Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

[Matata]

Interesting reading to along with your morning up of coffee.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?mbid=social_facebook

 

[Dee*Jay]

Interesting article!

Two things that stand out for me:

"Where it gets us into trouble, according to Sloman and Fernbach, is in the political domain. It’s one thing for me to flush a toilet without knowing how it operates, and another for me to favor (or oppose) an immigration ban without knowing what I’m talking about."

I think this applies widely because people see a headline without reading an article (or even read an article that is incomplete or wrong, or that the readed does not fully understand) and then that person *thinks* they know what they are talk about and goes forth proclaiming -- with authority! -- on the thing they know nothing about. Which feeds into this point:

“As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding,” Sloman and Fernbach write. And here our dependence on other minds reinforces the problem. If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views."

And she told two friends and she told two friends... and now Cheeto von Tweeto is in the White House...

 

[redwood66]

With all due respect, do articles like these make you feel better about the election results or vindicated in your stance that people who voted for Trump are morons? The incessant need to psychoanalyze the other side seems to be rampant as wildfire. What is the reason for all of these? Edit - I don't mean these that you post, I meant all over the media.

 

[Dee*Jay]

With all due respect, do articles like these make you feel better about the election results or vindicated in your stance that people who voted for Trump are morons? The incessant need to psychoanalyze the other side seems to be rampant as wildfire. What is the reason for all of these? Edit - I don't mean these that you post, I meant all over the media.

Red, I think the ideas in this article are pretty universal, regardless of what political bent you on may have, or even what the topic is (I mean, the studies here relate to suicide notes and firefighters!). I can see the general concepts applying across the board to almost all topics too, not just to political ones. That being said, as with so many things right now, the focus has turned to politics and this article follows suit.

Slight digression to show my (last) point: A journalist tried to spend 24 hours not reading any news about Trump (and I'm not picking on Trump, I'm just relaying what the journalist reported) and he said it was impossible as Trump's name not comes up in virtually every topic you could possibly click on to read. So the point (and yes, I do have one, LOL!) I was making at the end of my last paragraph is that the author of this piece is applying the concepts to politics in this article because almost everything lately is somehow related to politics.

I'm not so naïve as to suggest the article ISN'T political, but the information itself is interesting *to me* in an across-the-board sort of context.

And to answer one of your questions, NOTHING, including articles like these, make me feel ANY better in ANY way about the election results.

 

[redwood66]

With all due respect, do articles like these make you feel better about the election results or vindicated in your stance that people who voted for Trump are morons? The incessant need to psychoanalyze the other side seems to be rampant as wildfire. What is the reason for all of these? Edit - I don't mean these that you post, I meant all over the media.

Red, I think the ideas in this article are pretty universal, regardless of what political bent you on may have, or even what the topic is (I mean, the studies here relate to suicide notes and firefighters!). I can see the general concepts applying across the board to almost all topics too, not just to political ones. That being said, as with so many things right now, the focus has turned to politics and this article follows suit.

Slight digression to show my (last) point: A journalist tried to spend 24 hours not reading any news about Trump (and I'm not picking on Trump, I'm just relaying what the journalist reported) and he said it was impossible as Trump's name not comes up in virtually every topic you could possibly click on to read. So the point (and yes, I do have one, LOL!) I was making at the end of my last paragraph is that the author of this piece is applying the concepts to politics in this article because almost everything lately is somehow related to politics.

I'm not so naïve as to suggest the article ISN'T about politics, because clearly it is, but the information itself is interesting *to me* in an across-the-board sort of context.

And to answer one of your questions, NOTHING, including articles like these, make me feel ANY better in ANY way about the election results.

I thought that it could be innocuous until I read sentences like these below. If you add the bias and the outcomes of the studies it is not a far stretch to decipher the intent. I will acknowledge the equal existence of low information voters on both sides in this election.

If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

(They can now count on their side—sort of—Donald Trump, who has said that, although he and his wife had their son, Barron, vaccinated, they refused to do so on the timetable recommended by pediatricians.)

The Gormans don’t just want to catalogue the ways we go wrong; they want to correct for them. There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. (Another widespread but statistically insupportable belief they’d like to discredit is that owning a gun makes you safer.) But here they encounter the very problems they have enumerated. Providing people with accurate information doesn’t seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science. “The challenge that remains,” they write toward the end of their book, “is to figure out how to address the tendencies that lead to false scientific belief.”

