Politics again - Facts dont matter

[Sebastiaan56]

Ive just come across this fascinating article of research from America on voter behaviour and their responses to changing situations. Essentially facts have a backfire effect which means that when presented with the facts people are more likely to maintain their opinions rather than have them change.

See here How facts backfire - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire?mode=PF)

Leads to a whole discussion about who informs opinion and how opinion can be manipulated to serve political ends. Of course Donald Rumsfeld was not the first to discover this (remember the "You will believe what we tell you" speech), all of the great tyrants have used this strategy and it seems all our pollies do it as well.

For communal erudition and comment.

[jimbur]

Remember the novel, "The 480" by Burdick? That was published in 1964 and used the premise that there all voters can be placed in one of 480 groups. Since then there seems to have been a general dumbing down so perhaps the title would have to change.:D
Damn, I wasn't going to get involved in another political thread:~
Jim

[jimbur]

A point to consider is whether an Australian newspaper would publish an article of that length instead of just an attention grabbing headline.
William Shirer notes a similar problem in his Berlin Diary when he tries to reason with otherwise intelligent people about what the fuhrer said. They heard what they wanted to hear and became confused when he confronted them with the facts. As the war didn't end at that stage, I assume they didn't believe him.
Cheers,
Jim

[More_Firewood]

An interesting variation on the same them is:

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes"

Dunning?Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

[Sebastiaan56]

Damn, I wasn't going to get involved in another political thread

My pleasure Jim :D

Seriously though it puts most of what passes for political debate into perspective. The "L"s fight basically for a swinging vote which from memory is about 8% of the electorate (correct me someone, Im getting older). Now I dont know if this means that only 8% of the electorate think and look at the facts..... but yes its another way of expressing The Dunning–Kruger Effect. Cognitive dissonance has a lot to answer for.

[jimbur]

It gets even more confusing when people believe the facts but.... For example, they believe that car use will increase global warming but they don't want to walk to the railway station.
You're a sadist Sebastiaan.
Jim

[Sebastiaan56]

Or they see the 3000 boat people last year and imagine there is a crisis. The annual immigration intake is currently 300,000. During Howard's reign the population of Australia increased by more than 3 million (12.5%) the most of any government ever.

[jimbur]

Now that's a point - the acceptance of putative crises that is. Do people like to feel they are at risk especially when someone promises to save them and, if so, have all the doom-laden headlines of the world's troubles made them feel left out? The media loves disasters and so apparently does their audience. Chicken or egg?
I think it's mental displacement activity, not seeing the elephant in the room.
Cheers,
Jim

[damian]

Is it 300000 a year ? I thought it was about 140000 now ? Not doubting you just curious where the number came from.

Governments are won and lost by the votes of swing voters in marginal seats. Some years back they were 8% of the population. It varies, but not by that much. Realise that I am not one of them because I have always voted for minor parties and indenpendants if I can. I bury the majors so far down my preferences my vote doesn't count (in the senate moreso than the lower house), and I live in safe coalition seat so it wouldn't matter anyway.

They (swing voters in marginals) profile pretty consistently. Typically mortgage belt, middle income. Don't pay attention to politics until the week prior to the election then they just decide who'll keep interest low and pork them up the most and they vote that way.

The last queensland state election was a textbook case. Anna Bligh basically said nothing until the last week. Lawrence Springborg shot his load and she came in for the kill at the last minute, splashed the pork around, promised the world, won the election, sold the state, sent taxes through the roof. And people were surprised...

All the complex political analysis is meaningless. Yes government stupidity annoyes people like us, but we really really don't count.

"In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds"

I've only read the first page and I have to go now. It occurres to me that given the low level of public trust in the media perhaps they reached with scepticism party because of the source.

[jimbur]

I agree we don't count. We can just wonder at those who do:D

[Sebastiaan56]

Damian,

I was requoting figures from RN breakfast a few days ago but the official numbers are here Australian Immigration Fact Sheet 2. Key Facts in Immigration (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm) my bad :( I think long term and 456's may have been included in the quoted figure. Here is a perspective paper from the Govt website Boat People, Illegal Migration and Asylum Seekers: in Perspective (Current Issues Brief 13 1999-2000) (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm), it quotes 3123 for 1999.

