Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Group items tagged persuasion

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Matt Nolan

Science of Persuasion in Courtroom Questions by Felecia Russell - 29 views

When there is a point that you do not agree with it is going to be harder to get someone to understand where you are coming from and get them to agree with you. When you are presenting evidence it ...

started by Felecia Russell on 29 Nov 11 10 follow-ups, last by Matt Nolan on 02 Dec 11
Andrew Rothans

Science of Persuasion in the Courtroom Questions Nancy Camarillo - 23 views

Politicians do use persuasive tactics all the time to try to persuade a certain group of people. I dont believe it is unethical to persuade others, the politicians are just trying to give a certain...

started by Nancy Camarillo on 29 Nov 11 7 follow-ups, last by Andrew Rothans on 30 Nov 11
Brandon Weger

http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/documents/Burkley%20Sept%202008%20TJE1.pdf - 7 views

www.astcweb.org/...rkley%20Sept%202008%20TJE1.pdf

shared by Brandon Weger on 22 Nov 11 - No Cached
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 30 Nov 11
       
      I have seen a study which said that judges are even more likely to give a soft sentence after lunch.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 27 Nov 12
       
      I actually am in the middle of preparing for a persuasive essay for my public speaking class, so I found everything in this article interesting. While all the listed methods prove to be effective, I have to disagree with the 'When to Say It' section. It almost seems like a cheap way to persuade, kind of like cheating. Since they brought up Greek philosophers in the end, I'll call on Plato to back me up on my opinion. He believed that the Sophists, who first taught persuasion and speaking, told their students ways to abuse rhetoric and such to convince their audience. Plato found this as a fallacy, since he believed that you should be able to convince people with truth, and not tiny tricks. 
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 27 Nov 12
       
      It is interesting how severely it seems that fatigue can effect your willingness and ability to resist persuasion.  It makes me wonder in what state are you best qualified to make decisions.  I feel as though when you have tons fo energy maybe more than usual you may make rash decisions and resist too much because you have the energy to do so, conversely if you have too little you are too feeble and will believe too much to the point of being naive and ignorant.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 27 Nov 12
       
      I also think it is interesting how being fatigued can effect your ability to be persuaded. There are many sneaky ways for salesmen, lawyers, and other people trying to persuade to do so effectively. Simply by timing their attack at the right moment in the day can make them more likely to succeed as well as mimicking. I thought that idea was interesting as well and definitely makes sense as we are ego driven and like people that remind us of us. These two tactics are completely dependent on the nature of humans and can be manipulated to people's advantages.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 28 Nov 12
       
      This is genius! It applies to more than just the courtroom, and is not only applicable in our own lives, but also in analyzing public policy. When politicians are running for office, they always try to mold the way they act to their desired audience... aka mimicry. Just one example drawn from a sea of possible illustrations.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 28 Nov 12
       
      This article is really interesting. I love learning about emotions or things that affect our decision making without us realizing it. and it totally applies public policy. Like Sean said politicians acts they way they think we want them too. Certain words or "triggers" can sway our thoughts and decisions. I didnt really know that factors such as fatigue can actually weaken your ability towards certain things.
  • ...8 more annotations...
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 27 Nov 12
       
      What I found interesting is how the When and How to say it can be so easily linked. The "how" states that one should ask the audience to think about it, such as the students having to list 8 or 2 reasons, and how that changed their perspective. This ties in to the "when" because it wears the audience down more, having to make them list 8 reasons, thus making them tired and having less energy to oppose the thought of senior exams, reevaluating wether or not they really think that they are a bad idea. 
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 28 Nov 12
       
      I am the Vice-President of CLU's debate team. In terms of persuasion, the best method is to remain calm and logical in your argument. A lot of people think that persuasion is about demeaning your opposition into a point where their ability to debate is harmed. However, I feel the best way to persuade and gain ethos over your opponent is to methodically list why the opponent is wrong and give short, but potent, responses that highlight your argument in a meaningful way. I know htis article mainly talks about other arguments of persuasion, I though I would just throw in my two-cents. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 28 Nov 12
       
      It is interesting to see that in the how to say it section that keeping your arguments to a minimum will increase the strength of an argument but also make it easier to take a side.  You would think that if you have numerous reasons for an argument that it would make the audience think that your argument is much stronger but it just shows that you are trying to pull in as much information to go off of in order to not look dumb. Obviously phrases like umm, and like make an argument weak to the listener.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 28 Nov 12
       
      keep it short and sweet and percise. The more people talk the more they get into jibber jabber.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 28 Nov 12
       
      When discussing "How to Say It", I think the portion on style is the most important. Someone could be discussing a topic that I might think is interesting yet be totally turned off solely because of their style. In the article, credibility is discussed. The example of people being less convinced in buying something if there it is not something real is more than ever true. No trust in the product, results in no purchase. Style is definitely key and I think the most important part of "How you Say It".
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 28 Nov 12
       
      Often when trying to get a point across, many will have facts to back them up. When persuading someone, using a credible source really helps to support their argument. Like they say, "it's about the style", as well. The language, the phrases, all the words they use are how they share their position and get the "point" across. Communicating in such a way creates strong arguments and provides a source to believe. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 28 Nov 12
       
      The art of persuasion is important in the courtroom. People appeal to emotions and using emotions to support your claims will make it more effective.
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 30 Nov 12
       
      The legal system is meant to operate on fact. The prosecution carries the burden of proof, meaning that they must prove that the suspect committed the crime they are being charged for.  But even though they are expected to show facts that prove their case, they often include information that appeals emotionally to the jury to help them get the conviction they are looking for. Persuasion is an emotional technique that is extremely effective. 
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 28 Nov 12
       
      It is very effective to use mimicry to persuade someone. If  a salesman tries to sell a product, his chances of selling his product are higher if he acts more like a friend rather than a complete stranger. 
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      I think that it is extremely difficult to decide what is the most and least persuasive, because certain things will change the situation, the words could simply be spoken eloquently and some of the jury might already be convinced of the defendant's innocence... The courtroom is a game of persuasion, using evidence and colorful words to paint a portrait of guilt or innocence, or possibly even incompetency... We often let people convince us if we like what they're saying or how they're saying it, conveniently these tactics work in the courtroom as well.
  • Eric Arbuckle on 30 Nov 11
     
    I think the political media realm uses these very tactics on a daily bases to persuade its audience. They attempt the wear down technique by repeating discussions and providing a repertoire of stories to fit their agenda. They sound credible by using statistics and being able to articulate without much hesitation (avoiding hesitant language). They attempt to mimic the audience by, at times, covering entertainment drama stories that attract the audience (in doing this they improve ratings as well). They ask the audience to think about a few reasons why their position is correct by polls, after they have bombarded the audience with their opinions. They inform the audience that other media networks are one sided, do not have the facts right, and are attempting to persuade their audience. Finally, they offer a few weak arguments from the opposing side by using guest opponents, usually only one to create a one sided battle, so they can over power him/her to make the opposing view look discreditable.
  • gina Hogrefe on 29 Nov 12
     
    This article is persuasive, my favorite piece of information from it is that people are fatigued around lunch and later evening so consider arguments around then. Thus a more likely time people will be persuaded.
  • Amanda Garcia on 11 Dec 12
     
    It's a little unfortunate that things like this can be used to persuade people, instead of jury verdicts being based solely on evidence and strength of arguments. Then again, even arguments can be unreliable if the arguer knows how to word them.
steve santos

http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/documents/Burkley Sept 2008 TJE1.pdf - 0 views

www.astcweb.org/public/publication/documents/Burkley Sept 2008 TJE1.pdf

shared by steve santos on 01 Dec 11 - No Cached
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 01 Dec 11
       