 

[Dee*Jay]

With all due respect, do articles like these make you feel better about the election results or vindicated in your stance that people who voted for Trump are morons? The incessant need to psychoanalyze the other side seems to be rampant as wildfire. What is the reason for all of these? Edit - I don't mean these that you post, I meant all over the media.

Red, I think the ideas in this article are pretty universal, regardless of what political bent you on may have, or even what the topic is (I mean, the studies here relate to suicide notes and firefighters!). I can see the general concepts applying across the board to almost all topics too, not just to political ones. That being said, as with so many things right now, the focus has turned to politics and this article follows suit.

Slight digression to show my (last) point: A journalist tried to spend 24 hours not reading any news about Trump (and I'm not picking on Trump, I'm just relaying what the journalist reported) and he said it was impossible as Trump's name not comes up in virtually every topic you could possibly click on to read. So the point (and yes, I do have one, LOL!) I was making at the end of my last paragraph is that the author of this piece is applying the concepts to politics in this article because almost everything lately is somehow related to politics.

I'm not so naïve as to suggest the article ISN'T about politics, because clearly it is, but the information itself is interesting *to me* in an across-the-board sort of context.

And to answer one of your questions, NOTHING, including articles like these, make me feel ANY better in ANY way about the election results.

I thought that it could be innocuous until I read sentences like these below. If you add the bias and the outcomes of the studies it is not a far stretch to decipher the intent. I will acknowledge the equal existence of low information voters on both sides in this election.

If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

(They can now count on their side—sort of—Donald Trump, who has said that, although he and his wife had their son, Barron, vaccinated, they refused to do so on the timetable recommended by pediatricians.)

The Gormans don’t just want to catalogue the ways we go wrong; they want to correct for them. There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. (Another widespread but statistically insupportable belief they’d like to discredit is that owning a gun makes you safer.) But here they encounter the very problems they have enumerated. Providing people with accurate information doesn’t seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science. “The challenge that remains,” they write toward the end of their book, “is to figure out how to address the tendencies that lead to false scientific belief.”

I specifically excluded the sentence (which comes at the end of one of the quotes I put up) bolded in your post above BECAUSE it is so blatant. My comments were more toward the general nature of the information, but again, I do not deny the article IS political in nature (and my admission on that point is evidenced by my reference to CvT at the end).

 

[redwood66]

With all due respect, do articles like these make you feel better about the election results or vindicated in your stance that people who voted for Trump are morons? The incessant need to psychoanalyze the other side seems to be rampant as wildfire. What is the reason for all of these? Edit - I don't mean these that you post, I meant all over the media.

Red, I think the ideas in this article are pretty universal, regardless of what political bent you on may have, or even what the topic is (I mean, the studies here relate to suicide notes and firefighters!). I can see the general concepts applying across the board to almost all topics too, not just to political ones. That being said, as with so many things right now, the focus has turned to politics and this article follows suit.

Slight digression to show my (last) point: A journalist tried to spend 24 hours not reading any news about Trump (and I'm not picking on Trump, I'm just relaying what the journalist reported) and he said it was impossible as Trump's name not comes up in virtually every topic you could possibly click on to read. So the point (and yes, I do have one, LOL!) I was making at the end of my last paragraph is that the author of this piece is applying the concepts to politics in this article because almost everything lately is somehow related to politics.

I'm not so naïve as to suggest the article ISN'T about politics, because clearly it is, but the information itself is interesting *to me* in an across-the-board sort of context.

And to answer one of your questions, NOTHING, including articles like these, make me feel ANY better in ANY way about the election results.

I thought that it could be innocuous until I read sentences like these below. If you add the bias and the outcomes of the studies it is not a far stretch to decipher the intent. I will acknowledge the equal existence of low information voters on both sides in this election.

If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

(They can now count on their side—sort of—Donald Trump, who has said that, although he and his wife had their son, Barron, vaccinated, they refused to do so on the timetable recommended by pediatricians.)

The Gormans don’t just want to catalogue the ways we go wrong; they want to correct for them. There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. (Another widespread but statistically insupportable belief they’d like to discredit is that owning a gun makes you safer.) But here they encounter the very problems they have enumerated. Providing people with accurate information doesn’t seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science. “The challenge that remains,” they write toward the end of their book, “is to figure out how to address the tendencies that lead to false scientific belief.”

I specifically excluded the sentence (which comes at the end of one of the quotes I put up) bolded in your post above BECAUSE it is so blatant. My comments were more toward the general nature of the information, but again, I do not deny the article IS political in nature (and my admission on that point is evidenced by my reference to CvT at the end).

No worries Dee! I do understand and the article without the bias could have been good information. It is the utter plethora of articles such as these with an intended audience that baffles me. Hence me asking why. Anyone can find any study to fit a narrative they are pushing. But it is my opinion that continued articles like these coupled with media bias will push more people away from center left democrats and toward more right leaning views. If Trump stimulates the economy and manages to have some positive effect on illegal immigration, while not starting WWIII, this will cement that push even more. Normal everyday people don't care about a study that says you have an inherent built-in bias; they are more worried about putting food on the table, paying their bills, and taking a vacation every 5 years if they can afford it.

 

[Matata]

My perspective on the article is focused particularly on the tendency to ignore analysis of policy altogether in addition to clinging to our beliefs regardless of what the facts are.

An example is trump's promise to bring back jobs to the coal industry. That appeals to those whose jobs in that industry are threatened and those who have lost jobs in that industry. People hear they're going to get their jobs back and that's all they want to hear. But, who is asking whether coal is still a viable resource, or what the cost-benefit analysis is of creating technology that makes it a less environmentally destructive resource, or whether in the short-term future coal is a moot point because of current emerging energy technologies? This is an example of the essence of the article for me. And yes, it's political because we have a president setting policies that sound great to his supporters but some of which, upon closer inspection, to do not deliver what is expected or don't deliver in the ways it is expected.

Build a wall. Ok. But let's look at the cost and consider whether the billions to build and maintain it could be put to better use for all citizens -- health care, education, veteran's benefits, our crumbling infrastructure. Instead, supporters of the wall focus on keeping out the bad guys who are stealing jobs away from the good guy citizens when in fact, data shows that not to be true.

These are the types of things that frustrate me; when we cling to beliefs in the face of facts. Death squads under Obama care; Pizzagate. Doesn't matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. We don't, in general, do enough due diligence on important issues because we're too busy following the carrot on the string even if it leads us over a cliff.

 

[kenny]

Fascinating!

The article mentions (in my own words) how many conisder winning an agrument as more important than arriving at truth.

IMO this competition is a massive problem, especially with forum discussions.
I hate competitive conversations!

Very often I'll just state my view and leave it at that.
I imagine it pisses off some who want to play the competitive converstaion game ... or those who subscribe to the ubiquitous idea there is only one right way vs. people vary.
They're unhappy I walked away from the game before there was a winner.
Oh well.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,(abit Off topic)

I recently realized that I have moved toward center right. The left on here wants to look only at identity politics as the center of their opinions and values. Most don't seem to know or care about ordinary American life. I will not apologize for my views on illegal immigration, as I believe there is no-one that lives here legally that can get away with breaking the law on most anything. We have a
Sovereign right to protect our borders just as any nation does. My point is I agree with Redwoods comments on the turning of the electorate. May I give two examples.

I lived in England for a while. My friend told me I could work there. I got a job as a waitress in a pub. I did not lie about anything. I was paid by check, cashed it, and kept coming to work until..... The boss was notified their IRS had no record of me and he asked me about my status here. As I was an American, and not part of the European Union, I was not allowed to work there. He fired me on the spot. Two weeks later I received notification from their IRS that if I did it again I would be deported. I had no doubt they meant it. So no work for me.

My niece lived in Australia and had a permit to work there. She worked through an agent and when the work permit was up for renewal, of which there was no problem renewing, she assumed her agent would take care of it. She had a falling out with her agent and was notified her work permit expired. She was given a certain number of days to leave the country, and of course tried to reverse the situation with no luck. She even hired a lawyer because she planned on living there. She missed a deadline and was not only told to leave immediately, but was told she could never come back.

That's how two other countries work. Mexico also has income requirements if you want to live there.

Illegals who come to this country know they are taking a chance.

