| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2015 08:25:08 PM · #201 |
|
|
|
06/26/2015 08:58:10 PM · #202 |
|
|
|
06/26/2015 08:59:54 PM · #203 |
|
|
|
06/26/2015 09:09:21 PM · #204 |
|
|
|
06/26/2015 10:47:28 PM · #205 |
| My own words would constitute an opinion. You asked for facts, which requires citations and/or links to original sources. Done. No point in belaboring the issue because a reckoning on gun control within the next 10-20 years is just as inevitable as gay marriage, and the people regurgitating manufactured facts and belief-based rationalizations for why it shouldn't happen will be just as irrelevant. The ONLY question is timing. The current pace of about 3 mass shootings a month could be tolerable for many years to come, but a lunatic trying to top the death toll of Sandy Hook or taking out a president or popular celebrity will eventually provoke enough outrage to drown out the vocal minority of gun nuts and spur meaningful action. The attempted assassination of Reagan came close, but ultimately trickled down to nothing. |
|
|
|
06/26/2015 11:16:15 PM · #206 |
Shannon - I would presume that your opinion is based on fact, so
cite away after having stated your own opinion.
When anyone regurgitates links from other sources, it somehow
seems (forgive me) lazy. Even if you agree with the information
presented in these links, would it not be possible to restate
said information in your own words?
At the risk of crying in the wilderness, it's important to say
why we are for/against (in this case) gun control.
You're a far better debater than I am, and if we get in a word
argument, you win, but I hope you are getting the
idea of what I am trying to say. |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 12:10:02 AM · #207 |
| Sure, I understand. Just being expedient (or lazy, if you prefer) since I'm well aware of the futility of presenting facts in this sort of issue and should be doing real work instead of procrastinating... |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 07:13:21 AM · #208 |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 10:32:47 AM · #209 |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 10:33:50 AM · #210 |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 11:46:06 AM · #211 |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 12:37:23 PM · #212 |
| It often seems: Studies one agrees with come from data expertly gathered and processed. Studies one disagrees with come from faulty studies where data has been gathered improperly and/or the results have been skewed.... |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 01:00:03 PM · #213 |
To be fair, there's a well-known syndrome called "confirmation bias" that basically can cause individuals to trust research that supports their own position, and vice-versa. Despite what many of us "liberals" tend to believe, we're just as subject to this syndrome as are the conservatives amongst us. That's sort of WHY these threads never actually go anywhere :-(
Originally posted by wiki:
Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[2][3][Note 2] |
|
|
|
|
06/27/2015 03:12:10 PM · #214 |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 03:16:56 PM · #215 |
Well, where would you otherwise think these threads would go?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To be fair, there's a well-known syndrome called "confirmation bias" that basically can cause individuals to trust research that supports their own position, and vice-versa. Despite what many of us "liberals" tend to believe, we're just as subject to this syndrome as are the conservatives amongst us. That's sort of WHY these threads never actually go anywhere :-(
Originally posted by wiki:
Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[2][3][Note 2] |
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2015 03:26:04 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Well, where would you otherwise think these threads would go? |
Well, absent confirmation bias I'd *expect* that "gun control"-type threads would result in at least SOME small percentage of the anti-control stalwarts saying "You know, worldwide evidence DOES indicate that fewer guns at large = fewer gun deaths, it may be worth TRYING, we've got to do something!", but that's wishful thinking I'm sure. At least I was able to say straight up that I'm as likely as you are to be suffering from CB, even though I think you're out of your mind :-)
Message edited by author 2015-06-27 15:35:42. |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 03:27:19 PM · #217 |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 04:43:27 PM · #218 |
|
|
|
06/27/2015 07:15:29 PM · #219 |
| Good to see you back in the saddle, Shannon :-) |
|
|
|
06/28/2015 01:41:09 AM · #220 |
All this wilful ignorance and irrational self-delusion is so dispiriting. It's Dark Ages mentality.
Message edited by author 2015-06-28 05:16:05. |
|
|
|
06/28/2015 10:52:20 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Good to see you back in the saddle, Shannon :-) |
Thanks, but not quite. Still buried in work for at least the next few weeks. |
|
|
|
06/28/2015 01:11:30 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Well, where would you otherwise think these threads would go? |
Well, absent confirmation bias I'd *expect* that "gun control"-type threads would result in at least SOME small percentage of the anti-control stalwarts saying "You know, worldwide evidence DOES indicate that fewer guns at large = fewer gun deaths, it may be worth TRYING, we've got to do something!", but that's wishful thinking I'm sure. At least I was able to say straight up that I'm as likely as you are to be suffering from CB, even though I think you're out of your mind :-) |
Ha! I'd expect as much from the other side as well, but that doesn't happen either. So here we are. |
|
|
|
06/28/2015 01:14:46 PM · #223 |
|
|
|
06/28/2015 01:18:37 PM · #224 |
|
|
|
06/28/2015 01:35:05 PM · #225 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 05:55:41 AM EDT.
