Why facts don't change your mind

[Unfettered]

recent research suggests that partisanship can alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgments.

...which is why I loathe the fact that our law legitimizes political parties in the electoral process. A major civil blunder and (quite possibly) the greatest cause of our progressing national disassembly.

 

[Ponder This]

Interesting article here: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

"Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from."

The article is an account of research into why we fail to change our minds when presented with facts that are contrary to our beliefs. It has interesting implications for discussions on both religion and politics.

Hmm, researchers outed themselves to their test subjects as untrustworthy liars and then the researchers asked if the test subjects would change their minds on the basis of the new "correct" information that the proven untrustworthy lying researchers, now claiming to be honest, "provided" to the test subjects. Oh, AND the data wasn't even enough to generalize from.

Test Subjects predominantly decided not to change their minds.

And this result surprised the deceitful researchers?

... Wow. Just Wow. ...

Out of curiosity... How well do you trust the New Yorker to accurately report the facts?

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmm, researchers outed themselves to their test subjects as untrustworthy liars and then the researchers asked if the test subjects would change their minds on the basis of the new "correct" information that the proven untrustworthy lying researchers, now claiming to be honest, "provided" to the test subjects. Oh, AND the data wasn't even enough to generalize from.

Test Subjects predominantly decided not to change their minds.

And this result surprised the deceitful researchers?

... Wow. Just Wow. ...

Out of curiosity... How well do you trust the New Yorker to accurately report the facts?

I read the article. Brilliant.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting article here: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

"Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from."

The article is an account of research into why we fail to change our minds when presented with facts that are contrary to our beliefs. It has interesting implications for discussions on both religion and politics.

Brilliant. Thanks for presenting the link to it. I used to read the New Yorker regularly. Brilliant writing, brilliant article, thanks.

 

[wellwisher]

Interesting article here: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

"Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from."

The article is an account of research into why we fail to change our minds when presented with facts that are contrary to our beliefs. It has interesting implications for discussions on both religion and politics.

Facts need context. Facts alone can be only circumstantial, or even spun into Lala land.

For example, the late Senator Feinstein of California had a trusted Chinese driver, for several years, who turned out to be a Chinese spy. That fact of her driver was a spy did not mean she was also a spy. Although it could be have been investigated more, and/or spun that way. She was fortunate to have the Democrat injustice Department on her side, to ignore that possible context for that fact.

On the other hand, Trump and members of his team, met with Russians in 2016. That fact was assumed to mean he was a Russian spy working in collusion with Putin. At the same time, every member of the State Department and most members of Congress had had contact with high level Russians, at State Department Parties in Washington. Putin even donated million to the Clinton Foundation. These were not spun, since this was normal protocol.

People are skeptical about just facts, when the facts do not have sufficient support and context, since there are bad people out there, who will use facts, out of context, to spin and do harm. That is called the swamp.

If you look at how it took 7 years to build any criminal case against Trump, and how freedom with facts is being used to prosecute him, you can see how shady, facts out of context, can get. On the other hand, the facts in the Biden influence peddling scam; a dozen shell companies to hide money, are getting lower priority, from the injustice department. Facts can also be weighed differently, depending on politics, and who is protecting or attacking who.

It was a fact that angry parents at PTA meetings were yelling at educators for influencing their children to get sex change surgery and body altering drugs behind their backs. The injustice Department and FBI thought this fact was sufficient to label them as domestic terrorists.

The FBI and Injustice did not first consider the context of these facts; why the angry parents. The so-called educators provoked this defensive reaction by sneaking around the parents backs to indoctrinate children into the bizarre lefty world of self mutilation and placebo gender. That fact should have made the educators criminal, since child abuse is a crime. But those facts were ignored, since the political ends justify the means.

On can learn from real life situations. Truth is more that just the shallow facts. The truth lies deeper.

 

[YoursTrue]

Facts need context. Facts alone can be only circumstantial, or even spun into Lala land.

For example, the late Senator Feinstein of California had a trusted Chinese driver, for several years, who turned out to be a Chinese spy. That fact of her driver was a spy did not mean she was also a spy. Although it could be have been investigated more, and/or spun that way. She was fortunate to have the Democrat injustice Department on her side, to ignore that possible context for that fact.

On the other hand, Trump and members of his team, met with Russians in 2016. That fact was assumed to mean he was a Russian spy working in collusion with Putin. At the same time, every member of the State Department and most members of Congress had had contact with high level Russians, at State Department Parties in Washington. Putin even donated million to the Clinton Foundation. These were not spun, since this was normal protocol.

People are skeptical about just facts, when the facts do not have sufficient support and context, since there are bad people out there, who will use facts, out of context, to spin and do harm. That is called the swamp.

If you look at how it took 7 years to build any criminal case against Trump, and how freedom with facts is being used to prosecute him, you can see how shady, facts out of context, can get. On the other hand, the facts in the Biden influence peddling scam; a dozen shell companies to hide money, are getting lower priority, from the injustice department. Facts can also be weighed differently, depending on politics, and who is protecting or attacking who.