Each side may have some facts. We each pick those that we understand better. That's why we weigh the matter and decide which are more important to us.
Annette

 

[t-c]

Hi,(abit Off topic)

I recently realized that I have moved toward center right. The left on here wants to look only at identity politics as the center of their opinions and values. Most don't seem to know or care about ordinary American life. I will not apologize for my views on illegal immigration, as I believe there is no-one that lives here legally that can get away with breaking the law on most anything. We have a
Sovereign right to protect our borders just as any nation does. My point is I agree with Redwoods comments on the turning of the electorate. May I give two examples.

I lived in England for a while. My friend told me I could work there. I got a job as a waitress in a pub. I did not lie about anything. I was paid by check, cashed it, and kept coming to work until..... The boss was notified their IRS had no record of me and he asked me about my status here. As I was an American, and not part of the European Union, I was not allowed to work there. He fired me on the spot. Two weeks later I received notification from their IRS that if I did it again I would be deported. I had no doubt they meant it. So no work for me.

My niece lived in Australia and had a permit to work there. She worked through an agent and when the work permit was up for renewal, of which there was no problem renewing, she assumed her agent would take care of it. She had a falling out with her agent and was notified her work permit expired. She was given a certain number of days to leave the country, and of course tried to reverse the situation with no luck. She even hired a lawyer because she planned on living there. She missed a deadline and was not only told to leave immediately, but was told she could never come back.

That's how two other countries work. Mexico also has income requirements if you want to live there.

Illegals who come to this country know they are taking a chance.

Each side may have some facts. We each pick those that we understand better. That's why we weigh the matter and decide which are more important to us.
Annette

Are you suggesting that isn't how the US works? Because that is how it works in the US. Here's an example from someone I know personally: a friend was a foreign student with an F-1 student visa, which allowed her up to 1 year employment after graduation. She accepted a job and thought her company would help her get an H1-B visa. She settled in the community, purchased a house, car, etc... Unfortunately, the company changed their H1-B policy so she was left scrambling to find another way to stay. As she neared the year mark, the US government notified her that she had 3 days to leave the country. So she left her job, house, car, and friends and went back to her native country. Ironically, several multinational corporations tried to recruit her to work in the US later; she declined.

I have other friends who faced similar restrictions to working in the US; they circumvented it in different ways: remain a student by going to grad school, "invest" over $1.6M towards starting a business. These are all instances of people being in the system. Illegal immigrants are people who either were never in the system or dropped out of the system and they are working for people who look the other way. The UK and Australia have illegal immigrants and unethical people/businesses as well, but definitely not to the same extent as the US. It probably helps to be an island.

 

[redwood66]

Hi,(abit Off topic)

I recently realized that I have moved toward center right. The left on here wants to look only at identity politics as the center of their opinions and values. Most don't seem to know or care about ordinary American life. I will not apologize for my views on illegal immigration, as I believe there is no-one that lives here legally that can get away with breaking the law on most anything. We have a
Sovereign right to protect our borders just as any nation does. My point is I agree with Redwoods comments on the turning of the electorate. May I give two examples.

I lived in England for a while. My friend told me I could work there. I got a job as a waitress in a pub. I did not lie about anything. I was paid by check, cashed it, and kept coming to work until..... The boss was notified their IRS had no record of me and he asked me about my status here. As I was an American, and not part of the European Union, I was not allowed to work there. He fired me on the spot. Two weeks later I received notification from their IRS that if I did it again I would be deported. I had no doubt they meant it. So no work for me.

My niece lived in Australia and had a permit to work there. She worked through an agent and when the work permit was up for renewal, of which there was no problem renewing, she assumed her agent would take care of it. She had a falling out with her agent and was notified her work permit expired. She was given a certain number of days to leave the country, and of course tried to reverse the situation with no luck. She even hired a lawyer because she planned on living there. She missed a deadline and was not only told to leave immediately, but was told she could never come back.

That's how two other countries work. Mexico also has income requirements if you want to live there.

Illegals who come to this country know they are taking a chance.

