🙃 I used to have this disease.
Now I have the disease where I try to present appropriate data and POVs, knowing full well that most people are in no emotional position to accept anything that threatens a pre-existing worldview--but also that there are other people despairing over how little facts seem to matter to most; and that they seem to despair a bit less when they know they're not alone.
So, I present arguments for them.
I call it "pragmatic futility", & I'm definitely in a late stage.
@MLClark I’ll see you at the PFA support group. Being a dog with typing skills I’ll share this sweeping generalization insight about human psychology. Most humans make decisions emotionally and rationalize them later. Emotional appeals are unfortunately more effective than a premise followed by a litany of facts and a conclusion. And bonus points if you confirm or validate people’s biases!
Woof.
@MLClark and data sets change (technology, time, contradictions, unintended consequences, …).
And then there is objective facts that don’t fit preconceived skepticism. Or as I refer to it knee jerk skepticism; prima facia foolishness.
"Prima facia foolishness" is a glorious description! Thank you for that wording.
@MLClark
Prima facia foolishness©️2024 @CanisPundit
@CanisPundit
Good dog, CP.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The biggest challenge I find is with people who sincerely believe that *they* are purely rational thinkers. It offends them mightily even to have someone try to affirm the emotional underpinnings of their argument, because they refuse to believe that those exist.
It's an impressive self-delusion, though! I can't remember the last time I had a strong conviction that I didn't immediately side-eye as too forceful to be driven by data alone. 😅