It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here.

Origin XT RPG Network Home

Ideological Inoculation


May 28 2007, 04:46 AM (Post #1)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
Before I start, I better define what it is. It is the theory (regarding human psychology) that spamming one with weak arguments against one's ideological beliefs makes that person a stronger believer in his beliefs. Badly phrased, but you understand what I mean.

Do you believe ideological inoculation works? Personally, I do. I've found that participating in Origin's discussions has greatly solidified my ideologies, mainly because many of the arguments I see fly around are easily refutable.

What's your take?
Post Options

 
May 28 2007, 04:52 AM (Post #2)
Here for the cute boys ;)
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 16,853
Cash: 9,337,572 / 95,912
Group: Nobility
Joined: 5/08/05 04:11 AM
Hmmm, I see you are starting this topic to boost your ego because you want to feel better than us? Much like Shadowflare uses his boyfriend topic to show us how inferior we are? stongue.gif

No Jinghao, I don't think your arguments are better than ours, simply because I find that you tend to waiver away from topics and leave arguments when you are losing (For instance, you left the topic on giving everything up, and never returned to refute anything, maybe that is my misinterpretation (I'm already assuming you refute this line, because we never seem to agree anyhow.)). You don't acknowledge that you are losing, you just leave, unlike the rest of us, who sometimes say that we are wrong. Even when it comes to spamming with weak arguments.

That's my take.
Post Options

May 28 2007, 04:59 AM (Post #3)
Commander in Chief
* * * * * * * *
Posts: 5,699
Cash: 2,145,476,571 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Representative
Joined: 12/23/06 04:45 AM
I hope my arguments weren't the weak ones.

But I agree, if you repeatedly see that your argument tramples others, then you would naturally, and logically think that your argument is right. I sort of feel this way about religion, probably something I've debated about most, and despite everything I've posted on Origin about religion, that's barely scratching the surface. Other things, like global warming, where Jinghao and I have argued it out, have made me simply change my stance a little, making sure that it can still be based on what I know. Not to say that I completely agree with Jinghao on it, but I've gotten closer to the best stance.

This post has been edited by Singularity: May 28 2007, 05:00 AM
Post Options

May 28 2007, 05:08 AM (Post #4)
Here for the cute boys ;)
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 16,853
Cash: 9,337,572 / 95,912
Group: Nobility
Joined: 5/08/05 04:11 AM
Okay, addendum time:

I was probably too mean in my judgement there, but I think on this board, Me, Singularity and Jinghao are probably the best debaters. However, you can't really gain much here per se because there is no one to gain off of. There are what... 10 people who post on a regular basis?
Post Options

May 28 2007, 05:13 AM (Post #5)
General
* * * * * * *
Posts: 4,937
Cash: 29,817,448 / 68,857,771
Group: Representative
Joined: 11/26/02 02:31 AM
of course it works... it's a tool to synthesize a feeling of comfort. Denial is a hard thing, so by refuting simple arguments, people generally jump to the conclusion that they are correct.
Post Options

Jan 22 2009, 11:28 AM (Post #6)
Commander in Chief
* * * * * * * *
Posts: 5,699
Cash: 2,145,476,571 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Representative
Joined: 12/23/06 04:45 AM
*bump*

I think this warrants further discussion.

Ultimately, I think everyone agrees that this works, and it has happened to me on here before (sorry to use you as an example Al, you're not the only one, but it's the best clear-cut example off the top of my head). During the campaign, I wasn't really adamant about McCain, and a large part of how I argued was sort of countering Al. It got to the point where I sort of tricked myself into thinking I really was adamant about McCain winning, and I soon realized that I didn't have much of a real argument for it. I mean I could usually destroy Al's arguments, because they weren't so much arguments as expressions laced with sarcasm.

I consider myself a good debater under the conditions that I'm putting effort into an argument, and that I'm arguing the stance I really believe in (my recent tirades, believe me, are not any real reflection of effort on my part, but that'll lead into my next point). Most people don't argue, because either they don't know how to do so properly, or they associate "argument" with a personal conflict. Thus, forums such as Origin, I find to be a good outlet to hone my debating skills. So, in a real argument with my sister's ex-boyfriend (since he is the type to appreciate a good debate (and also noted irony that I still talk to him, and my sister doesn't)), just before the election, I (and The Colonel, who knows him through me due to a last-minute college housing arrangement) went to a party his brother was having, and were basically destroyed. I tried to shrug it off, but the fact of the matter was that I really couldn't think of any points to use against him because I was used to repeating the arguments I used against Al (as those were somehow, the only other semi-serious political debates I'd had around that time). It's not that he was convincing me of his point of view, as that's almost impossible to do so quickly on a psychological level (i.e. a sound argument that destroys your beliefs usually doesn't instantly make you agree, it take time for the mind to adjust if you know you're wrong), but rather, it just made me feel like I was losing the knack (I also had a 2 hour long conversation with an emo-communist-brainwashing babies kid, which bored me to death, and made for amusing stories afterward, but I suppose the actual argument in question was after the fact).