      I do enjoy the differentiation between the two on the case of the subtle nature at the approach to giving arguments. For law, I am biased considering its the field I want to go in, but the power of the argument isn't always the forward notion of play in creating intent or persuasion in a court system. even a subtle lowly argument can be highly aided by a strong presentation if the legality persists. The science of persuasion is different per situation and need mold for its field of play especially within the legal system, but for the sake of the article it shows to be definitive in a footnote in policy in the courts where it is tested before it goes into the real world where it then has more freedom to expand and network. 
Eric Henderson

Stone Chapter 13: Facts - 19 views

for question 2, I do not think that there is a decisive dividing line between everything. In many and most cases, there is a lot of gray area, like that in the Rodney King case. As a society, we ...

started by nsamuelian on 19 Nov 11 4 follow-ups, last by Eric Henderson on 21 Nov 11
Flavio Guzman

Using the Science of Persuasion in the Courtroom. The Jury Expert. - 1 views

Once again here is proof that we as humans are much more emotional than logical. Even in the courtroom where everything should be decided based completely on the logical aspect this doesn't happen....

started by Flavio Guzman on 11 Dec 12 no follow-up yet
Jason van Rijn

Dr. Marichal's Course Portals (217) - 1 views

www.netvibes.com/pols208

shared by Jason van Rijn on 28 Sep 12 - No Cached
    • Jason van Rijn
      Jason van Rijn on 28 Sep 12
       
      Beyond finding "Boots are superior to Pushkin" amusing, I think it is important to consider the state of one's basic living conditions on the interpretation of freedom. The article previously acknowledges the many nuances of personal interpretation of freedom. Nobody living in complete squalor will care about analyzing possible restrictions on their freedom when primary needs are not meant.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 09 Nov 12
       
      I feel as though something like Medicare should be a right and not something a person should have to afford.  Being physically healthy is much more important than the amount of money it costs and that's a corruption of society.
    • Jason van Rijn
      Jason van Rijn on 28 Nov 12
       
      It is somewhat intuitive that careful modification of language can enhance an argument. We have already seen Frank Luntz use test groups to determine which phrases evoke the greatest sense of emotional reaction and persuasion for republican causes. 
Joette Carini

Question on "How Framing Influences Citizen Understanding of Public Issues" - 18 views

I really like your answer... don't be surprised if i pick on you in class during my discussion. Thank you!

started by Joette Carini on 28 Sep 11 2 follow-ups, last by Joette Carini on 30 Sep 11
Mangala Kanayson

Question on "How to Cheat at Everything" - 18 views

No more than a parent cons a child into good behavior so Santa will bring the child gifts. People con each other all the time, especially on dates and in business settings. We only seem to call it...

framing heuristics cheat

started by Mike Frieda on 28 Sep 11 7 follow-ups, last by Mangala Kanayson on 04 Dec 11
madison taylor

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt - 9 views

www.edge.org/...haidt08_index.html

shared by madison taylor on 01 Oct 11 - Cached
  • The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 01 Oct 11
       
      It would be hard for democrats to abandon their commitment to social justice because that is their foundation. That is their experience because it is rooted philosophically in the concept of equality.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I agree. Because it is rooted in their philosophy, they could never be Democrats and not agree with social justice.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 03 Oct 11
       
      Haven't they given up their commitment to social justice? Historically they have attempted to be the protectors of civil liberties yet as long as Obama has president he has made no attempts to repel legislation like the patriot act which infringes on our privacy rights and with no opposition to this position from the right there is no one to protect them.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 04 Oct 11
       
      there is no one to protect who? Democrats? HE ACTUALLY said he would, but he did not He acually extended the Pariot Act because on May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions. Plus, there are far more important things going on right now for him to be worried abou repealing the patriot act!
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 04 Oct 11
       
      The foundation of the democrats is to strong and they would never be willing to change their philosophy and what the have stood for, for over hundreds of years.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 10 Oct 12
       
      Of course, this statement seems to true it goes without saying. The basis of being a Democrat is social justice and a lot of politics focuses around that. However, I do think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say they'd lose their souls. I don't think it's impossible for a Democrat to go left, though.
  • they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      This comment may be very biased, but i completely disagree. I consider myself a Democrat, so this article seems non-factual to me
  • The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      again, i disagree. i think both political parties have dealt with candidates like such, not just one or the other
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 02 Oct 11
       
