Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 163 posts

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#11

Post by DoreenMichele »

tunesmith wrote: post #6

We have this weird fetish these last few years with asserting in broad language that people don't change their minds, don't respond to evidence, dig their heels in further when presented with evidence that contradicts their preconceived opinions, etc. It's all over pop psychology and the headlines. Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to chan…

My observation is that when the real point of the argument is social pecking order bullshit where proving you got X fact wrong means you are evil (stupid, etc) and now deserve to be treated really terribly, people dig their heels in as the only possible defense against "agreeing" to be crapped on. If that's not what is at stake, people are vastly more willing to learn and grow.

Some social settings are better than others in that regard.

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#12

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

conistonwater wrote: post #9
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first discussion in your link talks about peoples bias for wanting to remove plastic from the ocean remote from the source, rather than at the source. Surely it's obvious that preventing plastic entering the ocean at the source does nothing to remove the plastic that's already there. Maybe I should read more of this blog, but that doesn't inspire confidence.

I think you should, if you scroll back a couple of years, there's plenty of discussion of published research on science communication, which might be more interesting to you.

Cool, thanks, I'll have a gander.

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#13

Post by raverbashing »

tunesmith wrote: post #6

We have this weird fetish these last few years with asserting in broad language that people don't change their minds, don't respond to evidence, dig their heels in further when presented with evidence that contradicts their preconceived opinions, etc. It's all over pop psychology and the headlines. Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to chan…

Agreed

"Facts don't change people's mind" forget about the presentation of the facts, usually in a condescending and over authoritarian way.

No fact is an absolute truth that shouldn't be open to discussion, facts help, but when people get "holier than thou" about them, that's usually when the pushback happens (not only on those occasions, though)

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#14

Post by boomboomsubban »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #4

> In 1975, researchers at Stanford invited a group of undergraduates to take part in a study ... A few years later, a new set of Stanford students was recruited for a related study. We have to wonder if Stanford undergraduate student generalises to the whole population. It doesn't require much stretching of the imagination to see that circa 1975 Stanford undergraduates , as a cohort, may score below average on object…

>It doesn't require much stretching of the imagination to see that circa 1975 Stanford undergraduates, as a cohort, may score below average on objective measures of humbleness.

Which doesn't matter in this test. Both groups in this study would have the presumed bias, so the differences in scores could still be attributed to the independent variable.

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#15

Post by philipps »

Both this and the previous discussion show that HN readers believe facts (or information) can and do change peoples’ minds. The way I understand the article (and the books it refers to) it suggests that social factors have a stronger effect on opinions than facts. I find this hypothesis plausible when I look at the polarized discussions I see playing out at the societal level, as well as interactions with other people individually. And maybe, rather than refute it, the HN reaction to the article is further evidence for the mechanism the article describes?

Edit: typo

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#16

Post by n4r9 »

tunesmith wrote: post #6

We have this weird fetish these last few years with asserting in broad language that people don't change their minds, don't respond to evidence, dig their heels in further when presented with evidence that contradicts their preconceived opinions, etc. It's all over pop psychology and the headlines. Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to chan…

> if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to change their minds ever.

Not sure how you've made this leap. The point is not that people never change their minds, just that the way they do so is less evidence-based than one would hope. It even says later in the article:

> Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science.

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#17

Post by sergiosgc »

tunesmith wrote: post #6

We have this weird fetish these last few years with asserting in broad language that people don't change their minds, don't respond to evidence, dig their heels in further when presented with evidence that contradicts their preconceived opinions, etc. It's all over pop psychology and the headlines. Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to chan…

I tend to model people changing opinion as ships with different inertia changing course:

If you formed your opinion yesterday, it has low inertia, and it is easy to change course. If you formed your opinion a decade ago, it is high inertia, and the best I can do in a conversation is a little nudge in the right direction, hoping it will have some effect later on.

The causes for opinion inertia are known. Long held opinions are part of people's identity (think religion, for example). People actively filter for supporting evidence, eschewing opposing views. It takes a while to breach both barriers.

If you test high inertia opinion change in one sitting, like studies do, it looks immutable.

(don't ever think you are immune to these inertia effects. Everyone is affected)

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#18

Post by titanix2 »

tunesmith wrote: post #6

We have this weird fetish these last few years with asserting in broad language that people don't change their minds, don't respond to evidence, dig their heels in further when presented with evidence that contradicts their preconceived opinions, etc. It's all over pop psychology and the headlines. Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to chan…

Well, most of the time the "Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds" question could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" I just skimmed the article, but the mention of Steve Bannon at end is an indication that the article probably belongs to that trend. This turns the issue into the political ground, not the scientific one. Thus, the word "fact" is used as an appeal to authority when its actually an ideological discussion that is at stake. Some facts are carefully ignored or dismissed when not fitting the narrator world's view (in either sides), so it would be better to acknowledge that it's opinions that are discussed, and that their are not absolutely right.

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#19

Post by candiodari »

n4r9 wrote: post #16
tunesmith wrote: post #6

We have this weird fetish these last few years with asserting in broad language that people don't change their minds, don't respond to evidence, dig their heels in further when presented with evidence that contradicts their preconceived opinions, etc. It's all over pop psychology and the headlines. Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to chan…

> if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to change their minds ever. Not sure how you've made this leap. The point is not that people never change their minds, just that the way they do so is less evidence-based than one would hope. It even says later in the article: > Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting…

> antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science

That's perhaps an argument for the sciences directly built on positivism (the philosophical positivism), but that list ends quickly. Everything else is based on at the very least odds, but mostly consensus, and convincing based on those is required for anything beyond a few basic sciences.

And positivism only covers math, large parts of physics and chemistry (but not all), and ... that's mostly it. I mean, you could argue small portions of economics, biology also qualify, but only small portions.

Consensus itself, like presented in climate science and medicine, is an argument by authority. So if you convince someone of the truth of, say, global warming, you have in fact convinced them mostly of a social fact: that lots of people studying this problem seriously come to this conclusion. You have not convinced them that "because X leads to Y, here's the proof, Y leads to Z, here's the proof, this will now happen". You can't do that. These sciences don't work like that.

Things like climate science, medicine, psychology itself, ... just aren't made up of rational argument but from tying anecdotes into a larger framework and some amount of statistical inference. For all those sciences any positivist would say that

1) there are (very small) odds that the science is entirely wrong

2) the odds that significant parts or specific studies, even when executed entirely correctly and with integrity, is quit large: obviously 1 in 20 should be outright wrong at 95% confidence

Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)

#20

Post by ycombinete »

titanix2 wrote: post #18
tunesmith wrote: post #6

We have this weird fetish these last few years with asserting in broad language that people don't change their minds, don't respond to evidence, dig their heels in further when presented with evidence that contradicts their preconceived opinions, etc. It's all over pop psychology and the headlines. Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to chan…

Well, most of the time the "Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds" question could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" I just skimmed the article, but the mention of Steve Bannon at end is an indication that the article probably belongs to that trend. This turns the issue into the political ground, not the scientific one. Thus, the word "fact" is used as an appeal to authority when its actua…

I must admit to smirking at the unintended irony created by the title of the article, and the publication it appears in.

That said, Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind does outline a very similar thing. That our 'reasoning' is almost always a post-hoc attempt to explain how we already feel. And Haidt, while claiming neutrality is very definitely on the right end of the spectrum.

Post reply on HN