“When there’s a conflict between partisan beliefs and plain evidence, it’s the beliefs that win. “

Published: September 23, 2013 at 4:19pm

One of the most mystifying aspects of political behaviour in Malta – to me, at least – is the way a solid core of at least 45% of the Maltese electorate kept right on voting Labour throughout even when they were able to make a direct comparison and see, touch, feel and experience as reality the fact that life became incomparably better as a result of the changes brought about by the policies of one Nationalist government after another. Another thing that mystifies me now is the way they can experience the fact that life is better as a result of EU membership, and even while they are maximising the benefits for themselves, they hold close to their anti-EU beliefs and say that we should never have joined.

I think this article offers something of an explanation – Researcher finds the most depressing discovery about the brain ever




23 Comments Comment

  1. el bandido guapo says:

    Nothing to be surprised about. Just look at religion and the belief in something that there has never, ever, in the history of humanity or prior, been any proof of its existence that will stand up to even the most basic of standards.

    Probably a majority of persons “decide” to believe something, and manipulate their reasoning and their interpretation of what they call “evidence” to fit their preconceived beliefs.

    By logical thinking alone, any numpty would write off the existence of any god in two minutes.

    If anyone reading this disagrees, that’s fine, you have plenty of company. But it’s not like I care, so if you want to convert me, I am fully open to receiving the evidence, and I am just as open to being convinced, unlike you.

    Religion, politics, whatever, same difference.

  2. Xejn b' xejn says:

    Usually at this time of the year one of my biggest problems is finding sufficient, experienced team members to join the company I work for as most of the temps go back to school etc.

    This year I have 120 C.Vs in front of me and most of them are 40+ desperate for any job.

    This government will have serious job creation problems. I said it once and will say it again: I prefer paying more for my electricity bill rather than receiving a 25% reduced bill, but not having a job. National statistics do not lie.

  3. Nighthawk says:

    It’s even worse. 77% of Maltese say that we benefitted from joining the EU.

    Assuming ALL PN & AD voters think this way (not a given), then it means that 58% of Labour voters believe that for 33 years the Labour Party campaigned against EU membership and were consistently wrong in their judgement. And yet they continue to vote for them.

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130906/local/77-believe-malta-benefitted-from-eu-membership.485066

  4. Edward says:

    I totally agree. In Malta, when discussing politics, it’s never facts that get discussed, just one counter-hypothesis after counter-hypothesis. Nothing gets resolved.

    I also think that in Malta’s case, the problem is more than partisan politics. I believe it is a problem of identity.

    Malta has no charismatic founder. We don’t have that one thing we all agree on, that set of values that makes us Maltese. If we did, judging present politicians would be much easier, in a way.

    There is, in that respect, a bit of a power vacuum. Mintoff tried to fill it. The Labour Party still tries to fill it. But their value system is so corrupt and inept that it always results in catastrophe. So why do people still vote for them? Why didn’t we see a total rejection of those value systems? I believe it is because of people’s desire to see the Labour Party be the measure of Malta.

    I believe Muscat is trying out a Chinese style of Socialism. You can disagree with them, but that’s all you can do. That disagreement cannot manifest itself into action or words because they have managed to label anyone who does that as a threat to the unity of the country or better still, as “negative”.

    Bring up any reason not to vote Labour, like human rights abuses and violations, communism etc, and they accuse you of promoting division.

    I think Muscat is trying to slowly work towards a one-party nation, just like China, because in his eyes only the Labour Party really represents the Maltese.

    The Nationalist Party held back from certain choices because they work within a value system which prevents them from doing so. Like, for example, capitalizing on the Arab Spring by taking their tourists.

    The Labour Party can’t understand why one would allow a value to stand in the way of action, no matter how wrong that action is. They don’t see that as integrity but as stupidity.

    However it is the PN’s value system that has brought about stability and unity in Malta all these years. Something that makes the PL core voters seethe, because they just don’t want the PN to be the ones to do that. They just don’t.

    • Alexander Ball says:

      Bollocks.

      Muscat has no deep thinking skills.

      It’s all about grab what you can in the five years before they get kicked out.

      • Edward says:

        I think he’s a little bit smarter than that. Don’t forget, the bankers and traders of Wall Street and The City did exactly the same thing, but they were very smart about it.

      • Alexander Ball says:

        Muscat is nothing.

        Complains about no Maltese translations in the EU and all the while he boasts about his Phd, from an English university, written in English.

        He takes the laziest route every time.

        We need cheap oil? Go begging to Libya.

        We need cheap electric? Go begging to China.

        He’s not worth the drips off my chopper.

      • it-Tezi ta' Mario says:

        What makes you so sure that the thesis presented in Muscat’s name is actually his?

      • Tabatha White says:

        I agree, Edward.

        Ordinary logic is concerned with truth.

        The New Logic of Joseph Muscat was supposedly concerned with what was meant to be practicality and values, but has turned out to be totally lacking on both fronts, as expected.

        He is building a logic on ‘maybe.’ ‘Is’ and ‘is not’ are of no concern to this breed that promote possibilities based on myth and probabilities based on ‘likely’ and ‘unlikely.’

        Can you build a logic on ‘maybe?’

        Ordinary logic can be used … sometimes.

        Otherwise there is “logic 2.”

        All they need to look for are things that flow in that direction.

