Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney calls Mitt Romney a liar: Taxes edition (with video) (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why responding to lies doesn't work (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catlady62, Bob Love, Empower Ink

    Not just because name-calling is the lowest form of debate.

    Brain science. Emphasis is mine.

    From a British newspaper:

    "It goes against our nature; but the left has to start asserting its own values"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

    SNIPPET:
    . . . . . Common Cause, written by Tom Crompton of the environment group WWF, examines a series of fascinating recent advances in the field of psychology. It offers, I believe, a remedy to the blight that now afflicts every good cause from welfare to climate change.

    Progressives, he shows, have been suckers for a myth of human cognition he labels the enlightenment model. This holds that people make rational decisions by assessing facts. All that has to be done to persuade people is to lay out the data: they will then use it to decide which options best support their interests and desires.

    A host of psychological experiments demonstrate that it doesn't work like this. Instead of performing a rational cost-benefit analysis, we accept information that confirms our identity and values, and reject information that conflicts with them. We mould our thinking around our social identity, protecting it from serious challenge. Confronting people with inconvenient facts is likely only to harden their resistance to change.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site