New Study finds that you are absolutely correct

Post Reply New Topic

WASHINGTON - A new study from the prestigious Wolfrum Alpha Research Squad has confirmed what most people already believe - that they are absolutely correct on all issues and would be foolish to listen to opposing viewpoints.

"After years of intense research, we believe our conclusions are faultless," said lead researcher William "Buzz" Wolfrum. "Just like everyone's opinions."

The research used by the group was "all-encompassing" and used biorhythms, charts, algorithms, graphs and a slide show. The end result confirmed what most already believed to be true - that they are absolutely correct.

"This is fantastic news and shows that, yes, we've been right all along," said film reviewer and political pundit Michael Medved. "And it proves that listening to each other is a stupid concept."

While the Wolfrum Alpha team has published its findings and feels confident in the results ("Of course, we're right," said Wolfrum) there has been some confusion regarding thought conflict. How could two or more conflicting thoughts be correct? Wolfrum said the answer is simple.

"It's like that 'Seinfeld' episode where George said the trick to get through a lie-detector test was to 'believe your lie was true.'" said Wolfrum. "It's the exact same principle."

The research team also pointed to newspaper reporting, where all theories are given equal credibility even when one side seems spectacularly incorrect. This phenomena, known as "Just Type, Don't Think," has helped many Americans accept the fact that whatever it is they believe, it's more than likely true, regardless of reality. Wolfrum added that the research proved that the United States was on the correct path.

"Right now in the U.S., there are millions and millions of people who are positive that they are correct, whether it be about religion, sports or politics," said Wolfrum. "And they all are correct and shouldn't have to listen to other equally correct opinions.

What ever happened to Mad Magazine?

That is great sinsboldly. Thanks.

Sand, mad magazine got tacky, overly sexualized and not-at-all-funny.

What's sad about this in the realm of politics is its less about people in general not wanting to know the truth, the problem is the news media, the information available out there, all horribly obfuscated under the weight of this kind of drivel. People might actually understand things and change their minds if the information was presented professionally, was proven to add up, instead you get a lot of moodiness, a lot of name-calling, and the elites seem to think people are allergic to logic which makes them throw out even more of this garbage. They think very little of the people, treat em like mushrooms (keep em in the dark and feed them a lot of manure), the prophecy self-fulfills from that point forward.

The added benefit of giving equal treatment to a view that's blatantly wrong is it destroys a person's confidence in their own internal radar if they know better; meaning that those who are are too demoralized to do much.

I know, right?

What happened to the days when the news was delivered to you unbiased and unopinionated?? Now everything news related seems a little too "editorial" for my tastes. Formerly, news anchors shared a creed of impartiality conjoined with dead-pan expressions meant to convey an unspoken equality; now we have Glenn Beck boiling frogs and Keith Obermann saluting Mission Accomplished to the previous administration. It's all really insulting.

And Merle, I'm only right approximately 90% of the time. You should have made better options.

Of course I think my opinion is the right one on everything, If I didn't I would change it.

I don't go so far though to ignore other peoples opinions (well, maybe some people) and every now and then I hear something that leads me to the conclusion that I am holding the wrong opinion, but then I immediately change it and I am holding the right opinion again.

I will share my opinions with other people but I will not try to force them on them. If I get the impression that other people are not listining to my opinions (which is most of the time) I stop talking to them.

uh. . .when was that? just because they were deadpanned doesn't mean that we heard unbiased and unopinionated news in the 40's 50's etc. I remember scrapbooks my mother made from the Second World War that would curl your hair about how the Japanese were demonized as buck toothed slant eyed evil yellow monsters. . .



Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann are infotainment, Averick, not journalists. Now, Christiane Amanpour is a journalist.



oh, that is too honest for the poll, Averick, better luck next time!

Merle

For those of us who have been here long enough to remember when Ragtime used to start polls in PPR; does this bring back any memories?

Editted to add:
And for those of us who have not been here that long here is a link to one of his last ones. It gets interesting a few pages in when he starts arguing with a moderator about changing the poll

Last edited by NobelCynic on 25 Sep 2009, 11:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

In either case, the bird is the word.

I voted just show me the results because I can actually admit when I'm wrong and more driven by results than opinion alone.

I like this response.

well, if the study shows that I am always correct, then I have to assume I am correct 100% of the time, glad to know that, it boosts my self esteem somehow, I realise I can trust myself.

Time and circumstance are not particularly kind to people who are totally smug. They end up dead more often and faster than those willing to have doubts and preparing for unsuspected occurrence.

papa um mau mau, a papa um mau mau mau. . .

We all end up dead, none more often than others . . .

Not true. A friend of mine has died at least three or four times already, and he's still young. Though contrary to Sand's claims, his deaths have not been a result of smugness.