Facts Don't Matter

[beforewisdom]

I encourage everyone to read this fascinating article that explains much of what you see in informal debates these days, both off and on the internet.

 

It explains so much of the idiotic arguments here on VBB where someone will keep arguing past the point where they are proven wrong, even by people who are experts in the subject they have a wrong view on.

 

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

 

 

Full article at the Boston Globe

[lobsteriffic]

Yeah, that's been shown again and again in studied on persuasion in social psych. Like you said, that explains some of the threads here, haha.

[Richard]

Yeah, facts do not matter to the majority - because they are ballbags. I don't know at what point it is in most people's lives, but there comes a time when they seem to take everything they've experienced and learned, and say "That'll do!" and stick with it, no matter what, from that point onwards, not adding or taking anything away from it. It's a big curly poop on my head

[beforewisdom]

Yeah, that's been shown again and again in studied on persuasion in social psych. Like you said, that explains some of the threads here, haha.

 

Interesting point. Part of the article mentioned how giving subjects self esteem boosting exercises made them more likely to be willing to be corrected. In other words, the threat of updating their views was ameliorated.

 

That reminded me of some articles I read about improving persuasion. Those articles mentioned that gaining the person's confidence comes first and introducing facts comes second.

 

Those authors recommended first establishing a rapport, convincing the person that "you are one of them", then start introducing new information while relating it to what the person already accepts.

 

The trouble is few people have that kind of time or patience.

Edited July 15, 2010 by beforewisdom

[beforewisdom]

Yeah, facts do not matter to the majority -

 

I disagree. My opinion is just that people are less likely to accept facts until the person giving it to them wins their confidence first ( makes them feel safe, respected ).

[Richard]

That's not been my experience with the majority of people that I come into contact with, bunch of stubborn nitwits, that's pretty much everybody. I am refreshed when I tell somebody something and it actually changes their mind, and how they behave in future. So often, on things like politics, philosophy, ethics and so on, no matter what facts you present, it does not matter, they will dance from one point to another, you will never pin them down, they made up their mind years ago and that's the end of it

 

I think that on a larger scale, in the media and from speakers etc, it is more about how their message is put across, and what other messages are also being put across more subtly, what that person represents, connections, how the audience feels they can connect and so on. Can also matter what people hear first on a certain issue, and following things may seem less believable, even if the first thing they heard was bs

[Ducati]

You mean like the fact that milk is wholesome, healthy, good for bones and teeth? I can find thousands of studies that claim all of this, so this must be fact?

 

The problem is the people that believe something and never challenge their own beliefs. Too many people believe that if something is written in a textbook, it is fact. Well, I wrote textbooks for a living for several years. When I first started, they asked me to review one of the textbooks for technical errors. Int he first chapter alone I found something like 68 technical errors in an 11 chapter book. Most were small, but a few were significant. They usually only change the significant ones to save money.

 

We constantly have to ask ourselves. Is this a fact that can be consistently proven via science, or just a common way of thinking about something? Or is it a theory based on statistics? For most people, an old lie is easier to believe than a new truth.

 

To consider the subject of health, a common belief is that to lose weight, you simply need to eat less than you burn. However, countless studies have shown this not to be true. Your metabolism changes depending on what and how much you eat as well as how much you exercise. The amount of calories our body uses from different food sources is not consistent among the food sources or even among individuals. The calories in vs calories burned statement has been repeated so many times that is has become a fact to most people. Even though there is no scientific opposite, but there is scientific studies to show the opposite.

 

Questioning these "facts" is very important for us to grow as society. Unfortunately, few people do this which is why people still think milk is wholesome, healthy, etc.

[lobsteriffic]

Yeah, that's been shown again and again in studied on persuasion in social psych. Like you said, that explains some of the threads here, haha.

 

Interesting point. Part of the article mentioned how giving subjects self esteem boosting exercises made them more likely to be willing to be corrected. In other words, the threat of updating their views was ameliorated.

 

That reminded me of some articles I read about improving persuasion. Those articles mentioned that gaining the person's confidence comes first and introducing facts comes second.

