You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
March 28 2024 2.26pm

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 240 of 464 < 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 >

 

nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 28 Sep 16 5.49pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

I've told you many times before I don't read your links because they are either lefty blogs, or similar biased or skewed statistics that you get from your union/momentum/SWP sources.

You're the classic boy who cried wolf on here... I'm not alone in my suspicion of your so called facts presented on here.

Then it's not worth debating with you if you refuse to accept a counterpoint to your arguments.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

This tendency for people to express opinions on articles they've not even read is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is the proven theory that the less of an expert a person is on a subject, the more they tend to underestimate their lack of knowledge. Thus a guy who reads nothing but simplistic pro-austerity narratives in the S*n or Daily Mail (written in the vocabulary of a 10 year old) might think himself an expert on economic issues, whilst an economics expert who understands how ludicrously complex the global derivatives market is, will know that it's now so complicated that it's far beyond the ability of even a visionary genius to understand the entire financial system.

Essentially what people are doing when they express an opinion on something they've not even bothered to read is taking the incredibly pompous stance that they're such an expert, and their perspective is so inherently perfect that they don't even need to examine the evidence before they share their sage and ever-so-important opinion.

Long before the Dunning-Kruger effect was formalised, the philosopher Bertrand Russell said "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Intellectual laziness

There is nothing wrong with forming an opinion just by looking at the title of an article and the associated image, in fact that's the way that most of us determine which links we're actually going to click and read, and which we're going to ignore.

The problem I have with intellectually lazy people is that they make the perfectly natural decision not to read an article, but then decide to share their blatantly unfounded opinion that the article they refuse to read is "absolute crap"!

The thought process they undergo is something like this:

1. I'm not going to read that because I don't like what I imagine that it says.
2. Nobody else should read articles that say things that I don't like.
3. I'm going to leave a comment saying how crap the article is in order to dissuade other people from reading it.

This kind of behaviour is about as clear a demonstration of intellectual laziness as is possible.

I find people who are ill-informed slightly annoying, but it's understandable that the person who hardly reads anything other than flicking through the copy of the Daily Mail/S*n in the workplace canteen has got some pretty weird misconceptions (like immigrants being to blame for everything or George Osborne being a genius). Okay, these people should still probably understand that the newspapers are propaganda devices, and that they shouldn't allow themselves to be so easily programmed with right-wing propaganda narratives, but they can't really be blamed for their lack of critical thinking skills (that's a result of the top-down authoritarian education system we suffer in this country) nor for failing to come across independent information sources (even a reasonably successful blog like mine is a minuscule drop in the ocean compared to the daily circulation of the S*n or the Daily Mail).

There is a huge difference between being misinformed, and the sheer intellectual laziness of choosing to completely ignore the information you've been presented with, yet trying to form a counter-argument anyway.


Hopeless counter-arguments
How is it even remotely possible for anyone to believe that they've presented a coherent counter-argument, when they've refused to even read what the argument is?

The only way that it seems possible is if they are so fundamentally lacking in debating skills that they think that ad hominem (against the person) attacks, foul mouthed abuse, blatant straw man misinterpretations of what has actually been said, or a whole host of other common logical fallacies constitute debate winning tactics.

It is stunningly obvious that it's impossible to construct a rational counter-argument if you're unwilling to even consider what has actually been said. Yet some people are so afraid of reading things that might challenge their worldview that they will not only refuse to read it, but they'll construct ludicrous fallacious arguments against it in pitiful efforts to deter others from reading it too.

A simple rule

If you see an article that you think you're not going to like and choose not to read it, that's fine. It's just a manifestation of confirmation bias. I'm not judgmental about that in the slightest because I do it every single day when I decide not to read clickbait articles, celebrity culture drivel, above-the-line trolling or articles written by journalists with writing styles I find annoying, or opinions that I find offensive.

What I have a problem with is people who decide not to read an article, but then decide to express their opinion on it anyway. There's a simple rule that I try to follow, and it's this: If you can't be arsed to read the article, don't bother to offer your (worthless) opinion about what it says.
[Link]


Edit: I try and stay away from SWP stuff, let alone post links to it.

Edited by nickgusset (28 Sep 2016 5.51pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Hoof Hearted 28 Sep 16 5.58pm

Never mind all that guff Gusset.

