Re: Posturing...
I wonder if the reason the USSR was engaging in brinkmanship was less for imperialism and exporting communism, than from fear of the U.S. threat. Looked at strategically, the USSR was surrounded by enemies. America had bases in Japan, Turkey, Europe, etc. When Castro invited Russia to put nukes in Cuba, it was seen as a threat within our hemisphere. Sort of a double standard, isn't it? You may recall part of the resolution of Cuba was an acknowledgement by the U.S they would not replace U.S missles in Turkey when they obsoltered later in the year. In that part Cuba was a small success for the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R had good reason to worry about it's borders. Most of the wealthier world had sent troops to support the Tsar against the revolution and leaders of the new state had personal experience of the willingness of other nations to stick oars in their affairs. U.S troops were only some of those supporting the White Russian cause in Russian territory for years (little known details of the foreign intervention include how long it persisted) . ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
More evidence of how badly designed the brain is. I can only add a truism: It’s cheap to maintain Lies and expensive to maintain Trvth. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874f=1014sc=tw New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best. ... CONAN: And when facts are readily available, why are they not enough to change people's minds? Mr. NYHAN: Well, the problem is, you know, as human beings, we want to believe, you know, the things that we already believe. And so when you hear some information that contradicts your pre-existing views, unfortunately, what we tend to do is think of why we believed those things in the first place. And, you know, so when, you know, we get these corrections, we tend to say I'm right, and I'm going to stick with my view. And the thing that my research, which is with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, found is that in some cases, that corrective information can actually make the problem worse. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. --Homer J. Simpson ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
On 14 Nov 2010, at 11:14, KZK wrote: More evidence of how badly designed the brain is. I can only add a truism: It’s cheap to maintain Lies and expensive to maintain Trvth. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874f=1014sc=tw New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best. This is why it is futile to argue with religionists. -- William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://blog.williamgoodall.name/ The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
On 11/14/2010 10:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 14 Nov 2010, at 11:14, KZK wrote: More evidence of how badly designed the brain is. I can only add a truism: It’s cheap to maintain Lies and expensive to maintain Trvth. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874f=1014sc=tw New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best. This is why it is futile to argue with religionists. That is obvious. Anyone who professes a belief in something unprovable (or provably false) is a denialist. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
KZK wrote: On 11/14/2010 10:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote: ... This is why it is futile to argue with religionists. That is obvious. Anyone who professes a belief in something unprovable (or provably false) is a denialist. This isn't really a fair criticism. Religious belief is often explicitly said by its adherents to be done in the absence of evidence. At least that's how I interpret Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Once they've ceded that, using evidence to argue for or against religious belief is probably pointless. Arguments like that may well sharpen one's thinking, but are unlikely to change one's beliefs. ---David Not even as big as a mustard seed, Maru. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
Dawkins addresses this a bit in his book _The God Delusion_. Evolutionarily, it makes sense. Children cannot afford to disbelieve things that are told to them by elders. Doing so means consuming poisonous things or getting too close to lions or other dangerous predators. So the person commits what was told to them in childhood to their model of the world. Again, it is evolutionarily dangerous to question this model no matter how much false information that model contains. For example, If you are taught growing up that eating red berries will kill you or make you very sick, you will avoid red berries. If you heard a story from someone saying that they ate delicious red berries and nothing bad happened to them, you would not believe it as the risk associated with believing them and eating red berries is literally life or death. If you actually see someone eating red berries, you would see them as foolish and maybe even try to stop them. Even if nothing happens to that person, chances are that you will still not risk eating the red berries. This is especially true if it is a stranger rather than someone you trust. You have to be confronted with multiple instances of people eating red berries with no dangerous effects or pressured by someone that you trust before you will risk eating them yourself. Meaning, people are willing to add facts to their knowledge, but are inclined to disbelieve those facts if they are from strangers (people who think or look differently than they do). Worse yet, it is a precept in most belief systems that unquestioning faith is a virtue rather than a liability. If a person is not willing to genuinely weigh and reconsider their world view, they are likely to see any facts contrary to their beliefs as either wrong or downright deception meant to mislead them (Creationists rejection of astronomy evidence of the age of the universe and rejection of evolution are prime examples). Worse, as people tend to surround themselves with people of similar belief, others in their group whom they trust will reinforce their irrational beliefs. On 11/14/2010 4:14 AM, KZK wrote: More evidence of how badly designed the brain is. I can only add a truism: It’s cheap to maintain Lies and expensive to maintain Trvth. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874f=1014sc=tw New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best. ... CONAN: And when facts are readily available, why are they not enough to change people's minds? Mr. NYHAN: Well, the problem is, you know, as human beings, we want to believe, you know, the things that we already believe. And so when you hear some information that contradicts your pre-existing views, unfortunately, what we tend to do is think of why we believed those things in the first place. And, you know, so when, you know, we get these corrections, we tend to say I'm right, and I'm going to stick with my view. And the thing that my research, which is with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, found is that in some cases, that corrective information can actually make the problem worse. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. --Homer J. Simpson ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3256 - Release Date: 11/14/10 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Posturing
I wonder if the reason the USSR was engaging in brinkmanship was less for imperialism and exporting communism, than from fear of the U.S. threat. Wouldn't a reasonable person analyze the stated US policy towards the Soviet Union since about '48,and look at the history between '48 and '62 since that time to see if the policy was actually being followed, or if the policy was a cover for more aggressive actions? Dan M. sounds reasonable. the US was in a more powerful position and followed a policy of containment. the real wars were over trade and resources and mostly being fought through surrogates. in the end the USSR age collapsed and was defeated by an arms race it could never win and would only result in mutually assured destruction if engaged. Jon M ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin-L domains
Hmmm... been away a few days and wrote to Jeroen when I saw this tonight... but the mail bounced. I guess it was a short window of opportunity? No real money available, anyway, but I wouldn't mind having the list in one of those domains. Nick On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Jeroen van Baardwijk jer...@brin-l.netwrote: Hi all! Temporarily resurfacing from lurker depth. I’m getting rid of my old life and am working my *ss of starting a brand new one. Brin-L is part of my old life, so: Would anyone be interested in buying the domain names Brin-L.com and Brin-L.net? Make me an off-list offer I can’t refuse! returning to lurker depth With regards, Jeroen “Now All I Need Is A New Identity” van Baardwijk ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
