Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
newyorker.com
Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
1–10 of 347 posts
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#2I find that subtitle a bit strange. It implies that the article is talking about the limitations of 'reasoning' as traditionally conceived, but the article is more about how human reasoning in practice isn't like the traditional notion of reasoning.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#3The described permanence of lies even after they are revealed as such really lends weight (dare I say credit?) to the tactics of fake news and propaganda in general.
The value of being the first to form an impression of an event, law, etc. on someone even if that impression will later be proven false just can't be overstated.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#4Here's an application of our faulty, socially-dependent reason: Health care is a right, yes or no? Please explain your reasoning.
The article mentions ACA so my proposal should not be too off-topic.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#5I find that subtitle a bit strange. It implies that the article is talking about the limitations of 'reasoning' as traditionally conceived, but the article is more about how human reasoning in practice isn't like the traditional notion of reasoning.
I think you are substituting reasoning with deduction.
Reasoning is the human process of deciding what one ought do. Deduction is a mechanical process of discovering what follows from axioms.
Human reasoning is often fails by not being perfectly deductive.
I'll grant that you might think I'm nitpicking on definitions.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#6I find that subtitle a bit strange. It implies that the article is talking about the limitations of 'reasoning' as traditionally conceived, but the article is more about how human reasoning in practice isn't like the traditional notion of reasoning.
I think you are substituting reasoning with deduction. Reasoning is the human process of deciding what one ought do. Deduction is a mechanical process of discovering what follows from axioms. Human reasoning is often fails by not being perfectly deductive. I'll grant that you might think I'm nitpicking on definitions.
Not that I suppose it matters that much, but I mean reasoning not deduction
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#7Have these studies actually been replicated? I find it interesting how even after a lot of psychology has been called into question due to the replication crisis, a lot of news outlets still try to use studies based mostly on how many clicks it will generate.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#8The source of confirmation bias is explained as evolutionary mechanism that developed capacity for reasoning not for critical thinking but for purpose of arguing and getting others to do our bidding. In that context it would make sense to protect our own opinion from inconvenient things such as facts.
> "This is one of many cases in which the environment changed too quickly for natural selection to catch up."
How can we as a society fix this? If we educated our kids about confirmation bias (and some other cognitive biases) and taught them how to compensate for shortcomings of their minds, would next generation grow up to be more reasonable? If so, shouldn't this be a high priority of educational system?
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#9Here's an application of our faulty, socially-dependent reason: Health care is a right, yes or no? Please explain your reasoning. The article mentions ACA so my proposal should not be too off-topic.
I think the discourse about "rights" is part of the problem in US politics, it makes the default mode of reasoning about ideology, rather than outcomes.
The government should be in the healthcare business since the nature of the service precludes a functional market.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#10Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message.
Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrust the message just because it's been repeated so often.
This is an easy thing to do with conversations on subjects like guns where the key of slanting the message is based on subtle wording changes that allow you to leave out some data or include other data. The person presenting their information thinks they have "facts" because they see numbers that support their point of view without knowing what's been left out.
I seem to remember a github repo that was posted to HN a couple of years back that did exactly that. They showed the same data set and presented 3 different ways with 3 entirely different conclusions.