Study finds people are consistently and confidently wrong about those with opposing views:
Despite being highly confident that they can understand the minds of people with opposing viewpoints, the assumptions humans make about others are often wrong, according to new research from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN) at King's College London, in partnership with the University of Oxford.
"Poorer representation of minds underpins less accurate mental state inference for out-groups" was published in Scientific Reports. The research explores the psychology behind why people come to the wrong conclusions about others, and suggests how society could start to change that.
In all, 256 participants were recruited from the U.S. and split evenly between those with left- and right-leaning political views. They were presented with various political statements (e.g. Immigrants are beneficial to society) and asked to rate on a 5-point scale how much they agreed with it (i.e. strongly agree to strongly disagree).
For each statement, the participant would then be presented with someone else's response to the same statement. If the two shared a similar opinion, they were deemed "in-group" to one another. If the two held different opinions, they were deemed "out-group" to each other.
The participant was then asked to predict the other person's response on a second statement (e.g. all women should have access to legal abortion), and to state their confidence in their answer, from "Not at all' to "Extremely."
Participants could then choose to receive up to five more of the other person's responses to different statements to help the participant build up a better idea—or "representation"—of the other person's mind. After receiving any further information, participants could update their initial prediction and reclarify their confidence on their final answer.
Analysis of the data found that, even though participants were prepared to seek out as much—and often more—information about someone they disagreed with, their predictions were consistently incorrect, even after receiving further information about them.
Participants demonstrated a high degree of confidence in their answers, suggesting that participants thought they had a good understanding of the people in their out-group, despite this not being the case. In comparison, participants could consistently make accurate predictions about those in their in-group with less information.
"Our study shows that people have a good understanding of people who are similar to themselves and their confidence in their understanding is well-placed. However, our understanding of people with different views to our own is demonstrably poor. The more confident we are that we can understand them, the more likely it is that we are wrong. People have poor awareness of their inability to understand people that differ from themselves," says Dr. Bryony Payne.
[...] Dr. Caroline Catmur, Reader in Cognitive Psychology at King's IoPPN and the study's senior author, said, "We live in an increasingly polarized society and many people are very confident in their understanding of those who don't share their beliefs. However, our research shows that people are willing to reconsider once they are made aware of their mistakes.
"While there is no quick fix in a real-world setting, if everyone interacted with a more diverse group of people, talked directly to them and got to know them, it's likely we would understand each other better. Conversations with people who hold different beliefs could help challenge our incorrect assumptions about each other."
Journal Reference:
Payne, Bryony, Bird, Geoffrey, Catmur, Caroline. Poorer representation of minds underpins less accurate mental state inference for out-groups [open], Scientific Reports (DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-67311-3)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday September 05, @07:43AM (7 children)
How can both of these be true at the same time? If you happen to share half of your views with another person and happen to pick a matching one for your first question, then #1 will turn out false when investigated further.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday September 05, @12:34PM (6 children)
I'm not sure what's supposed to be weird about that. Consider an extreme example. A moon hoaxer (that is, someone who believes the Apollo program was a hoax) would get the beliefs of fellow moon hoaxers down pretty well - after all, they all have to be in similar head spaces and hence, tend to understand one another. But have them try to predict the beliefs of of a retiree who worked on the Apollo program? Mentally, they're already starting from the premise that said retiree is in on a giant scam or somehow incredibly duped. They won't get even basic things right.
Remember it's not the test maker trying to predict anything. The person with the beliefs is the one trying to predict another's beliefs. When those match closely, they tend to do well. When not, they don't.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 05, @01:32PM (5 children)
Mykl properly identified a paradox. If I'm always correct about people who agree with me, but I'm always wrong about people who disagree with me, we have a problem.
You own example doesn't change that paradox. The moon hoaxers will assume that other moon hoaxers agree with them regarding anything related to the moon landing, and be right most of the time. But, what about other issues? Are all moon hoaxers pro-life? Are all moon hoaxers Democrats? Are all moon hoaxers Nascar fans? Do all moon hoaxers listen to metal music? Pick an issue - abortion rights, Second Amendment rights, the Ukraine war, the Gaza war. Are we to assume that all moon hoaxers can reliably predict the positions of all, or most, other moon hoaxers on all those issues? How 'bout two moon hoaxers, one of whom was a high school dropout and never pursued any further education, compared to an electrical engineer with a couple degrees?
The study is a bit of fluff, found by gazing into a navel(s). It falls completely apart as soon as you include multiple issues on which the in-group is supposed to evaluate itself. It probably wouldn't take any more effort to destroy the opposite conclusion - the in-group gets the out-group's positions and motivations wrong most or all the time.
