Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday March 17 2017, @03:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-don't-believe-you dept.

There are facts, and there are beliefs, and there are things you want so badly to believe that they become as facts to you.

The theory of cognitive dissonance—the extreme discomfort of simultaneously holding two thoughts that are in conflict—was developed by the social psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950s. In a famous study, Festinger and his colleagues embedded themselves with a doomsday prophet named Dorothy Martin and her cult of followers who believed that spacemen called the Guardians were coming to collect them in flying saucers, to save them from a coming flood. Needless to say, no spacemen (and no flood) ever came, but Martin just kept revising her predictions. Sure, the spacemen didn't show up today, but they were sure to come tomorrow, and so on. The researchers watched with fascination as the believers kept on believing, despite all the evidence that they were wrong.

This doubling down in the face of conflicting evidence is a way of reducing the discomfort of dissonance, and is part of a set of behaviors known in the psychology literature as "motivated reasoning." Motivated reasoning is how people convince themselves or remain convinced of what they want to believe—they seek out agreeable information and learn it more easily; and they avoid, ignore, devalue, forget, or argue against information that contradicts their beliefs.

[...] People see evidence that disagrees with them as weaker, because ultimately, they're asking themselves fundamentally different questions when evaluating that evidence, depending on whether they want to believe what it suggests or not, according to psychologist Tom Gilovich.

[...] In 1877, the philosopher William Kingdon Clifford wrote an essay titled "The Ethics of Belief" [PDF], in which he argued: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence."

[...] All manner of falsehoods—conspiracy theories, hoaxes, propaganda, and plain old mistakes—do pose a threat to truth when they spread like fungus through communities and take root in people's minds. But the inherent contradiction of false knowledge is that only those on the outside can tell that it's false. It's hard for facts to fight it because to the person who holds it, it feels like truth.

[...] In a New York Times article called "The Real Story About Fake News Is Partisanship", Amanda Taub writes that sharing fake news stories on social media that denigrate the candidate you oppose "is a way to show public support for one's partisan team—roughly the equivalent of painting your face with team colors on game day."

This sort of information tribalism isn't a consequence of people lacking intelligence or of an inability to comprehend evidence. Kahan has previously written that whether people "believe" in evolution or not has nothing to do with whether they understand the theory of it—saying you don't believe in evolution is just another way of saying you're religious. Similarly, a recent Pew study found that a high level of science knowledge didn't make Republicans any more likely to say they believed in climate change, though it did for Democrats.

[...] People also learn selectively—they're better at learning facts that confirm their worldview than facts that challenge it. And media coverage makes that worse. While more news coverage of a topic seems to generally increase people's knowledge of it, one paper, "Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment," showed that when the coverage has implications for a person's political party, then selective learning kicks into high gear.

[...] Fact-checking erroneous statements made by politicians or cranks may also be ineffective. Nyhan's work has shown that correcting people's misperceptions often doesn't work, and worse, sometimes it creates a backfire effect, making people endorse their misperceptions even more strongly.

[...] So much of how people view the world has nothing to do with facts. That doesn't mean truth is doomed, or even that people can't change their minds. But what all this does seem to suggest is that, no matter how strong the evidence is, there's little chance of it changing someone's mind if they really don't want to believe what it says. They have to change their own.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

[Related]:

The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: [PDF]

THE POLITICS OF MOTIVATION [PDF]

Behavioral receptivity to dissonant information

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change" [PDF]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @03:50PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @03:50PM (#480463)

    You're seriously going to say there's no conceivable circumstance where immigration could be a problem whatsoever?

    Yes, if only one child is saved, then it is better to leave hundreds of children to die [npr.org] in syria and millions to live in temporaryily permanent campsites wasting their lives away.
    Because that's what makes America great!

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 17 2017, @04:02PM (3 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday March 17 2017, @04:02PM (#480468)

    Making it a numbers game does not disprove "somehow bad whatsoever." What you mean is "not worth the effort," which is a totally different argument.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @04:11PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @04:11PM (#480475)

      > Making it a numbers game does not disprove "somehow bad whatsoever."

      So your entire problem with the OP's statement boils down to their use of hyperbole.
      That's about as shallow and empty a criticism as you can make because it completely sidesteps the intent of the statement.
      Its one step up from a grammar flame. Why even bother? -- rhetorical question, just in case that was not obvious

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday March 17 2017, @05:08PM (1 child)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday March 17 2017, @05:08PM (#480497)

        "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

        Somebody making a bold claim and then, when called on it, immediately backing off, is rather disappointing. But if nobody calls them on it, people incorrectly take it at face value.

        Their entire argument revolves around the claim that the issue is easily and obviously decided. In point of fact, it's not so cut-and-dried. QED

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @05:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @05:17PM (#480503)

          "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

          Except it was not an extraordinary claim. It was hyperbole abbreviating an entire argument into a single, grammatically incorrect sentence.
          You made the choice to interpret it that way despite all of the contextual clues that you should not.

          people incorrectly take it at face value.

          People are not computers, most of us can recognize a passionate argument as being passionate and not mistake it for a cold recital of bare facts.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @06:00PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @06:00PM (#480523)

    Syria can fix Syria.

    We have our own problems. Our problems may be less awful, but they are more relevant to us.

    We get Syria's problems too if we invite them to live here. You can take the humans out of Syria, but you can't take the Syria out of the humans.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @07:31PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @07:31PM (#480574)

      Syria can fix Syria.

      While the Syrian people obviously played a major role in breaking their own country, the USA also had a hand in it too. The US invasion of Iraq played an important role in destabilizing the entire region which allowed Islamist groups like al Qaeda and Daesh to get a foot hold there. There is a lot of blame to go around. In that light, it is not completely unreasonable for Syrians to feel that we owe them some consideration.

      We have our own problems. Our problems may be less awful, but they are more relevant to us.

      I got mine, to hell with all the rest of you? This attitude, right here, is why Americans are often despised around the world.

      We get Syria's problems too if we invite them to live here. You can take the humans out of Syria, but you can't take the Syria out of the humans.

      Let me guess: you are a Trump supporter, right? So, tell me: when should we rip that plaque with Emma Lazarus' poem off the pedestal that the Statue of Liberty stands on? You know, the one that says "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? I think I would much rather have Syrians as my neighbours than Trump and his supporters. While there is the possibility that some would-be jihadis may have slipped in with the refugees, on the other hand, I am quite certain that Trump will screw me over first chance he gets. Frankly, I like my odds better with the refugees than with Trump and his supporters. More and more, the Trumpettes just plain scare me. Just sayin'.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @10:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @10:52PM (#480681)

        Am I supposed to care if non-Americans despise Americans? The goal is to win.

        The leaders of most countries don't give a shit about Americans, and that is OK. It's expected. They do their job, or not, and the American president does his job.

        Emma Lazarus' poem is pretty offensive. Put the Declaration of Independence there instead.

        Not that he isn't bad, but our standards for presidents are low enough that Trump is the best we've had in at least a century. Most didn't put America first (most important job qualification) and many were awful in other ways. So far, my only complaints about Trump are issues with the rule of law (failed to prosecute Hillary for her felonies) and the loss of net neutrality. I suspected both when I voted.

        Unlike the hateful left, Trump supporters aren't out hurting people for their beliefs. You know who you'd be safe with.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2017, @02:07AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2017, @02:07AM (#480740)

        "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"?

        Personally I have no problem with that, especially the bit about yearning to be free.
        What I object to is immigrants who come here and want to impose their antiquated religious and authoritarian beliefs on the rest of the population.