10 ms·

Well, most of the time the "Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds" question could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" I just skimmed

Well, most of the time the "Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds" question could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" I just skimmed the article, but the mention of Steve Bannon at end is an indication that the article probably belongs to that trend. This turns the issue into the political ground, not the scientific one. Thus, the word "fact" is used as an appeal to authority when its actually an ideological discussion that is at stake. Some facts are carefully ignored or dismissed when not fitting the narrator world's view (in either sides), so it would be better to acknowledge that it's opinions that are discussed, and that their are not absolutely right.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
The thing is, slim majorities of conservatives will answer phone surveys with things like "yes, Obama was born in Kenya" or "no, global temperature isn't rising". Specious argument can come from anybody, but the "la la can't hear you" portion of the left is measurably smaller compared to the right.
- catawbasam 8y ago
  Source?
  - learc83 8y ago
    There really was a scientific poll were 51% of Republican voters said the believe that Obama was born in Kenya. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/51-of-gop-voters-obama-foreign-049554 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/51-of-gop-voters-obam...
    - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
      Did you really mean to use the word "scientific" here? If so, I'm not sure what you mean for a poll to be scientific.
      - yourbandsucks 8y ago
        There's a lot of material out there on what makes a scientific poll. Basically, demographic weighting and a derived margin of error. It's not the same thing as a web poll.
ycombinete 8y ago
I must admit to smirking at the unintended irony created by the title of the article, and the publication it appears in. That said, Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind does outline a very similar thing. That our 'reasoning' is almost always a post-hoc attempt to explain how we already feel. And Haidt, while claiming neutrality is very definitely on the right end of the spectrum.
- js8 8y ago
  > And Haidt, while claiming neutrality is very definitely on the right end of the spectrum. Is he? I have always felt like he is at the centre, if not slightly to the left, where most social psychologists are. (BTW, I am on the left myself.)
  - casefields 8y ago
    He's always considered himself a left of center, moderate liberal until he wrote The Rightous Mind. He doesn't necessarily identify with the right but he disavows some of his older liberal beliefs. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/a-liberal-learns-to-compete.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/a-liberal-learns...
- emodendroket 8y ago
  > That said, Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind does outline a very similar thing. That our 'reasoning' is almost always a post-hoc attempt to explain how we already feel. I think Hume beat him to this position by a bit.
  - ycombinete 8y ago
    And St. Augustine beat Hume to his position by more than a century :) In The Righteous Mind Haidt actually quotes Hume's "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Given the above, I'm still happy with Haidt as a reference here, as he references Hume, and also has a decade or two of research to back up his claims.
Retric 8y ago
The Left has plenty of unsupported ideas. The question is really why people debate Physics or Chemistry. People that thought the Sun was a perfect sphere would discount things they could directly see with their eyes.
- powercf 8y ago
  > People that thought the Sun was a perfect sphere would discount things they could directly see with their eyes. What do you mean by this? The Sun is, to a very good approximation, a perfect sphere. Or as perfect a sphere as one is likely to find in the physical world.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > Or as perfect a sphere as one is likely to find in the physical world. That's precisely the point. One may argue that the sun being a perfect sphere is a fact, but someone else may also point the facy that the surface of the sun shows significant deviations from the perfect sphere, thus the facy being that the sun is not a sphere. The thing is, they wouldn't be discussing facts but instead personal opinions based on observations. Thus both would be right and wrong while the facts were still the same.
  - Retric 8y ago
    It's one thing to say it's a very good approximation of a sphere. It's another thing to say it's in fact an absolutely perfect sphere. People had firm belief in the second and discounted evidence to the contrary. Even ignoring that rotation causes a significant distortion (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/oblate_sun.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/oblate_sun....) they would not accept https://eclipse2017.nso.edu/coronal-mass-ejections-cme/ https://eclipse2017.nso.edu/coronal-mass-ejections-cme/ as a 'real' thing.
gameswithgo 8y ago
How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? or "why don't facts change people's minds about gun control?" (this is an issue with both the left, they are both wrong about many aspects of gun issues!) These are just two cases that came to mind, where I have friends/family who I talk to about it, and I can explain some facts in great detail that I'm familiar with, and in that moment they will seem to change their mind a little bit. But a couple months later they are right back to their old thinking. Maybe people tend to forget the stuff they would rather not believe.
- ryanmonroe 8y ago
  "Do humans cause climate change?" is a question of fact. "What type of gun control should we have?" is not a question of fact, so you shouldn't expect that simply stating some facts relevant to the issue would automatically change someone's opinion.