The study's time and resources would have been better spent figuring out what kind of people can identify those positions and motivations of the out-group best. I'll bet first and foremost would be a healthy dose of empathy, with a reasonable level of intelligence being a necessity. The person doing the predicting definitely needs exposure to the world, outside his comfort zone.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 05, @11:27PM (4 children)
Yes a problem. No, not a paradox. This is instead expected and mundane.
Even though expected and mundane, I think the field is filled with landmines. Determining that certain belief systems aren't quite understanding of others could torpedo research funding. Academic world is full of this stuff. One doesn't simply do such a study in Mordor. There is evil there with large chips on its collective shoulders. Some subtlety/finesse/not-telling-them-what-you're-actually-doing would be required.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Friday September 06, @12:54AM (3 children)
Let's work through an example.
Scenario 1: Let's say the first question is favourite fruit. Fred selects Apple and Barney also selects Apple. Fred has a high level of accuracy in being able to guess that Barney's favourite ice cream flavour is Vanilla, like him, because the two people are similar to each other and therefore have many shared (or easily guessed) preferences.
Scenario 2: Fred's favourite fruit is Apple and Wilma's is Pear. Fred is poor at guessing that Wilma's favourite ice cream flavour is Mint. Because he doesn't understand Pear lovers, he doesn't realise that some like Mint and some like Chocolate because their preferences are not uniform and can't be guessed easily by Apple lovers.
Scenario 3: Wilma's and Betty both pick Pear as their favourite fruit. Per Scenario 1, Wilma should be able to guess Betty's favourite ice cream flavour because they are both Pear lovers. But per Scenario 2, she should not be able to guess Betty's favourite ice cream because Pear lovers are not uniform. Both can't be true at the same time.
In the real world, I agree that people are nuanced (though less so these days in the US with people increasingly treating political parties like sports teams - to be supported regardless of their policies or 'players'). The scenario presented in the experiment though does not make sense.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 06, @01:41AM (2 children)
Scenario 2: Fred's favorite fruit is Apple and Wilma's is Pear. Fred is poor at guessing that Wilma's favorite ice cream flavor is Mint. He is poor at that because he simply can't grok that pear lovers could possibly love Mint ice cream.
Scenario 3: Wilma's and Betty both pick Pear as their favorite fruit. Per Scenario 1, Wilma should be able to guess Betty's favorite ice cream flavor because they are both Pear lovers. And well, Betty's favorite ice cream happens to be Mint too. How about that?
One of the effects of ideological polarization is that people build up false stereotypes of ideological opponents and frequently are unable to understand how other beliefs can manifest or the common ground they often have with even the most extreme opposition.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday September 06, @03:31AM (1 child)
I agree that the scenario you laid out makes sense, and it may well be that this is what the experiment showed too.
What I am struggling with is that, once Fred is told that Pear lovers prefer Mint ice cream, surely he would be able to adjust his mental model and accurately predict that in the future? The summary seems to suggest that's not the case? If it _is_ the case, then surely the issue is a temporary one at best? Or are we saying that people are refusing to adjust mental models even when presented with concrete examples that show their assumptions are wrong?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 06, @11:57AM
Just like when a moon hoaxer changes their mind when they're given copious evidence and solid argument that the Apollo Program actually put people on the Moon? We know that it can be hard to change peoples' mental models even when they want to change them.
Do you even have to ask?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by r_a_trip on Thursday September 05, @08:01AM
Not surprising. Humans are group animals and we are all vying for the same resources. We are also not above violence. In-group is safe and out-group a threat. When it comes to safeguarding the in-group, it doesn't help to try and understand the out-group. It's kill or be killed out in nature. When machetes are swinging and heads are rolling, wondering what the other is thinking doesn't help with keeping your in-group alive. Only one prevailing thought rises to the top, "They are not us!"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Thursday September 05, @08:48AM (2 children)
Maybe this is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect? Incompetence breeds poor awareness of one's own incompetence.
It certainly seems like "poor awareness of their inability to understand" should be read as "incompetent to understand".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 05, @12:24PM (1 child)
I see a resemblance to the Monty Hall problem. Starting with little information, make a choice, given more information about the remaining unknowns you should usually adjust your choice, but people usually don't.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Username on Thursday September 05, @02:31PM
Well, how did they motivate people to give them answers? Most people will give answers that will take the least amount of time. $50 to take a survey, done 5 minutes. $50/hour to take a survey, "we'll I gotta think about this more."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday September 05, @10:04AM (9 children)
I learned that many years ago: I had just moved to Toronto, and at my new job, one of my new workmate - clearly of middle Eastern descent - was dressed in full Arabian regalia, with the white thawb and everything. I asked him where he was from:
"Windsor, Ontario" he replied.
