I debate political fanatics a lot and there's a recurring structure in all of them, a two-part one:

1. Reach conclusions fast via a snap judgement

2. Refuse to update based on new evidence

The second part is more imortant. It's not just that they draw conclusions fast - literally nothing can convince them that their positions are false. Peer-reviewed studies show that LGBT people aren't dangerous to children? Theose studies are fabricated by leftists. Talmud doesn't tell Jews to hate non-Jews? That's a fake Talmud they fabricated to woo non-Jews, the real one is different. Gorbachev recognized the Katyń massacre as done by the USSR? He was a western agent/bourgeois traitor etc. literally got permabanned from a sub yesterday for correcting Katyń misinformation, the reason given was "spreading liberal content" (since obviously, Bush Sr., Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl didn't have other things to worry about in 1990 than healing Polish historical trauma).

Edited April 21Apr 21 by Otto Kretschmer

39 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

1. Reach conclusions fast via a snap judgement

2. Refuse to update based on new evidence

One issue is that they aren’t reaching a conclusion, they are stating a position based on their world view. Conclusion implies they are evaluating data and then applying logic and reason. It’s not. It’s an emotional, lizard brain reaction.

Everything must be forced to fit the narrative, by any means possible. Outlandish things will be believed as long as they reach the right place.

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

One issue is that they aren’t reaching a conclusion, they are stating a position based on their world view. Conclusion implies they are evaluating data and then applying logic and reason. It’s not. It’s an emotional, lizard brain reaction.

Everything must be forced to fit the narrative, by any means possible. Outlandish things will be believed as long as they reach the right place.

Well, I meant "reaching a conclusion" in a more metaphorical sense since actual logical reasoning is rarely involved.

A more currently relevant example is supply-side economics - after Reagan, Bush Jr and the 2017 tax cuts, the predicted revenue surge never materialized, yet its proponents kept generating ad-hoc hypotheses why it didn't happen - the cuts weren't large enough, Fed tightened too much, baseline spending was too high etc. No novel predictions, just endlessly folding the failed ones back into the narrative.

Edited April 21Apr 21 by Otto Kretschmer

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

A more currently relevant example is supply-side economics - after Reagan, Bush Jr and the 2017 tax cuts, the predicted revenue surge never materialized, yet its proponents kept generating ad-hoc hypotheses why it didn't happen - the cuts weren't large enough, Fed tightened too much, baseline spending was too high etc. No novel predictions, just endlessly folding the failed ones back into the narrative.

Why are you posting in my political topic, instead of your own?

Do you see my point?

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why are you posting in my political topic, instead of your own?

Do you see my point?

Sorry for doing that. I had thought it's just a generic thread for "motivated reasoning in politics".

Edited April 21Apr 21 by Otto Kretschmer

2 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Sorry for doing that.

So, what is your point?

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

So, what is your point?

Nothing in particular, just sharing loose thoughts on the topic.

Edited April 21Apr 21 by Otto Kretschmer

On 4/21/2026 at 11:47 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

I debate political fanatics a lot and there's a recurring structure in all of them, a two-part one:

1. Reach conclusions fast via a snap judgement

2. Refuse to update based on new evidence

The second part is more imortant. It's not just that they draw conclusions fast - literally nothing can convince them that their positions are false.

What would convince you?

What if your entire culture is a lie and it's you that fit's both 1 and 2, what rational would be convincing to either end of the po;itical extreme