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    I agree, but there are facts about gun issues that make that gun control question harder to answer. People who believe strongly that guns make a country much safer. People who don't understand what assault rifles are, or that you can shoot up a school 99% as well with a `regular` rifle, people who think lack of guns will make a country MUCH safer. There are plenty of empirical evidence to refuse those kinds of beliefs but people hold on to them pretty strongly.
    - jasonlotito 8y ago
      > people who think lack of guns will make a country MUCH safer. There are plenty of empirical evidence to refuse those kinds of beliefs but people hold on to them pretty strongly. Well, I look at it this way. Both the left and the right (including our current administration in the US) as well as those who financially and politically support the current administration (such as the NRA) agree emphatically that gun control works, and lack of guns in the hands of laws abiding citizenry is safer. So when both the left and the right agree through words and policies, and it's demonstrated through safety and security, it's hard to argue otherwise. The question really then becomes one of scope.
gjm11 8y ago
> could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" Well, let's have a look at the actual examples in the article: what things are people apparently failing to change their minds about? (I've also included a few things that aren't examples of that but that seem relevant.) 1. Their ability to distinguish real from fake suicide notes. No obvious political slant. 2. What makes a good firefighter. No obvious political slant. 3. The effectiveness of capital punishment. Highly politicized topic, but reported experiment and reported results both symmetrical. 4. Answers to an unspecified set of reasoning problems. Presumably no political slant. 5. Next study described is one in which people actually did* change their minds, when asked to explain in detail things they thought they understood. Also not political.* 6. Next one also isn't about changing minds. Found that a rough proxy for ignorance about Ukraine is correlated with eagerness for the US to intervene there. Definite opportunity for political slant here. 7. General discussion about mutually reinforcing ignorance. Has kinda-gratuitous anti-Trump comment at end. 8. Next one also isn't about changing minds. Found that trying to explain things in detail leads to more moderate opinions, whichever side one's on. Politically contentious questions; procedure and results seem symmetrical. 9. Alleged dangers of vaccination. Anti-vax sentiment tends to skew left, though I think less drastically than is sometimes thought. Brief, semi-gratuitous, Trump comment here, but it isn't particularly negative. 10. Whether owning a gun makes you safer. Politically contentious question. So. Most of the stuff here is either entirely unpolitical (1,2,4,5) or concerned with political issues but balanced in both procedure and conclusions (3,8). The last section (9,10) describes a book that discusses demonstrably-false opinions held by some people who skew left (9) and some who skew right (10). That leaves 6 (which looks to me -- your opinion might differ -- like an unbiased attempt to investigate a question with political consequences) and that little swipe at the Trump administration in 7. (And, if you really find it offensive, the comment about Steve Bannon at the end.) I don't think any reasonable person could summarize this as anything even slightly like "Why don't everybody agree with the left?", even though those little swipes make it clear that the author is no fan of Donald Trump. (A characteristic he shares with plenty of Republicans, so it's not exactly a clear indicator of egregious bias.)
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I think antivax is an example of bipartisan stupiity as well even if motivations differ. It seems to be an easy answer to uncomfortable questions and decisions. Whether it is accepting something from an uncomfortable source (science, something "unnatural", government mandate, etc.) or avoiding the pain involved. I am aware of my personal biases but I suspect that if the vaccine form factor was changed to be truly painless we would see antivax numbers decline. Also inspired by sociopathic scam "homeopathic vaccines" which were liquids to be drunk. (Especially ironic when vaccination is the one area where dilluiting something harmful to help with the original cause can actually work for a change.)
pixl97 8y ago
"You cannot convince a right person" This was a realization I came to years ago, long before it was a political topic. And when I say 'right person', I don't mean right in political views, but I mean "A person that believes they are correct in their thinking on the topic". But that's what politics seems to be these days "Convincing your side they are right", then repeat it often so they don't forget they are right. In this way you can create a person that never changes their mind.
emodendroket 8y ago
The question has political import but there is, of course, no way to write those in without someone skimming the article finding a way to call it a hatchet-job and refusing to consider it. Perhaps we might call this another way facts don't change our minds: we can't be bothered to consider them if interspersed with even a mild statement of opinion that differs from our own.
- mrfredward 8y ago
  Without endorsing, titanix's view of the article, I have to say it's bothersome that all the political examples leaned the same way. It's an article about confirmation bias, and while most examples were neutral, they only ventured into politics when it would confirm the biases of a left-leaning readership.