      I disagree with this assertion. Because it is a guiding principle of humans in general to try to rationalize their arguments after making an emotional choice, both parties follow the first rule of moral psychology.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Lately this statement seems to be flipped around.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 03 Oct 11
       
      This assertion, along with the paragraph that preceded it, definitely rubbed me the wrong way. I feel that the only way to really measure morality is through the combination of both gut feelings and deciding what's logical, and then from there finding a happy medium upon which to base views. I feel that the author is placing much too heavy criticisms on Democrats, saying that they do not think about what they want in any way and only act upon their feelings, emotions and liberationist desires. There is an entire side to moral psychology in which conservatives utilize their feelings and desires as well, and I feel as though the author alludes to the claim of little to no emotional involvement in Republican policies.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 07 Oct 12
       
      It is very interesting how framing effects individuals of al backgrounds. I was surprised to read that even people who are educated and involved politically still get fooled by the framing effect. The fact that people stick to learning from news channels and online sources that share the same views shows that people's bias will grown and remain rather than lessen. If people learned from sources that had opposing views, they would learn new things rather than feeding themselves the biased information they already know and are used to hearing
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      What the heck is this guy talking about? FRD, Kennedy, and Obama are uninspiring and lacking/lacked a charismatic image? Jonathan is right when he says this statement should be flipped. Because Obama will always be more inspiring/charismatic over Romney..
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 10 Oct 12
       
      Well what I think the author is trying to say is that overall the messages of the Democratic party are much harder to get across to people on an emotional level. Even if Obama is charismatic, which I agree he is, it is hard for him to explain to people that spending money helps stimulate an economy when his opponent can more effectively tell people that spending is bad and debt is bad. At the debate we saw this. Romney was not specific at all about policies but he used emotional words and phrases when he summarized what he would do. That connects better with people as we see with the poll shifts after the debate. 
  • ...23 more annotations...
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      In general, i felt that this article was somewhat disorganized- i think it could've been more effective if it's arguements were better organized and more thoroughly referncing the arguement they are trying to make
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      I can see that, the topics definitely jumped around and it was a little hard to follow what they're overall goal was.
  • morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      "So long as he didn't serve the chicken to his friend after..." 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I would like to "Like" both posts. If its morally wrong, then isn't harmful to whomever finds it morally wrong?
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      I started reading this paragraph and thought he might ask the chicken question.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 03 Oct 11
       
      I have this conversation in various classes and every time the chicken question is posed or one similar to it, the most interesting question was that of a man and a turtle.
  • First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      Irrational actors 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I agree. The amount of decisions based on feelings is both startling and understandable. We have all been in situations where we probably acted rashly.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      We don't use logic to come to a conclusion, we use logic to explaining our conclusion.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 10 Oct 12
       
      This is true. As humans, we use our emotions to play a huge part in our decision; how it makes us feel, how it would make other people feel, etc. Logic is out of the mindset when emotions overrides everything. Unless you make a decision strictly based on science, emotions will always have a role in deciding what is right and what is wrong.
  • feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      What saddens me the most about this, is that as we have learned, no matter your study of policy and politics you are bound to be irrational and succumb to these same short comings. 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Exactly my problem with politics these days. Too many of our decisions are based on "what do I feel", or "I don't feel that is right". One of the first courses in law school that students have to take teaches that in order to properly understand politics, you have to remove emotions from the equation and that they play no part in politics whatsoever.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      But they do, and I think they should. Emotions shouldn't rule us but emotions are a part of life and society and so they have to be a part of laws and politics as well.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 10 Oct 12
       
      This explains reasoning used when people encounter sticky or uncomfortable situations and need a way to cope with them. They will first use emotional reasons to defend why something may be wrong, yet in the end they see that based purely on need, it is the only means available.
  • Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Using just these parameters, I could argue that Conservative positions could just as easily be trying to uphold the United States Constitution. I am not saying that I agree with everything said, just stating the holes in the argument.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 03 Oct 11
       