It was a fact that angry parents at PTA meetings were yelling at educators for influencing their children to get sex change surgery and body altering drugs behind their backs. The injustice Department and FBI thought this fact was sufficient to label them as domestic terrorists.

The FBI and Injustice did not first consider the context of these facts; why the angry parents. The so-called educators provoked this defensive reaction by sneaking around the parents backs to indoctrinate children into the bizarre lefty world of self mutilation and placebo gender. That fact should have made the educators criminal, since child abuse is a crime. But those facts were ignored, since the political ends justify the means.

On can learn from real life situations. Truth is more that just the shallow facts. The truth lies deeper.

Sorry, but the above does not relate to the tests and comments made in the article.

 

[Ponder This]

I read the article. Brilliant.

Can you say why you think the article is "brilliant"?

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you say why you think the article is "brilliant"?

It's like a lamp shining, that's why. If someone doesn't see it, then he can't think it's brilliant. Hope that helps. Proverbs 20:15. Have a good evening.

 

[vulcanlogician]

"Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from."

But that's just your average joe. Scientists, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, and any other serious academician is less prone to do this. This is why I think education is so important, especially instruction in basic critical thinking. I think critical thinking should be it's own class and should be a requirement in high school for all students.

 

[Ponder This]

It's like a lamp shining, that's why. If someone doesn't see it, then he can't think it's brilliant. Hope that helps. Proverbs 20:15. Have a good evening.

If you hide your light under a bowl, then it is like your light does not exist.
If what you say is true, then consider Mathew 5:15-16

You tell me to have a "Good Evening"?? I hope for you a Good Day!

 

[YoursTrue]

If you hide your light under a bowl, then it is like your light does not exist.
If what you say is true, then consider Mathew 5:15-16

You tell me to have a "Good Evening"?? I hope for you a Good Day!

Is that a 24-hour day you're wishing me?

 

[wellwisher]

Sorry, but the above does not relate to the tests and comments made in the article.

I read about half the article. What I saw was that the tests were based on deception and pandering to vanity. The tests were not factual and were given a deceptive context. This study, to me, really shows how most people will give even a con artist the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt, will increase, if they tell you what you want to hear, or how kool you are. This is how the Left controls it members. Narcissists are the easiest to work with in alternate reality.

The Russian Collusion Coup could have been one of those tests. It was based on pandering to fear, and was more like gossip instead of facts. One side was far more vulnerable to that make believe world of deception. Others, even under pressure, figured out the puzzle. It comes down to critical thinking skills, which are not taught in liberal education. Collusion was like shooting fish in a barrel, with half the school going to shallow water. The CIA wing of the Swamp is good at this type of thing. But it should not be used on citizens.

 

[YoursTrue]

I read about half the article. What I saw was that the tests were based on deception and pandering to vanity. The tests were not factual and were given a deceptive context. This study, to me, really shows how most people will give even a con artist the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt, will increase, if they tell you what you want to hear, or how kool you are. This is how the Left controls it members. Narcissists are the easiest to work with in alternate reality.

The Russian Collusion Coup could have been one of those tests. It was based on pandering to fear, and was more like gossip instead of facts. One side was far more vulnerable to that make believe world of deception. Others, even under pressure, figured out the puzzle. It comes down to critical thinking skills, which are not taught in liberal education. Collusion was like shooting fish in a barrel, with half the school going to shallow water. The CIA wing of the Swamp is good at this type of thing. But it should not be used on citizens.

All I know is that people will accept whatever truth or reality they see or believe in. As an example, the current world condition, people have differing viewpoints as to who's right and who's wrong. It depends on the viewer. Me personally, I look forward to the incoming kingdom of God to solve mankind's problems, so I do not take sides and will not support one over another. One basic reason is that I know it will end. And the Bible says peace will ensue. Psalm 85:7 - I will listen to what the true God Jehovah says,
For he will speak peace to his people, to his loyal ones,

 

[SkepticThinker]

But that's just your average joe. Scientists, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, and any other serious academician is less prone to do this. This is why I think education is so important, especially instruction in basic critical thinking. I think critical thinking should be it's own class and should be a requirement in high school for all students.

I've been saying that for years!
Throw in some basic psychology, too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I read about half the article. What I saw was that the tests were based on deception and pandering to vanity. The tests were not factual and were given a deceptive context. This study, to me, really shows how most people will give even a con artist the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt, will increase, if they tell you what you want to hear, or how kool you are. This is how the Left controls it members. Narcissists are the easiest to work with in alternate reality.

The Russian Collusion Coup could have been one of those tests. It was based on pandering to fear, and was more like gossip instead of facts. One side was far more vulnerable to that make believe world of deception. Others, even under pressure, figured out the puzzle. It comes down to critical thinking skills, which are not taught in liberal education. Collusion was like shooting fish in a barrel, with half the school going to shallow water. The CIA wing of the Swamp is good at this type of thing. But it should not be used on citizens.

Do you just soak in every single thing Trump says and then come here and parrot it to us? Sure sounds like it.

 

[wellwisher]

Do you just soak in every single thing Trump says and then come here and parrot it to us? Sure sounds like it.