 

Those authors recommended first establishing a rapport, convincing the person that "you are one of them", then start introducing new information while relating it to what the person already accepts.

 

The trouble is few people have that kind of time or patience.

 

It's true, that often works well. Also a lot of research has looked at surface characteristics of the person making the persuasive argument (e.g., appearance, etc.), but a lot of that research is from before the internet was so popular. I wonders how/if it applies.

 

But you're right, agreeing with the person and then introducing new information is a highly effective way of increasing persuasion.

 

I'm such a nerd. This is what comes from spending 9 years studying social psychology.

[lobsteriffic]

Questioning these "facts" is very important for us to grow as society. Unfortunately, few people do this which is why people still think milk is wholesome, healthy, etc.

 

I think a lot of the resistance to changing beliefs about this stems from the way the argument is presented to most people. They may have spent decades hearing something such as milk is good for bone development from commercials or their doctor or wherever. Sure, studies are published that might say otherwise, but that doesn't mean your average joe on the street is reading these studies and is aware of their findings. Then instead of using effective persuasion techniques all of a sudden someone tells them "hey, milk is bad. Don't drink it." It's really no wonder that doesn't work for most people.

[Cold Fission]

Before wisdom is lame-fact.

[medman]

This just in - ignorance is hard to combat.

 

I would have thought most people had figured this out on their own. Racism, sexism, political partisanship, and most of the other bullshit out there perpetuates itself despite many years of "enlightened" people trying to fight it. What it comes down to is that most people think their opinion makes for a convincing point-counterpoint debate against actual facts. Everyone here has been guilty of it at some point. Try to think of the last time somebody blew you away during an argument or debate and you said "Wow, you're actually right!" about a major issue.

[Northstar]

We all must find our own paths. When one is ready, they will find the truth.

[Richard]

I've even come across this problem with mathematics - yes, I show someone an equation, and even though they agree that the equation is correct, they don't accept the answer! Their reasoning is that they don't think equations necessarily prove the answer to be "true" - they don't trust mathematics. This has happened many times, and it made me realise just how stupid people are, it can be applied to other areas of thought where logic and acceptance of the truth are necessary - a lot of people are unable to take that step from:

 

They think that "Thought A" is true

 

Proof is introduced that "Thought A" is false

 

"Thought A" is abandoned

 

Proof is introduced that "B" is true

 

"Thought B" replaces "Thought A".

 

Most people can't get to the 3rd step.

 

To answer medman's question; I certainly do adapt my opinions on things based on new evidence, I can't remember specifically the last time this happened, but I used to have very different views and ideas a few years ago, and as I come across new information (facts) I change my views. I am pretty open on subjects that I feel I am not educated on, and those are especially trouble areas for most people since they lack the confidence to admit they are ignorant on a subject, therefore they pretend they know about it and stick to their (incorrect) opinions. Especially things like politics, my views are not that strong, and my opinions are not fully formed, as I don't know the big picture.

 

I think the best way to view things is to let facts and new information shape your opinions. Never be arrogant to think you know it all. But that shouldn't be taken to the extreme where "everybody's opinion counts" and all that nonsense. Only valid and provable information should be accepted, and you update your stance along the way. I see opinions as something like a big filing cabinet. As you get new information on a subject, you put it in the drawer. But as the contents of the drawer goes a certain direction, then the label on the front of that drawer should be updated, otherwise it doesn't reflect what you know is inside - and you throw out the out-dated / incorrect stuff from the drawer, so you are just left with facts. I think many people do it the other way round, they label their thoughts, and no matter what info (or lack of) there is to back it up inside, they never update the label, their actual opinion. And they most likely don't even put the new info in, dusty old drawers.

[Dallas]

So I have to earn my enemies trust before I can persuade them? *evil laugh*

[beforewisdom]

But you're right, agreeing with the person and then introducing new information is a highly effective way of increasing persuasion.

 

I'm such a nerd. This is what comes from spending 9 years studying social psychology.

