6 ms·

> Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies. People still are people, with all their positive and negative sides. Some technological advancement is

by mrich 11y ago

> Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies. People still are people, with all their positive and negative sides. Some technological advancement is unlikely to change that.

smoyer 11y ago
+1 People often believe "facts" more due to their own preconceived biases than due to logical investigation. So any reports that support their position are obviously the truth. Likewise, they dismiss reports that are contrary to their position. There are lots of examples one could use as proof - recently Donald Trump. Notice there's absolutely no one in the middle? You're either fully behind him or your completely against him. Any time you see a highly polarized issue, I'd recommend asking yourself why there's no middle ground. Often it's because there's also no rationale for the extremes. How do we use the scientific method on issues like this? Even our historical perspectives hold biases - and sometimes it's hard to collect a large enough sample size to have confidence in your conclusion.
- newjersey 11y ago
  This is very important for us because we think we can change the minds of people (at least the people who do not have a direct. malicious motivation). We think that if the facts are out, people will support the facts. This is not the complete truth (if it is true at all): > Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. 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. https://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ https://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11... One hypothesis imho worth exploring: how much does presentation matter? can we present the same facts in a way that is more pallatable? what if we tried to coax the audience into believing they came to the conclusion from the facts themselves?
  - pmarreck 11y ago
    > particularly political partisans I think I identified the problem. Hey, let's boil down all complex answers to complex problems along a 1-dimensional axis and then completely and voluntarily ignore half that axis! What could possibly go wrong? > how much does presentation matter? A lot, in my experience trying to change minds. > can we present the same facts in a way that is more pallatable? Humor is perfect for this. "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." -Oscar Wilde > what if we tried to coax the audience into believing they came to the conclusion from the facts themselves? This is much easier to do on an individual basis than en masse. You basically hand-hold someone down their line of thinking until you get to the dissonance, then comes the important bit, you take a step back. If the person feels coerced in any way, they will push back, which is why you simply try to walk them down their own train of thought. Eventually they will stumble, especially if you gently lay some facts in the way... At all times you must respect their opinion. All of this would be much easier if people didn't tie their egos to their beliefs so tightly.
  - markman 11y ago
    Definitely presentation is a huge factor. Presidential elections are great examples. If a good orator says something enough times, with conviction in a nice package people will believe it. During Bill Clinton's first run for office against H.W.Bush, Al Gore said over and over, "Folks tickle down economics just don't work. We have proof.... " He was lying through his teeth yet people believed it. History clearly shows that despite record spending 10 out of the twelve years Reagan and bush were in office they lowered taxes and had an increase in income revenues.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  > You're either fully behind him or your completely against him. Any time you see a highly polarized issue, I'd recommend asking yourself why there's no middle ground. Easy enough. Some people take principled stands on issues, even when it's not always politically convenient. If you disagree with them, you are wrong, even if you are well-meaning. Even their political enemies can be seen giving them respect - Scalia and Ginsburg were good friends! Some people take populist stands on issues, appeal to one group by attacking another - the Establishment Candidates in Washington, the 1%, immigrants, whoever. If you disagree with them, you are stupid or a bad person. "Neutral ground" is enemy territory.

by mrich 11y ago

> Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies. People still are people, with all their positive and negative sides. Some technological advancement is unlikely to change that.

smoyer 11y ago

+1 People often believe "facts" more due to their own preconceived biases than due to logical investigation. So any reports that support their position are obviously the truth. Likewise, they dismiss reports that are contrary to their position. There are lots of examples one could use as proof - recently Donald Trump. Notice there's absolutely no one in the middle? You're either fully behind him or your completely against him. Any time you see a highly polarized issue, I'd recommend asking yourself why there's no middle ground. Often it's because there's also no rationale for the extremes. How do we use the scientific method on issues like this? Even our historical perspectives hold biases - and sometimes it's hard to collect a large enough sample size to have confidence in your conclusion.

newjersey 11y ago
This is very important for us because we think we can change the minds of people (at least the people who do not have a direct. malicious motivation). We think that if the facts are out, people will support the facts. This is not the complete truth (if it is true at all): > Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. 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. https://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ https://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11... One hypothesis imho worth exploring: how much does presentation matter? can we present the same facts in a way that is more pallatable? what if we tried to coax the audience into believing they came to the conclusion from the facts themselves?
- pmarreck 11y ago
  > particularly political partisans I think I identified the problem. Hey, let's boil down all complex answers to complex problems along a 1-dimensional axis and then completely and voluntarily ignore half that axis! What could possibly go wrong? > how much does presentation matter? A lot, in my experience trying to change minds. > can we present the same facts in a way that is more pallatable? Humor is perfect for this. "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." -Oscar Wilde > what if we tried to coax the audience into believing they came to the conclusion from the facts themselves? This is much easier to do on an individual basis than en masse. You basically hand-hold someone down their line of thinking until you get to the dissonance, then comes the important bit, you take a step back. If the person feels coerced in any way, they will push back, which is why you simply try to walk them down their own train of thought. Eventually they will stumble, especially if you gently lay some facts in the way... At all times you must respect their opinion. All of this would be much easier if people didn't tie their egos to their beliefs so tightly.
- markman 11y ago
  Definitely presentation is a huge factor. Presidential elections are great examples. If a good orator says something enough times, with conviction in a nice package people will believe it. During Bill Clinton's first run for office against H.W.Bush, Al Gore said over and over, "Folks tickle down economics just don't work. We have proof.... " He was lying through his teeth yet people believed it. History clearly shows that despite record spending 10 out of the twelve years Reagan and bush were in office they lowered taxes and had an increase in income revenues.
fennecfoxen 11y ago
> You're either fully behind him or your completely against him. Any time you see a highly polarized issue, I'd recommend asking yourself why there's no middle ground. Easy enough. Some people take principled stands on issues, even when it's not always politically convenient. If you disagree with them, you are wrong, even if you are well-meaning. Even their political enemies can be seen giving them respect - Scalia and Ginsburg were good friends! Some people take populist stands on issues, appeal to one group by attacking another - the Establishment Candidates in Washington, the 1%, immigrants, whoever. If you disagree with them, you are stupid or a bad person. "Neutral ground" is enemy territory.