The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science

[FifthElement]

Not sure I picked the right place to post this ...

I find this article very interesting and refreshing, so I thought I should share

here is the link:

https://medium.com/editors-picks/adfa0d026a7e

Cheers

[Angrboda]

This looks like an excellent article. Though it's a bit long for my current attention span, I will return to it.

The subject of cognitive bias has been an interest of mine since reading Kahneman and Tversky's early work.


The study of the doomsday cult of the 1950s that the author refers to was written up in the book . It's practically required reading.² (The kindle edition is only $5.)




² I have in my Amazon wish list, but I haven't bought it yet. As if I need more books!

[Faith No More]

It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.

QFT

(Nice find, BTW)

---

Head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.

Here's another quote that reminds me of this forum.

[Raven]

IOW, the human race is hopeless. Oh, well....

Interesting article, thanks for posting it.

[Minimalist]

So, in a nutshell, stupid people have a pre-existing bias for remaining stupid.

Explains creatards quite well, I'd say.

[Faith No More]

So, in a nutshell, stupid people have a pre-existing bias for remaining stupid.

That's one facet of the article's point, sure, but the overall message that is trying to be conveyed is that we all are susceptible to pre-existing bias that keeps us from properly considering the evidence. In fact, highly intelligent people are quite susceptible, too, only they are much better at convincingly rationalizing their unfounded positions.

It's a nice article, but I didn't like the fact that it seemed to slip from scientific inquiry to political commentary there at the end.

[Whateverist]

Not sure I picked the right place to post this ...

I find this article very interesting and refreshing, so I thought I should share

here is the link:

https://medium.com/editors-picks/adfa0d026a7e

Cheers

Very interesting read so far. Thanks.

[Rahul]

Great find. Thanks for sharing it. I've read about Confirmation Bias before. But this article is a wealth of interesting studies.

That part near the end where it talks about triggering a defensive, emotional reaction? I've experienced that fairly recently. There is a 63 year old White Stockbroker that I talk with sometimes. He's a pretty smart guy and we agree with most everything. Except man made global warming.

I triggered the hell out of his defensive, emotional reaction. First time I've ever seen him get upset. I just rolled my eyes and walked away when that happened.

We don't talk about it anymore. But I might show him this article and see what he thinks.

[Tonus]

So, in a nutshell, stupid people have a pre-existing bias for remaining stupid.

In a manner of speaking. It's as if our minds automatically filter new information through a lens of our biases; we're more likely to trust information that confirms what we believe, and less likely to trust information that challenges what we believe. We seek confirmation-- most people will read/view/listen to information that conforms to their beliefs.

One statement that is pretty common from people on opposite sides of contentious topics (religion and politics are good examples) will express surprise or consternation that those on the other side can believe the things that they believe. But we have a tendency to bury ourselves in our biases, and our points of view therefore seem painfully obvious to us.

We're built to hang on to our biased beliefs. Which means that if those beliefs are wrong, we'll work really hard to hang on to them anyway.

[Anomalocaris]

So, in a nutshell, stupid people have a pre-existing bias for remaining stupid.

In a manner of speaking. It's as if our minds automatically filter new information through a lens of our biases; we're more likely to trust information that confirms what we believe, and less likely to trust information that challenges what we believe. We seek confirmation-- most people will read/view/listen to information that conforms to their beliefs.

One statement that is pretty common from people on opposite sides of contentious topics (religion and politics are good examples) will express surprise or consternation that those on the other side can believe the things that they believe. But we have a tendency to bury ourselves in our biases, and our points of view therefore seem painfully obvious to us.

We're built to hang on to our biased beliefs. Which means that if those beliefs are wrong, we'll work really hard to hang on to them anyway.

We don't all hang on the same kind of demonstrably wrong beliefs to the same degree. Some of us are susceptible to corrections of biases in many areas.

It is arguable that even of those who hold a particular belief that actually is demonstratably well founded, a significant portion do so not out of reasoned analysis of the soundness of the foundation, but rather out of a fortuitious biase.

Just because you are right, it doesn't mean you are clever and incisive rather than simply fortuiously biased.