So how much has changed from the feudal days? food for thought,

[Claw Hama]

The facts??? what do they have to do with politics?? or the media for that matter??
Numbers, figures, just clay for political sculptors. They can make them look like anything they want.:U

[Greg Ward]

It is human nature to gabble.
We (women in particular) all like to have our chance to sprout our opinions and voice our thoughts, whether original or that of our favourite radio station.

The weather is the most likely topic, but it is difficult to become too emotional about today's sunny or rainy footpath and as most Australians live on or around the cost and in cities, the terrible toll the drought takes on our farming communities doesn't rate.

So, to vent our spleen, we have invented politics (and family relationships and bosses).

We are lucky with 3 tiers of government, that there will always be one that annoys us, so we will always have someone to take the brunt of our anger so that we don't take it out on the kids.

Politics is the great saviour that holds our communities together, so we don't all kill each other.

Greg

[jimbur]

Greg, that's the only sensible argument I've heard for not putting them all against the wall.:D
You're not a pollie are you trying to save yourself?:oo:
Cheers,
Jim

[Sebastiaan56]

Politics is the great saviour that holds our communities together, so we don't all kill each other.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

[Pat]

Has anyone noticed that most pollies seem to have at one time or the other been a lawyer, ie one that knows the law and it's origins. Yet they seem to invent knew ways to work around the law.

What is taught a law schools?

[damian]

Good to see everyone having a laugh. I was chuckling out loud, another reason for my workmates to suspect my sanity, as if they need another....



Damian,

I was requoting figures from RN breakfast a few days ago but the official numbers are here Australian Immigration Fact Sheet 2. Key Facts in Immigration (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm) my bad :( I think long term and 456's may have been included in the quoted figure. Here is a perspective paper from the Govt website Boat People, Illegal Migration and Asylum Seekers: in Perspective (Current Issues Brief 13 1999-2000) (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm), it quotes 3123 for 1999.

So how much has changed from the feudal days? food for thought,

I could taunt you for believing anything in the media :D but I shall resist...

I had had a look at the BOS site a while back and half recalled the data. That page you found has some good stuff all in one place but gee it's a messy presentation.

I used to work with a gentleman, quite a deep thinker but with a strong socialist bent, who suggested that feudalism is the natural way of things and all societies drift back that way eventually. He was often right, and may be in this instance, I don't know.

I regard myself as cynical, pragmatic and tactical in my approach. I ahve no time for the hippies who stand outside the system and throw rocks at it. Never worked, probably never will. I prefer to get inside and take any win I can get. Any improvment is better than none.

There is an old saying about mechanic's cars and builder's houses. Perhaps lawyers are less likely to adhere to the law knowing how much they can get away with ? They are certainly overrepresented in politics. I don't agree with a lot of what Campbell Newman does, but it is quite clear he's an engineer not a lawyer, and at least he's trying to get something done unlike his predecessor who did nothing but critisize. Sooley reminds me a lot of Keeting and likewise loves to take credit for things he had nothing to do with.

I will read the rest of the article and comment later.

Edit: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/09litigation.htm this is interesting. About 1500 cases challenging department decisions, taking an average of 6.5 moths to settle. 13500 refugee visas a year. Not all teh cases will be challenging refugee application decisions. Hours of entertaining reading on that site. :)

Some of the statment in the globe article concern me. I'll possibly post an analysis later.

[hughie]

what is taught a law schools?


bs

[Sebastiaan56]

Here is a classic, the scandal that led to the original "Climategate" that basically trashed Rudd and Turnbull. The real problem is that there has actually has been no impropriety.

Climategate Scientists Cleared, But Media Slow To Report It (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-climate-scientists-right-20100727-10t5i.html)

And people who are stupid enough to believe the likes of Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine need to think very carefully. Im sure they wont apologise for the libel they committed. I wish I had a bankroll to put these people back in their little lying holes. They rule our political process. Be scared folks, the conservatives are coming and they dont play by any recognisable rules. :((:((:((

[jimbur]

That's why we have phrases such as, "no smoke without fire", so they can convince themselves that they are right - after all they said it so it must be true.:D

[artme]

That's why we have phrases such as, "no smoke without fire", so they can convince themselves that they are right - after all they said it so it must be true.:D


I think therefore I am!! QED!

[Greg Ward]

Calm. Calm.

