- Dec 16, 2006
- 7,401
- 785
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Where I am now it seems necessary to change opinions especially with an election approaching and the real possibility of another war monger becoming President. So many voters are Christopaths - right wing Christians with lots of guns wanting to wage war on anyone even slightly different than themselves. They don't like countries that disagree with 'Murica'.
And plenty are on the offensive at home as well, blaming the behaviour of people in 'liberal' parts of the country for natural disasters in the Bible Belt states. Stirring up the Fundamentalists whose policies have failed in their own states, against the liberals who aren't doing quite as badly in other parts of the country.
But is disputing their opinions necessary and does it work?
I don't think it generally works. There has been plenty of research into which opinions people can change and which they fight for the death for. What people believe and how strongly is determined by the person's other beliefs and stands and how people are fed the information, and you just can't beat the media and the PR guys, they are the pros and they get people on their side and fully committed.
Is it necessary? Maybe not if the next generation learns from the one before. The people who voted to invade Iraq might want to stick to the opinion they told many people including their relatives on the topic, not wanting to 'flip flop'. But the next generation may learn from us for example that it isn't a good idea to invade a country without a clear idea of why, other than to make the Vice President very rich, and maybe they have also learned to be very skeptical of the so-called 'history' we were all taught over the years at school which form the foundation of our misunderstanding of the present.
As one generation slowly replaces another maybe attempting to change people's opinions is not necessary.
My present opinion is the most a person can do is to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree and nothing more. Right in the depths of the Bible belt disagreeing isn't even safe.
Any ideas would be more than welcome.
And plenty are on the offensive at home as well, blaming the behaviour of people in 'liberal' parts of the country for natural disasters in the Bible Belt states. Stirring up the Fundamentalists whose policies have failed in their own states, against the liberals who aren't doing quite as badly in other parts of the country.
But is disputing their opinions necessary and does it work?
I don't think it generally works. There has been plenty of research into which opinions people can change and which they fight for the death for. What people believe and how strongly is determined by the person's other beliefs and stands and how people are fed the information, and you just can't beat the media and the PR guys, they are the pros and they get people on their side and fully committed.
Is it necessary? Maybe not if the next generation learns from the one before. The people who voted to invade Iraq might want to stick to the opinion they told many people including their relatives on the topic, not wanting to 'flip flop'. But the next generation may learn from us for example that it isn't a good idea to invade a country without a clear idea of why, other than to make the Vice President very rich, and maybe they have also learned to be very skeptical of the so-called 'history' we were all taught over the years at school which form the foundation of our misunderstanding of the present.
As one generation slowly replaces another maybe attempting to change people's opinions is not necessary.
My present opinion is the most a person can do is to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree and nothing more. Right in the depths of the Bible belt disagreeing isn't even safe.
Any ideas would be more than welcome.
Last edited: