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

91–100 of 163 posts

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

#91

Post by bilbo0s »

emodendroket wrote: post #61
bilbo0s wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's both.

It's the reason people ignore facts. And the reason people change their minds.

Just to sharpen the point, think of it this way, ideology can make you "change your mind" and start believing things that have absolutely no basis in fact.

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

#92

Post by learc83 »

catawbasam wrote: post #46
yourbandsucks wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, slim majorities of conservatives will answer phone surveys with things like "yes, Obama was born in Kenya" or "no, global temperature isn't rising". Specious argument can come from anybody, but the "la la can't hear you" portion of the left is measurably smaller compared to the right.

Source?

There really was a scientific poll were 51% of Republican voters said the believe that Obama was born in Kenya.

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/51-of-gop-voters-obam...

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

#93

Post by neilwilson »

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…

A good point.

When I see the word 'fact', I remind myself that even now evolution is still only considered a theory - despite the weight of evidence on its side. Because in science something might just show up that invalidates all that came before, and maintaining that faint skepticism is what separates science from belief.

(And of course evolution is a theory, not a mere hypothesis because of this weight of evidence).

If you want to show me a fact, make sure it comes with a mathematical proof attached.

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

#94

Post by Isamu »

Belief is not generally fact based. Going strictly with the facts is an incredibly disciplined thing. Feynman used to play games to keep himself sharp, to avoid fooling himself because as he said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

With people in general the belief comes first and then you backfill with supporting evidence and argument.

Also we tend to pull our beliefs into our identity. Then a challenge to our beliefs is a challenge to our identity, and very hard to swallow. So it is also difficult but important to keep yourself from identifying yourself by your beliefs.

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

#95

Post by liftbigweights »

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…

What do you expect from a publication that hired people like Talia Lavin.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/new-yorker-fact-checker-ice-t...

Both sides of the political extreme are guilty of claiming their "facts" are real and others are ignorant for not believing them. It's the modern day equivalent is "our god is the one true god" nonsense. But the left just has a much bigger and louder megaphone to shout at people.

It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the New Yorker nor any other publication cares about facts. They care about their own agenda. The New Yorker isn't an objective publication. They are an advocacy group.

Essentially it's the Ministry of Truth attacking people for wrongthink.

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

#96

Post by snarf21 »

the_greyd wrote: post #83

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…

So true. I read this article recently about doctors not switching to the newest techniques. [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/upshot/its-hard-for-docto...]

The interesting thing is that I think the author makes the opposite point of what they were intending. The tl;dr of the article is that a study came out saying doctors should strictly control blood sugar in the ICU. It was very slow to gain adoption. Eventually it started to take hold but a new more rigorous study came out and said this was a bad practice as it was actually causing too many hypoglycemic events and killing patients. The new recommendation was to not strictly control blood sugar in the ICU. The author states that doctors are now not switching back to the strategy they had in the first place. It seems like waiting for a preponderance of evidence might always be the best path forward, especially doctors and other situations where people's lives are at risk.

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

#97

Post by mrfredward »

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…

It was mostly a neutral, intelligently written article until that last paragraph.

It's as if the author wrote a good article about confirmation bias, and someone jumped in at the last second and said "wait, add a line implying this is all about shitty conservatives so our readers will like it." I wonder if anyone at the New Yorker appreciates the irony.

Only those idiots who disagree with me have cognitive biases.

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

#98

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

learc83 wrote: post #92
catawbasam wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

There really was a scientific poll were 51% of Republican voters said the believe that Obama was born in Kenya. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/51-of-gop-voters-obam...

Did you really mean to use the word "scientific" here? If so, I'm not sure what you mean for a poll to be scientific.

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

#99

Post by bilbo0s »

the_greyd wrote: post #83

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…

Agree with most of what you said, but

>A world where people's minds are easily changed by facts would be a world of fads...

is an interesting statement.

Because we live in a world of fads anyway. This even though peoples' minds are not easily changed by facts.

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

#100

Post by opwieurposiu »

beat wrote: post #69
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 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…

The left ignores facts when it suits them as well, but with different subjects. See race and IQ correlation, gender wage gap, implicit association test.
Post reply on HN