is on our side. Fact-based scientific writings on the subject that refute the "you're more likely to kill yourself or a loved one than to successfully defend yourself if you keep a gun in the house" nonsense that the anti-gunners have been claiming for decades.
Scholarly research into the Second Amendment and the intent of the Founding Fathers heavily favors the individual right to keep and bear arms and not a collective right. (Recently affirmed by the Supreme Court, finally.)
We can be confident that we are right because we can back it up better than they can.

tallmike wrote:

There's an article in the DMN (8/8/10) that might explain part of the reason: Researchers at the Univ. of Michigan have discovered that people with misinformed beliefs, when exposed to evidence contrary to those beliefs, rarely change their minds. In fact, many of the misinformed actually become more convinced that their mistaken beliefs are, in fact, correct!

How can we be sure its the other side thats misinformed? Sure, on this forum my statement is going to seem crazy, but from a neutral viewpoint it would seem to indicate that our side is at least as extreme. Coming out so confident that those who disagree with you must be suffering from this delusional self defense mechanism makes me smile =)

Good question. Here is the answer. We can be sure that our side is right because it is sustained by the empirical facts. The other side is not. Anti-gunners are entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.

There is a good point that the author uses in the article - when she discusses the teacher shooting kids versus stabbing them with scissors. I never really considered that argument - dead is dead, it really doesn't matter how you got there.

I'll have to try that if I ever am forced to talk to one of them again.

Great article.

mgood wrote: Fact-based scientific writings on the subject that refute the "you're more likely to kill yourself or a loved one than to successfully defend yourself if you keep a gun in the house" nonsense that the anti-gunners have been claiming for decades.

Even if this canard were true it would be irrelevant. A person either has a right to self-defense or he doesn't. My right to defend myself is not conditional upon the competence of someone else to defend himself. It's also not conditional on my own competence --at least so far as in my own defense I don't injure an innocent party. Maybe if gang kicks my door in during a home invasion and I don't resist they will just rob me. Then again, maybe they will kill me or worse. It's my right to resist even if I get killed in the process.

The Annoyed Man wrote:my other theory is that people are unable to admit they are wrong because they attach their self esteem to how right they view themselves to be. Therefore, if they are wrong, then they are also bad, and unworthy - the very two characteristics they ascribe to people they are opposed to. They can't just disagree and still respect the other. The other person must be also bad (evil)/unworthy/untrustworthy/what have you; because if the other person were good/holy/worthy/trustworthy, then they would have to actually consider that they themselves might be wrong.

And this tendency is often very aptly exploited by those in power, who themselves are also victim to it along with everyone else.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

tallmike wrote:

There's an article in the DMN (8/8/10) that might explain part of the reason: Researchers at the Univ. of Michigan have discovered that people with misinformed beliefs, when exposed to evidence contrary to those beliefs, rarely change their minds. In fact, many of the misinformed actually become more convinced that their mistaken beliefs are, in fact, correct!

How can we be sure its the other side thats misinformed? Sure, on this forum my statement is going to seem crazy, but from a neutral viewpoint it would seem to indicate that our side is at least as extreme. Coming out so confident that those who disagree with you must be suffering from this delusional self defense mechanism makes me smile =)

Good question. Here is the answer. We can be sure that our side is right because it is sustained by the empirical facts. The other side is not. Anti-gunners are entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.

Took the words right out of my mouth.