"No I mean, where are you from?"
"Well, Windsor, Ontario."
"I mean, what country do you come from originally?"
"Canada..."
And then I realized, I subconsciously made assumptions about him solely based on his looks and my complete ignorance of the cosmopolitan nature of Toronto. The man and his family had been in Canada for several generations. It's just that it's totally okay to dress however your culture dictates in Toronto if that's your thing.
And so my brain was working on completely incorrect premises and as a result, he didn't understand the true meaning of my question and I didn't understand the true meaning of his reply. It's the first time I felt utterly disconnected with reality despite my best efforts to be as open I could be: my brain instantly turned me into an involuntary racist. It was actually a bit scary.
Anyway, it stuck with me and now I always double-check what I think I know before saying or concluding anything. But even knowing about my inevitable biases, I still regularly fall victim to them.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday September 05, @11:53AM
At least you're intelligent enough to see your racial prejudice and try to change your thoughts. Too many people can't change.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 05, @12:26PM (3 children)
Correct question: what's your cultural background that leads you to dress funny?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday September 05, @01:25PM
But that's not what he meant.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Thursday September 05, @02:38PM (1 child)
Funny? What's funny about it?
Arab dress is quite practical in very warm environments. On a hot sunny day, you'd probably be much happier in that outfit than in a coat and tie, plus no restricting blood flow to the brain
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 05, @07:33PM
Not funny "ha ha" but funny: small minority, not usually seen, unusual.
Unusual can be cool, particularly when it's desert wear in Toronto.
>tie ... restricting blood flow to the brain
Yeah, I call that "funny, ha ha - self destructive conformity in the hopes of currying favor with other self-destructive conformists."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Weasley on Thursday September 05, @02:44PM (3 children)
That's not racism. North America is primarily peopled by European immigrants, and his dress was obviously not of European origin. You asked a question because you wanted to know his cultural origin, but asked in way that you've been told is racist and insensitive by idiots who wish to divide up the electorate as racists and non-racists for political purposes. And so, in order to ask these questions we have to put out so many disclaimers to signal the appropriate virtue and avert the inevitable racist accusation, that it's almost not even worth discussing it. The reality is, your question wasn't racist, it would have worked better in the past because non-European immigration was more uncommon. Today, a much larger proportion of people who are visibly non-European are going to be native born so you just adjust the question. Maybe, where's your family from? What's your families cultural origin? Why do you dress funny? I don't know. Most of the people of the Americas descend (full or partially) from elsewhere. It's not racist to ask someone from where that is.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday September 05, @06:48PM (2 children)
He saw the dress and other racial cues and assumed that the person was not born in Canada. He assumed something (which was wrong) about someone solely on the basis of their appearance. How is that not racist?
This should make it clear that he was asking about more than ethic background:
(Score: 5, Touché) by Mykl on Thursday September 05, @11:26PM
Racism or broader discrimination isn't making inferences based on current observations and previous experience. Racism is treating people unfairly because of those assumptions.
If I see someone standing on the street holding a map upside down and looking confused then I am going to assume they are a tourist and will ask them if they need assistance
If I see a "person who presents as elderly" who is stooped over and appearing to have trouble with mobility then I am going to offer them my seat on the train
If I see a person who is wearing a necklace with a religious symbol on it then I am going to assume they are somewhat religious (probably incorrectly sometimes!)
Never assuming anything about anyone is a silly way to go about life and would waste so much time. Imagine living in an English speaking country and starting every single conversation with a stranger with "excuse me, do you speak English?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday September 06, @01:44AM
What makes it racist? Appearance isn't race, right? With makeup and dress, most people can look like a wide range of ethnicities without actually being those ethnicities. So judging on appearance isn't enough to be racist - that is, discriminating on the basis of ethnicity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by srobert on Thursday September 05, @02:04PM (4 children)
Pro-Choicer: "The right wants to control women and their bodies to establish male dominance."
Pro-Lifer: "The left wants to kill babies so that they can live sinfully without consequence."
Each sees the other in ways that preclude any meaningful debate about the actual issue which should be: "If the law should protect human lives, then when does human life begin?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Thursday September 05, @02:26PM (3 children)
>"If the law should protect human lives, then when does human life begin?"
