Why are people sometimes so resistant to facts?

[Pottapaug1938]

An article in today's Boston Globe magazine sheds some fascinating insights on the Lost Horizons, Birther, Sovereign and other wacko movements:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... _backfire/

[Judge Roy Bean]

What the author leaves out almost entirely is good old-fashioned mistrust of some sources of allegedly factual information - and for good reason; so much of the media we're exposed to is agenda-driven that the truth is hard to find.

[notorial dissent]

The biggest problem, is that the beholder has to believe in the facts in front of them, and know that they are actually facts, and not opinion, which means they have to have the ability and often knowledge to discern between fact, fiction, and opinion, and then even worse, actually want to.

As has been pointed out in several court opinions, people accept as fact things they really really want to believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, or that fit their desires of the time. The main point being that people will resist a fact if it does not align with what they want to do or perceive is what they want to do or believe, and they will be the most resistent to appeals to reason, since their belief is not based on reason, but instead of on how they want the universe to behave.

Case in point the lost at Loser’s Hole, there is insurmountable evidence, FACTS, that CTC not only doesn’t work, but is an abysmal failure at every step along the way, and yet they cling to it like the last bits of a raft left from the sinking of a ship, steadfastly refusing to see the rapidly rising waters because it would mean their ironclad beliefs weren’t fact but only wishful thinking that it is.

[The Operative]

In keeping with the sinking ship analogy, sane people grab life vests and get in the life boats. LHers grab the anchor.

[Harvester]

Because they're not facts.

The biggest problem, is that the beholder has to believe in the facts in front of them, and know that they are actually facts, and not opinion ..

Agreed. The beholder must believe he's viewing facts not opinion, and the source must be credible. I reject the premise of that article, How facts backfire, that facts will NOT set them straight, that in the end truth will NOT win out. Yes, I actually agree with Tom Jefferson - “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” That this article would seek to undermine self-government is not surprising to me. This is elitist.

Consider what the author uses to support his argument - studies involving "misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories,.." So here we have a political study involving purported facts in news stories. I'm sorry but when it comes to politics & media, where do we draw the line between fact and opinion? What system of govt governs best? Which system best allocates scarce resources? Are both parties wings of the same bird?

It's been alleged that mainstream media is controlled by elites. That editorship has been so co-opted that we're no longer given news but indoctrination. The New York Times has been presented as a prime example. What if the people in that study doubted the truth of those facts/opinion given the source? FACT: that article appears in the Boston Globe which is owned by the same company that owns the NY Times.

FACT: CtC works. I'm proof. I'm a lawful non-taxpayer with no issues. Thanks for providing the venue Jay.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... I'm proof. I'm a lawful non-taxpayer with no issues. Thanks for providing the venue Jay.

No, you're nothing more than an allegation with a bad track record for veracity.

[Famspear]

FACT: CtC works. I'm proof. I'm a lawful non-taxpayer with no issues......

Harvester, forgive me for asking questions that I think you might already have partially answered in other threads, but:

1. Do you file a federal income tax return each year?

2. If so: On such tax returns, do you report, as zero, the amount or amounts reported on Form W-2 or Form 1099 by one or more payors, even though the payors report an amount greater than zero?

3. Have you ever been to federal court on a federal income tax issue related to CtC for one or more of those tax returns?

[LPC]

FACT: CtC works. I'm proof.

FACT: You're a pathological liar making unverifiable claims.

Anyone with Internet access and a credit card for PACER access can verify that CtC does NOT work in every case that goes before a judge.

And anyone with Internet access can verify that there are imbeciles and nutjobs like yourself who claim that "CtC works" because they submitted a fraudulent claim to the IRS and the claim slipped through IRS anti-fraud controls.

As others have pointed out, most of the messages on Hendrickson's "Lost Horizons" forum are from people asking how to stop the IRS from seizing their assets for taxes, penalties, and interest.

You're nothing but a rat on a sinking ship who claims to be able to walk on water because you're still above the waterline.

Come back and drop us a line when you've actually got water under your feet, and photos to prove it.

[wserra]

I'm a lawful non-taxpayer with no issues.

And my great-aunt Tillie grows prize-winning tomatoes in her garden in the Sea of Tranquility.

[silversopp]

I'm proof. I'm a lawful non-taxpayer with no issues. Thanks for providing the venue Jay.

This statement could very well be true. The IRS is going to have some returns slip through the cracks, and there will be some winners with the CTC method. What Harvester doesn't seem to understand is that his victory is not due to the CTC method, but due to the IRS's inability to catch every phony return.

I know a lady who did not file a tax return for about 15 years (she never handled the financial end of things, and when her husband passed away she simply never filed). She never heard squat from the IRS. She passed away, and when they settled the estate they found out about the tax issues. She didn't use CTC or any other bogus scam - she simply didn't file out of ignorance and it "worked."

The problem is that the longer Harvester files CtC returns, the more likely one will get flagged. When the IRS investigates, it will go back to prior years and discover all the phony returns.

[Harvester]

Y'all are certainly vigorous in your defense of the goose that lays golden eggs. Answers to Famspire:
1) no
2) n/a
3) no; although I've been to federal court - as a juror. Was very nice; they gave us a video indoctrination, I mean presentation, and free food. Also witnessed how to get out of jury duty: raise your hand, go up front and say "my engrish no gud."

Dan, we shall see who's the pathological liar, and who will be jumping a sinking ship.

I might also add, I redeem lawful money, I do not endorse the credit of the private Federal Reserve.

Finally, I see you have no objection to my interpretation of the OP's linked article.