  - klmr 8y ago
    > it's bothersome that all the political examples leaned the same way. But they don’t: The article also cites the example of vaccine denialism which is much more pervasive on the political left (though they tie it back to Trump). As an aside I agree that it’s somewhat lazy that these kinds of articles always come back to politics. Then again, it’s hard not to discuss the Trump administration when talking about “post-truth”. EDIT: apparently I was misinformed, vaccine denialism doesn’t seem to follow political leaning, though it does seem to follow political extremism (on both sides of the political spectrum), see [1]. But apparently my mistake is a somewhat widespread belief ([2]). [1] https://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001 https://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-fo... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/26/the-biggest-myth-about-vaccine-deniers-that-theyre-all-a-bunch-of-hippie-liberals https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
    - merpnderp 8y ago
      So you're saying they take an issue which is roundly described as wrong, vaccine denialism, state that it is much more pervasive on the political left, then without any irony, you state they didn't lean left even though they blamed this issue on Trump? I'm going out on a limb and claiming that taking a left leaning fault in society and blaming it on Trump, does not count as a right leaning example.
dabbledash 8y ago
I see it often come up with regard to alternative health topics like vaccine refusal or homeopathy. I could be wrong, but my perception is that people who hold these beliefs are more likely to be left leaning. It also comes up often in the global warming context, obviously, which goes the other way.
- plouffy 8y ago
  According to a Pew Research Study [1] in regards to vaccine refusal it appears to rather than politicial affiliation (left/right) it's the magnitude that is the big indicator. Which isn't surprising given that anti-vaccine is an extreme position, that those who are extreme in their political opinions are also extreme in their private lives. [1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-...
- learc83 8y ago
  There are anti-vaxxers on both sides, but since Trump's rise, I've noticed a big upswing in right wing anti-vaxxers. It shouldn't be surprising. He's been pushing the vaccine autism link since 2012: "Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism...." "Autism rates through the roof--why doesn't the Obama administration do something about doctor-inflicted autism. We lose nothing to try." "Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!" "I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
beat 8y ago
I see it differently. It appears to me that large swaths of the political right have gone over to intellectual relativism, where everything is reduced to mere opinion, equally valid to all other opinions, and facts simply don't matter. See any discussion of climate change for that. To be fair, it's happening some on the left as well, but not to the degree it's happening on the right. Of course, that's my opinion, and I'm a leftist, so you can just dismiss me out of hand.
- opwieurposiu 8y ago
  The left ignores facts when it suits them as well, but with different subjects. See race and IQ correlation, gender wage gap, implicit association test.
  - beat 8y ago
    Race-IQ correlation? Really? Do tell.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      The Minnesota Transracial Adoption [1] study is something that, for better or for worse, changed my outlook. It was a major and longterm study designed to try to prove once and for all that environmental factors were the dominant factor in the correlation between race and IQ. The study followed the results of well to do white parents adopting children of black, half black, indigenous/asian, and white ancestry. In it they controlled for location, income, family stability, age of the adopted children, etc -- as many environmental variables as they could. The problem is that the study ended up showing the exact opposite of the desired outcome. By age 17 the difference in IQ between an adopted black child and an adopted white child was 18 points. Interestingly even adopted white children and the biological white children born to well to do parents showed a substantial 4 point difference in IQ which could be explained by genetic differences in those who end up of the means to adopt children, and those who end up in situations where they're left to give away their children for adoption. There was even a phenomenal accidental control. A number of the adopted children originally identified as having two black parents actually had one white and one black parent. And these children fit the IQ outcomes of the other half-black half-white children, which was about 10 points above the children from two black parents. This means even though the parents thought the children came from two black parents, and the children themselves also thought they came from two black parents - their performance mapped to their genetic background and not their environmental assumption. The authors have tried to undermine the results of their own study in two main ways. The first is by suggesting that differences could be attributable to prenatal environmental differences. This not only defies belief given the differences and extreme consistency, but if the authors actually believed this, it would have made the entire study, which went on for nearly 2 decade, completely pointless. The other is suggesting that skin color can create environmental differences. This is a much stronger argument against the results. However it also suffers from the same post-facto rationalization, but even more importantly -- this hypothesis is also strongly undermined by the accidental control group of half black children. Given their misidentification it's safe to say that these children did not have strongly indicative transracial features. And in any case they would have identified as 100% black given that's what they thought they were. I think that this study's results are precisely why there have been no further studies, of the same scale, performed on the topic. The results are not what we want to believe. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...
hnbroseph 8y ago
> could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left? "the left" doesn't mean much of anything other than meaning "those i don't like". it's a general derogatory phrase used by (for example) commentators like ben shapiro... on most episodes of his show, it's an handwave reference to indistinct millions of people that is almost always followed by chatter about how terrible they are. just the absolute worst. evil people. etc. being one of "the right" doesn't mean you would like someone like steve bannon.
neilwilson 8y ago
A good point. When I see the word 'fact', I remind myself that even now evolution is still only considered a theory - despite the weight of evidence on its side. Because in science something might just show up that invalidates all that came before, and maintaining that faint skepticism is what separates science from belief. (And of course evolution is a theory, not a mere hypothesis because of this weight of evidence). If you want to show me a fact, make sure it comes with a mathematical proof attached.
