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

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

#131

Post by klmr » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #119

klmr wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's bothersome that all the political examples leaned the same way. But they don’t: The article also cites the example of vaccine denialism which is much more pervasive on the political left (though they tie it back to Trump). As an aside I agree that it’s somewhat lazy that these kinds of articles always come back to politics. Then again, it’s hard not to discuss the Trump administration when talking about “post-…

So you're saying they take an issue which is roundly described as wrong, vaccine denialism, state that it is much more pervasive on the political left, then without any irony, you state they didn't lean left even though they blamed this issue on Trump? I'm going out on a limb and claiming that taking a left leaning fault in society and blaming it on Trump, does not count as a right leaning example.

They don’t blame it on Trump though. And I’m not stating that they don’t lean left (and it’s likely that they do).

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

#132

Post by marcosdumay » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #55

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…

The question has political import but there is, of course, no way to write those in without someone skimming the article finding a way to call it a hatchet-job and refusing to consider it. Perhaps we might call this another way facts don't change our minds: we can't be bothered to consider them if interspersed with even a mild statement of opinion that differs from our own.

I read the GP as accusing the article of that old trick of making a point (that facts don't convince people) by dissertating about a different, just slightly related issue (how facts don't convince people). People do that a lot, even instinctively, as it saves both the labor of going out and gathering actual evidence and the risk of being called a liar.

Yet, after a quick dissertation on his point he goes out and does the same thing by arguing about the political views of the author...

Thus, I don't think your complaint is fair. You could complain about hypocrisy, but that's not productive. I do think he is correct in questioning the article premises...

Anyway, after seeing all the reaction to the GP, I'm inclined to think your point is also correct, about people turning things into identity politics too.

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

#133

Post by adrianN » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

08-15 wrote: post #123

adrianN wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 majo…

> The rational thing to do for almost everything is to trust the majority of the specialists. Brilliant way to miss the point, which is that rational reasoning also tells you whom to trust. If you have two groups pointing fingers at each other while yelling "Those are not specialists! We are!", you gain no information about who really is. You need something else, and untampered data is something else, even if you can…

Well, only one of those two groups actually studied climate science, so my money is on them being the actual specialists.

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

#134

Post by CompanionCuuube » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

Brockenstein wrote: post #130

gameswithgo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't understand what assault rifles are, Or don't care for pedants who try arguing that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle... because the issue isn't about terminology. Although trying argue about that does deflect from the real issue though. >or that you can shoot up a school 99% as well with a `regular` rifle Are you trying to say a bolt action hunting rifle is 99% as effective at massacring large numbers…

You contradict yourself when you talk about the issue not being one of terminology when you say the opposite by saying a `regular` rifle is a bolt action rifle when the most common retail rifle sales are of magazine fed semi-automatic weapons.

Please come back with an internally coherent argument, and then we can start from there.

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

#135

Post by jokoon » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #88

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.

I guess people don't realize how science illiterate people can be. That's the issue I guess. If you don't understand science, you cannot trust it.

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

#136

Post by loco5niner » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

izzydata wrote: post #70

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.

Agreed. Or even worse. Purposefully misreporting of research data. Example: recently disgraced "scientist" Brian Wansink.

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

#137

Post by gjm11 » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #71

gjm11 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

The fact that something is empirically knowable is not, unfortunately, a guarantee that it isn't politically contentious.

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

#138

Post by clairity » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 6:46 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…

partisanship is a misleading mental shortcut.

rather, loss aversion (a cognitive bias) can explain a fair bit of the behavior here. people with (perceived) status or privilege don't want to lose those statuses/privileges, so seek to rationalize their position. if it means attacking the underpinnings of facts and evidence, so be it (as the bias goes). it's part of our primitive brains to do so, and requires the use of our modern brains to keep in check.

also, facts and evidence live on a continuum, where facts have low margin of error while evidence has high margin of error. the way you address a high margin of error is to gather lots of evidence, so that statistically, you narrow the margin of error to something tiny, and then you can call it a fact. for example, the sun rising tomorrow has a margin of error that's approximately zero, so we call it a fact.

most reasonable people are not interested in arguing facts, especially if those calling into question those facts have no basis of expertise or credible counter-evidence.

you can have your own beliefs, but you don't get to have your own facts. moreover, it's reasonable to discount people who believe something without evidence, especially in the face of evldience to the contrary.

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

#139

Post by tunesmith » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 7:23 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #74

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

I've seen plenty of people change their behavior as the result of a well-reasoned, rational argument. I'm not sure what Scott Adams' problem is.

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

#140

Post by tunesmith » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

opwieurposiu wrote: post #100

beat wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally those discussions follow a certain pattern. Opponents object to the conclusions drawn from the data, and the proponents accuse the opponents of not accepting the data.