Why are people convinced they are right?

[MorkandMindy]

In politics roughly half the people are of each opinion,

yet although this is generally accepted, many people believe, after a quick glance at the paper (something short of a full and comprehensive collection of information followed by a dispassionate causal analysis), that they have the whole picture

and then march out telling everyone else the truth they have realized and that everyone else is wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In politics roughly half the people are of each opinion,

General opinion? or opinion on something in particular that mistakenly went unmentioned?

 

[Daydream Island]

John Bevere says: "The problem with deception is that it is deceiving. A person who is deceived believes with all his heart that he is right, when in reality he is wrong - that's scary ! Jesus repeatedly warned against deception in the gospels"

 

[MorkandMindy]

and then sticking to it despite plenty of good reasons to the contrary.

One opinion I held was that both candidates were unsatisfactory, and if anyone looked at one candidate exclusively they would be convinced that candidate was the worst one possible, until they looked at the other.

I had to make a list of priorities to reach a 'best guess' on which one would be worse and therefore which one to vote for without too much risk of being wrong.

'Fear and trembling' comes to mind (Philippians 2.12)

 

[chevyontheriver]

In politics roughly half the people are of each opinion,

yet although this is generally accepted, many people believe, after a quick glance at the paper (something short of a full and comprehensive collection of information followed by a dispassionate causal analysis), that they have the whole picture

and then march out telling everyone else the truth they have realized and that everyone else is wrong.

Only some people are convinced they are right. They don't know enough to know they are wrong. The rest of us, who know more in general, suspect that we are seldom right.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

There are two major reasons of which I am aware.

The first is the 'believer' was told the 'fact' - which may be an actual fact or merely an opinion, but not disclosed to the person so affected - by someone they respect and trust. Which may be a parent, a pastor, a teacher, a related or unrelated mentor, professor or political person; or perhaps some category not named here.

The 'source' may be quoting another 'source', perhaps accurately, perhaps not; but the 'believer' does not or cannot know.

To change one's view of the 'fact' or 'facts' in question is to disregard and show disrespect for the 'source' (who is admired, respected and loved). Therefore, the 'believer' must hold to the view at all costs.

The second reason is simply that is the view or opinion or 'fact' which most benefits the 'believer'.

Note that in either case, the truth of the fact, issue, opinion or notion may be correct or incorrect in relation to reality. Just because 'Mom' said so doesn't make it right and doesn't make it wrong. Nor does the benefit aspect.

There is a third reason for holding to a 'view'; which I find to be the least used of all. The 'believer' has actually investigated the matter and come to an understanding about the matter. It is rare in that most of the time, the 'investigation' consists of soliciting an answer under reason number one above.

 

[chevyontheriver]

One opinion I held was that both candidates were unsatisfactory, and if anyone looked at one candidate exclusively they would be convinced that candidate was the worst one possible, until they looked at the other.

I had to make a list of priorities to reach a 'best guess' on which one would be worse and therefore which one to vote for without too much risk of being wrong.

I tried that and kept on coming up with not being able to vote for either of them. So I didn't.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I wasn't convinced I was right, but I was convinced what candidate was more wrong for the job, and fortunately so were enough of the others.

 

[MorkandMindy]

In politics roughly half the people are of each opinion,
...

General opinion? or opinion on something in particular that mistakenly went unmentioned?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, a bit beyond many people's oversimplification and overly combative approaches.

After GWB (and Ronald Reagan) I vowed never to vote Republican ever.

But I knew there are traditional conservative members of the GOP who are used as a vehicle to get the usual 'we'll-rob-the-workers-and-send the jobs abroad' candidates in.

 

[MorkandMindy]

In fact the GOP herds those old timers (small government traditional conservatives) along with promises to fulfil their wishes as well, and then forgets them until the next election.

Less government interference in our everyday lives is replaced by the 'war on drugs' where the government locks up millions,

and government regulations forbidding me from buying my medication at a tenth of the price elsewhere, and enforcing non competition in my healthcare provider when I should be able to go see a somewhat better foreign doctor here for a fraction of the price.

Republicans pay to blow up countries in the way of the Bush/Clinton pipeline (I know there are plenty of others involved too).

I can not forget there are a lot of good people in both parties, mainly tricked into doing what the richest want,

and the main difference between the parties is the ways the members have been convinced things should be done rather than the desired end result.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I tried that and kept on coming up with not being able to vote for either of them. So I didn't.

So did I for a long time, then I turned it around and established a hierarchy for which one would destroy the country the fastest.

Even then there were assumptions that could not be justified.

The final analysis I reached was that Hillary plus Democrats in both houses would destroy the nation:

1. from the roots up by joining or remaining in international trade agreements to force our working class to accept Chinese pay rates (more or less) and middle class would continue to be dumped into working class jobs at an alarming rate.

2. by starting wars. Hillary was one of the three people required to start the war in Iraq, was primarily responsible for the destruction of the state of Libya, and was very happy to confront Russia with a we-fly-zone over their ally Syria.

Never mind what the media says, wars are expensive both in terms of money and in political capital as well.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Donald would terrify a lot of undocumented immigrants here, Hillary would kill a lot more people in other countries and produce more refugees. That was the impossible part of the decision.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The part of my question that has me completely baffled is

Why are people convinced they are right, when they know the facts are against them,

in fact even more convinced and rabid when they know they are likely to be wrong?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Only some people are convinced they are right. They don't know enough to know they are wrong. The rest of us, who know more in general, suspect that we are seldom right.

Yes, I guess I was looking at this the wrong way around, it's not that people are so convinced they are right and therefore do not listen to anyone who disagrees,

but that people content to look at just one part of the issue are the ones most convinced they and they alone are right,

while the rest of us are pretty sure anything we decide might well prove to be wrong.

 

[Left]

It's better viewed by the public to be wrong and constantly stick up for your view, than to switch sides whenever someone has an upper hand on you.

This is my theory.

 

[MorkandMindy]

One definition I've heard is
a discussion is to prove what is right, while an argument is to prove who is right.

The rich and powerful love people to argue because it paralyses society so they can get what they want.

The media love a polarised combative readership because it sells newspapers / gains committed viewership