Skip to main content

I have dinner with a group of men every Wednesday night - it's our own little white, middle-aged, middle-class, informal man club. There are four of us in the core - the never-miss-a-week group - but sometimes there are as many as seven or eight. Guys rotate in and rotate out.

We have a man meal (meat, taters), complain about our jobs, brag about our kids, gripe about our wives, obsess over the Arkansas Razorbacks, and talk about sports, religion and politics. It's a pleasant thing, something I look forward to each week.

I'm the only admitted liberal in the group. The rest of the group self-identifies as Republican and Conservative.

They are, for the most part, low-to-middle information voters. They don't ignore politics, but they don't pay that close attention either.

But they can be reasoned with. When presented with facts and honest information, they will at the very least, thoughtful consider it and show a willingness to change their position.

And honestly, when we get into it and they really open up, they reveal a liberal bent on most social issues, express doubt and dismay about the GOP economic policies (and results) of the Bush administration, and admit that the right wing foreign policy of the Bush administration was an unmitigated disaster.

They are basically Reagan Democrats - they have been conditioned to self-identify as Conservative Republicans, even though they hold views that are mainstream Liberal. I believe this is due to the GOPs many years of success in controlling the narrative, winning the talking-point battles and making 'liberal' a dirty word over the past thirty years or so - and perhaps most importantly - they wish their taxes were lower.

At any rate, this holds true for everyone in the group except for David. David is a true believer. Full, across-the-board, Movement Conservative. A true believer. A wingnut.

David, when confronted by facts that don't comport with what he believes, will dismiss them with a "Well, that's just your worldview".

It's a maddening response. I always have a strongly negative and visceral reaction to the word, without really knowing why, aside from the fact that it's such a dismissive way to end a discussion/debate.

So, like the good little reality-based moonbat that I am, I did some research.

David is also fond of forwarding me the wingnut email of the day. I seldom respond to them, but yesterday I responded with this.


I've been doing some reading about the 'worldview' concept you are so fond of. 

Specifically, I'm interested in why it bugs me so much because as you know, when something bugs me, by definition, I'm the one with the problem. So I started reading.

Starting broadly, a Worldview is:

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.
Ok, nothing offensive or controversial about that.

Digging a little deeper, we find:

A worldview is a theory of the world, used for living in the world.

A world view is a mental model of reality — a framework of ideas & attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs — with answers for a wide range of questions: What are humans, why we are here, and what is our purpose in life?  What are your goals for life? 

When you make decisions about using time what are your values and priorities? What can we know, and how and with how much certainty?

Again, that is an acceptable definition of the word.

Ahhh, here we go, this is getting into the meat of it now:  

People tend to adopt a worldview early in life, and often do not change it radically in adulthood. They often reject new understandings and discoveries in the fields of religion, culture, science, etc. out of hand because they are incompatible with their personal worldview.

As James Olthuis writes, A person's worldview is often "largely unquestioned."

To author James Sire, a worldview consists of: "...a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of our world."

If one lacks understanding of their own worldview and/or is not aware of the diversity of worldviews within the culture, one is often mystified by the beliefs of others. This can lead to demonization of others, as is often seen between pro-choice and pro-life supporters. It can also lead to people having difficulty in converting others to their point of view.

OK, that is starting to get into the issue about the how and why the word bugs me so much. A worldview can contain presuppositions that are objectively false, applied subconsciously and inconsistently.

And finally, we get to the money shot:

According to Michael Lind, "a worldview is a more or less coherent understanding of the nature of reality, which permits its holders to interpret new information in light of their preconceptions.

Clashes among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to facts.

Even if rival sides agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions because of their different premises."

This is why politicians often seem to talk past one another, or ascribe different meanings to the same events. Tribal or national wars are often the result of incompatible worldviews.

So here is my problem with ascribing everything to a 'worldview' and more specifically, when you use it to end a debate:

It is patronizing and dismissive.

It is often an open acknowledgement that facts don't matter. 

You are saying "My mind is closed to the objective world". 

You are saying "My thoughts and feelings override objective reality".

You and I both know how dangerous that is. It doesn't matter what I believe or what I feel, it matters what I do - my actions matter. Yes, thoughts and feelings and beliefs are important to how we make decisions, but it is how we act on those thoughts, feelings and beliefs that affects others.

So not only is it sloppy, lazy thinking, it is a dangerous concept to embrace as an explanation for others thoughts, feelings and beliefs, and it invites all manner of actions that are contrary to desired outcomes.