        What we need to be aware of now are the following:

        Energy of flow

        Inclination and direction: Roads, slopes, reverse slopes

        Barriers

        Energy Absorbers

        Change factors (deliberate) (not deliberate)

        From there one would need to identify the resultant changes, effects and evolutions. etc. eg latitudes, such as relationships, same groups, differences, interaction, similarities, connections and comparisons etc. and longitudes such as identities and things..

  5. Francis Saliba MD says:

    What the article proves to me is that it is about time that we stopped blabbing about “Only in Malta …..” and that ” tutto mondo e’ paese”.

  6. Alexander Ball says:

    In some families, an old painting or a mouldy antique bureau get passed down from generation to generation. In Malta, it’s voting habits that get passed down.

    They hate the PN with a passion. Yet will never criticise Labour, even if they adopt PN policies.

    They will now happily embrace John Dalli, but for years he was mocked as Johnny Cash.

    I see this first-hand on a daily basis: PL = good, PN = bad.

    Thank god for the floating voters.

  7. Jozef says:

    When the language happens to be a contradictory arrangement of Semitic phonetics shoehorned onto Latin script, instead of having the latter honing the former, no wonder self-evident truth is disabled.

    Maltese as it is, If I may, inguardabile, only serves illiteracy and indolence. Having its sole lifeline stunted, this place remains crippled.

    There’s a symbolic reason behind Labour’s allergy to the interconnector and pipeline.

    • Nighthawk says:

      Respectfully, that’s a load of bloody bollocks. An illiterate redneck is an illiterate redneck, whatever language (obviously generally only one, and badly) he speaks, irrespective of which script it’s written in and whether the script forms the language or vice versa.

      Our population is at an earlier stage of development so we have a greater % of illiterate rednecks – the problem is they think they can think for themselves so they’re busy voting for a bunch of slightly less illiterate rednecks.

      Note that my definition of illiterate redneck is broad enough to cover quite a few University of Malta graduates, the numbers of which I see the university is doing its best to increase (see separate thread about lowering entry requirements for the law course).

      • Tabatha White says:

        Language forms perceptions, ideas, associations and filters. Maltese – properly taught and properly valued – could be a gem of a language, as it is for many. What we are seeing is the brash display of a limited grasp and bastardised use of a language, its grammar, its register and syntax, and with that the limitations descend.

  8. marks says:

    The line that summarises it all: When there’s a conflict between partisan beliefs and plain evidence, it’s the beliefs that win.

  9. marks says:

    Sorry – I read the article but did not realise that my comment was already heading your post. My apologies.

  10. Natalie says:

    Just look at “Il-Partnership Rebah”.

  11. Frankie's Barrage says:

    Why do people vote Labour? I think you yourself answered the question in your article in The Malta Independent last Sunday.

    It is because Labour’s approach to politics reflects the worst aspects of the Maltese character: egotism, self-promotion, cheating, getting preferential treatment, corruption, graft, spite, envy, jealousy, negativity and so on.

    I always found it difficult to accept that persons who I considered as rational and intelligent could vote Labour. When I thought about their personality (as distinct from their intelligence) it then made sense.

    Some however are simply too uneducated to be able to vote otherwise.

    [Daphne – I always link people’s voting preferences to their personality and general attitude rather than to their intelligence or socio-educational background, always. Because of this, I can generally work out within minutes, if not seconds, how people vote. And the fact is the reverse of what Labour propaganda would have us believe: it is those who favour Labour who have a negative attitude (resentment and a sense of being hard done by) while those who favour the PN tend to have a positive attitude towards success and achievement, even in others. That’s why I had written way back that both Franco Debono and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando are Laburisti despite being elected on the PN ticket, and I turned out to be correct despite their frenzied hysteria and accusations. ]

  12. Kif inhi din? says:

    Interesting research paper.

    If I may go off on a tangent – the placebo effect is only possible because of the belief that something will have a positive effect. By contrast psychosomatic conditions can occur.

    I think there are two types of people: those who act in response to their emotions without actually processing their thoughts; and those who think things through rationally before acting. No amount of education changes this innate behaviour.

  13. PWG says:

    That the Nationalists managed to govern the country for close on 26 years at a stretch is nothing short of a miracle.

    With a solid base of 45% voting Labour, whatever, the Nationalist can only hope to win the next election by default.

    Labour’s first six months in power are encouraging. If they remain consistent for the remainder of the term, then the Nationalists may start hoping again.

  14. Lawrence Attard says:

    Well, intuitively we have known about this all along, haven’t we? Nothing new here.

    Human behaviour is not driven by reason and numbers alone, but also, indeed mostly, by the whole gamut of emotions, some of which may seem totally absurd but all of which are, by definition, irrational.

    Tradition, belief systems, political allegiance, family ties, the whole lot. I mean, who in their right mind would enter into a committed relationship, a risky endeavour at best, on the basis of reason alone?

    Unless, of course it is an arranged (and rational) marriage of convenience! Why would anybody even remotely consider reproducing, thus bringing more mere mortals into this horrid, unjust world? And how could any moderately intelligent person believe that humankind was saved, albeit after some hundreds of thousands of years of earthly existence, simply by having a man securely nailed to a tree?

    Alas, try as we might we remain irrational creatures, and in some ways perhaps we should. I mean, we could conceivably reduce to mere numbers Beethoven’s Sonata Pathétique (sound frequencies, intervals and decibels) or Van Goch’s Sunflowers (light frequencies and pixels), but to do so would be missing the point.

    The real problem is that the manipulators of this world know our weaknesses and act upon them for gain, power, or both: I refer to politicians, trade unionists, religious leaders, media moguls and, of course, marketing practitioners.

Leave a Comment