Labours glorious felching victory
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
That's extremely doubtful as human behaviour is often irrational, random, unthinking and most certainly unscientific.
Its occasionally irrational, random etc. In most cases, given sufficient analysis, its quite predictable. Try posting some evidence about climate change or the effects of speed cameras on accident rates and see what the responses are 
turbobloke said:
together with unthinking belief (the evidence-free-zone of manmadeup warming) being attractive to some as a belief system, a social movement not a scientific one.
There is plenty of evidence to support Climate Change. There is plenty of other evidence to suggest that there is no climate change at all. There is yet more evidence to suggest that there IS climate change but it is following a normal cyclical pattern and nothing to do with manmade influences. What makes you think that the scientists who believe in MMGW are unthinking and lack evidence? Just because you have a different viewpoint?turbobloke said:
However it looks to me as though you're arguing for human behaviour as being predictably biased on occasions, rather than being largely rational or 'scientific'. There are Labour heartlands that keep voting Labour in spite of the devastation it causes to the economy - and as a result to everybody in the country - including those heartlands...almost all measures of poverty up, public sector efficiency and value for money down, country almost bankrupt at the end of it, etc. That's predictable but it's not rational or in any way scientific, such an approach would look at the evidence rather than repeat entrenched tribal or familial behaviours. This is what happened in the by-election and it'll happen again.
Its completely rational. They are voting for the Party that promises them the best individual economic outcome. Those who vote Conservative do not do so for altruistic reasons, its exactly the same motivation (i.e. voting for the Party which promises them the most benefits). You seem to be saying that voting for one party is rational behaviour whilst voting for the other is not. That is wrong - both sets of voting preferences are based on prejudices and biasturbobloke said:
In the case of PH and bias, the concern I see is with the existence of bias not the direction of it. If you think I might not object if the BBC were biased in certain alternative directions you'd be wrong, also PH is one place where backgrounds count for little in every sense. It's a good place to be for many because all opinions are allowed airtime (and are usually appreciated regardless of the perspective if well put e.g. without insults) unlike with the BBC or in party politics where bias is totally obvious.
It comes across to me that your default position is that there is bias where people don't agree with you and rational logical thought if they do agree with you. turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
The nature of PH is extremely tribalistic.
This may be down to interpretation. Views about cars - as you point out - or politics or anything else may be largely in common, but are not held because our parents or large sections of the community sway opinion. The views and positions are self-determined.For tribalistic, read shared, or similar.
turbobloke said:
Barclays Premier et al would not waste marketing budget on this site if it was mostly populated by your average sheeple.
I agree. PH is not representative of the mainstream population. Not sure why you wish to denigrate the mainstream as sheeple - is this evidence based ?turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
If you have already analysed something and reached a conclusion you are unlikely to ignore the conclusion the next time you evaluate something similar.
Only if you have become biased in the intervening period, and why would anybody do that 
. if I stick my hand in a pan of boiling water I'm unlikely to do it again am I ?turbobloke said:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"
I would question why the facts changed What mistake was there in the original conclusion?turbobloke said:
If your original conclusion is correct and all you see put up against it is tangential, diversionary, flimflam, spin, opinion dressed as fact (etc) you will keep to your original conclusion and rightly so. If credible evidence appears that contradicts a previously held viewpoint, that's different.
Ok. Can you give me an example of where you were wrong and subsequently changed your mind based on new evidence ? Or have you always been right ? Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
Barclays Premier et al would not waste marketing budget on this site if it was mostly populated by your average sheeple.
I agree. PH is not representative of the mainstream population. Not sure why you wish to denigrate the mainstream as sheeple - is this evidence based ?I don't have any qualms about what you seem to find objectionable, not least since there is considerable credible evidence for it including as a matter of everyday experience.
This evidence tempts me to agree with Churchill about the biggest argument against democracy being a five minute discussion with the average voter, but I would add the TB Corollary to Churchill's postulate, which is that there is a shorter means of reaching a similar conclusion via a two minute discussion with the average politician.
If anybody on PH considers it likely to persuade non-sheeple using merely statements of alternative views, reasoning by assertion, hyperbole, generalisation and other forms of exceedingly weak argument, then such expectations will lead to disappointment. Not that this remark is addressed to you personally, as I trust you will appreciate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff