![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldToday's [FORUM] question can be best considered an extension of my [FORUM] post here at Livejournal last Monday:
How, as writers and/or readers, do you deal with the frustrations of coming across a piece of analysis--statistics, an essay, a source, anything--that is unlikely to be acted upon, irrespective of the analysis' relevance, simply because the analysis both speaks to the converted and is unable to convert members of opposing camps on the grounds of those camps' investments in their worldviews? Do you think it worth the effort to try to spread the word? Or is there virtue in abandoning a futile task and just being content that you know, at least, what's really going on?
How, as writers and/or readers, do you deal with the frustrations of coming across a piece of analysis--statistics, an essay, a source, anything--that is unlikely to be acted upon, irrespective of the analysis' relevance, simply because the analysis both speaks to the converted and is unable to convert members of opposing camps on the grounds of those camps' investments in their worldviews? Do you think it worth the effort to try to spread the word? Or is there virtue in abandoning a futile task and just being content that you know, at least, what's really going on?
