To strengthen someone's opinion, simply say it's based on morality

[Plazma Inferno!]

Simply telling people that their opinions are based on morality will make them stronger and more resistant to counterarguments, a new study suggests.
Researchers found that people were more likely to act on an opinion – what psychologists call an attitude – if it was labeled as moral and were more resistant to attempts to change their mind on that subject.
The results show why appeals to morality by politicians and advocacy groups can be so effective.
For many people, morality implies a universality, an ultimate truth. It is a conviction that is not easily changed.

http://www.psypost.org/2016/05/strengthen-opinion-simply-say-based-morality-43189

 

[Retribution]

I consider myself slapped.
You, sir, are a complete asshole.

But may I ask, through appropriately gritted teeth: Do you consider this to be a "good" thing?
Moreover... are you interested in rising above it? With all due consideration as to the phrasing of that question, its implications upon pure science, and with all due regard to the observation that scientific method applies to more than just science?

Come on, man. You're actually someone I want to hear more from.

 

[DaveC426913]

Did you mis-post? Your post doesn't seem to follow from PI!'s OP.


Apparently you're not aware of it, but PI! is a font of stuff from all over the web, apropos of nothing in particular, execpt interesting science. He does this sometimes a dozen threads at a time, and rarely has much direct interaction with members.

Not only is he not directing this at you - or anyone - but he is probably not even aware of your presence.

Your ire, and your slur are entirely misdirected.

 

[exchemist]

Simply telling people that their opinions are based on morality will make them stronger and more resistant to counterarguments, a new study suggests.
Researchers found that people were more likely to act on an opinion – what psychologists call an attitude – if it was labeled as moral and were more resistant to attempts to change their mind on that subject.
The results show why appeals to morality by politicians and advocacy groups can be so effective.
For many people, morality implies a universality, an ultimate truth. It is a conviction that is not easily changed.

http://www.psypost.org/2016/05/strengthen-opinion-simply-say-based-morality-43189

I sort of feel this is another of those "Pope discovered to be Catholic" pieces of research. Hasn't every politician known, for centuries, that posing an issue in terms of moral choice is a way of persuading people?

The assumption of moral superiority is one of the irritating features of a number of left-leaning people, in fact. Tony Blair was a classic: a sort of soapy vicar, while in fact being a ruthlessly cynical manipulator of public opinion.

 

[Retribution]

Did you mis-post? Your post doesn't seem to follow from PI!'s OP.


Apparently you're not aware of it, but PI! is a font of stuff from all over the web, apropos of nothing in particular, execpt interesting science. He does this sometimes a dozen threads at a time, and rarely has much direct interaction with members.

Not only is he not directing this at you - or anyone - but he is probably not even aware of your presence.

Your ire, and your slur are entirely misdirected.

My slur... ?

...

..
.

the pain..... of thinking that Plazma just posted something with direct relevance to the thought everyone is having (and many are talking about), the pain of thinking I've just spoken on the subject, and the pain of thinking the very first response to something I said was...
This.

Fuck off and die.

 

[Retribution]

I sort of feel this is another of those "Pope discovered to be Catholic" pieces of research. Hasn't every politician known, for centuries, that posing an issue in terms of moral choice is a way of persuading people?

The assumption of moral superiority is one of the irritating features of a number of left-leaning people, in fact. Tony Blair was a classic: a sort of soapy vicar, while in fact being a ruthlessly cynical manipulator of public opinion.

I'd give you a like, if I wasn't morally opposed to it.

Tell you what, I'll give you this:

/chuckle - its funny 'cause it's true

 

[exchemist]

My slur... ?

...

..
.

the pain..... of thinking that Plazma just posted something with direct relevance to the thought everyone is having (and many are talking about), the pain of thinking I've just spoken on the subject, and the pain of thinking the very first response to something I said was...
This.

Fuck off and die.

Eh? What thought is this that everyone is having?