It will be nice up your way when it warms.
As for myself, I'm looking forward to the drowning of the Gold Coast.
Hope it happens before I disappear off this mortal coil.

When you talk about the conservatives coming, I guess you mean the incipient re-election of the Labor Party?

Greg

[damian]

Here is a classic, the scandal that led to the original "Climategate" that basically trashed Rudd and Turnbull. The real problem is that there has actually has been no impropriety.

Climategate Scientists Cleared, But Media Slow To Report It (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-climate-scientists-right-20100727-10t5i.html)

And people who are stupid enough to believe the likes of Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine need to think very carefully. Im sure they wont apologise for the libel they committed. I wish I had a bankroll to put these people back in their little lying holes. They rule our political process. Be scared folks, the conservatives are coming and they dont play by any recognisable rules. :((:((:((

Well, the title of this thread is "facts don't matter", so I guess a whitewash will do.

You can review the emails all you want. The FACT is they refused to release their raw data. I don't know if the raw data would support or undermine their position (I haven't seen it), but the simple fact is there is plenty of evidence they were biased in their actions against both people and evidence that went against the case they were trying to make.

I haven't looked at the emails. I don't care about them. I have been watching the antics of this "club" for 15 years. I don't know if they are right or wrong but I have no inclination to believe anything they expect me to accept on trust.

Just because a reporter says it's so, doesn't make it so. Just because a panel of selected "sound" people say it's legit, doesn't make it legit. The ONLY thing that matters in a scientific case is the data, and that is MIA.

[Greg Ward]

Calm, calm.

Frustration isn't good for the gout.

There was a great talk on global warming (... sorry, climate change) a week or so ago at one of the 'Institutes'
What was illuminating was that for the first time, the speaker actually stated that there would be some 'winners' out of the coming warming of the earth, however his conclusion was that there would be more losers than winners..... and I guess if the sea levels rise around 300 metres, that could be the case.....

But in the interim, I want to see a defined list of the sinners (sorry, winners, typo only) and losers.

Then I can make up my mind whether this warming is good or bad.
I'm even handed at present.

As I can't ski anymore, snow doesn't count, but Antarctica could become the new snow bunny paradise
If we have more sea, through levels rising we can have more fish and as I age and my teeth fall out, that could be a good thing

It's difficult.
So Damian, your next list please could be of the positive benefits or global warming??
And Sebastiaan, you could perhaps list the negatives???
And then I can decide???

[Sebastiaan56]

When you talk about the conservatives coming, I guess you mean the incipient re-election of the Labor Party?

Both the L's are as conservative as the other. Both of them reek of the stench of their own entrenched self interest. Its the character assassination with no natural right of reply that matters to me. If you tried it on one of these media slets (kiwi pronunciation) you would be sued before you could blink. But the gloves are off, the facts dont matter, and there are very powerful forces making sure that facts wont matter.

Its very depressing as I value honesty, integrity and giving the other bloke a fair go. Perhaps Im the conservative one here....

[damian]

Chuckles. I'm actually not cranky today. Change as good as a holiday :)

To answer your question, I don't know.

My principle intersest in this issue is that whenever someone whips out the "science" word in order to give an argument magical credibility that good science was done. I object to faith being relabeled as science. The rules for science are well understood. You either abide by them, or it's not good science.

Understanding the many elements in climate study is so huge it actually exhausts me just thinking about the range of issues, let alone the detail.

Here you go, a couple of possibilities off the top of my head. Faster growth in vegetables, more pruning but quicker flowers and food. Warmer water, comfy swimming. Someone might actually WANT to visit Melbourne.... :D

[jimbur]

Both the L's are as conservative as the other. Both of them reek of the stench of their own entrenched self interest. Its the character assassination with no natural right of reply that matters to me. If you tried it on one of these media slets (kiwi pronunciation) you would be sued before you could blink. But the gloves are off, the facts dont matter, and there are very powerful forces making sure that facts wont matter.

Its very depressing as I value honesty, integrity and giving the other bloke a fair go. Perhaps Im the conservative one here....

I heard snatches of an 'interview' this morning. I would swear that the gentleman from the media was frothing at the mouth. Sounded as if he needed a rabies shot.