What is the point of reading your propaganda?

In WWII people listened to Lord Haw Haw and were worried about the things he said until they realised he was a prize plum and just laughed at him.

Another bloke that raised a laugh was Comical Ali the Iraqi war spokesman.

You are pretty much on a par with them I'm afraid.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
banbandanas Flag Birmingham 28 Sep 16 6.07pm

On the immigration issue, Corbyn has refused to give a straight answer to whether there should be any controls on immigration. It's pretty clear that he would not have any controls at all. His reluctance to explicitly state this is due to him knowing that it is hard to convince the electorate (including existing immigrants here)that it is somehow of benefit to us to have unlimited numbers of people coming to live here.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 28 Sep 16 6.11pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

Never mind all that guff Gusset.

What is the point of reading your propaganda?

In WWII people listened to Lord Haw Haw and were worried about the things he said until they realised he was a prize plum and just laughed at him.

Another bloke that raised a laugh was Comical Ali the Iraqi war spokesman.

You are pretty much on a par with them I'm afraid.


Hoof, I'll let you carry on showing yerself up mate.
If you don't want to counter argument unless it's ad hominem, that's your prerogative.

Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png Attachment: Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png (147.23Kb)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
banbandanas Flag Birmingham 28 Sep 16 6.20pm

I noticed that Corbyn, in his speech, said he was right to apologise on behalf of the party for being involved in the overthrow of a fascist dictator. He went on to say that his foreign policy would be based on "peace, justice and human rights", presumably just tut tutting about it then.

Edited by banbandanas (28 Sep 2016 6.20pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View NickinOX's Profile NickinOX Flag Sailing country. 28 Sep 16 6.30pm Send a Private Message to NickinOX Add NickinOX as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Then it's not worth debating with you if you refuse to accept a counterpoint to your arguments.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

This tendency for people to express opinions on articles they've not even read is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is the proven theory that the less of an expert a person is on a subject, the more they tend to underestimate their lack of knowledge. Thus a guy who reads nothing but simplistic pro-austerity narratives in the S*n or Daily Mail (written in the vocabulary of a 10 year old) might think himself an expert on economic issues, whilst an economics expert who understands how ludicrously complex the global derivatives market is, will know that it's now so complicated that it's far beyond the ability of even a visionary genius to understand the entire financial system.

Essentially what people are doing when they express an opinion on something they've not even bothered to read is taking the incredibly pompous stance that they're such an expert, and their perspective is so inherently perfect that they don't even need to examine the evidence before they share their sage and ever-so-important opinion.

Long before the Dunning-Kruger effect was formalised, the philosopher Bertrand Russell said "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Intellectual laziness

There is nothing wrong with forming an opinion just by looking at the title of an article and the associated image, in fact that's the way that most of us determine which links we're actually going to click and read, and which we're going to ignore.

The problem I have with intellectually lazy people is that they make the perfectly natural decision not to read an article, but then decide to share their blatantly unfounded opinion that the article they refuse to read is "absolute crap"!

The thought process they undergo is something like this:

1. I'm not going to read that because I don't like what I imagine that it says.
2. Nobody else should read articles that say things that I don't like.
3. I'm going to leave a comment saying how crap the article is in order to dissuade other people from reading it.

This kind of behaviour is about as clear a demonstration of intellectual laziness as is possible.

I find people who are ill-informed slightly annoying, but it's understandable that the person who hardly reads anything other than flicking through the copy of the Daily Mail/S*n in the workplace canteen has got some pretty weird misconceptions (like immigrants being to blame for everything or George Osborne being a genius). Okay, these people should still probably understand that the newspapers are propaganda devices, and that they shouldn't allow themselves to be so easily programmed with right-wing propaganda narratives, but they can't really be blamed for their lack of critical thinking skills (that's a result of the top-down authoritarian education system we suffer in this country) nor for failing to come across independent information sources (even a reasonably successful blog like mine is a minuscule drop in the ocean compared to the daily circulation of the S*n or the Daily Mail).

There is a huge difference between being misinformed, and the sheer intellectual laziness of choosing to completely ignore the information you've been presented with, yet trying to form a counter-argument anyway.


Hopeless counter-arguments
How is it even remotely possible for anyone to believe that they've presented a coherent counter-argument, when they've refused to even read what the argument is?

The only way that it seems possible is if they are so fundamentally lacking in debating skills that they think that ad hominem (against the person) attacks, foul mouthed abuse, blatant straw man misinterpretations of what has actually been said, or a whole host of other common logical fallacies constitute debate winning tactics.

It is stunningly obvious that it's impossible to construct a rational counter-argument if you're unwilling to even consider what has actually been said. Yet some people are so afraid of reading things that might challenge their worldview that they will not only refuse to read it, but they'll construct ludicrous fallacious arguments against it in pitiful efforts to deter others from reading it too.

A simple rule

If you see an article that you think you're not going to like and choose not to read it, that's fine. It's just a manifestation of confirmation bias. I'm not judgmental about that in the slightest because I do it every single day when I decide not to read clickbait articles, celebrity culture drivel, above-the-line trolling or articles written by journalists with writing styles I find annoying, or opinions that I find offensive.

What I have a problem with is people who decide not to read an article, but then decide to express their opinion on it anyway. There's a simple rule that I try to follow, and it's this: If you can't be arsed to read the article, don't bother to offer your (worthless) opinion about what it says.
[Link]


Edit: I try and stay away from SWP stuff, let alone post links to it.

Edited by nickgusset (28 Sep 2016 5.51pm)

If this is your argument, you might want to look up what proven actually means in relation to a theorem about human psychology. What the mistake in the blog you cited indicates, is that the person citing the Dunning Krueger effect is, in all likelihood, guilty of what he is condemning others for.

As for the ad hominem comments, they speak for themselves just as they do when you use them.

Edited by NickinOX (28 Sep 2016 6.33pm)

 


If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 28 Sep 16 6.39pm

Originally posted by NickinOX

If this is your argument, you might want to look up what proven actually means in relation to a theorem about human psychology. What the mistake in the blog you cited indicates, is that the person citing the Dunning Krueger effect is, in all likelihood, guilty of what he is condemning others for.

As for the ad hominem comments, they speak for themselves just as they do when you use them.

Edited by NickinOX (28 Sep 2016 6.33pm)

You are right in that it could be argued that truth is subjective. However it was to highlight the crassness of arguing against something that the arguer hasn't read, particularly if they are aware of it's existence rather than ignorant of it.

To be fair to the author of the article, he does look at both sides of the argument even if his response shows bias. It's good to have a counterpoint to what we see on the tellybox and the newspapers.

Edited by nickgusset (28 Sep 2016 6.39pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View NickinOX's Profile NickinOX Flag Sailing country. 28 Sep 16 6.57pm Send a Private Message to NickinOX Add NickinOX as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

You are right in that it could be argued that truth is subjective. However it was to highlight the crassness of arguing against something that the arguer hasn't read, particularly if they are aware of it's existence rather than ignorant of it.

To be fair to the author of the article, he does look at both sides of the argument even if his response shows bias. It's good to have a counterpoint to what we see on the tellybox and the newspapers.

Edited by nickgusset (28 Sep 2016 6.39pm)

As for the ad hominem, even if I sometimes find them amusing, I treat them for what they are.

I agree about the author but he get's wrong the fundamental nature of what he is arguing. As such, that serves to undermine the whole of the rest of his argument.

 


If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
pefwin Flag Where you have to have an English ... 28 Sep 16 7.46pm

Originally posted by nickgusset


Hoof, I'll let you carry on showing yerself up mate.
If you don't want to counter argument unless it's ad hominem, that's your prerogative.

That's rubbish, where is the layer where they dispute grammar or spelling?

 


"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View steeleye20's Profile steeleye20 Online Flag Croydon 28 Sep 16 7.54pm Send a Private Message to steeleye20 Add steeleye20 as a friend

Anyway about Jeremy good speech today and decisive win wish I could vote for him.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 28 Sep 16 8.06pm

Originally posted by pefwin

That's rubbish, where is the layer where they dispute grammar or spelling?

Hehe

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Y Ddraig Goch's Profile Y Ddraig Goch Flag In The Crowd 28 Sep 16 9.31pm Send a Private Message to Y Ddraig Goch Add Y Ddraig Goch as a friend

It's just the railways they want to nationalise Nick?

[Link]

Obviously the Unite Union don't understand what a free press means.

 


the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 240 of 464 < 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn