Could somebody link the original study the author is referencing ?
Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
141–150 of 347 posts
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#142The issue isn't facts. The issue is our worldview. If it is a binary worldview (Good vs Evil) then what we don't agree with is always bad/evil (Black Hat Cowboy) and what we do agree is good/good (White Hat Cowboy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_white_hat_symbolism_... So when our side makes a mistake we defend and spin till it is okay for us to still think of them as wearing a White Cowboy Hat. Anything go…
>I feel that people have gotten more and more binary and we need more shades of gray What about people who think we need more binary thinking and fewer shades of gray? How do you even form a nuanced (gray) argument against that kind of dogmatism? Where do you draw the line against line-drawing without being hypocritical? This isn't just rhetorical: this is a problem we're struggling with as a society. People are inte…
The hidden lesson of 1984 is there is no answer once identity politics are in play.
"Four legs good, two legs bad." is already past the point of no return and there is no "a society" as you quote but two battling for supremacy.
Historically we have little evidence of solutions other than civil wars.
Asking how to roll back identity politics without a physical war is like debating strategies to avoid nuclear war after the missiles have launched but before the mushroom clouds form. Its a little too late for that and there really isn't any point in wasting limited time in trying to roll back or blamestorming in circular firing squads.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…
And amazingly, someone with skin in the game can also be wrong despite years of experience and training.
I have a background in Nuclear Physics. One of the major themes was that Physicists recognize that they are humans, and that they make human mistakes. The take active steps to double-check their assumptions. To have independent third parties check their work, so that bias is avoided.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#144One small interesting point was the test where people were given their own answers (but not told) and were more critical of them.
This almost seems natural based on my viewing of code. Sometimes you don't know who wrote the code, or made a change, etc. Every line is suspect. I find that I'm best at debugging when my code when at the end I say "who wrote this crap? oh it was me."
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#145The issue isn't facts. The issue is our worldview. If it is a binary worldview (Good vs Evil) then what we don't agree with is always bad/evil (Black Hat Cowboy) and what we do agree is good/good (White Hat Cowboy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_white_hat_symbolism_... So when our side makes a mistake we defend and spin till it is okay for us to still think of them as wearing a White Cowboy Hat. Anything go…
>I feel that people have gotten more and more binary and we need more shades of gray What about people who think we need more binary thinking and fewer shades of gray? How do you even form a nuanced (gray) argument against that kind of dogmatism? Where do you draw the line against line-drawing without being hypocritical? This isn't just rhetorical: this is a problem we're struggling with as a society. People are inte…
Where do you draw the line against line-drawing without being hypocritical?
You challenge their support. Continue to push them to draw more lines, until they've drawn so many lines that they're all alone inside their fence. Try to convince them that no one matches up to their worldview, not even their family and not even themselves.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't think I was disagreeing... can you expand on what you are seeing?
The way I parsed your comment: there are so many bad arguments possible even for good ideas that if you see people use a bad argument for their idea, it doesn't mean there isn't a good argument instead that can replace it. Then, you'd think good arguments would get accepted more universally than bad arguments, but probably not. Is it even in the same ballpark?
That sounds right. How is that in conflict with what you said? I saw it as expanding on the reasons to reject the "bad heuristic" under discussion.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#147You are not so smart podcast did a great 3 parter on this topic.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/
#93, #94, #95
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#148Here'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.
Sorry, I guess where I was going was when someone defines something as a right, they should be able to explain how they arrived at that conclusion.
For instance, if you believe that we have a right to live, and healthcare has some relation to life, then haelthcare might arguably be a right.
Another might be an analogy, such as with law enforcement. Some might say we have a right to a life free from crime. Most jurisdictions prefer to run and staff their own police departments, or contract with another government-run police department. Only as a last resort would privately-run police departments be acceptable. Additionally, police officers, given their mission and tools, have the power of life and death over the citizens they serve. This is a typical reason given for government-run law enforcement.
Healthcare, to a certain degree, also has the power of life and death. Therefore, one could argue governments should run healthcare.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#149The first two studies described have roughly the following form:
1: The researchers tell the students "X is true".
2: The researchers tell the students "statement 1 was a lie".
3: Many students report they still believe X is true.
It seems risky to read anything much into that.
Maybe at step 3 the students, who know they've been lied to at least once, were reluctant to assume that step 2 provided reliable information.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#150> The fact that both we and it survive proves that it must have some adaptive function No, no, no, absolutely not, no, it doesn't. No. A feature can maintain itself in a population for a number of reasons: - it's neutral or not detrimental enough to drive affected individuals to extinction (ie, to get them killed before they have a chance to reproduce) - it's linked to some other trait that provides actual benefits -…
It's also wrong. Hunter-gatherer societies are much less concerned about social standing than agrarian ones.