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

81–90 of 163 posts

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

#81

Post by dagaci »

Humans are overwhelmingly emotional creatures. We are a bunch of monkeys with only a fragment of real awareness of why we are doing X and Y.

Human brains judge another persons whole life in milliseconds (we all do it, can't help that), but then struggle with what is quite simple math. That should tell you something about what we are.

My advice is don't ever forget that logic is only the smallest part. Demeanor and a strong image is much more important than it should be, simply presenting a "fact" is not enough.

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

#82

Post by jasonlotito »

gameswithgo wrote: post #53
ryanmonroe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do humans cause climate change?" is a question of fact. "What type of gun control should we have?" is not a question of fact, so you shouldn't expect that simply stating some facts relevant to the issue would automatically change someone's opinion.

I agree, but there are facts about gun issues that make that gun control question harder to answer. People who believe strongly that guns make a country much safer. People who don't understand what assault rifles are, or that you can shoot up a school 99% as well with a `regular` rifle, people who think lack of guns will make a country MUCH safer. There are plenty of empirical evidence to refuse those kinds of belief…

> people who think lack of guns will make a country MUCH safer. There are plenty of empirical evidence to refuse those kinds of beliefs but people hold on to them pretty strongly.

Well, I look at it this way. Both the left and the right (including our current administration in the US) as well as those who financially and politically support the current administration (such as the NRA) agree emphatically that gun control works, and lack of guns in the hands of laws abiding citizenry is safer. So when both the left and the right agree through words and policies, and it's demonstrated through safety and security, it's hard to argue otherwise. The question really then becomes one of scope.

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

#83

Post by the_greyd »

I say that's a good thing. It's a good thing that beliefs have inertia, and it makes sense. Think of the years of patterns of thinking and neural connections that have formed in your brain. Are you expected to read something and change that in an instant? Imagine when Darwin's Theory of Evolution came out, assuming it had perfect evidence for it, do we expect everybody to instantly change their beliefs? And sometimes what we say facts are poor research, see ongoing replication crisis in psychology, social science, nutrition etc. The time it takes to change a mind is a long complicated process which is justified. A world where people's minds are easily changed by facts would be a world of fads.

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

#84

Post by sarchertech »

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.

There are anti-vaxxers on both sides, but since Trump's rise, I've noticed a big upswing in right wing anti-vaxxers.

It shouldn't be surprising. He's been pushing the vaccine autism link since 2012:

"Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism...."

"Autism rates through the roof--why doesn't the Obama administration do something about doctor-inflicted autism. We lose nothing to try."

"Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"

"I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future."

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

#85

Post by Meai »

emodendroket wrote: post #60
brightball wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I am really souring on such conversations because of the tremendous number of bad-faith arguing tactics people use -- willfully misconstruing your point, racing as quickly as possible to a glib dismissal without really understanding what you said, or, like you said, link-bombing. Another failure mode I find extremely frustrating is failure to understand analogies. For instance, if I were having a discussion about whe…

I think people instinctively refuse to parse analogies because it's too much work for too little reward. Practically every time somebody starts to use an anology it becomes an anology battle because of course it wasn't perfect. Secondly it's like trying to prove a point by introducing a bunch of weird mental tricks. Yeah you might have a point there but it's rude to expect me to parse all this extra made up stuff you just throw at me. If you have a point, you can make it without an anology.

I have the same opinion on fallacies, practically every single time somebody says "wait, you just used a fallacy" it's wrong, it doesn't matter or he himself just used five fallacies by pointing that out. It's an endless battle over magic words that have so much social weight behind them that using them should be forbidden in any serious debate. That's my personal, very unpopular opinion.

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

#86

Post by hnbroseph »

emodendroket wrote: post #62
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?

well, it's a time-honored tradition of we geeks on the internet. it helps us feel clever. :)

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

#87

Post by johngalt »

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,…

In most cases the problem with link bombs is that the stated conclusions don't fit the linked facts, and people can't separate the verifiable fact from their conclusion.

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

#88

Post by commandlinefan »

jokoon wrote: post #27

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.

> The problem with science is that it cannot change

Maybe science can't change, but our collective understanding of it changes (hopefully gets better) almost all the time.

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

#89

Post by mistermann »

enraged_camel wrote: post #79
08-15 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

True, but if you're a big enough pedant and chase down what is actually behind the "95% of climate scientists agree" claim, you'll discover it's not actually what it's sold as, which is a shame because I believe there's probably more than enough genuine evidence that resorting to this sort of thing is unnecessary to change people's minds. To be fair, it's worked very well on most people, but there are still plenty of others on (or on the wrong side of) the fence that I suspect could have their minds changed if the ~facts were presented in the right way.

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

#90

Post by mistermann »

mbrumlow wrote: post #51
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…

> How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? I have always thought it was either the lack of the ability to understand the facts, or the shear unwillingness to actually look at the facts.

What is the most compelling website/report you know of that one who is willing to have their mind changed should read?
Post reply on HN