For example, like we discussed the other night, your belief that Planned Parenthood should be defunded because your 'worldview' states that abortion should be eliminated, will actually result in more abortions. That is an fact that your worldview cannot accept. So rather than modify your worldview, you persist in your beliefs even though the outcome will be the opposite of your desire.

That's fucked up.

When we allow our worldview to rule our thoughts, feelings and beliefs without a thorough, open-minded examination of the facts, the actions we take as a result can actually invite an adverse outcome than the one we desire and expect.

Bobby was 100% correct when he said "Once we start to lean one way or the other, we fall into the echo chamber that reinforces our beliefs".

It is called Confirmation Bias:

Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. 

The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. 

For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Essentially, we tend to disregard the facts of objective reality in favor of an emotional appeal that confirms what we already feel to be true.

That's not saying that we only listen to information that we already agree with - although that is an element to it - but that we dismiss factual information that doesn't agree with what we believe.

Now, none of this is to say that the concept of a worldview is invalidated. It is perfectly true that ones worldview shapes how they react to reality. And God knows there are a lot of sheeple out there who don't think, don't care to think and some who are even hostile toward thinking. But when one's worldview is based on thoughts and feelings, rather than facts and objective reality, we are on dangerous ground because outcomes often won't match reality.

So in conclusion, the next time you dismiss what I'm saying with that patronizing "that's your worldview", I'm going to pull my tiny penis out and pee on you.

Originally posted to SmoovP on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 06:51 AM PDT.

Also republished by Political Language and Messaging and Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I like it.... (6+ / 0-)

    Especially the last line.  :-)

    -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

    by luckylizard on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:33:21 AM PDT

  •  well, that's just your opinion (9+ / 0-)

    I kid! That was an awesome response.

    And nice closer.

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:41:34 AM PDT

  •  I NEVER use the word "worldview". (6+ / 0-)

    I always use Weltanschauung which is not a personal worldview (worldview being the literal translation) rather the collective worldview of a society at a given time.

    Tell your buddy to look it up.

    •  Like Pat Buchanan's speeches, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexasLefty, rexxnyc, commonmass

      it sounds better in the original German...

      Fuck the mythical “moral high ground”. There’s plenty of time to shower after the election. (h/t danah gaz (fka gaz) @ Balloon-Juice)

      by Uncle Cosmo on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:34:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •   Weltanschauung (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      OK, from Wikipedia:

      (my translation skills are a little rusty)

      Unter einer Weltanschauung versteht man heute vornehmlich die auf Wissen, Erfahrung und Empfinden basierende Gesamtheit persönlicher Wertungen, Vorstellungen und Sichtweisen, die die Deutung der Welt, die Rolle des Einzelnen in ihr und die Sicht auf die Gesellschaft betreffen. Werden diese Überzeugungen reflektiert und systematisiert und fügen sich so zu einem zusammenhängenden Ganzen, dann kann von einer geschlossenen Weltanschauung gesprochen werden. Solche Systeme können auch von einer Gruppe, einer Gesellschaft und selbst von mehreren Kulturen geteilt werden.

      Weltanschauung is understood today primarily as personal values, ideas, beliefs, and views based on knowledge, experience and opinions which pertain to the interpretation of the world, the role of organizations in it and the view of society. A cohesive worldview (geschlossenen Weltanschauung)  is when these beliefs are reflected on and systematized to add up to a coherent whole. Such systems could be shared by a group, a society and itself from multiple cultures.

  •  Weltanschauung (6+ / 0-)

    sounds a lot smarter because it's in German.

    Barack Obama is not a secret socialist class warrior who wants to redistribute wealth in America. But I'll still vote for him, anyway.

    by looty on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:52:33 AM PDT

    •  Weltanschauung is a deeper concept. (9+ / 0-)

      Some ideas can best be descirbed with a single word because English is too clumsy to do an adequate job. This right wing "world view" idea is pusedo-intellectual nonsense. Did not Aristotle say that the unexamined life is not worth living? Beliefs and belief systems are meant to be tested. We have known that since the ancient world. Early Christians, Jews, Hindus and later Moslems knew this. The idea of an unchanging world view or belief system is a modern invention, an answer to the 19th century revolutions of Frued, Darwin, Marx, and modern biblical criticism. I would recommend anybook by Chris Hedges or Hoifsteder's Paranoid Style of American politics.

