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

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

#71

Post by Frondo » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:00 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #41

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…

> could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" Well, let's have a look at the actual examples in the article: what things are people apparently failing to change their minds about? (I've also included a few things that aren't examples of that but that seem relevant.) 1. Their ability to distinguish real from fake suicide notes. No obvious political slant. 2. What makes a good firefighter.…

One quick note on point 10: the question of whether owning a gun makes you safer isn't a politically contentious one -- it is a knowable fact in the realm of empiricism.

Whether individuals should be allowed to own guns, without regard to whatever risk there might be, is the politically contentious one.

But the mere question of safety isn't political (how things should be), it's observable (how things are).

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

#72

Post by hnbroseph » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:05 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…

> could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?

"the left" doesn't mean much of anything other than meaning "those i don't like".

it's a general derogatory phrase used by (for example) commentators like ben shapiro... on most episodes of his show, it's an handwave reference to indistinct millions of people that is almost always followed by chatter about how terrible they are. just the absolute worst. evil people. etc.

being one of "the right" doesn't mean you would like someone like steve bannon.

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

#73

Post by ams6110 » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

sergiosgc wrote: post #17

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 opi…

Another cause is that changing your opinion means admitting to yourself (and others) that you were wrong. And that's hard for many people to do, especially with long-held beliefs.

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

#74

Post by commandlinefan » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:16 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…

> no one would ever be convinced to change their minds ever. And yet, we do.

"I've never seen anybody change their behavior as the result of a well-reasoned, rational argument. I have seen people change their behavior to avoid ridicule." -- Scott Adams

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

#75

Post by hnbroseph » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:16 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #41

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…

> could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" Well, let's have a look at the actual examples in the article: what things are people apparently failing to change their minds about? (I've also included a few things that aren't examples of that but that seem relevant.) 1. Their ability to distinguish real from fake suicide notes. No obvious political slant. 2. What makes a good firefighter.…

> I don't think any reasonable person could summarize this as anything even slightly like "Why don't everybody agree with the left?"

it's quite fashionable to trash talk this amorphous and indistinct group called "the left".

"conservative" political commentators in particular love using "the left" to as a generic stand in as "those undesirables" or "those fools" or "those leeches" etc.

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

#76

Post by dylan604 » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #35

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…

How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? or "why don't facts change people's minds about gun control?" (this is an issue with both the left, they are both wrong about many aspects of gun issues!) These are just two cases that came to mind, where I have friends/family who I talk to about it, and I can explain some facts in great detail that I'm familiar with, and in that moment they will…

> But a couple months later they are right back to their old thinking. Maybe people tend to forget the stuff they would rather not believe.

Or it could be that their follows/likes on social media tend to be an echo chamber and dominate the information they receive. As soon as you stop talking to them about something different than what they normally hear, it quickly fades from view as their social feeds bring the "facts" that support their current position to the front again 24/7.

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

#77

Post by dionidium » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:19 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…

It stems from a misunderstanding of what it means to say that you've changed somebody's mind. Hardly anybody ever changes their mind in the moment. That's not how opinions or the stubborn humans who hold them work. People change their mind on issues over time, in response to multiple inputs.

If you expect to see evidence of changing minds literally represented in comment threads or at the end of dinner-table arguments, then you've totally failed to understand the value of those discussions. Intense discussions routinely change minds, but they rarely end with any evidence that a change has taken place.

The notion that contentious discussions on broad cultural disagreements are valueless is, I think, mistaken and the meme is, in general, profoundly damaging.

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

#78

Post by 08-15 » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:24 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #35

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…

How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? or "why don't facts change people's minds about gun control?" (this is an issue with both the left, they are both wrong about many aspects of gun issues!) These are just two cases that came to mind, where I have friends/family who I talk to about it, and I can explain some facts in great detail that I'm familiar with, and in that moment they will…

Generally, because "something some guy said" is not a fact, and the article makes the very same mistake three times. For example, "95% of climate scientists agree" is not a fact about global warming. It's a fact about climate scientists, and at best a rumor about climate change.

What would be a fact? The GISS raw data would come close. But James Hansen doesn't release it. No, the data has to first be "cleaned", lest people misinterpret it. That reduces a fact to "James Hansen said", and I might simply conclude that Hansen is a moron and discard the rumor.

In short, to convince someone, it isn't enough to tell them what you think, you also have to give them the means to verify those claims. You can verify that particular claim by reading E. T. Jaynes: "Probability Theory---The Logic Of Science".

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

#79

Post by enraged_camel » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:30 PM UTC

08-15 wrote: post #78

gameswithgo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? or "why don't facts change people's minds about gun control?" (this is an issue with both the left, they are both wrong about many aspects of gun issues!) These are just two cases that came to mind, where I have friends/family who I talk to about it, and I can explain some facts in great detail that I'm familiar with, and in that moment they will…

Generally, because "something some guy said" is not a fact, and the article makes the very same mistake three times. For example, "95% of climate scientists agree" is not a fact about global warming. It's a fact about climate scientists, and at best a rumor about climate change. What would be a fact? The GISS raw data would come close. But James Hansen doesn't release it. No, the data has to first be "cleaned", lest…

>>For example, "95% of climate scientists agree" is not a fact about global warming. It's a fact about climate scientists, and at best a rumor about climate change.

If 95% of climate scientists agree that something is a fact, that is not "at best a rumor" about climate change.

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

#80

Post by adrianN » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

08-15 wrote: post #78

gameswithgo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? or "why don't facts change people's minds about gun control?" (this is an issue with both the left, they are both wrong about many aspects of gun issues!) These are just two cases that came to mind, where I have friends/family who I talk to about it, and I can explain some facts in great detail that I'm familiar with, and in that moment they will…

Generally, because "something some guy said" is not a fact, and the article makes the very same mistake three times. For example, "95% of climate scientists agree" is not a fact about global warming. It's a fact about climate scientists, and at best a rumor about climate change. What would be a fact? The GISS raw data would come close. But James Hansen doesn't release it. No, the data has to first be "cleaned", lest…

I wouldn't know what to do with raw data about climate change and I'm unusually well educated. Just not in climate science. You can't expect a majority of people to educate themselves sufficiently in every relevant topic to make informed decisions. That's why we have scientists who study things for years and years and specialize in interpreting data. The rational thing to do for almost everything is to trust the majority of the specialists.