[Gregg]

According to his prior posts, Harvester doesn't have the balls to file a CTC educated return himself. If he is to be believed (admittedly a leap of faith) he filed exactly 1 CTC return and now is a common tax cheat who just refuses to file at all.
So having given up on his hero Pete Hendrickson, he's now going the ostrich method: bury your head in the sand and hope that if you can't see the IRS, the IRS can't see you either.

If he's not lying all along he's going to end up in a lot of trouble and pay about twice what the taxes would have been if timely filed and paid.

[Lorax]

Harvey says he rejects the premise of the article, but I wonder if he even read the whole thing? The author's intention was clearly not to undermine self-government. The author would like to agree with Thomas Jefferson that you can use facts and logic to change people's minds, as would I, but the research shows that this sadly just isn't the case when it comes strongly held political beliefs, and in the case of self-identified conservatives, such educational efforts may actually backfire and produce the opposite of the desired effect. An interesting implication for the people that argue with Harvey here, assuming he is a conservative, is that ironically we may be partially responsible for the extremity of his delusion.

[Famspear]

.....Answers to Famspire:
1) no [Harvester does not file a federal income tax return each year]
2) n/a
3) no [Harvester has not been to court over the CtC scam]

Thus, as others have pointed out, you have not been successful with the CtC scam.

No one has.

[Nikki]

Y'all are certainly vigorous in your defense of the goose that lays golden eggs. Answers to Famspire:
1) no
2) n/a
3) no; although I've been to federal court - as a juror. Was very nice; they gave us a video indoctrination, I mean presentation, and free food. Also witnessed how to get out of jury duty: raise your hand, go up front and say "my engrish no gud."

Dan, we shall see who's the pathological liar, and who will be jumping a sinking ship.

I might also add, I redeem lawful money, I do not endorse the credit of the private Federal Reserve.

Finally, I see you have no objection to my interpretation of the OP's linked article.

Another sycophant of SFBFKADMVP.

[silversopp]

So Harvester has just admitted he is lying when he says that the CtC method works for him. He's not using it, he's just simply not filing a return. Probably the best bet to cheat on taxes, since CtC returns are probably being automately flagged now - and if not, will be shortly.

Yet another lie exposed.

[webhick]

So, the other day I tried to get money out of the ATM machine, but it wouldn't give me any. I walked into the bank and asked why. The teller told me that my account was overdrawn. She showed me a printout from the computer that said that my balance was negative. But it didn't say that it was overdrawn so I told her that my account was not overdrawn, it was just negative. She told me that it was the same thing. I got very angry and told her that my account couldn't be overdrawn because I didn't take out more than I had. She told me to look over the transactions and let her know if I didn't authorize any of the charges. I looked them over and circled all the overdraft fees and handed it back to her. She must have known I was onto the bank's scam because she tried to trick me and said that I agreed to be subject to those when I signed up for the bank account. I'm not stupid, I know I agreed to be subject to them. I repeated to her that I didn't authorize them.

She needed a minute to think of another way to trick me, so she took a deep breath and signaled for her manager. So, the manager comes over and I explained that there are unauthorized charges on my account that I wanted removed. He looked at the charges I circled and said very slowly, like I'm some kind of child that the agreement I signed when I started the account said that if I take too much money out of my account then I'll be charged overdraft fees. That's when I had him. I told him that I wasn't the one to take the money out of the account. He seemed intrigued. I explained that if he added up all the checks I wrote out to my name, then he could plainly see that my account didn't overdraft at all. He asked me about the store charges. I calmly explained to him, like he was some kind of child, that I didn't take that money out of the account - they did. The look on his face told me that I had him dead to rights. He said that the money I take out of my account includes transactions that I authorize. So, I told him that if he added up all of the transactions I authorized, I still wouldn't have gone under. He said that he'd have to add up all checks I wrote out to my name AND the ones I authorized. It was total bullshit, and I told him so. I said THAT'S BULLSHIT, YOU JUST REDEFINED IT TO MEAN ONLY TRANSACTIONS I AUTHORIZED. It was at this point that he called security. He probably didn't want all the other customers to know the bank's dirty little secret.

This is where I got my victory, so read carefully. Before the security guy could mosey his way on over, I pulled my gun and pointed it at the bank manager. I demanded they give me all my overdraft fees back. Knowing I was right, they complied. All the customers were enthralled with my ability to stand up for their rights. Some were even crying, they were so happy. I left that bank with all the erroneous overdraft fees in hand and I never looked back.

Sometimes when I tell this story, people tell me that I robbed a bank at gunpoint when in fact, I stood up to tyranny and got my refund. I once told a police officer this story and he said that he remembers the case and that even the bank agreed that the $70 I walked away with wasn't worth anyone's time. I know he's lying. It's really because I lawfully collected my refund.

VICTORY!

[Brandybuck]

FACT: CtC works. I'm proof. I'm a lawful non-taxpayer with no issues. Thanks for providing the venue Jay.

You're like the guy who jumped off the Empire State Building, and while passing the 56th floor yelled out "The CtC lets you fly! It works! I'm proof!"

[Brandybuck]

This story points out why I want a limited government. Most people are idiots, and I don't want idiots to have power. There are drawbacks to a minimalist government, but I am not convinced that they outweigh the huge cost of handing the courts, police and legislatures to the idiot class.

A political system that only works when intelligent men are in office is a system that will be perpetually broken.

[Lorax]

This story points out why I want a limited government.

We have a limited government already if you're an American, though it's apparently not as limited as you'd like it to be. As for most people being idiots, while that may or may not be true, I think someone quoted in the article suggests that while the best educated people may be wrong less of the time, it is even harder to change their minds when the facts just don't line up with their worldview.

Also I'm not clear on what you think the proper alternative is to avoid having legislatures that are elected by the "idiot class."