Actually both Trump. myself snd millions of others, learned from the Master, who was the late Rush Limbaugh. Rush's support for Trump, early, before all propaganda divide occurred, was very pivotal to his victory in 2016. Rush broadcasted his #1 radio show from NYC, and he knew Trump personally. Trumps ideas were not new but had been developed over decades. We all learned in the Limbaugh School of Advanced Conservative Studies. It was offered three hours per day, five days a week, all for free. Rush would discuss the daily news with analysis and comedy.

Rush knew the Political Left, better than they knew themselves. He could stay one step ahead. Rush died after the 2020 election and the Biden inauguration. His passage had an affect on Trump; lost his trusted advisor. Trump is working his way back to heath.

I did read half of the article, and the studies were based on deception and gullibility. In a sense, it is like an academic exercise where you use hypotheticals. However, in the case of psychology experiments, not starting with reality can create subliminal inner doubt and even over compensation. The study is self fulfilling and therefore could be used as a tactic.

 

[Audie]

Actually both Trump. myself snd millions of others, learned from the Master, who was the late Rush Limbaugh. Rush's support for Trump, early, before all propaganda divide occurred, was very pivotal to his victory in 2016. Rush broadcasted his #1 radio show from NYC, and he knew Trump personally. Trumps ideas were not new but had been developed over decades. We all learned in the Limbaugh School of Advanced Conservative Studies. It was offered three hours per day, five days a week, all for free. Rush would discuss the daily news with analysis and comedy.

Rush knew the Political Left, better than they knew themselves. He could stay one step ahead. Rush died after the 2020 election and the Biden inauguration. His passage had an affect on Trump; lost his trusted advisor. Trump is working his way back to heath.

I did read half of the article, and the studies were based on deception and gullibility. In a sense, it is like an academic exercise where you use hypotheticals. However, in the case of psychology experiments, not starting with reality can create subliminal inner doubt and even over compensation. The study is self fulfilling and therefore could be used as a tactic.

Maybe you is confused a out who is the deceiver,
and who is gullible.

 

[wellwisher]

Maybe you is confused a out who is the deceiver,
and who is gullible.

What I forgot to mention was that Rush Limbaugh, was a Ronald Reagan Republican. Ronald Reagan was the person Rush Limbaugh based his political views and even his persona on. Reagan turned the economy around and made America Strong again. His leadership help to end the Cold War; take down that wall. He stimulated a stagnant economy with a tax cut. It became a very strong economy.

Reagan had been an Actor, and then President of the California Actors Union. He became Governor of California, before he was elected president in 1980. When Reagan became president, he used his acting skills and his connections in Hollywood, to help him by pass the bottlenecks of the government bureaucracy. He would plead his case, directly to the people, via TV. He was a very effective public speaker who could clearly outline his approach and his needs. This could rally the voters who would pressure their elected officials. He was elected with a mandate and would use it. Plus he came across as a kind grandfather.

Reagan was also a master of the media. The actors unions and Hollywood and even Madison Avenue, supported him at a time before the internet. Movies, like Rambo and other pro-Military action hero, came out in support of the Reagan military buildup; peace through strength even for the underdog. The 1980's was like a renaissance for the self reliant and entrepreneur.

Limbaugh and then Trump were loosely similar to the Reagan template. Both had Reagan conservative values, both were effective speakers who could appeal to the masses. Their back door approach, did not sit well with the Swamp, who expected to be at the table, running their show and controlling the narrative. Limbaugh became constant target who saw himself as more of an adviser. He saw Trump as having that Reagan strength of resolve, and the mass appeal, to become president and deal with the Swamp, through the voters like Reagan. Trump was a successful businessman and TV personality, but Hollywood and Madison Avenue had jumped ship; compared to Reagan, to the dark side, where fact and fiction was not clear cut like an academic exercise.

 

[icehorse]

Interesting article here: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

"Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from."

The article is an account of research into why we fail to change our minds when presented with facts that are contrary to our beliefs. It has interesting implications for discussions on both religion and politics.

I suspect that self-determination theory (SDT), plays a significant role here. Among other things, SDT looks at the various ways we are motivated. The strongest, healthiest, most sustainable type of motivation is intrinsic motivation. This comes with things we're truly passionate about that offer the chance to become experts. So things like chess or gardening or wood working or cooking or painting can all provide this opportunity. Watching TV probably cannot. So if a person really loves gardening and is motivated to become a master gardener, they will study gardening. They will welcome new facts. They find in inner or intrinsic joy in gardening.

The more common, less healthy forms of motivation involve extrinsic motivation. Least healthy are things like threats or blackmail or bribery. Next are things like carrot and stick reward systems - this is common in many jobs. The drive to be part of a tribe usually falls into one of the extrinsic categories, and I suspect that the desire to stay in the tribe can lead to ignoring facts that the tribe does not approve of.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting article here: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

"Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from."

The article is an account of research into why we fail to change our minds when presented with facts that are contrary to our beliefs. It has interesting implications for discussions on both religion and politics.

In case it's not done yet, here's a link without a paywall...

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds

Why many people will vigorously defend their beliefs even when faced with compelling proof they are wrong.

www.psychologytoday.com