Assumptions

What is it about people, that allows them to form a set of assumptions with little or no support then to use those assumptions as the basis to make assertions which they expect others to accept.

For example, I listened to bits of Hillary's interview with the CNN reporter.   I was honestly surprised that the reporter asked some specific, tough questions and then followed them up.

What didn't surprise me was the Hillary did not answer any of them.  She just trotted out the same old lame talking points "vast right wing conspiracy", "just because someone says something, you have to ask questions", etc.      At one point, she flat out lied about the number of "devices" she had while SECSTATE (hint: she has already said that she had a Blackberry for official business and an iPhone for personal).

The point here is that her response is not based on the facts of the situation, or on a desire to actually answer that question.  It's based on the fact that her supporters will accept uncritically these talking points because their underlying assumptions condition them to do so.  While at the same time Hillary's underlying assumption is that anything that diverts attention from her and blames her "enemies" is what people really want to hear, not actual answers to actual questions.

I have also seen this recently on Facebook, the fact that people will uncritically post a comment or meme from someone simply because they assume that the content is correct, not because they checked it out, but because they agree with the person they got it from.

I suspect that we are all guilty of this to some degree.  I myself have pointed out when my opinions on a particular matter might be driven by my underlying assumptions and not by principle or the desire to be intellectually consistent.   I'm pretty confident that we all have this desire.

But how do we respond when those assumptions are directly and specifically challenged?

Do we take the time to go back and examine our assumptions, and are we able to provide some rational reasons why those assumptions should be assumed?

Do we, as I have done, sometimes admit that our assumptions are not always consistent and explain why?

Do we simply continue to assume that our assumptions are correct and ignore challanges to them?

At some point probably all of the above.

 Where it becomes problematic is when someone defines the terms of a discussion on the basis of their personal assumptions without providing any  sort of support that explains why their particular assumptions should be accepted as the basis for any conversation.   From that point it becomes difficult to move forward if there is no willingness to actually discuss and support those assumptions.    

I suspect that a lot of it comes down the the fact that it is just easier to operate on the basis that your assumptions are correct, and that they make sense for everyone else as well, and an unwillingness to actually put forth the effort to reexamine and support your assumptions.   So, it seems as if the default position is to just ignore it when those assumptions are questioned.