The question above was asked by a friend of mine, who had just read an article by a political opponent. The article was full of facts, details, generalisations and references. And yet, according to my friend, the conclusion was completely insane.
Funnily enough, there is a certain negative correlation between the number of facts presented and good judgement.
If one gets a political idea, one sometimes gets hooked up. One talks about it to friends and strangers and tries to convince them. And the more one has tried to convince others, the more difficult it is to admit defeat and change opinion.
So to back up one's opinion, one looks up facts supporting it. Lots of facts. Anywhere. The more facts you have to back it up, the better you feel about it. Of course, your selection of facts is heavily biased, as you only are looking for things backing up your side.
If your opinion had been sound to start with, it is likely that you could have promoted it without obscure facts, but here an emergency fact collection is necessary.
Then you sit down to write an article promoting your views. Of course you use your knowledge - your facts. List them. Stress them. Repeat them. The reader is fairly likely to be impressed by the amount of information, and he will adopt your opinion himself.
If you want further proof that the sheer number of facts does not correspond to the author's judgement, just read this blog again. Here is not one single fact, and yet I am absolutely right.
No comments:
Post a Comment