Why do delusional people put FACTS in caps?

A friend sent this along, inviting me to comment on it. I sent back a short reply, but decided it might be useful to do a slightly longer one. The quoted material (wandering around facebook, apparently) is pretty typical of a way of arguing that I run across a lot. It's closely associated with train wrecks in public deliberation--basically, it's a good example of how *not* to think, write, or argue about politics.

What strikes me about this method of "arguing" (it's really about asserting, and not even arguments) is that people who engage in it always insist on FACTS (and they almost always capitalize that word) when their own argument is singularly short on "facts," at least as defined by logicians, argumentation theorists, philosophers, lawyers, or anyone who thinks carefully about the issues of epistemology, ontology, and discourse. Loosely, there are various different ways that people in various fields define the term "fact." I'm not advocating any particular one, just pointing out that this kind of discourse doesn't rely on "facts" for its conclusions by *any* of the definitions. And that's interesting (I speculate below why people like this insist so strongly on FACTS when they don't actually use any to reach their conclusions).

1. A statement about external reality (that is, not about the subjective state of an individual) that can be seen by anyone who observes the phenomena. A statement about reality that you believe strongly, but is not shared by all observers, is an opinion, not a fact. The statement must be accepted as an accurate representation of reality by *all* observers, not just ones who agree with the conclusion.
   
2. A statement about external reality (again, not about the personal beliefs of an individual or even community) that can be falsified or verified through an appeal to criteria not particular to the situation (for instance, by some appeal to standards that apply across ingroup/outgroup membership).
   
3. A statement about an observable phenomenon to which people who are impartial (that is, have no stand on the issue) agree.
   
4. A statement to which all interlocutors agree (this is the legal definition, and it means a statement to which parties will stipulate).
   
5. A statement to which all observers agree (by this definition, a fact is not necessarily true, just not worth arguing about).
   

Most of the screed is opinion, and not about facts. Quite a few of the assertions are counterfactual (aka, not "facts" because they are false statements), some involve what could be called "facts" (at least by one of the definitions) but are unrelated to the conclusion the author (I assume either a woman or a gay man, since Romney stirs a fire in the author's pants [see the first argument], so I don't know if male or female--I'll call the author Terry, a nice, gender-neutral name that I like) draws. The main issue with the argument is that it appeals to premises I doubt Terry actually believes.

Okay, here is the screed:

I invite any arguments to these FACTS. I do not invite anything arguments with anything other than the subjects and statements posted. If you have to stray from what is on here, then I already know you know what is on here is true, or you'd stay with the subject.

It's a little unclear what "the subject" is--presumably, anyone who tries to argue about Romney's policies? And, of course, if that is the argument, it factually incorrect, and I doubt even the author agrees with the premise. The premise is: if you change the subject, it is because you agree with the assertions. Of course, a person might actually think the assertions are trivial, incoherent, are on the wrong stasis, or raise other issues.

If I were to say to Terry, if you change the subject (which I will decide if you have done), that means you agree with me, I doubt Terry would grant me those conditions.

TODAY'S MUST READ AND PAST ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! Why Mitt Romney is Unlikable! A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being "likable" or that he doesn't "relate well" to people. Frankly, we struggled to understand why. So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this "unlikablility." Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney:
1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.

Opinion, not a fact. It isn't something to which a neutral observer would agree, nor to which all interlocutors agree.

Probably more important, it appeals to a premise that is factually incorrect (and which I doubt Terry believes): that whether a person warms Terry's groin is even relevant to a person's being a good President. Plenty of terrible Presidents were good-looking (I don't know whether they would turn on Terry, since I don't know Terry's standards, but many people found them attractive). I doubt, for instance, that Terry would think that a President who raised taxes eleven times, tripled the deficit, increased unemployment, apologized for American repeatedly (he went on what some people call "the apology tour"), signed pro-choice legislation, and "ballooned" federal spending was a good President, right? Or that one who got the US into unnecessary wars, had such irresponsible money practices that he caused one of the worst panics and depressions, thoroughly politicized government hiring, and used the power of the government to destroy opposition political parties? (Granted, he threw mud in the faces of people who advocated state nullification of federal laws, which Terry may or may not like.) Both tremendously handsome men.Meanwhile, people like Lincoln and Eisenhower were not movie star good-looking. Nixon was ugly, and Clinton handsome. So, since Terry likes issuing challenges, here's a challenge: admit the criterion is irrelevant, or say that Eisenhower was not a good President.

