Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017) • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by emodendroket » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:45 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #39

7952 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that people do change their minds, but it is not neccessarily a direct result of facts. Things like emotion, social pressure, and moral arguments are far more persuasive. People just get angry when their facts arn't enough to pursuade someone. But sometimes you need to engage people at a more personal level than just science and statistics.

> But sometimes you need to engage people at a more personal level than just science and statistics... Now I don't know if I would write this off as simple "emotion". Obviously, "emotion" is probably part of it, but so is "social pressure", etc as you point out. I'd probably summarize that collection of factors as "Ideology". Convincing people to change their minds is likely one reason that ideology is actually usefu…

Traditionally ideology is more often cast as a reason people cannot understand the implications of facts staring them in the face.

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

#62

Post by emodendroket » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #47

I just now (30 minutes ago) changed my mind about something based on a fact, and it wasn't even something that someone pointed out to me. I just realized on my own that I had been wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18111870 I wonder if this fact will change anyone's mind about the idea that facts never change anyone's mind.

Why such a mindlessly literal interpretation of an title clearly not intended to be literal?

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

#63

Post by emodendroket » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #32

This is a tangent. How much/long does a study like this cost/take? Is it possible/useful to scale this? From reading into some of the replicability discussion, I've gotten curious about social science generally. What's an expirement like this trying to prove/demonstrate. The journalistic narrative likes the easy "X debunked." I imagine researchers have a more nuanced perspective. I guess what im asking is what does t…

Which study are you referring to? Several are referenced.

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

#64

Post by akvadrako » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:49 PM UTC

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…

> Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to change their minds ever. And yet, we do.

This is the wrong conclusion to draw from the discussion. People do change their minds, but rarely all at once. What they want is to be consistent, so you have to move the needle a little bit at a time.

One technique to convince somebody of something: first you have to show you understand their position better than they do and are on their side. Then you can lead them towards the correct solution. It's called "pacing and leading".

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

#65

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:50 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by Retric » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:50 PM UTC

powercf wrote: post #40

Retric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> People that thought the Sun was a perfect sphere would discount things they could directly see with their eyes. What do you mean by this? The Sun is, to a very good approximation, a perfect sphere. Or as perfect a sphere as one is likely to find in the physical world.

It's one thing to say it's a very good approximation of a sphere. It's another thing to say it's in fact an absolutely perfect sphere.

People had firm belief in the second and discounted evidence to the contrary. Even ignoring that rotation causes a significant distortion (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/oblate_sun....) they would not accept https://eclipse2017.nso.edu/coronal-mass-ejections-cme/ as a 'real' thing.

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

#67

Post by plouffy » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:51 PM UTC

dabbledash wrote: post #57

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 see it often come up with regard to alternative health topics like vaccine refusal or homeopathy. I could be wrong, but my perception is that people who hold these beliefs are more likely to be left leaning. It also comes up often in the global warming context, obviously, which goes the other way.

According to a Pew Research Study [1] in regards to vaccine refusal it appears to rather than politicial affiliation (left/right) it's the magnitude that is the big indicator. Which isn't surprising given that anti-vaccine is an extreme position, that those who are extreme in their political opinions are also extreme in their private lives.

[1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-...

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

#68

Post by sephware » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

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…

One of my favorite phrases is “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” because it reminds me of the ever-useful principle that if someone has personal (and maybe even irrational) reasons to keep believing something they shouldn’t, like that they have a good chance at winning the lottery this time (no they don’t) and finally get out of the poverty that’s haunted them for decades, or that bitcoin is finally their ticket to entrepreneurial independence (probably not), or that the foreign prince really does want to send them money and all they need to do is buy iTunes gift cards and send him the numbers over the phone, no amount of facts are going to change their minds.

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

#69

Post by beat » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

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 see it differently. It appears to me that large swaths of the political right have gone over to intellectual relativism, where everything is reduced to mere opinion, equally valid to all other opinions, and facts simply don't matter. See any discussion of climate change for that.

To be fair, it's happening some on the left as well, but not to the degree it's happening on the right.

Of course, that's my opinion, and I'm a leftist, so you can just dismiss me out of hand.

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

#70

Post by izzydata » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:59 PM UTC

They sure change my mind. I'm just not always convinced what people are saying are facts. At best they are the current best explanation and at worst only opinions.