So, thinking of other factors, such as stress from college, and a few other looming situations that have periodically risen and fallen, I haven't felt like having a serious argument in some time. Since college, I seem to have lost the passion for it, and I think part of that is that college, where I'm used to everything being well thought-out, and sound, or at least cogent, I sort of lose confidence in the rigor of my own arguments. It's not so much that I don't know what points to make, but I think worrying too much about having made some mistake makes me hesitate a lot. This used to get to me back in middle school, and once I finally overcame it (around 11th grade), I quickly developed a reputation for being smart. Now it seems that I've fallen under this same sort of psychological barrier.

So with ideological inoculation, being psychological of course, I think the state of constantly being beaten over the head with good arguments can undermine your own beliefs.

I guess in that respect, I start to worry about myself. Since I haven't really acted serious on here in some time, I think I'll start putting a little more dedication into my posts (other than silly topics, like posting games). I need to hone my skills, so I need practice.

Any thoughts though?
Post Options

Jan 22 2009, 04:55 PM (Post #7)
I Love Jingy
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 11,212
Cash: 2,142,701,519 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Cabinet Member
Joined: 11/30/04 08:44 PM
The problem with debate is that you can't refute views based on culture and values.
Post Options

Jan 22 2009, 05:04 PM (Post #8)
Commander in Chief
* * * * * * * *
Posts: 5,699
Cash: 2,145,476,571 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Representative
Joined: 12/23/06 04:45 AM
Of course you can, it's just harder to do that most other area, because most people don't view such things as being objective.
Post Options

Jan 22 2009, 09:54 PM (Post #9)
Colonel
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,579
Cash: 46,264 / 266,023
Group: Nobility
Joined: 12/14/05 03:32 PM
This is just how I see things. If I constantly heard people weakly express oppinions that differ from mine, I don't think it would have much of an effect on me. I think it's the part where I argue back that builds the strength of my beliefs.
Post Options

Jan 23 2009, 01:35 AM (Post #10)
Commander in Chief
* * * * * * * *
Posts: 5,699
Cash: 2,145,476,571 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Representative
Joined: 12/23/06 04:45 AM
QUOTE (Keeserat @ Jan 22 2009, 04:54 PM)
This is just how I see things.  If I constantly heard people weakly express oppinions that differ from mine, I don't think it would have much of an effect on me.  I think it's the part where I argue back that builds the strength of my beliefs.
*


But what if you're destroying very weak arguments with your own relatively stronger, but still weak argument. Doesn't that give the illusion that your argument is much stronger than it really is?
Post Options

Jan 23 2009, 03:40 AM (Post #11)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (Obama bin Biden @ Jan 22 2009, 05:35 PM)
But what if you're destroying very weak arguments with your own relatively stronger, but still weak argument. Doesn't that give the illusion that your argument is much stronger than it really is?
*


sounds like truism to me
Post Options

Jan 23 2009, 03:46 AM (Post #12)
Commander in Chief
* * * * * * * *
Posts: 5,699
Cash: 2,145,476,571 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Representative
Joined: 12/23/06 04:45 AM
How so? I don't really follow.
Post Options

Jan 23 2009, 04:03 PM (Post #13)
Colonel
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,579
Cash: 46,264 / 266,023
Group: Nobility
Joined: 12/14/05 03:32 PM
QUOTE (Obama bin Biden @ Jan 23 2009, 01:35 AM)
But what if you're destroying very weak arguments with your own relatively stronger, but still weak argument. Doesn't that give the illusion that your argument is much stronger than it really is?
*





It isn't about winning (destroying) and therefore building up your strength of convictions, it's about the fight. If the other guy's argument is too good, you might be convinced. If your argument is too good, than you probably arnt going to feel stronger about it afterwards. It's the long, dragged out fight that builds the strength of convictions.
Post Options

Apr 7 2013, 10:17 PM (Post #14)
Colonel
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,579
Cash: 46,264 / 266,023
Group: Nobility
Joined: 12/14/05 03:32 PM
For another discussion on the internet, I googled "ideological inocculation", just to find an article on it. This was the first hit
Post Options

Mar 29 2014, 06:56 AM (Post #15)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (Mr. Cris Davis @ Apr 7 2013, 02:17 PM)
For another discussion on the internet, I googled "ideological inocculation", just to find an article on it.  This was the first hit
*


Nice
Post Options