2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.

Well, I suppose that makes him a better man than Reagan, Eisenhower, FDR, Bush, Gingrich, Jefferson, and, well, most Presidents. But, no better than Obama.

3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)

Factually incorrect. Huge skeletons about what happened with Bain while he was taking money from them as CEO. There is also the issue of where he paid taxes when he voted in Massachussetts. (Can you say voter fraud?) Speaking of voter fraud, he hired a group that had already been caught repeatedly destroying Dem registration cards--do you want to call that intimidation or just corruption? And, of course, all that money he hid in Switzerland to evade taxes. Then there are all the lies he has told--about himself and his positions and Obama. There is all that bailout money he took (including re Detroit), his record of bullying gays, impersonating cops, evading Vietnam...and, well, seriously, too many to list. So, many, many skeletons.

4. Can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary.

Factually incorrect. Of course he can.

5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School...and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.

Factually incorrect. Terry has been listening to Limbaugh and the GOP noise machine which have been claiming that Obama's records are "sealed." Well, either Obama's aren't, or Romney's are. I don't care which way you call it, but you have to call it one way or the other. All academic records are private, and can't be released without the person's permission. Neither Obama nor Romney has released their academic records, as far as I know. (I also don't know how many people graduate cum laude per year--I think Terry is confusing cum laude with either magna or summa cum laude.) So, if Obama's academic records are "sealed," then so are Romney's.Btw, I think this is a cunning use of racist codewords. Academic records aren't sealed, but juvenile criminal records are. I think this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the GOP Noise Machine to associate Obama with criminality, 'cuz he's black. Terry's use of the word "sealed," and his/her failure to notice that Romney's are just as "sealed" (if you want "sealed" records, let's talk about Bush's) shows this strategy works with people like Terry.

6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today's America?

Well, a negative is non-falsifiable, so this only fits a few definitions of fact, but certainly this appeals to a premise I doubt Terry believes--that such characteristics are desirable in a President, since no Presidents would fit this criteria. I mean, if Terry wants to say that Washington was a terrible President, s/he can go for it.

7. Represents an America of "yesterday", where people believed in God, went to Church, didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!

I'm particularly interested in this topos in people who insist on FACTS. Of course , this is all counterfactual--it's false even on the face of it (everyone became a success?). It's an appeal to nostalgia, to a belief about how things used to be. And, anyone with a shallow knowledge of history knows image of the past isn't true--belief in God has waxed and waned in the US, as has church attendance (which is high right now), premarital and extramarital sex also wax and wane, and working hard didn't always lead to people being a success. But, if Terry really thinks things used to be better, s/he can enjoy defending slavery and segregation. I wait with bated breath.So, just to be clear: not facts, but false assertions.

8. Has a family of five great sons....and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn.

Hey, just like Obama! Unless Terry thinks that having two daughters isn't as good as having sons. But, surely, Terry isn't a sexist bigot? And, of course, Jenna Bush did get busted for underage drinking and having a fake id. So, Terry thinks Bush wasn't fit to be President?

9. Oh yes.....he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.

I am SO glad that Terry thinks fear-mongering about religion is stupid. I do too. Oh, wait, Terry engages in it. So, Terry appeals to a premise s/he doesn't believe.

10. And one more point.....pundits say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that's because he made that money HIMSELF.....as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn't understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unrelatable to Americans

Straw man. And sheer opinion. Actually, not even as informed as opinion. Terry has NO (the caps were for you, Terry) idea how Romney made his money. I want to emphasize that: Terry is making a claim on the basis of no evidence whatsoever because Romney has deliberately ensured that no one can have that evidence. And Terry says no skeletons? Really?No one knows about Romney's source of income, because, unlike every other recent Presidential candidate, he won't release his taxes--because the skeletons are rattling hard. So, Terry is kind of lying by claiming to have knowledge s/he doesn't have.