[Greg Ward]

I thought extra carbon dioxide would assist plant growth and I think it does a bit, but it also allows plants to better produce chemicals that assist in protection, so we get and increase of cyanide in many plants under increased CO2 and not much extra veggie, sorry that suggestion doesn't work.

I think one 'positive' will be better growing conditions all across the tundras regions of Europe, Russia and Canada so those areas can become the food basins of the world.

Also it appears that N Australia will receive more rain, so we can grow more food in NT and N WA and less in the Riverina. perhaps different species of rice and perhaps have a Chinese export market in frozen geese and geese hunting as they increase in numbers to eat the rice, perhaps introduce Canada geese to replace those pesky Magpies.
Greg

[Sebastiaan56]

This is getting a bit off topic Greg but there are a few glaring issues for me.

The Indus Valley is fed by the glaciers of the Himalayas. They are melting and will not be producing the volume of water that the populations of Eastern India and Bangladesh need to do the basics like grow food. Its hard enough for these people as it is, visit Calcutta and you will understand what I mean. There may be a few boats headed our way. Similarly Africa and the Middle East is expected to continue drying with more famines / wars etc. It matters to me that people suffer. On a lighter note German Spatlese wines will become rare.

I expect polar ice sheets will melt and mass extinctions will happen to all sorts of species. They probably wont disappear but shrink. Not only in the polar regions but low lying human habitations as well. Although we do not actually use all these species they have intrinsic value as fellow travellers on the planet. Remember that we essentially all have the same DNA and biological heritage and we live on a closed system.

The increase in CO2 will lead to more growth where there is water. There is also the prediction that weather variability will increase and this is the least understood effect. What it also means is different rain patterns, more variability in storms and monsoon patterns, and stronger storms.

Bear in mind that there are actually four major environmental changes taking place at the moment. The first is climate change, well thrashed; then there is the fourth great extinction ie we are getting rid of species and genetic variability at a great rate; pollution by man made chemicals ie we add thousands of new molecules to our planet every day without fully understanding their effects. And finally my personal favourite; the inevitable decline of the oil resource. This will mostly be an economic problem although I expect more wars and as usual it will be the poor who will suffer the most.

One last point, the tactics used to discredit the science are well documented. There is a great break up of individual tactics here denialism blog : About (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php) Its all a bit obvious but the title of the thread says it as far as I am concerned. Damian is as incapable of changing his mind as I am mine. Fascinating stuff the old brain.

[Gingermick]

I used to believe the AGW mantra but after the way I saw governments posturing it became clear that it was in the interests of academia to tow the line.
Funnily the same things happens with nutrition, people don't get mass publication or funding for further study if their results don't satisfy what those holding the purse string want to see,
Simple economics really.

[damian]

The blog was interesting reading.

“So what we have from the DI, the other denialists and their organizations, is evidence of people with no competence in understanding science, who overestimate their own abilities, and are incapable of recognizing competence in others.”

I realise this isn’t directed at me but I can’t resist. This assertion fails in my case on every point. I contend I understand something about science, having spent much of my working life actually doing it. Mark Hoofnagle doesn’t talk about the people on the right of his chart, where I hang out.

“that doesn't change the fact that actual measurement of global mean temperature is possible, and is showing an alarmingly steep increase post-industrialization.”

This is phrased as a statement of fact, and is the essential bone of contention for me. One of the things he says about denialists is they refuse to change their minds. I had doubted warming at all until recently because I had seen no evidence which was credible to me that the uptrend is correct. I have recently seen what I regard as credible analysis that supports the uptrend, although the magnitude is rather less than the evangelists have supposed and I continue to dispute it’s historical context. I am prepared to believe in GW, I just want to be convinced by proof, not assertion.

“Your opponent might just be an idiot, but ultimately right.”

Yup.

Perhaps the most amusing aspect is if you apply the same logic to the “accepted” side of an area of science that has undergone scrutiny, GW for example. You get most of the same behaviors and tactics he lobs at, well, people like me. :)

I happily accept there are fruitcakes on the anti AGW side, and many people who don’t properly understand the issues. Hek I don’t understand half the stuff that gets talked about. But there are some smart rational people asking valid questions, and given the massive consequences of action on this issue you need to be sure before you flush our society down the drain. One might even draw a comparison with the invasion of Iraq on a false premise.

Anyway...:)