Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 175 posts

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#101

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #84
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would there be a difference in you coming to me and saying, [ ... ] because if I really don't want to agree with you, I can accept your story but regard it as an anecdote that does not contradict what I see/read from my media bubble. I can't do that with the study from research institute XYZ, so I'll just dismiss it out of hand. This requires more cognitive effort (for example, I have to explicitly or implicitl…

What I’m saying is that the heuristic you describe is perfectly understandable, but it’s a bad outcome for society. My comment is not about the “why” behind the existence of this heuristic. There are many obvious reasons that leap off the page in terms of evolutionary adaptation, confirmation bias, availability heuristic, halo bias and so forth. Instead what I am saying is that if I approach a new conversation tomorr…

> That cannot be left unchecked.

While I agree with your goal, this approach relies on the idea that "not leaving it unchecked" results in some sort of change in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the evidence I've seen doesn't really support that "confronting them with the truth" actually accomplishes this. It would be lovely if this turns out not to be the case.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#102

Post by flippinburgers »

thewarrior wrote: post #77
dang wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand it correctly, the claim is not that personal experience narration is a superior form of objective information to facts, it's that sharing personal experience is more likely to create a feeling of relational connection, which in turn is more likely to lead to a shift in position. Tossing facts in an argument where people don't feel any personal connection is a bit like throwing stones at each other. Ma…

Anecdotally this seems true. Dick Cheney is a hard core neo con but having daughters who were lesbian made him a lot more understanding on the issue of gay rights. John McCain was similar but his personal experience of being a POW made him a life long advocate against torture. There’s a famous video of Christopher Hitchens who used to believe that water boarding people was justified in some cases. He volunteered to a…

These are examples of an individual being sympathetic towards something that isn't traditionally part of their political affiliation's viewpoints. The study is about building respect between people with different political viewpoints.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#103

Post by zwaps »

The work of James G. March is also very interesting in this regard. In particular, he wrestled with our description of rational decision-making. Instead of seeing bounds to rationality as some defect to be worked&modeled around, his contention was that rational people may not actually what we want, or even want to be, when we organize, collaborate, inform ourselves and others and, of course, make a decision.

If you are interested in this angle, I can recommend the collection "Decisions and Organizations".

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#104

Post by 6AA4FD »

hashkb wrote: post #72
auggierose wrote: post #71

A personal experience is a fact. It is a fact we can be pretty sure of, and we know the context of that fact. Obviously, once we extrapolate from that experienced fact, it becomes bias. A fact that is not a personal experience is difficult to trust. Even if I trust the source of that fact, I am often not sure if I understand the fact properly. Anyone who has ever tried to understand a math theorem might relate. It is…

Eyewitness testimony is a personal experience that's been well proven to be poorly correlated with others' personal experience of the same event. You may be redefining "fact".

I agree that person experiences are not exactly reliable, but I think it's also good to remember that they can have the appearance of facticity and accuracy, as indicated by the sentiment of the person you were replying to.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#105

Post by throwawayboise »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #101
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I’m saying is that the heuristic you describe is perfectly understandable, but it’s a bad outcome for society. My comment is not about the “why” behind the existence of this heuristic. There are many obvious reasons that leap off the page in terms of evolutionary adaptation, confirmation bias, availability heuristic, halo bias and so forth. Instead what I am saying is that if I approach a new conversation tomorr…

> That cannot be left unchecked. While I agree with your goal, this approach relies on the idea that "not leaving it unchecked" results in some sort of change in the right direction. Unfortunately, the evidence I've seen doesn't really support that "confronting them with the truth" actually accomplishes this. It would be lovely if this turns out not to be the case.

Why can't it simply be left unchecked? Why is it so important to you that Bob believe what you believe?

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#106

Post by phkahler »

jbullock35 wrote: post #97
jrochkind1 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, this is an important point that I missed from skimming the abstract too. Are they saying that if I share my personal experience with you, you will feel more respected by me than if I share facts?

No, it's the other way around: if you share your personal experience with me, I'll respect you more than I would if you instead shared facts. At least, that's the authors' claim. But what it means to "share facts" in these studies is not what you might anticipate. In Study 5, for example, participants speak with someone who disagrees with them about gun control. In the article, we're told that these interlocutors "of…

Narcissism. "I've read many books and governmental reports..." is (presumably) a fact. It's a fact about the person saying it and not about the issue. It's a way to claim "I know what I'm talking about" without evidence.

Unfortunately in today's world, you can be well read in any subject and still end up on either side based on what you've read.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#107

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

throwawayboise wrote: post #105
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That cannot be left unchecked. While I agree with your goal, this approach relies on the idea that "not leaving it unchecked" results in some sort of change in the right direction. Unfortunately, the evidence I've seen doesn't really support that "confronting them with the truth" actually accomplishes this. It would be lovely if this turns out not to be the case.

Why can't it simply be left unchecked? Why is it so important to you that Bob believe what you believe?

In many cases, there is direct, tangible existential crisis at stake when aggregated across all the individual disagreements. The rise of modern white supremacy, fascism, insurrection, environmental devastation, harm and denial of basic rights to trans people, and so on. If in every individual case, you leave it unchecked and figure “whatever, they can just believe whatever they want, who cares” then it adds up to rioters charging into the Capitol with Confederate flags and pipe bombs. Working backwards it creates impetus on everyone to not leave any of that unchecked, whether it’s your crazy uncle on Facebook spouting off about young earth creationism or anti-environmentalism or a white supremacist yelling claims that the presidential election was stolen.

If you’re just disagreeing about which potato chip brand is the best, by all means let it go and leave it unchecked, but it seems clear the general context is about disagreements on contested social issues with serious stakes.

In a lot of ways the main issue is that several generations of the developed world have completely wasted decades of prosperity, to the point now where it really, actually is true that “mundane” day to day problems for people actually tie in to serious existential problems that have to be collectively dealt with.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#108

Post by [deleted] »

jbullock35 wrote: post #97
jrochkind1 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, this is an important point that I missed from skimming the abstract too. Are they saying that if I share my personal experience with you, you will feel more respected by me than if I share facts?

No, it's the other way around: if you share your personal experience with me, I'll respect you more than I would if you instead shared facts. At least, that's the authors' claim. But what it means to "share facts" in these studies is not what you might anticipate. In Study 5, for example, participants speak with someone who disagrees with them about gun control. In the article, we're told that these interlocutors "of…

[deleted]

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#110

Post by Udik »

phkahler wrote: post #106
jbullock35 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's the other way around: if you share your personal experience with me, I'll respect you more than I would if you instead shared facts. At least, that's the authors' claim. But what it means to "share facts" in these studies is not what you might anticipate. In Study 5, for example, participants speak with someone who disagrees with them about gun control. In the article, we're told that these interlocutors "of…

Narcissism. "I've read many books and governmental reports..." is (presumably) a fact. It's a fact about the person saying it and not about the issue. It's a way to claim "I know what I'm talking about" without evidence. Unfortunately in today's world, you can be well read in any subject and still end up on either side based on what you've read.

> It's a fact about the person saying it

Which ironically enough, seems to be the definition itself of "personal experience".

Notice also how there is emotion thrown in: "it made me feel strongly about". How is this supposed to be an argument?

Post reply on HN