Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by auggierose » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

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 entirely rational to trust more in your personal bias. In fact, I would argue that the only way to trust a fact is to make it somehow into something that you can personally experience. For example, to understand a math theorem, it helps to look at lots of different kinds of examples where it holds (and where it doesn't).

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

#72

Post by hashkb » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

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".

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

#73

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:11 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #70

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…

I think the aspect that spans between your comment and the one you replied to is this: Why should “personal experiences” be a different category than “facts?” (even taking for granted the extra step you mentioned, where it is the use of these experiences within a discussion, not the absolute existence of the experience, at play). For example, suppose I know you and you are honest and trustworthy, so if you verbally t…

> 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 implicitly assert that XYZ people are all liars, or idiots, or both).

It's much easier for me to accept your story because even if I don't believe it to be true or representative, my rejection doesn't require much effort, and doesn't require me being overtly negative towards you.

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

#74

Post by citrablue » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:14 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #70

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…

I think the aspect that spans between your comment and the one you replied to is this: Why should “personal experiences” be a different category than “facts?” (even taking for granted the extra step you mentioned, where it is the use of these experiences within a discussion, not the absolute existence of the experience, at play). For example, suppose I know you and you are honest and trustworthy, so if you verbally t…

It sounds like you believe people can behave more in line with the Rational Human used to model older economic theories. I'm not so sure confirmation, affinity, or proximity biases can be held down. What we need is a system that is either immune to these biases, or is designed to thwart them.

My opinion: individual's actions and beliefs do not put a dent in the tsunami of bias that swamps our brains. We need systemic thinking (e.g. science has a decent structure with double blind studies).

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

#75

Post by Damorian » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:14 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #70

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…

I think the aspect that spans between your comment and the one you replied to is this: Why should “personal experiences” be a different category than “facts?” (even taking for granted the extra step you mentioned, where it is the use of these experiences within a discussion, not the absolute existence of the experience, at play). For example, suppose I know you and you are honest and trustworthy, so if you verbally t…

>false realities

Or just other people's realities. You mention BLM riots, which affected me a great deal; tens of millions in damages to my city, destruction of local landmarks, one of the teachers in my local school district was arrested for assaulting a state politician for recording them burning a police car, and to top it off, they smashed the pharmacy where I get my wife's medicine, so she had to go without for a few days. This isn't some biased false reality/folk wisdom. This was my experience so when people tell me they were "peaceful protests" or the news says "statistically, they were 99.99999999% peaceful" but I look at what I saw with my own eyes, and also what was on TV in other cities... I can't be convinced that they weren't violent, destructive, and plainly, evil, no matter how much other people tell me what to think.

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

#76

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #39

UncleOxidant wrote: post #8

Key point: "The problem is that facts—at least today—are themselves subject to doubt, especially when they conflict with our political beliefs (21). In the past decades, America has seen a decentralization of news and information (22) that has allowed people to gather their “own facts” (i.e., alternative facts; ref. 23). Most recently, claims of “fake news” allow people to distrust any information that fails to align…

Don't forget the media lied throughout that time too; let us not forget the craziness of satanic ritual abuse, or the lies that led to the vietnam war, etc... The media and the government routinely mislead the public, look at in 2019 the intentional confusion of blackmarket thc vapes and tobacco vaping. Or more recently, the use of human trafficking. To claim there was sometime in the past where the news was good and…

There's a notable difference between:

  1) a media outlet that repeats government lies about why we are fighting a war (or how it is going)


  2) a media outlet that ignorantly repeats mistruths that are present in the (sub)culture

  3) a media outlet that makes up its own lies

We used to mostly have a mixture of 1 & 2, but we now have to contend with (3) as well.

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

#77

Post by thewarrior » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #59

tacitusarc wrote: post #9

It's interesting to me that this delineates between facts and personal experience as if personal experience doesn't occupy the same space as facts. Perhaps a more useful way to think about people's relation to truth is one of proximity. For a given individual, their personal experience is entirely factual, and because it is also most proximate to them, it is weighted the most highly. Intuitively, I think we understan…

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 mock water boarding session and immediately bailed and said it changed his view on water boarding.

Anti immigrant attitudes are sometimes found among those who have the least contact with immigrants. The cities which are cosmopolitan and full of immigrants are often very pro immigration.

This feels like a very HN zeitgeist where people are just data processors who come to conclusions by analyzing data.

Language is a broken tool. There’s a difference between reading about and seeing the floor plans of the Sistine chapel and actually being there and gazing up at it.

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

#78

Post by M5x7wI3CmbEem10 » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

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…

Occasionally it swings in the opposite direction. I've met immigrants who are staunchly anti-immigration.

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

#79

Post by Moodles » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:32 PM UTC

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…

I agree with you, though it would have been nice if you listed a single view going the other direction ;-)

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

#80

Post by mensetmanusman » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 11:34 PM UTC

M5x7wI3CmbEem10 wrote: post #78

thewarrior wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Occasionally it swings in the opposite direction. I've met immigrants who are staunchly anti-immigration.

This is an example of broken language.

Immigrants are never simply anti-immigrant, for example there might be nuance to their view as to whether it is okay to cut in line, especially if they waited the ‘legal’ way.