 

I find it all fascinating too, so you can't be a nerd

[beforewisdom]

I would have thought most people had figured this out on their own. Racism, sexism, political partisanship, and most of the other bullshit out there perpetuates itself despite many years of "enlightened" people trying to fight it.

 

An attitude towards an entire race, sex or a political bias is much more complex than a simple matter of fact. What I found fascinating in the article was that the studies dealt with single issues of fact which could be looked up and refuted.

 

 

What it comes down to is that most people think their opinion makes for a convincing point-counterpoint debate against actual facts. Everyone here has been guilty of it at some point. Try to think of the last time somebody blew you away during an argument or debate and you said "Wow, you're actually right!" about a major issue.

 

I have, though I was both brought up to do that and trained to do it in school.

 

I'm still amazed, fascinated by people can stick to their guns when refuted by an expert who as degrees in, credentials in and who works in the field that is being argued about. That is just amazing that a person can do that.

[Ducati]

 

I'm still amazed, fascinated by people can stick to their guns when refuted by an expert who as degrees in, credentials in and who works in the field that is being argued about. That is just amazing that a person can do that.

 

 

There are thousands of experts with degrees and long lists of credentials that promote dairy, meat, and eggs as essential for a healthy diet. Do you agree with them?

[beforewisdom]

There are thousands of experts with degrees and long lists of credentials that promote dairy, meat, and eggs as essential for a healthy diet. Do you agree with them?

 

That is where having an open mind comes in. You do some research to reevaluate your opinion looking at what other experts think, why think like that and what their credentials are.

[medman]

 

There are thousands of experts with degrees and long lists of credentials that promote dairy, meat, and eggs as essential for a healthy diet. Do you agree with them?

 

I'll play devil's advocate and say that some of those people are right, in a way. Think of the number of people who don't understand anything about nutrition, and have no idea what nutrition is found in legumes etc etc. With their knowledge base, if they were to cut out dairy, meat, and eggs, they'd be eating peanut butter on wonderbread for every meal. Of course, I'd be happy if more knowledge was available about veganism and vegan nutrition, but think of how screwed most people would be if the sale of animal products suddenly became illegal. They literally wouldn't know how to feed themselves.

 

Don't mind me, I'm just trying to be a shit disturber

[Ducati]

There are thousands of experts with degrees and long lists of credentials that promote dairy, meat, and eggs as essential for a healthy diet. Do you agree with them?

 

That is where having an open mind comes in. You do some research to reevaluate your opinion looking at what other experts think, why think like that and what their credentials are.

 

 

You are taking two sides of your own argument. You say that experts and credentials are valid and need to be recognized when deciding what to believe, but then you say you need to do your own research and reevaluate your opinion depending on what other experts believe. This doesn't make sense to me.

 

I say ignore the experts and look only at the research. Recently, someone without a degree submitted a study that was published which showed how radio waves interfere with the growing of trees. Why does a degree or credentials matter? Is someone has information that is valid, then their credentials should not matter. This is why published papers do not detail a persons credentials.

 

You need to read the studies and understand data taking principles, statistical analysis, and the subject of study to be able to determine if what the "expert" is telling you has any real value, or if it is pure propaganda. Most people don't take the time to do this, so they read some article that an untrained journalist wrote after reading the abstract of a study.

[beforewisdom]

"Ladies and gentlemen. This is your Captain speaking. This thread has been hijacked. Our scheduled landing at Friendly and Useful Discourse will be delayed until further notice."

[Ducati]

This is your typical response when someone finds fault with your "facts".

[beforewisdom]

I believe this is the first time I made this joke.

[Ducati]

I believe this is the first time I made this joke.

 

I was talking about your tucking tail and running instead of countering with a logical argument.

[beforewisdom]

I believe this is the first time I made this joke.

 

I was talking about your tucking tail and running instead of countering with a logical argument.

 

I don't mean any offense by this, but sometimes there comes a point where you realize that you can't change someone's mind, no matter what you say. if you don't enjoy arguing for the sake of argument and other people reading the thread aren't learning anything by the exchange, you don't have any motivation to continue.

 

You are perfectly free to take that as "tucking tail and running"

 

Happy Monday.