Dave is quite right about Plazma's modus operandi here. Plazma performs the useful function of being a sort of science newswire. He doesn't comment on what he posts, but quite a number of the items he has brought here have resulted in good science discussions. I've no idea why you call him an asshole. We do have an ample supply of those on this forum, but in my opinion Plazma is not one of them.

 

[Retribution]

I suppose the fact that I'm Australian has some play here.
Americans don't often "get" Australian humour.

We used to call redheads "Blue". It was a standard nickname.
If you were Irish, we'd call you "Scotty".

I'm not even going to go into the humour surrounding self-depreciation... one thing at a time.

The only real thing you need to understand, and that which is not appropriately translated to an internet forum, is the facial expression which would often accompany it.

Cultural differences have so much to answer for.

 

[Retribution]

And I would have thought that I have been, so far, one of the few actually responding to them a bit of a hint as to my appreciation as to his attempts to generate interest in a forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm very confused.

I'm not sure why PI!'s post has triggered any reaction.
I'm not sure what or who "everyone" is talking about.
I'm not sure if any of this is meant humorously.
And I'm not sure why I've just been told to f-off and die.

 

[exchemist]

I'm very confused.

I'm not sure why PI!'s post has triggered any reaction.
I'm not sure what or who "everyone" is talking about.
I'm not sure if any of this is meant humorously.
And I'm not sure why I've just been told to f-off and die.

Admittedly pure speculation, but it is late at night in Oz and perhaps someone has had a few tinnies or a bottle of Jacob's Crack........

 

[Retribution]

I'm very confused.

I'm not sure why PI!'s post has triggered any reaction.

Because he posted something worth responding to. So I did. In a discussion forum. On the internet.
Do you really think this forum is operating in a microcosm, that it is not representative of the current situation with regard to what this word "tolerance" is really all about?
That's very limited thinking, if so.

So given the variance and vagaries of international outlook, are you now going to tell me your response (and that of the administration, and with particular reference to cultural differences with regard to humour) is limited to only that which you have an immediate grasp of? Are you really here to learn? Or to push an agenda?
That's a genuine question.

I'm not sure what or who "everyone" is talking about.

Plazma and his attempts to revitalize traffic have been mentioned several times now in the latest "sciforums failings" thread. I've mentioned my support of his attempts. I've responded to them more than most have. I'm fucking trying, which is more than most are.
And you're attacking me for it.
Nice moves.

With all due reference to the fact that a discussion forum is only going to survive if it is indeed a discussion forum. As opposed to someone's blog.
If someone's blog is all this place is anymore, then just be honest and say so.
Intelligent people will acknowledge futility and go away. They already are.
I'm starting to think I'm about as smart as a box of hammers, in that regard.

I'm not sure if any of this is meant humorously.

Well.... what can I say, really?
What did I say, in that first response?
It's me who really can't understand, you know.
Why you didn't get it.
Why you're here, now, saying these things.
Hell, there have been other Australians who might have been n my side in this particular thread. But they're mostly all gone now.
The only ones left are those... well. They speak for themselves. Or, rather, for you.
Goddamned Quislings.

And I'm not sure why I've just been told to f-off and die.

Exasperation. Show me what you have. Show me your understanding. Show me your appreciation of other cultures. Show me your tolerance.
Who are you, and what are you all about, Bluey?

I mean, if "tolerance" simply means pandering to the latest state-sponsored bogeyman, then by all means say that. I simply wasn't aware it applied to Australian humour as well. Given everything I've just tried to explain to you, Scotty.



Let's sum this up.
Plasma posted something of interest.
I responded. I shot myself all to hell, had a laugh at me, questioned my own posting style and acknowledged that "psychology" has a point in this instance. In doing so, asked a question of that psychology - and of the site administration..
Y'all coming down like a ton of bricks because you didn't get it.



Fuck, man. Go ask Bells. She's Australian. She'll tell y'all what you want to hear.
I'll just go away from this thread and be all sad and shit. Y'know?

All sad and shit.