Each side may have some facts. We each pick those that we understand better. That's why we weigh the matter and decide which are more important to us.
Annette

Are you suggesting that isn't how the US works? Because that is how it works in the US. Here's an example from someone I know personally: a friend was a foreign student with an F-1 student visa, which allowed her up to 1 year employment after graduation. She accepted a job and thought her company would help her get an H1-B visa. She settled in the community, purchased a house, car, etc... Unfortunately, the company changed their H1-B policy so she was left scrambling to find another way to stay. As she neared the year mark, the US government notified her that she had 3 days to leave the country. So she left her job, house, car, and friends and went back to her native country. Ironically, several multinational corporations tried to recruit her to work in the US later; she declined.

I have other friends who faced similar restrictions to working in the US; they circumvented it in different ways: remain a student by going to grad school, "invest" over $1.6M towards starting a business. These are all instances of people being in the system. Illegal immigrants are people who either were never in the system or dropped out of the system and they are working for people who look the other way. The UK and Australia have illegal immigrants and unethical people/businesses as well, but definitely not to the same extent as the US. It probably helps to be an island.

The populations of the UK and Australia are significantly smaller also. Your first noted friend followed the rules which many don't, or as you alluded to in your second paragraph they circumvent. The US has not enforced the existing rules in the past but that appears about to change. Rules are only for those that follow them and if enforcement is not part of the picture then you have a system that does not work.

Here is an interesting article on overstayed visas.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/homeland-security-produces-first-estimate-of-foreign-visitors-to-u-s-who-overstay-deadline-to-leave/

 

[AGBF]

Fascinating!

The article mentions (in my own words) how many conisder winning an agrument as more important than arriving at truth.

IMO this competition is a massive problem, especially with forum discussions.
I hate competitive conversations!

Very often I'll just state my view and leave it at that.
I imagine it pisses off some who want to play the competitive converstaion game ... or those who subscribe to the ubiquitous idea there is only one right way vs. people vary.
They're unhappy I walked away from the game before there was a winner.
Oh well.

I sometimes like to engage in discussions where I exchange views with others as opposed to writing my view and simply reading a list of the views of others.

I do not view this exchange of views as a "competitive conversation" unless the tone becomes competitive. I realize that this is a personal preference and I am not trying to say that everyone else should enjoy it.

Deb

 

[kenny]

Fascinating!

The article mentions (in my own words) how many conisder winning an agrument as more important than arriving at truth.

IMO this competition is a massive problem, especially with forum discussions.
I hate competitive conversations!

Very often I'll just state my view and leave it at that.
I imagine it pisses off some who want to play the competitive converstaion game ... or those who subscribe to the ubiquitous idea there is only one right way vs. people vary.
They're unhappy I walked away from the game before there was a winner.
Oh well.

I sometimes like to engage in discussions where I exchange views with others as opposed to writing my view and simply reading a list of the views of others.

I do not view this exchange of views as a "competitive conversation" unless the tone becomes competitive. I realize that this is a personal preference and I am not trying to say that everyone else should enjoy it.

Deb

Sometimes I'll go back and forth a few times.
IMO consistency is overrated.

 

[t-c]

The populations of the UK and Australia are significantly smaller also. Your first noted friend followed the rules which many don't, or as you alluded to in your second paragraph they circumvent. The US has not enforced the existing rules in the past but that appears about to change. Rules are only for those that follow them and if enforcement is not part of the picture then you have a system that does not work.

Here is an interesting article on overstayed visas.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/homeland-security-produces-first-estimate-of-foreign-visitors-to-u-s-who-overstay-deadline-to-leave/

Yes, the population of the UK and Australia are significantly smaller, so combined with limited routes of entry to the country, it makes immigration enforcement easier. But just because the US may not have the same rate of enforcement doesn't mean the government wasn't enforcing the laws. Things are not as simple in this country because there are costs -- fiscally (where will the money to hire extra enforcement come from), economically (farm labor is made of mostly illegal immigration. those farmers in the California central valley that produce much produce of the US, who ironically voted for Trump, are now afraid they will not have the people to harvest their crops), logistically (where will the people who are caught be held? where does the US get the money to build facilities to hold them) -- as well as humanitarian aspects (people who came here as very young children, who have made their lives in the US as law abiding, tax paying participants of society and the economy -- what will happen to them) that must be taken into consideration. Obama (and W Bush) found their balance; Trump's is farther towards the extreme end of enforcement.

By the way, in case you didn't know, the "circumvention" my friends employed are totally within the laws and regulations of the US Government.