      This is just one of the statements he makes that doesn't make sense to me. He does not understand why I vote republican other than he thinks these 4 issues are important to me. He doesnt take into context everything, no one party is perfect and no one person has the views of one party. It is an imperfect system as will be, I vote republican because I believe in minimal government, more liberties and "smart" or no spending, and for nothing to impair the growth of the education system (limiting illegal immigration), those are my 4. I could be seen as a libertarian and am, but the democratic party does nothing for me, quite the opposite in fact
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 08 Oct 12
       
      I agree with the highlighted portion. We have to have some common ground when referring to polictics and morals. We are becomming so partison and split we have to unite on what we were founded on and what worked for so many years for our country.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 09 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Tyler. I feel that liberals are trying to bring us into the new times, but conservatives are pulling back so hard that there is a massive divide forming. We need to find common ground because this split is making it hard for us to bring our contry out of the hole it is trapped in.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree with the fact that a common ground needs to be achieved, but I must be realistic as I do not think that an agreement is hardly ever reached with minimal struggle between the two parties. I resent Haidt's glorification of conservatism on these issues. I do not think that Democrats nor Republicans have the fully appropriate approach to these issues. Ideally, both perspectives must be blended to create a 'morally rational' decision.  
  • a Millian society at its best would be a peaceful, open, and creative place where diverse individuals respect each other's rights and band together voluntarily (as in Obama's calls for "unity") to help those in need or to change the laws for the common good.
  • Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle.
  • Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.
    • alyssa Scheer
      alyssa Scheer on 03 Oct 11
       
      democrats, being more liberal than republicans, see the not so popular side of things. Republicans may offer a "Moral clarity" but thats because they are strict and play everything by the book. Democrats see more openly 
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 10 Oct 12
       
      What? " being more liberal than republicans, see the not so popular side of things". "Democrats see more openly". Ahhh
  • But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      Is it just me or do they describe voting republican like it's some sort of terrible disease. I sense a little bit of bias here.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 03 Oct 11
       
      It's more than just a disease. It's described as being a genetic make-up. I think that is worse than being a disease because there isn't a cure for a genetic code.
  • I was a 29 year old liberal atheist who had spent his politically conscious life despising Republican presidents, and I was charged up by the culture wars that intensified in the 1990s.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 03 Oct 11
       
      Not surprised
  • Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across eras and cultures because they are about the same thing: performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals into a group.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 03 Oct 11
       
      this i found very ironic with the explicit divide drawn from church an state as a means of policy in itself and then how Durkneim's statement shows how even if it is said they are to be separate, the structure of society and the basis of any one faith have systematically been intertwined to meet a means of advancing any one collective's ideals. Its a presentation of faith and religion as a ends to a means of structure and justification to the way in which things are done in government and within the personal experience in defining which is the one right way to cultivate the beliefs of a majority and all things unrelated into a group. As its stated in this segment: a miracle.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      There have always been voters who vote for certain people or props based on their religious affiliation. I somewhat understand why people do this, but sometimes it's carried away. For example, one of my friends voting in this election is a devout catholic. She wasn't well versed in the issues and the candidates and so I encouraged her to research more before voting. She said she nearly agreed with EVERYTHING President Obama stood for, but she will still be voting for Romney JUST because of his stance on abortion. I totally get it if you believe in something, whether it's divine or just emotional but this seems a bit ridiculous to me.  
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 10 Oct 12
       
      Being a christian I base my vote off what I believe and Morals, and I think thats totlly resonable. If there was a dem who could fix america Id vote for him. Back when Reagan ran both repubs an dems loved him. People went off who would do better for the country, despite what party they were from. Sad that its complete opposite these days. I am far right because of what I believe in, romney stands for those also and is a business man. But yes some people get carried away, overall I wish people were more educated on what there looking for in a president
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree, I'd say I'm a religious individual. Politically for me, it all depends on which candidate can fix the country. The two political parties become biased against one another. Democrats criticize the Republicans, and Republicans do the same. This is the sad fact of today's politics, it's hard to agree on something. Improving America is our priority and voters should consider that.
  • Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 07 Oct 12
       