 

[Retribution]

Admittedly pure speculation, but it is late at night in Oz and perhaps someone has had a few tinnies or a bottle of Jacob's Crack........

Yeah, must be that.

... I'm really fucking sad, man. Honestly.

Good to see your responses to Plasma's thread.
Y'all for that, and then... this.

Did you actually read my first response? Or are you just going with the flow?
This is another of those "genuine questions".

 

[sideshowbob]

Because he posted something worth responding to. So I did. In a discussion forum. On the internet

So you've discovered the Internet.

Now discover smilies.

 

[Retribution]

Haha!

You know, I was going to make a comment about that. I decided not to, but geez it's good to hear someone else say it.
That the level of comprehension has now degenerated to the point where we need clarification in the form of... the pictorial representation of a cheesy grin.

Fuck you too.

/Cheesy grin.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because he posted something worth responding to. So I did. In a discussion forum. On the internet.
Do you really think this forum is operating in a microcosm, that it is not representative of the current situation with regard to what this word "tolerance" is really all about?
That's very limited thinking, if so.

This is just deepening my confusion.

As I see it: PI! posted a synopsis about an interesting study on morality.
You responded by feeling slapped, and called him an a*hole.

I don't have a problem with that, I just don't understand what happened.

So given the variance and vagaries of international outlook, are you now going to tell me your response (and that of the administration, and with particular reference to cultural differences with regard to humour) is limited to only that which you have an immediate grasp of? Are you really here to learn? Or to push an agenda?
That's a genuine question.

What??

Plazma and his attempts to revitalize traffic have been mentioned several times now in the latest "sciforums failings" thread. I've mentioned my support of his attempts. I've responded to them more than most have. I'm fucking trying, which is more than most are.

What???
This is why my very first question was asking if you'd posted in the wrong place. You seem to be talking about a completely different thread.

And you're attacking me for it.
Nice moves.

I can't speak for anyone else, I but sure am not attacking you. I apologize if anything I said made you feel that way.
It seems to me from your first post that you are the aggressive one, and I thought perhaps you were taking something personally that has nothing to do with you.

With all due reference to the fact that a discussion forum is only going to survive if it is indeed a discussion forum. As opposed to someone's blog.

One member does not a forum make. Are you not participating anywhere else?

Well.... what can I say, really?
What did I say, in that first response?
It's me who really can't understand, you know.

You responded as if it was a personal attack on you, then called him an a*hole.
Again, I am not criticizing you for it, I'm just trying to understand what I'm missing.

Hell, there have been other Australians who might have been n my side in this particular thread. But they're mostly all gone now.

Wait, when did this start to involve sides? I thought it was a discussion.

Exasperation. Show me what you have. Show me your understanding. Show me your appreciation of other cultures. Show me your tolerance.

What???

I mean, if "tolerance" simply means pandering to the latest state-sponsored bogeyman, then by all means say that. I simply wasn't aware it applied to Australian humour as well. Given everything I've just tried to explain to you, Scotty.

What????

Plasma posted something of interest.
I responded. I shot myself all to hell, had a laugh at me, questioned my own posting style and acknowledged that "psychology" has a point in this instance. In doing so, asked a question of that psychology - and of the site administration..
Y'all coming down like a ton of bricks because you didn't get it.

I'm not coming down like a ton of bricks; I'm just trying to understand what I missed. There is no hostility on my part.

Are you saying that you were posting in a self-deprecating style? It defintely did not come across that way.

OK, my bad I guess.

Do you take any reponsibility for being on an international forum where your style might not be readily apparent?

You know, I was going to make a comment about that. I decided not to, but geez it's good to hear someone else say it.
That the level of comprehension has now degenerated to the point where we need clarification in the form of... the pictorial representation of a cheesy grin.

Smilies are a necessary evil in the electronic age - we cannot see your wink, or your smile or hear the laugh in your tone to tell us you're kidding around.

It is doubly important, if that same message is full of cursing. Cursing is OK, when it's clear that you're saying it in jest. When it's not clear it can be certainly lead to the conclusion that you're being deliberately hostile.

