Why do people get so upset when you use reason, facts and statistics

Reality is depressing af that's why

I'd rather be dumb and happy then "woke" and waiting for death

>>38828412
Have you seen how society runs these days? Shit has to cater to their fluffywuffy-everyone-is-equal world view or they will lynch you.

>>38828412
because most people who use words like "prove" and "disprove" on topic of beliefs are edgelords who don't understand confirmation bias or the validity of competing philosophies. If they aren't ware of the facts you can enlighten them but if you show them the facts and they continue to have a different opinion than you due to the things they value then you're an autist for thinking you "disproved" them

statistics, facts, and figures are all bent to support the reigning ideology of the day
plutocrats love them, naturally

File: image.jpg (15KB, 160x280px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 160x280px

>>38828412
Normies fear discomfort. We were born in it. Molded by it.

>>38828444
More than a few people who oppose those types of people in society also tend to have at least partial resistances to reality though. How do explain this?

>>38828458
You're being semantical, you can disprove a belief if it's not aligned with the reality of the world but of course you can't disprove a person and their own mind.

A lot of said "reason, facts, and statistics" are flawed and are used to defend an opposing belief. Most people choose a belief and then use reason, facts, and statistics to support it. What's more, they often come off as smug and elitist when presenting their claims and tend to dismiss any potential viewpoints while generally being obnoxious and overly belligerent in their approach. They feign "rationality" when often times they are far from it because they stretch their hypothesis as far as it can go with cherry picked data, generalizations, and half truths and never consider changing or amending it.

Most people believe that they have reason on their side. For instance, in US politics, both Liberals and Conservatives alike claim that they are speaking from fact and that any other viewpoint is of inherently lesser value. They usually pick a side such as "capitalism is bad" or "immigration is bad" and then go and seek facts to support the claim.

The main issue is you aren't presenting "reason, facts, and statistics" in an unbiased fashion. You are using it to support YOUR belief.

I like Ben but wish his speeches weren't 80% recycled

>>38828576
It's not semantics, it's a legitimate distinction that every edge lord "intellectual" refuses to acknowledge. As an example If you're a /pol/ nationalist and you show some sjw every statistic you have available that immigration is bad for the native population then you still haven't "disproved" the sjw belief, the sjw just doesn't care about the native populations well being over the immigrants. It's not a matter of proof it's a matter of subjective values.

>>38828881
You make a great point, anon.

The issue is people use objectivity as a tool to "prove" a subjective viewpoint. As a result, all the facts and figures get thrown into a mess along with some unnecessary insults and suddenly the entire discussion has no actual long term view and no one even knows what they even want. They just want someone to be wrong about something.

>>38828714
What if you've been shown or have found a substantial amount of reason, facts, statistics and other such things and formed a belief upon it? I don't see how this has to lead to biases, if certain parts of the proposed reality the belief is entirely based upon are incorrect then the belief changes or it's destroyed.

I mean, most physicists (with jobs) believe in gravity, they're not acting in a biased or fallacious manner by imposing this belief on others.Since it's a belief heavily grounded in our perceived reality we say that the physicists are simply teaching people.

File: lepersuasiveman.jpg (31KB, 948x1264px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 948x1264px

>>38828998
Exactly right my dude. Weirdly enough, if you haven't heard of him before, the author to the Dillbert comics is an authority on this kind of thing. He's a trained hypnotist and I've never heard anyone who articulate the points of persuasion and things like confirmation bias as well as him

>>38829185
You're right, anon. That's why I used language such as "a lot of" and "most people".

>>38828412
what makes it so important to you to disprove peoples beliefs?

>>38828412
Theres actually been a lot of research done on this topic. The vast majority of the research shows that people think of their ideas as part of their personal identity and when challenged their brains react as if it were to a physical threat. Providing facts that contradict someones world view have actually shown to make people believe in their view more and to believe the facts are some sort of conspiracy (e.g. god put the dino bones in the earth to test our faith the earth is really only 5000 years old). The findings show the best way to get someone to see things from your perspective is to make them feel like you're in their tribe/make them feel like you're on the same side and the present your facts in a non aggressive we are in this together kind of way.

TLDR: People interpret facts as a personal attacks.

>>38829565
>"People interpret facts as a personal attacks."

is that true? if so, why do you think that is?