Claude_Verret

I've got no idea. I'm just going on the back and forth between nfreeman and drunkard and that they seemed to find some common ground. Did you do a google search? Where did that take you on the subject?

Ahh yes, but confirmation bias isn't inherent to every google search necessarily. In this case, if it did it could manifest in the following ways: I really don't believe that there is widespread racism against groups X and Y Let's google: "evidence of racism against groups X and Y" Gosh, google is coming up with some pretty strong evidence that there is indeed racism against groups X and Y I'm going to ignore said evidence because it doesn't fit with my reality. Happens all the time, I'm glad that it didn't here. The flip side would be for the racism denier to google "evidence of no racism against groups X and Y" dollars to donuts that good ole google would come up with plenty of websites (likely dubious) that would support what that person had already decided that they believe. "Reasoning and Google will take you wherever you want to go..." author "unknown"

1.) You're killing me here, man. Go back and read that again. He didn't just simply watch Fox news and voila! he suddenly sympathized with the other side. I'm really trying hard here not to spell it out for you because I promised I wouldn't, but what you've stated here totally misrepresents what he's saying. 2.) The answer to number 2 depends on you actually getting his point in number one. I'm not even talking about reading the book, you're not even being intellectually honest about what he's saying in this short interview. 3.) Beyond that, let's just agree to go with Swamp's suggestion and let it go.

Two things and I'll keep it short: 1.) Unless you can do what he outlines in answering the first question about watching Fox News, then you (we) are not doing what he's suggesting. Same would go for a conservative watching MSNBC. 2.) I've had numerous papers published that have gone through peer review throughout my career. I can PM you some links if you'd like. Trust me, what goes on in any political discussion board anywhere on the internet does not in any way, shape or form resemble scientific inquiry.

That's not what he's saying really at all, peer review is something wholly unique to scientific disciplines. I would hope that we can all agree that what we do here doesn't remotely resemble actual scientific inquiry. I'm still not going to break my promise to try to explain for him, so instead I'll just quote the questions immediately prior to what you quoted for context.

Not sure why you chose to highlight this as the bulk of it deals with scientific inquiry, the peer review process and the dangers of inserting groupthink into that process. None of that is relevant to what goes on in a political discussion thread on a sports team forum. The only part that's relevant to what goes on here is the first sentence, about partisans and reality.

Ok, then by the same line of thought you have to agree with McConnell because if he makes Obama a one term president then GOP legislation is easier to move forward. Can't have it both ways. Don't get me wrong, each party should be looking to gain advantage to enact what they believe in. But when actually working towards solutions takes a back seat to party, then they're both putting party before country.

McConnell was wrong here, just like Pelosi was wrong when she became speaker and she said her main priority was to "elect more Democrats" Both sentiments put party before country. I'm not holding my breath that it will ever stop.

Well I'm not going to break my promise and try to explain anything, but I do thank you for asking. instead here's a link to a short interview he did that you can either listen to or read the transcript if you want. http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2012/10/jonathan-haidt-on-moral-psychology/

Yoda zen master, precious, all knowing, favorite person on the planet....these are your attempts to build a strawman. Weak. It's not unlike what you do in how you frame religious debate on here, but that's another discussion. As I've stated here numerous times...I only brought Haidt here as food for thought, as a different way to approach and frame political discussion that favors NEITHER side. Don't read the book, but maybe it's not too much to ask for you to read the subtitle: "Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion" The fact that you and others continually attack that simple, innocuous message while at the same time not even trying to understand the basic underlying principles...well it says a lot. Again, you don't have to worry about me attempting to explain or preach about Haidt through my own words any longer on here. I will however use it in how I personally process political discussions in this thread, so if you want to continue with the strawmen, then yeah I'm gonna continue calling you out. Or you can do as Swamp suggested and just let it go.

Ooof. This is why I never bet on Buffalo sports or hockey in general with real money. Down to 745.

I'm a simple man as well, but I do know that bringing a hyperbolic strawman to the table as you have done here, is pretty weak sauce.

Of course he was swiping at me, about Haidt, at the end of a post that Haidt would largely agree with. Gold, Jerry. Gold! And you might want to look where and how Haidt was brought into the discussion today if you're offering advice on letting it go....

We're talking about understanding Haidt, not me. Reading his work would seem to be a prerequisite to understanding. Stop deflecting and keep up.

Funny last sentence as Haidt would agree with everything you said in this post. Every single time you guys swipe you continue to prove that you have zero understanding.

4 units on Buffalo. At 1145.

Haidt responds to a few folks that address your concern here, then predictably the comments sink into what we're seeing from others here today. https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/796271461551968256

Every attempt you've made to refute Haidt through your complete misunderstanding of his work also serves to illustrate exactly what he's talking about at the very same time. Brilliant.

Right, and he's telling you that it's poison. Haidt's trying to help, just like in 2004.

He absolutely would, and he has. If you had read the book then you'd know that Haidt was a dyed in the wool liberal democrat for most of his life. He began to look to see if MFT applied in politics mainly out of frustration with Kerry losing to Bush in 2004 as he thought Kerry's campaign messaging was awful. Prior to that his MFT was built on gathering data from different cultures around the globe.

Not in the context of it being directed at the losing party yesterday as the ones who would be expected to double down, but yes the sentiment applies to both parties.

You rang? Jonathan Haidt ‏@JonHaidt 12h12 hours ago Democrats, please: Do not respond by doubling down on identity politics. That is poison in a multi-ethnic democracy.

Obamacare will almost certainly be a high priority first 100 days item for Trump. Here is the GOP proposal that will likely serve as the framework for potential new legislation. https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf

It's DeLuca we should be worried about.

Interesting analysis on the media and polling. More grist for PA.. News Media Yet Again Misreads Americas Complex Pulse