Seems like even in the face of their beliefs being disproven, the majority of conservatives will still believe the same thing. Why are these people so irrational?

Enjoy!

Dan Sweeney: There's No Arguing With Conservatives ... No, Seriously, Scientific Studies Prove It

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

If you've ever gotten in an argument with your conservative friends (assuming you haven't offered each other a mutual Carville-Matalin-style political ceasefire to preserve the friendship), you've probably seen this "backfire effect" in action. The more you try to tell people that Sarah Palin is lying when she says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the more they believe she was telling the truth. The more you try to explain how similar McCain's policies are to Bush's, the more they maintain he's "the original maverick."

The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?

I ain't got the answers, ace, except to say this: When arguing with conservatives in front of on-the-fence independents, remember that you're not trying to convince the conservative to actually buy into silly notions like facts and reason. You're highlighting the differences between left and right for the outside observer. If the other guy insists on political views that belong only in Disney World's Fantasyland, other folks will realize what's happening.

But if there is no third party, do yourself a favor and save your breath. As the study demonstrates, you're only making matters worse. Consider that aforementioned ceasefire. It is football season, after all. There's plenty of other things to argue about. Go Mizzou!

Looks like Dems are guilty of the same thing, at least according to the studies (conducted by Dems, BTW). Still, I am happy to see the Huffington Post is still maintaining their high standards of cherry picking.

I am curious to know how they classified these people. Was it simply by asking what these people consider themselves, or by actually looking at their beliefs?

EDIT: Also, the questions/scenarios they put forward seem odd. I mean, they asked 'Dems' if they agree with gitmo, but don't go into the reasons behind it, and simply bring up the Koran incident. Yet they ask 'conservatives' if they agree with the Bush's reasoning for the war, and then are shown that that reasoning was wrong.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

being on this board since 2004 looks like the dems are actually more guilty

Yale...... need we look further? I think not.

__________________
"On my signal, unleash hell."

You mean were the Bushes went to school?

Shooting the messenger accomplishes very little.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

Your whole premise is blown right out of the water to start with danny….their framework is ala the title- “arguing”……..as it appears to me and my own study, when you generally, the operative word here is generally face a lib with facts they become argumentative, the point here is- they move it away from the realm of fact in equitable “debates” or “exchanges” into the emotional tirades i.e. arguing……there fore wrecking any reasonable discussion................need I list samples?

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

It's not 100% clear what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that only "libs" are argumentative?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Typical Hunnington Post stupidity. Danny, you gotta try reading something that isn't hardcore leftist bullshit from time to time.

The article on HuffPo that Danny cites draws a bunch of firm conclusions, which it represents as fact, using the not-yet published, unreviewed study as proof.

Among these claims:

• Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder.
• In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid.
• Conservatives are "utterly immune to truth"

But do the authors of the study make these claims? Nope.

Here's what the authors have found, according to the Washington Post article:

• Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals
• Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds

Now, honest readers will see that the study authors are suggesting a possibility - which the Huffington Post blogger has taken and expanded beyond their conclusions and then offered as proven fact.

Once upon a time, Danny would have caught the logical problem with these conclusions himself.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Yeah here's a few samples;

Why do you hate America?

If you like it so much why dont you go there?

whine whine whine

blah blah blah

youre all 'gimme gimme'.

'shut up. Cut his mike'. Bill O'Reilly.

But Clinton...

But why cant you teach the creationism and science together? You some kinda education Nazi or somethin?....

I never underestimate the power of propaganda. To those prone to it, it is more effective than any hypnotic effect.

We need to pay much more attention to it than we do.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

There's a good reason why 'conservatives cannot be argued with'.... because they are right! And arguing with someone who's right is just plain stooopid.

__________________
"On my signal, unleash hell."

Conservatives sitck to their ideals. Liberals waffle and make stuff up. The sky is blue.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Thanks for the laugh straight out of some dadaist stand-up routine

__________________
All things serve The Beam

I just repeated what the OP said. You cant argue with conservatives.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Some crusading propagandist and his ideas about 'conservatives' (read: Republicans) aside, I think you have to look at the fundamental ideas behind conservatism and liberalism for context here.

Conservatism is, by and large, about preservation of the status quo while liberalism is, by and large, about changing the status quo. When liberals are successful at altering the status quo, they often become conservative about changes to it, since they like the changes that they've brought about. Part of being a champion of the status quo is an idealized vision of the past, which is simple human nature. That is, humans tend to put rose colored goggles on when viewing their own pasts, so we're often guilty of the emotionally satisfying yet frequently inaccurate sentiment that "things were better when I was a kid, I tells ya!" And since, conservatism is generally tied to this phenomenon, a core component of it will be based, at least in part, on irrational romanticizing in which mythologized experiences become "sacred cows".

It might follow that people who are given toward conservatism are more given toward that type of behavior - their memories are more likely to be of a 50's decade, for example, that included red-rider wagons, good natured rough-housing, Apple Pies and Beaver Cleaver than one that included racial segregation, blaming rape victims for their plight, McCarthyism and polio. And, since many of these beliefs may be irrational in the first place, poking holes in romanticized ideology with cold, hard analysis would be an anathema and likely to further entrench. If someone demonstrated that the Uncle Jim you remember fondly from your youth was actually an alcoholic pederast, your most likely reaction would be to shoot the messenger and call the person a liar.

Please note that I'm not making any kind of generalization about people who vote Republican. I don't really equate the Republican party with its own brand of conservatism anymore, much less the context-less notion of a conservative as someone who promotes the status quo. I'm sure there is no shortage of Democrat-voter sacred cows (like Social Security) that elicit similar responses.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson