I am right and you are wrong!

Hi all,

That's the gist of probably about 90% of posts I see here on ATS. Members getting riled up about other members disagreeing with their version of reality. Their version of what's really going on out there.

I could've posted this in other forums because it's not only applicable to the political ones. But I chose to post it here.

Here is a nice link to share about this subject: Why you often believe people who see the world differently are wrong There is also a podcast in the link, but I haven't listened to that as yet.

Especially for past U.S. election season and the aftermath with Trump being president. And in other countries with people's preferred candidate winning the election or not. The Netherlands having theirs this past week. People on one side think they are absolutely correct about what is going on out there, while according to them those who support other parties are not in touch with reality . And vice versa. This has been going on in the whole history of civilization including today. But what if we're all misguided all this time?

Ross says that since you believe you are in the really-real, true reality, you also believe that you have been extremely careful and devoted to sticking to the facts and thus are free from bias and impervious to persuasion. Anyone else who has read the things you have read or seen the things you have seen will naturally see things your way, given that they’ve pondered the matter as thoughtfully as you have. Therefore, you assume, anyone who disagrees with your political opinions probably just doesn’t have all the facts yet. If they had, they’d already be seeing the world like you do. This is why you continue to ineffectually copy and paste links from all our most trusted sources when arguing your points with those who seem misguided, crazy, uninformed, and just plain wrong. The problem is, this is exactly what the other side thinks will work on you.

I see a lot of people here on ATS doing the following (described in the excerpt below) well being absolutely sure that what they believe in is correct, (not only in politics, but in other forums such as the Science forum, Philosophy and Metaphysics, Paranormal, Conspiracy forums etc) and the others who believe otherwise are ignorant, not informed, naive, not in touch with the real world (is there a "real world"?), idiots, corrupt, etc.. etc..

When confronted with people who disagree with your estimations of reality, even after you’ve pushed a bunch of facts in their faces, you tend to assume there must be a rational explanation for why they think and feel the way they do. Usually, that explanation is that the other side is either lazy or stupid or corrupted by some nefarious information-scrambling entity like cable news, a blowhard pundit, a charming pastor, or a lack thereof. Since this is where we often end up, they say what usually happens is that our “repeated attempts at dialogue with those on the ‘other side’ of a contentious issue make us aware that they rarely yield to our attempts at enlightenment; nor do they yield to the efforts of articulate, fair-minded spokespersons who share our views.” In other words, it’s naive to think evidence presented from the sources you trust will sway your opponents because when they do the same, it never sways you."

The site I linked seems at first glance to be a gem of information. They're covering other subjects that I haven't read as yet (I found the site yesterday).

The Backfire Effect

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

And a theory on how to bridge the political divide:

How to bridge the political divide with better moral arguments

In this divisive and polarized era how do you bridge the political divide between left and right? How do you persuade the people on the other side to see things your way?

New research by sociologist Robb Willer and psychologist Matthew Feinberg suggests that the answer is in learning how to cross something they call the empathy gap.


When we produce arguments, we do so from within our own moral framework and in the language of our moral values. Those values rest on top of a set of psychological tendencies influenced by our genetic predispositions and shaped by our cultural exposure that blind us to alternate viewpoints. Because of this, we find it very difficult to construct an argument with the same facts, but framed in a different morality. Willer’s work suggests that if we did that, we would find it a much more successful route to persuading people we usually think of as unreachable.

a reply to: TheBandit795

But what if we're all misguided all this time?

Than that would mean that there is an objective truth to subjective issues. At least concerning politics.

That is sort of the problem, is it not, that what right and wrong, important or not, is a matter of opinion?

Great post and obviously needed. I'm hoping it doesn't fall on deaf ears. We've all been guilty of intransigence in the face of verified facts at times. For myself, as I've grown older my world view has become more fluid. The more I learn, the less I know. I also try not to speak/type when emotionally riled by someone's comment/post.

The belief that people are evil, stupid, weak, or mentally ill simply because they don't think like you is an immature position and leads to a lot of harm for the target of the hate and for the person doing the hating.

If you are not questioning your own beliefs on a certain subject, then it is religious dogma to you. It is not based in reason, but faith. For those you argue against, you are not trying to persuade them but are trying to convert them. You are a proselytizing religious zealot.

Adult, civil discussion and debate should not be reduced to name calling or questioning someone's manhood, sanity, or IQ. We must agree that other's voices are just as important and valid as ours. Otherwise we might as well be in the echo chamber of many other websites.

a reply to: TheBandit795

Excellent OP! And you have highlighted the reason there will never be a bridging of the divide until some serious blood and treasure are wasted between the two groups. The reason is that individual judgements are based upon the moral values people hold and for one thing there is no longer any commonly agreed upon set of moral values. In fact the two predominant sets of values are antithetical to one another, i.e. Christianiaty and Activist Atheist Materialist Secularism which is really the New Religion of the Leftist Elites and of the Monied Elites, the 1% who control everything.

We've seen this type inflection point before.......the Marxist Communist Revolution in Russia.

originally posted by: TheBandit795
That's the gist of probably about 90% of posts I see here on ATS. Members getting riled up about other members disagreeing with their version of reality. Their version of what's really going on out there.

You're wrong. There is only one version of reality. Virtual reality does not exist.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I could easily look up the word, but I won't.

What does intransigence mean?

a reply to: TheBandit795

The fact is 90% of the people here have no distinction between opinion and fact. Most people think their own opinion is a fact. And other people's opinions are not only "wrong" but are also "lies".

a reply to: TheBandit795

If I agree with you, then that makes me right at being wrong.

It is a scientific FACT that if you voted for Hillary you are a moron.

Look it up if you do not believe me.

I really don't know if some of these posts are sarcasm or not. If they're not they are proving my point in the OP.

It is hard to admit that you can be so fooled.

When I first came here to ATS I thought Bush was a good guy, our government was basically honest and patriots, I trusted McCain , LMAO

I had an inkling of a feeling there was a lot of propaganda in the news and television shows, but I had no idea how much.

Let me think of some more.