      The beginning of this  text seems like a biased attempt to make sense of republicans. Haidt makes it seem like republicans are illogical and only carry o their republican ideas because of tradition. His article gets interesting when he talks about the experiments and how a majority of the people found harmless acts to be wrong. This shows that many people react without thinking, they react based on their emotions. 
  • In short, I was immersed in a sex-segregated, hierarchically stratified, devoutly religious society, and I was committed to understanding it on its own terms, not on mine.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 09 Oct 12
       
      This is good perspective to gain; if you go even deeper into this persons research, you would have to see how different cultures see political ideologies differently.
  • Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Oct 12
       
      This is interesting that the students went against their emotions and feelings to say that it was not wrong because the actions did not hurt anyone. This is interesting because human beings are irrational in nature as they base their opinions with morals off their emotions and feelings with disgusts, so these experiments are very interesting to take note of.
  • My first few weeks in Bhubaneswar were theref
  • morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 09 Oct 12
       
      I rally like this definition of morality.  I think that is considers most peoples goal despite having different morals.  I say most because I cant try to say that i know every set of moral standards held by each individual on this planet.  But i think that this is a very non discriminating definition of what morals are really for and it takes away the maliciousness of some morals by giving them a goal of grater good. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 10 Oct 12
       
      i also like this definition of morality, i think it shows what morality means and in a way can describe a good reason as to why republicans vote the way they do and why they like the morality that republicans have to offer. 
  • "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 09 Oct 12
       
      This could be taken a long way by applying it to today.  You could say that the government in raising taxes for the one percent in order to prevent unhealthy and harmful lifestyles for those less privledged.  Just a thought.
  • If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 10 Oct 12
       
      This article was quite unsettling to me, but at least the author admits at this point that democrats need to see that the other side of the political aisle is not composed of senseless individuals. I wish more people in both political parties would realize this. Our us vs them mentality that we often have in politics can often harm our ability to see other's morals for what they are. 
  • Drew Westen points out that the Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith, and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the military.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      I get extremely annoyed when republicans claim to be the party of "faith and patriotism". Since when does being a liberal make you less patriotic than being a conservative? This is something that has become something of an epidemic for the GOP over the past few decades. I guarantee you that you cannot find ONE SINGLE speech spoken by a republican politician that does't reference God or freedom. 
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 10 Oct 12
       
      Welcome to the game of politics. If you have ever seen Fox News they believe that the Bible and Constitution are the two most patriotic items in America. And if a Democrat does not mention one or the other, or both, they get slammed for their unpatriotic ideals. I wish everything was based on rational policy making, but we do not live in that world. We live in the world where taking out "under God" in the pledge will make national headlines as an attack on religious freedom. Which is ridiculous if you think about it. Religious freedom would be "under ..." fill in whatever you believe.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 10 Oct 12
       
      I think that this article was not  all encompassing.  Haidt decided to use psychology of Republicans on social issues to make a broader statement of why people vote Republican.  While this could be true for why Republicans vote a certain way on social issues, I don't think that he can make that full jump to conclude about the broader issue of conservative voters.  In addition, his examples and statements provided little evidence to prove that his conclusions were actually true.  Haidt can come up with a philosophy that sounds reasonable but that in itself is not enough evidence to prove a point.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 10 Oct 12
       
      I think only a few number of conservatives would actually fit into this idea of what he thiks a republican is.
  • anonymous on 03 Oct 11
     
    It says in this article that conservatism is a partially heritable personal trait, but I was told in highs school that people learn their political preferences mostly through what they were taught by their families (political socialization). This idea goes very well with the nature/nurture debate. I used to wonder about what made something sacred; was holy water holy just because someone blessed it? Mr Haidt's idea that "Sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns" makes a lot more sense. By the way, holy cheese comes from holy cows. Holy cows come from India!
  • ...5 more comments...
  • shane paulson on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree in which the most influence in people's political preferences come directly from their families. A person tends to sway to the side in which their parents take, because that's what they are taught from the beginning.
  • Kiera Murphy on 03 Oct 11
     