Surely, you must own at least some of that.

So, without any intent of criticism or hostility, are you spoofing us with self-deprecating humor?

 

[Retribution]

So, without any intent of criticism or hostility, are you spoofing us with self-deprecating humor?

Jesus fucking christ.
As if I hadn't spent the last hour or two trying to say exactly that, you're now phrasing it as a question? Round and round and here we go, one page two page three page four?

Honestly, now. Did that very first response not make my thoughts on the subject quite clear?
Post #2, if you need direction.

Look, man. In light of other things you said, I get it. I bein' edumacated bout Muricans. No one else, be larnin' but me, seems.

I would have thought that "I consider myself slapped" might have set the tone for all else that followed.
It didn't. I'm willing to concede I made an assumption based on an understanding that just wasn't there.
But we all speak the same language, don't we? So it's a limited concession.

So with regard to "without any intent of criticism or hostility" you might want to take some time and consider that in light of the evidence I've received nothing but, y'all might just want to get a sense of perspective.
You think the "Y'all" is accidental?

I'm wondering now that, if I'd been talking about why I'd be wanting to wear a hajib, y'all'd be paying far more attention.
Wouldn't you.

With further regard to #2, not a single one of you has responded to
"Moreover... are you interested in rising above it? With all due consideration as to the phrasing of that question, its implications upon pure science, and with all due regard to the observation that scientific method applies to more than just science?"

No one. Further to that, in light of other recent events, not a single one has even raised any objections to the thread drifting off topic.

I'm still fuckin' sad.

 

[iceaura]

Perhaps a flashlight: Retribution has been posting responses, in other threads, to other matters, in which they (gender neutral singular) disparage other people's responses (which is what such posters do in lieu of argument etc) as founded in morality and therefore weak.

Now somebody posts research establishing that people who are informed that their views are founded in morality are strengthened in them, rather than weakened.

Then three assumptions swing into action: the general public here has been following that exchange with care and attention; the poster he has been addressing can be taken to have been reading his posts as information, as having been "told" something by them - that such was the role of those posts; that the posts had footing and meaning to begin with and have been thereby wrongfooted in some humorous and meaningful manner.

Which is all echoes from the walls of a garbage can with few occupants - possibly only one, two at the most. No need to open and investigate - the truck is coming, and it's just a wingnut radio feed anyway.

 

[Retribution]

I think it all comes down to this:
"Plasma posted something of interest.
I responded. I shot myself all to hell, had a laugh at me, questioned my own posting style and acknowledged that "psychology" has a point in this instance. In doing so, asked a question of that psychology - and of the site administration."
- Post #12

All considerations of international differences regarding what might constitute humour or not aside, I think this was fairly clear.
In spite of that, I'll try to re-word it for the 'Muricans.
"Plasma posted something of interest. I acknowledged that it pertained to myself and my own posting style, further reflected upon the fact that it had relevance to deeper and current ongoing considerations as to the future of this site, and expected a response in kind".

 

[Retribution]

Perhaps a flashlight: Retribution has been posting responses, in other threads, to other matters, in which they (gender neutral singular) disparage other people's responses (which is what such posters do in lieu of argument etc) as founded in morality and therefore weak.

Now somebody posts research establishing that people who are informed that their views are founded in morality are strengthened in them, rather than weakened.

Then three assumptions swing into action: the general public here has been following that exchange with care and attention; the poster he has been addressing can be taken to have been reading his posts as information, as having been "told" something by them - that such was the role of those posts; that the posts had footing and meaning to begin with and have been thereby wrongfooted in some humorous and meaningful manner.

Which is all echoes from the walls of a garbage can with few occupants - possibly only one, two at the most. No need to open and investigate - the truck is coming, and it's just a wingnut radio feed anyway.

And then along came John....

Or, in the Australian:
"Somebody get me a fuckin' beer. Today's been a bitch and here's another one".