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

21–30 of 163 posts

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

#21

Post by Retric »

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…

The Left has plenty of unsupported ideas.

The question is really why people debate Physics or Chemistry. People that thought the Sun was a perfect sphere would discount things they could directly see with their eyes.

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

#22

Post by js8 »

ycombinete wrote: post #20
titanix2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And Haidt, while claiming neutrality is very definitely on the right end of the spectrum.

Is he? I have always felt like he is at the centre, if not slightly to the left, where most social psychologists are. (BTW, I am on the left myself.)

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

#23

Post by chiefalchemist »

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…

Yes. It would help to test how rational the study subjects are to begin with, why / why not they are so, etc. And then, what can / cannot be done to increase flexibility.

That said, be careful that we with for. There is certainly unforeseen consequences here.

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

#24

Post by brightball »

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…

A few years ago I really enjoyed arguing politics on the internet. Not trolling, but legitimately arguing. I ran into several people who would just link-bomb the conversation.

So one day, when I had a couple of hours free I sat down and read every single link. All of them.

The lack of substance beyond an opening paragraph that claimed a point was appalling. When it was brought to the attention of those link-bombers, they actually agreed that there was no substance and that they hadn't read those links at all. I was really proud of my friend and thought we had actually resolved a political disagreement on Facebook.

Then I saw them dropping the exact same links in another conversation within a couple of days.

Facts without context don't prove anything. Some of the facts but not all of them just frame the story in a particular light.

After years of this stuff, it becomes clear that nobody has time to become an expert on every subject just to be able to identify the critical details that people are leaving out.

Eventually, you just research your positions on the subjects that matter to you and vote accordingly. Now, if something doesn't make logical or mathematical sense, I oppose it. If there's no logic or math involved, I generally take no position at all.

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

#25

Post by chiefalchemist »

If anyone would like to explore the topic a bit further try "The Influential Mind" by Tali Sharot. It was on FT's short list for best of 2017. It's a quick easy read. Gladwell-esque. The difference iis, she is an actual scientest who works in that field. Tho' perhaps that makes her bias? ;)

https://www.amazon.com/Influential-Mind-Reveals-Change-Other...

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

#26

Post by tobr »

For some reason this made me think of the problems with side effects in programming. If we can read and write willy-nilly, it’s very difficult to figure out why the data is the way it is, and we can’t undo/rewind unless we planned for it all along.

When our minds are mulling over some piece of information, whether it’s true or not, it will have side effects on other thoughts, opinions and emotions. If we’re confronted with a revised set of facts later, there is no way to rewind all those side effects.

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

#27

Post by jokoon »

People are free to believe what they want. The problem with science is that it cannot change, so it can appear as a problem in politics, people feel science is a prison you cannot criticize.

Also there are good reasons why science is not in control of our lives.

What's worse is that people will also speak in the name of the science of economics to advocate about any kind of policy or tax break.

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

#28

Post by hevi_jos »

We should talk about complexity and complication here.

Complex is the opposite of simple. If there is 50 equal elements communicating between them there we have a complex system.

This is important because a thousand ants behave totally different from an isolated ant.

You just can't study an ant and expect to understand the nest or anthill.

Psychologists try to make it all the time and it is totally wrong: They studied isolated rats in order to understand addiction to drugs and they did not understood that they are social animals which travel 20miles-30kms each day.

So they jailed the rats in a cage, because it was easier to study them that way, and extracted conclusions that were totally bogus for human beings. Those conclusions were the basis for the US war on drugs.

Here they do the same. They make a very simple experiment, and extract conclusions about the whole system. In Africa, when humans whatever,more fiction than science.

It is ok to make fiction and speculation, but you should always differentiate what we really know with high degree of confidence from what we do not.

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

#29

Post by casefields »

js8 wrote: post #22
ycombinete wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And Haidt, while claiming neutrality is very definitely on the right end of the spectrum. Is he? I have always felt like he is at the centre, if not slightly to the left, where most social psychologists are. (BTW, I am on the left myself.)

He's always considered himself a left of center, moderate liberal until he wrote The Rightous Mind. He doesn't necessarily identify with the right but he disavows some of his older liberal beliefs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/a-liberal-learns...

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

#30

Post by casefields »

brightball wrote: post #24
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…

A few years ago I really enjoyed arguing politics on the internet. Not trolling, but legitimately arguing. I ran into several people who would just link-bomb the conversation. So one day, when I had a couple of hours free I sat down and read every single link. All of them. The lack of substance beyond an opening paragraph that claimed a point was appalling. When it was brought to the attention of those link-bombers,…

That's called the Gish Gallop and for whatever reason is the mode de jure for winning an Internet argument now.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Post reply on HN