    Due to the lack of hard, truthful facts and the biased wording I don't believe that Conservatism is a heritable personal trait. If we step away from stereotypical ideologies that we have towards Republicans and Conservatives, we can see that most views stem from the environment they grow up in and how involved they are in the political realm of things. I also believe that beliefs stem from your young adult years and you grow into forming your own opinions. Once someone has fully come into their own they are able to form their own opinions that aline with being labeled as a Conservative, a Republican, a Liberal or a Democrat or a Moderate.
  • Eric Henderson on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree with you Kiera, there were very few hard and factual pieces of information, therefore, I could not make a ture judgement on this piece. Generally speaking, I do believe that one's political ideologies come from conditioning throughtout early teenage days through young adulthood. After that, they can form their own opinions then becoming apart of whatever party they wish
  • Lauren Petta on 03 Oct 11
     
    I do agree with Felicia. Social justices is the basis of the democratic party. It is what attracts many to it. If politicians were to abandon these ideals then it could be fatal to their party's future success.
  • cj_woldanski on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree that this article was not a very well thought out piece. It was a little all over the place and in most areas for me, hard to grasp. But there are a lot of things in this article that I did not like. It seemed to me that this article is more of an attack on conservative beliefs. I am a Libertarian but I always vote Republican because I belief in many conservative ideas. I belief that more power should be constituted with the states and each state should get to run their state how they choose. I belief that taxes should always be low for everyone and that the government should not just spend our taxpayer money they way they seem is the most beneficial to us. I believe that the wars abroad are pointless and that the real war that we should be focusing on is our national defense on our border with Mexico. I believe in following the Constitution and not sidestepping and trying to change the Constitution that I have seen most Liberals in the government do. I don't care what someone's political stance is, just don't be a douche about something when you disagree with someone.
  • Emily Shandorf on 09 Oct 12
     
    It is fascinating to try to understand why people vote one way and other people vote another way. Republicans seem to offer simple solutions of "moral clarity" which are easy to understand and like. It is easy to like their positions-who wouldn't! The article talks about morality and the author discusses his research. He gives some very dramatic examples of situations (people eating their dog, using the American flag to clean their toilet) to provoke us into thinking about how we feel. These are all really good questions-and they do not have easy answers. He mentions that when people have "gut feelings" they do not use their heads to think about things clearly. This is true and I am like this, too! Morality also depends on culture. In some cultures it might be acceptable to eat dog! He talks about his trip to India and how he gradually came to like people who were very different from him. This is how he lost his "righteous passion" and how he, in my opinion, became more human. This is the most important point of the article to me: you can respect someone else's opinion even if you do not agree. The author calls the Republican party a "sacred" one and the Democratic a "profane" one. I think this is a good way of putting it because Republicans talk about big issues like God and religion and the Democrats talk about society and its problems. I also reflected on the national motto of the American flag: "e pluribus unum (from many, one) and think that both parties should promote this.
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Oct 12
     
    Freedom of speech and the freedom to practice your beliefs is what seperates the USA from France. However you cannot impose religion it is the bases of why church and state must remain seperate. If the church slips into the state that is over riding our constitutional rights.
Sabryna Aylard

Questions about "The Secrets of Storytelling" - 5 views

In this article, it talks about how susceptible storytelling is in making decisions. Do you feel all decisions are based on a stories persuasion? In a market? In a polis?

started by Sabryna Aylard on 04 Oct 11 no follow-up yet
Eric Henderson

Questions on Alex Lundry's Chart Wars: The Political Power of Data Visualization - 20 views

I think we are all being mislead in the world of politics, as that is the overall "vibe" I get from any interaction with politics i come across. Policy leaders or politicians, make their living on...

started by Lauren Petta on 10 Oct 11 7 follow-ups, last by Eric Henderson on 12 Oct 11
1 - 13 of 13
Showing 20▼ items per page