And then we get what these sorts of people do really often--a series of items (some of which really are facts) but are logically unrelated to any claim Terry seems to be making.

. ****************************** *********************** Personal Information: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old. His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan He was raised in Bloomfield Hills , Michigan He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children. Education: B.A. from Brigham Young University, J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University Religion: Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints Working Background: After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.
After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney.
In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States.
In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.
He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.
Some Interesting Facts about Romney: Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.
Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel,Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama,Home Depot Supply and many others.
He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year.
He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years.
He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years.
He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.
He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.
He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.
Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.
And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income.... Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.
Mitt Romney is Trustworthy: He will show us his birth certificate He will show us his high school and college transcripts. He will show us his social security card. He will show us his law degree. He will show us his draft notice. He will show us his medical records. He will show us his income tax records. He will show us he has nothing to hide. Mitt Romney's background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States.
You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won't desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility. I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won't like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney's background can do it. But, on the minus side, he never was a "Community Organizer", never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US.

This is a field day of unrelated and sometimes false statements, but I'll just mention the end--Terry knows what religion Obama is (Christian), assuming that Terry's knowledge is even remotely related to facts. The current regime hasn't gotten us into this debt--Bush did that (and that is a fact), with exactly the policies that Romney says he will follow. (You can dispute whether that is a fact, since one could plausibly argue that I have no more idea what Romney will actually do than Terry has any idea about how Romney made his money--we're both making wild guesses, because Romney won't say.) Romney's background doesn't make him able to handle the government; he can't do what he did at Bain (I'm not sure whether that's opinion or false claim on Terry's part). Terry needs to know more about the American Family Association; and keep in mind that Falwell said God had damned America. Various pastors at the "Values" summit Romney attended have made statements easily as extreme as Wright. Obama criticized Wright; has Romney criticized Robertson, Fischer, the FRI, FRC, or NARTH?Okay, so this is all a long way of saying that Terry has a lot of opinions, and no coherent argument (that is, the evidence doesn't merit the claims) and basically is saying, "OBAMA BLARGH!!!!! I LIKE ROMNEY!!!!" So, it's all opinion, a lot of irrelevant factoids, and a lot of lies. So, why does someone whose argument has no basis in fact put fact in caps? That's what I've noticed over and over. (And not just with Romney supporters--not all of whom are this disconnected from reality, and some of whom can make arguments grounded in facts, but they don't put FACTS in caps.) The people whose arguments are least connected to facts are the ones most likely to put the term in caps. Okay, so here are some notions people have tossed out.

• projection. They know, deep in their heart of hearts, that their beliefs have no basis in reality, and so engage in defensive projection.
• the Big Lie. They know, deep in their heart of hearts, that their beliefs have no basis in reality, and hope to persuade others to share them through insisting on how true they are. So, calling their beliefs (a mix of opinions and false statements) FACTS is a kind of braggadocio, hoping to cover how weak their case is.
• they really don't think in terms of external reality. That is, for them, a "fact" is a belief they hold strongly. They only engage in deductive reasoning, and therefore mean, by the word "fact," something like "a statement that must be true if my other beliefs are true." That means they are authoritarians, politically and epistemologically. Research says that people like this are wrong more than others, and wrong in the same ways (because they can't learn from their mistakes). They are especially wrong about themselves, often rewriting their own personal history in order to make their own sense of self coherent (that is, they can't admit they made mistakes, so simply claim they never made them).
• they are "social knowers." That is, they judge the accuracy of a statement by the extent to which people like them say these things. So, they sincerely believe that these statements MUST be true, since people like them say so. 

There is some research that suggests people tend to get more like this as they age--this position is cognitively easier (since it dismisses uncertainty) than various other positions, and people increasingly avoid cognitively challenging situations as they age.

Anyway, here's your long answer.