One side doesn't want an answer to that question, because zygotes exhibit all definitions of life and are, obviously, human. That's why there's the pivot from biology to philosophy, and who has rights, mother or child.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 05, @02:51PM (2 children)
Of course it meets the definition of life. But that is not enough: We don't make it illegal to kill microbes, fungal spores, plant seeds, most animals, and even people under a surprisingly large set of circumstances. So that on its own does not mean that a law against killing zygotes is not inherently wrong, unjust, or immoral.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Friday September 06, @03:39AM (1 child)
What I find weird is the switchover between abortion and capital punishment. Apparently you can be for one of those or the other, but not both.
(Score: 2) by Username on Friday September 06, @05:00PM
One committed the crime of being conceived. The other mass murder with the promise of doing it again. Who would you kill?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Barenflimski on Thursday September 05, @02:15PM
Well fuck. I never thought twice about the folks that disagreed with me as everyone has their own opinions and I valued that. I figured you's was all well educated, good lookin' folks with decent jobs.
Now I'm gonna keep an eye out for you sorts!
(Score: 1, Troll) by RedGreen on Thursday September 05, @02:22PM (5 children)
More both sideism garbage these assholes use to justify the behavior of the racists, nazi, fascist right wing buddies. All in the name of supposedly giving both sides the benefit of the doubt. When I see the murdering right wing bastards express them views I am fully confident in my conclusion having observed these fucking scum gain more and more followers, for the last fifty years or more years since the last world war as they regroup, as they seek the power again to kill even more people with the garbage they spew. Yeah right people on the left are wrong in drawing these conclusion about them, tell that lie to someone who will believe it like a moron trump supporter.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05, @03:00PM (3 children)
That 'both sides' argument is more appropriate today than ever. You point at Trump and call him a moron, while assuming that neither Biden nor Harris are morons. You call the right racists, but refuse to acknowledge that Harris had racist policies while a prosecutor, and later as an AG, that literally enslaved young black men at disproportionate rates. Harris refused multiple court orders to free enslaved black labor, because the state she served was profiting from that enslavement.
WTF don't we have more, and better choices than a racist wench trying to pass herself off as black, and an old has-been who is less racist than your candidate?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05, @05:49PM
Whossh....right over your head.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05, @06:53PM
maybe if shit like "tried to start an insurrection to keep himself on the throne" was an actual deal-breaker for a certain group of people...
(Score: 2, Troll) by cmdrklarg on Thursday September 05, @07:26PM
"Both sides", uh huh. Keep right on handwaving away all the reprehensible shit that the "old has-been" has been doing his entire life, and then making shit up about the "wench" so that you can somehow make them equally bad. Cite your assertions or get lost.
The Florida Orange Man may be an ignorant narcissistic asshole con man, but he ain't a "moron". He's smart enough to convince a bunch of credulous fools that's he's one of them and that he cares about them beyond getting their money and votes.
Biden's not a "moron"; he's an old fart with a stutter. Harris is clearly not a "moron".
First of all: Harris is black (as well as South Asian). She doesn't need to "pass herself off". Second of all: your assertion of her being more racist than the Florida Orange Man has zero merit, and shall be summarily dismissed. Your dishonest attempt to somehow equate the two is laughable.
Good day, sir.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday September 05, @11:53PM
That's the most parsimonious solution here. Find the right label for the out-group and you never have to understand them at all.
So... does that mean that they've murdered someone?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by bzipitidoo on Friday September 06, @02:38AM
One of the most loaded letters I ever got came from the city after I had skipped a week, just one week, of mowing the lawn. It had rained a lot and I didn't want to mow while the grass was wet. The grass in the median of the nearest major street was higher than my yard. I had only a few fast growing plants-- dandelions-- that had shot up above the 1 foot mark. The grass was well under half a foot. But the city inspector decided it was unacceptable anyway.
This letter was way, way over the top. Threatened me with fines of up to $2000 per day, and went on about "taking pride in the neighborhood", and that tall grass was a fire hazard, reduced visibility, sheltered vermin, and reduced property values, as if I had let the grass get over a meter high. How could I be so mean to my neighbors and careless of people's safety? Why did I hate the city?? I found the letter insulting and infuriating, to insinuate that I was an undesirable neighbor. Yeah, the bureaucracy read me very, very wrong.
I would like to do more by doing less. It's crazy how much effort everyone puts into lawn care. I can't participate in No Mow May, without getting all kinds of trouble from neighbors who think anyone who doesn't mow regularly must be a lazy, no good, deadbeat.