Entry tags:
(no subject)

I don't think I ever see honest debate, where the people involved honestly believe what they're saying but are honestly open to being shown to be wrong. It's all meta-debate, where the goal is to win, between people who think the other is wrong and an idiot and just needs to be got through to.
I'm convinced that 99% or more of people have political opinions that are based on intuition and vague unexamined facts, vague values guiding them toward positions that allegedly reflect those values but often oppose them. Once a trend is established, it gets reinforced by selective media input that reinforces the trend, with all data and opinion that disagrees getting bypassed, or if it gets through it gets shrugged or laughed or shouted off. Polarities appear, clear stands being more confortable (and often more useful) than gray confusing reality. Every once in a while, enough contrary info gets through that a person suddenly can't ignore it any longer, and converts to a different polar view, defending it passionately because a subset of it that they focus on is now clear to them as being more true than their old beliefs.
People think of science as hard, but in a sense it is simple, because it has the perfect reality check in plain measurable reality. You can cut off mice tails all you like, but baby mice will still be born with tails, and your theory will die.
I'd like to see some political science that had actual science in it. The more important and personal questions get, the less rational people become.
mumble etc