None of this is true. People do not seek better social status by arguing with unseen, unknown people, they seek social change. The status quo lies to limit the damage, because when unseen, unknown voices speak truth they cannot stop the change, which all the unheard voices want.
It's even odds that a study like this won't be replicated[1], so it's not worth much.
I think the GP's only indefensible claim is "none of this is true," the observations the researchers made could all be statistically valid and people may be "seeking social change" by moral grandstanding.
After all, you have a mess of political tribes vying for influence, and the dominant tribe is the one that broadly gets to set the rules.
What's wrong with this study is that what they claim was found is a complete lie. As in it is not true. What I don't like about it is that it is a lie.
So no matter what I'm wrong. See, that's not true, it's just the status quo seeking itself. They lie, and seek to make it impossible to defy. NOTHING NEW.
You're not wrong no matter what. You're wrong because all you're saying is that the study is wrong. Why? What about the study do you object to? You've provided nothing to back up your disagreement, except that you think they're lying. It's just a pretty decent example of social-media-style outrage. honestly.
That doesn't make me wrong. So somebody lies, and saying they lie is impossible ? I don't have to prove you're a liar to call you a liar, otherwise the liar always gets what they want. It's ok to call liars liars without it needing any work whatsoever. It's just a statement of fact, if you choose to believe the liar because they lied and nobody can do the work necessary to change your mind, that's on you. At least you had a chance to hear something besides the lie.
Epstein didn't kill himself. Sorry, I don't have any proof. But they did a study, and lied.
Except in that case you could cite reputable media channel interviews with the qualified experts hired by his family members who were present for the autopsy. You're just making lazy and borderline intellectually dishonest heckles from your keyboard.
If only that were true. But I’ve never seen a single mind changed from these online “debates”, because no one ever enters them willing to admit they might be wrong.
Suppose we divide up the audience of a typical debate. (Caveats: people are on a spectrum, it's not likely symmetric, and this is somewhat framed in terms of political parties but shouldn't be and I can't be arsed to fix it.)
Your base agrees with you, and is invested in that position. They're not going to change their mind, but they may abandon you if you don't demonstrate that you're committed. Your aim is to motivate them to support you, through money or activity.
The other side's base is the opposite, of course. And your aim there is to get them to stay home, or to abandon their side. This is why hypocrisy is such a common charge and there's so much focus on various scandals.
Persuasive arguments are aimed at people who haven't formed an opinion. That's why plainly ideological outlets will present themselves as objective and authoritative; people who feel they are neutral can sign on with them without feeling like they're actually taking a side.
So the reason you don't hear people changing their mind is the people who are likely to are those who haven't formed an opinion, and thus aren't sounding off in the first place.
Moreover, the evidence you present is rarely as compelling as you think. Ask a lawyer how often they've had to talk down clients who were convinced they had an ironclad argument. The big ideologies have axiomatic differences they are not necessarily fully aware of, and those tend to be why neither is convinced by the other.
But it is possible to raise a point they have a genuine problem with. If you have done so, the thing to look for is not an immediate response. It's that the other side's talking points shift in response; especially if they shift to "let's change the subject."
If what you're saying is true, it means that people never get involved in politics for the wrong reasons. People get involved in all kinds of things in every area of life for all kinds of wrong reasons, and I don't see why politics should be different.
For example, charity is a good thing (feeding the poor, etc.), but would anyone say that making a show of your generosity is a phenomenon that never happens? It's an impure motive, but it's also very common. So common it's a standard PR strategy for companies.
You can say that good can still come of it regardless of motives, and I'd agree, but when trying to understand a social phenomenon, I think it's fair to look at what motivates people to participate.
You don’t see how people seek social status by vocalizing their loyalty to political ideologies ?
In my view I see it as a primary motivator, and I think people are unaware of this.
Take a look around you next time someone starts ranting on “Save the oceans” or Climate change — and as much as you know those individuals think about what is intrinsically motivating them.
>People do not seek better social status by arguing with unseen, unknown people...
Correct, they seek social status by bashing unseen unknown people in front of people with higher social status. The more powerful those they seek to impress, the more people will seek to impress them.