      Great diary.

      •  Unexamined Greek philosophers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm pretty sure it was Plato, quoting Socrates, who said the life which is unexamined is not worth living.

      •  I agree, the concept of Weltanschauung (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FatPath, Thestral, stormicats, antirove

        captures the spirit of a belief system at a much deeper and meaningful level than a person's "worldview". The former concept tends to capture both the community (or folk) and intellectual and ethical content of particular way of looking at things and the manner of one's overall life style.

        Since I am a product of multiple cultures, I happen to carry several "worldviews" within my political and moral frame of reference, i.e., some conservative, some moderate and some radically liberal, all at the same time. So my Weltanschauung tends to be rather complex, for it is an eclectic blend of many belief systems... while confusing at times, even to myself, it nevertheless gives me the ability to listen to different points of view without being impatient or too judgmental. For that reason, at one time I could see the validity of both the pro-life and pro-choice positions, even though today I am firmly pro-choice...  

        I also agree with the diarist that dismissing a contrary point of view as belonging to a different world worldview is an egregious cop-out. It is an intellectually lazy way of clinging to one's narrow preferences and life-long biases, while dismissing another perspective simply out of hand...

        My only advice to him is not to try too hard to change his friend's inability to listen to reason or look at objective facts, since his friend's mental state may have ossified beyond repair...  

        "The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds. It was a small part of the pantomime." Wallace Stevens

        by mobiusein on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 12:59:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There has been a worrying trend amongst (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FatPath, Thestral, antirove

          the religious right, in their attacks on "secular humanism" to adopt language they misunderstand. People like David Barton (Glen Beck's friend) have been spouting this nonsense as an attack on rationalism and modern science and everything that has happened in the world of intellectual history since The Age of Reason. To them it is "believe the rights things and you will think the right things". And although this can work it can only work if your premise is accurate and open to understanding a changing reality. Or garbage in garbage out.

    •  It also sounds scary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FatPath, Hirodog

      It also sounds scary.  Because it's in German.

  •  I really want to know (8+ / 0-)

    what his reply will be.  Please let us know what he says to you.

    Everyone! Arms akimbo!

    by tobendaro on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:53:18 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, I really liked it (7+ / 0-)

    until that last line.  IMHO, that will so piss him off, that he will disregard all the rest of your excellent points.

    Remember too, that sometimes, you have to fight the winnable battles, so if around 4-6 other men in your group ARE within your sphere of influence, ARE willing to consider options, ideas, discussion, etc, then you are winning the big picture, and maybe you just have to accept that this one guy is never going to be reachable.

    By my math, that's about a 80-90% majority.  Pretty damn good odds :-)

    If you took the greed out of Wall Street all you’d have left is pavement ~Robert Reich

    by k8dd8d on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 10:00:17 AM PDT

  •  I have a cousin who tried to mock me (I think) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FatPath, mariva

    after I went to Japan a few years back was being a "world traveler"

    I replied "yeah, I've sadly never been to another planet like mars, so I guess I'm just a "world traveler" "

    seemed to work, this person ceased and desisted after that.

    But good luck on pulling out your tiny penis, I'd really like to see that !! ( just kidding on that - I'm well aware on how to access that type of thing via the intertubes if I'm so inclined . . .. )

  •  I think this is an excellent post. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FatPath, mariva, Thestral, stormicats, spacejam

    As one who does battle with the true believers on many fronts and in several different manners - from direct to guerrilla - the fact is they are non-updaters and have a relatively static worldview.

    As a former reporter, I do ask questions for which I already have the answers. This is to test reasonableness...I don't always use the answers to slam them but to judge whether there is a chance this person can be persuaded.

    You can add worldview in with 'both sides do it' and other false equivalences. What you really want to do is point out their inability to take responsibility for what the gop and the recent iteration of neocons have done and want to do.

    Think back...way back..
    1968   Kissinger talking to Vietnam amid Paris peace talks
    1972   Dirty tricks upscale, Watergate
    1980   Arms for hostages contact with Iran
    1984   Iran/contra
    2000   Florida, scheme to stop vote (LBJ/Coke Steventson model from 1948/Caro)
    2004   Ohio

    The real explosion of dirty tricks>black ops>massive and multiple voter suppression schemes the last 30 years.

    Who takes responsibility for all of that?  Who? Every true believer is part and parcel to that responsibility and that blame, period. And it bleeds over to us, the real victims in the middle class, for not having the representation with the gumption, the guts and the power to nail their asses to the bunkhouse wall.

    The truth is we are tortured by the truth.

    by walkshills on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 10:39:40 AM PDT

  •  Nice read, thank you... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The rest of the group self-identifies as Republican and Conservative.
    But they can be reasoned with
    LOL...You Jest!!! :P

    "World view"
    "1000 points of light"  (what the hell does this even mean?)

    All of these words make me cringe and seem to be favorites of conservatives.  

    Nice diary.

    "Do right because it is right without fear of punishment or hope of reward"

    by cheftdp on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 10:49:04 AM PDT

  •  I've never been a conservative, but I have (6+ / 0-)

    changed my views on some very important things.

    At age 18, I believed the following:

    (1) That IQ, mental illness, and general personality traits are almost entirely determined by the young child's early home environment and early life experiences.

    (2) That racism would go away quickly once black and white kids started going to school together.

    (3) That sexism wasn't a problem because women already had the right to vote.

    I unlearned (2-3) by the time I was 25, but I didn't unlearn (1) until I was about 50. I now understand that both heredity and environment are important factors in IQ, mental illness, and general personality traits.

    "Mistress of the Topaz" is now available in paperback! Link here:

    by Kimball Cross on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 11:50:32 AM PDT

  •  what was patronizing and dismissive was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FatPath, Thestral

    "just your", not necessarily "world view", but I enjoy your review of the term. I hope you are able to shape your friends world views in a positive direction!

  •  I work in the world of the academic study of (10+ / 0-)

    religion and colleges and universities that often have some sort of religious affiliation.  This word gets used a misused a lot.  The one that bugs me most is any reference to "the biblical worldview."  This phrase is nonsense, and I always reply to it by pointing out the the literature of the Bible reflects at least three distincet and very diferent worldviews:  1) ancient Israel, 2) second temple Judaism, and 3) first-century Palestine.

    When I hear people use the phrase "the Christian worldview" my response is that I have met thousands of Christians in my life and they have many different worldviews.  The Christian seminary students I taught in Africa have a worldview very different from mine.  Again, the phrase is non-sensical.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 01:10:27 PM PDT

    •  "Worldview" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FatPath, loveistheanswer, spacejam, MKinTN

      is a buzzword among American Evangelical Christians.  Their groupthink encourages them to be "above this world" and "Christ-centered."  

      The concept of worldview helps them reframe the real world's shades of gray, c. 2012, into the more black-and-white terms they can understand.  Usually they find it wanting, and retreat further into their self-fueled parallel universe of "Christian" everything -- education, entertainment, news sources, social life, etc.  

      Most Evangelicals refer to themselves and each other as "Christians," and everyone else as either Not Christians, or at best Questionable.  The phrase "Christian/Biblical worldview" is non-sensical to the sensible observer, but to American Evangelicals, it means their worldview.  Everyone else is wrong.

       I can think of no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man than a fire engine.     -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by SteelerGrrl on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:49:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. Spotlit. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm humbled.

    Thank you.

    I'm not really FAT - it's an unfortunate childhood nickname.

    by FatPath on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 01:16:37 PM PDT

  •  This is not a new concern (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FatPath, Thestral, stormicats, SteelerGrrl

    I went round and round on the worldview issue with a fundie colleague circa 1992.  He was getting most of his information from the Colorado Springs fundie organizations.  He lent me what he thought was one of the best books on worldviews -- have no idea now of the name or author.  I do remember that it was a mish-mash of mostly bad expositions of the kind of issues philosophy professors  deal with. Very difficult to argue against on a piecemeal basis with someone who doesn't know what epistemology and ontology and so forth actually mean.

    My understanding is that your friend believes that appealing to facts IS just a worldview albeit one that isn't valid.

    I happen to know some kids who attend a private Christian high school.  One of their past assignments was to ask a teacher-supplied set of worldview questions of several adults they know.  They each picked me (in different years) because I'm one of the few people they know who is likely to give different answers from the majority of others they can ask.  They go over the answers in class and are supposed to match each set of answers to the seven or so possible worldviews presented by the teacher.  Of course, all but one of these worldviews is false.

    If you get anywhere with your friend please keep good notes.  This is a very serious and scary issue that needs to be addressed.

    It's a complex circular argument.  Worldviews that lead people to believe things known to be false (e.g. that there isn't a supreme being) must be false.

  •  did you REALLY send this to him? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SteelerGrrl, FatPath

    if yes, mega-props to you!!

  •  I associate world view with Sarah Palin-she (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SteelerGrrl, FatPath

    was always talking about it.

    "Forever is composed of nows." Emily Dickinson

    by Leftovers on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:00:49 PM PDT

  •  T&R repub to Political Language & Messaging (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nuance is lost upon those who choose not to look.

    by poliwrangler on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 05:33:03 PM PDT

  •  yes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FatPath, peregrine kate, Apost8

    The notion of worldview is essential to understanding the Religious Right.  The term is one that is commonly used by a wide range of conservative Christians. One politically oriented conference and seminar outfit is called Worldview Weekend. (Not quite as important a group as it used to be due to factional infighting over, you guessed it, worldview.)

  •  Conservatives have appropriated relativistic ideas (3+ / 0-)

    Further placing this term in context, world-view gained a lot of cultural currency through Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Though Kuhn used the word paradigm, it was widely interpreted and disseminated as the idea that scientific knowledge is bound to the world-view of a research community.

    In a very brief nutshell, Kuhn argued that scientists are trained and build their careers within a dominant paradigm that defines the key questions, what counts as evidence, and so forth. And adherents of the paradigm will adhere and defend the core assumptions of their paradigm in the face of anomalous evidence. Over time, the anomalies come to be seen as increasingly problematic and that opens the door for a scientific revolution, whereby a new paradigm that can explain the anomalies rises to dominance. And the cycle begins anew.

    Historians of science have punched many holes in Kuhn's original formulation but his basic argument has retained considerable cultural relevance. It is worth noting that Kuhn made it clear that paradigmatic world-views were very resistant to change but they were not immutable. Eventually, the weight of unexplained anomalies (or what we might conventionally call refuting evidence) would become too much for the paradigm to carry.

    However, Christian conservatives have grabbed onto Kuhn's original idea that scientific knowledge is bound by a paradigmatic perspective and sustained by an act of faith that goes beyond that which can be proven by empirical evidence. So, you can see where this leads - you believe in climate change and evolution because you subscribe to a scientific world-view, whereas I subscribe to a Christian world-view. It is a clever ploy to avoid direct conflict and challenge and it allows the proponent to silently believe that his/her world-view is the RIGHT one; a collective premise generally shared among like-minded Christian conservatives.

    And we can see the Ayn Randian/trickle down types leveraging this same idea as they continue to advocate policies which have empirically failed time and time again. The economic facts are irrelevant, it is all about which world-view you subscribe to (since either of us can interpret the data in ways that sustain our core premises).  It is not quite facts be damned but rather than facts are so malleable. If you push a little further, you have the full-blown we can invent our own realities of the Bush neo-con crowd - who still claim that the Iraq invasion had been a rousing success until Obama came along.

    Sorry for the long post, but this is a tough battle to fight. Kudos to you for trying

  •  Worldview is for folks who cannot pronounce (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ellen Columbo, FatPath


    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:45:12 PM PDT

  •  So David in your world view... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ellen Columbo, FatPath

    A secular Democracy is flourishing in Iraq...
    Women can not get pregnant when really raped...
    The free market will take care of CDO junk bonds...
    Government debt will cause a catastrophe...
    Hyper-inflation is right around the corner...

  •  Oh, glory... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bryce in Seattle, FatPath

    I'm still gasping for air after choking with laughter at the last line of this well researched, and written, diary!

    Live so that when your children think of fairness, caring and integrity, they think of you. H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

    by Ellen Columbo on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 12:01:15 AM PDT

  •  Deeply connected (0+ / 0-)

    to the idea of worldview is vision. I think that at the core, liberals and conservatives want different things. When you want something different, you are sensitive to different information and you see different patterns. At the heart of it, one of the biggest differences pertains to equality (in my view). Liberals are offended by inequality. Conservatives see inequality as evidence of liberty. Changing someone's worldview or negotiating with it requires working on what they want/desire for themselves and others.

    The only thing required for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

    by DavidMCastro on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:53:31 AM PDT

  •  My worldview is a pissing contest bit bigger than (0+ / 0-)

    your worldview.
    My worldview not only completely encompasses your worldview,  but it puts it in the corner by itself wearing a dunce cap, which is a tough thing to do with a spherical idea.

    Slow thinkers - keep right

    by Dave the Wave on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 06:40:33 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site