- minikites 8y ago
  There's a difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution borne out by the fossil record. Using your definition, even gravity is a "theory", yet things still fall to the ground when we drop them from above.
  - Ngunyan 8y ago
    The difference between the theory of evolution and the "theory of gravity" is that tests about gravity are reproducible and repeatable, but not tests on evolutionary theory. One can not test/replicate evolution happening over millions of years. This is why evolution will forever be a theory. Evolution is not a fact. Its a post-facto explanation, where fossils are made to fit a theory.
- klmr 8y ago
  > even now evolution is still only considered a theory No, you simply misunderstand what “theory” means in the scientific context. It’s a synonym for “explanatory model”. And “evolution” in this context stands for something close to “gradual change via random mutations and natural selection [as well as other, less important mechanisms]”. Calling it “theory” does not imply that it’s not based on observable facts, or that there’s doubt about it. It’s simply used to distinguish observable facts from an explanatory model. There is no “progression of certainty” from hypothesis → theory → fact. As another commenter has said, evolution is as much a theory as gravity.
mrfredward 8y ago
It was mostly a neutral, intelligently written article until that last paragraph. It's as if the author wrote a good article about confirmation bias, and someone jumped in at the last second and said "wait, add a line implying this is all about shitty conservatives so our readers will like it." I wonder if anyone at the New Yorker appreciates the irony. Only those idiots who disagree with me have cognitive biases.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
The problem is that the lab isn't isolated, and so facts produced by the lab can have strong political bias. A 'wrongthink' produced by a lab would have a far stronger criticism applied to it than a 'rightthink' using the same methodology. Combined with issues like competing for funding, publish or perish, and the extreme lack of reproduction, it casts a level of doubt on any facts coming from science, especially when they have strong tie in to political areas. And to specify, the 'rightthink' and 'wrongthink' examples I've studied in the past were cases that didn't breakdown by any common political stance like left or right, but were findings that either agreed or disagreed with positions held strongly by people regardless of political standing. I do think the results would apply as expected when considering a political issue that broken down per party lines, but the reaction is much stronger when there there is more uniform agreement for or against something.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
> Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left As someone on the left, I find it bothersome that when people say "the left" they either mean neoliberals or SJW, neither of which actually stand for leftist ideas. Neoliberals believe in a right-wing economic agenda, while playing identity politics and SJWs want to feel good about themselves from their couch, so they play identity politics. Both of these, I have a massive issue with, but due to this caricature of the left coming from the right, I cannot honestly debate with the other side.
clairity 8y ago
partisanship is a misleading mental shortcut. rather, loss aversion (a cognitive bias) can explain a fair bit of the behavior here. people with (perceived) status or privilege don't want to lose those statuses/privileges, so seek to rationalize their position. if it means attacking the underpinnings of facts and evidence, so be it (as the bias goes). it's part of our primitive brains to do so, and requires the use of our modern brains to keep in check. also, facts and evidence live on a continuum, where facts have low margin of error while evidence has high margin of error. the way you address a high margin of error is to gather lots of evidence, so that statistically, you narrow the margin of error to something tiny, and then you can call it a fact. for example, the sun rising tomorrow has a margin of error that's approximately zero, so we call it a fact. most reasonable people are not interested in arguing facts, especially if those calling into question those facts have no basis of expertise or credible counter-evidence. you can have your own beliefs, but you don't get to have your own facts. moreover, it's reasonable to discount people who believe something without evidence, especially in the face of evldience to the contrary.

yourbandsucks 8y ago

The thing is, slim majorities of conservatives will answer phone surveys with things like "yes, Obama was born in Kenya" or "no, global temperature isn't rising". Specious argument can come from anybody, but the "la la can't hear you" portion of the left is measurably smaller compared to the right.

catawbasam 8y ago
Source?
- learc83 8y ago
  There really was a scientific poll were 51% of Republican voters said the believe that Obama was born in Kenya. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/51-of-gop-voters-obama-foreign-049554 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/51-of-gop-voters-obam...
  - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
    Did you really mean to use the word "scientific" here? If so, I'm not sure what you mean for a poll to be scientific.
    - yourbandsucks 8y ago
      There's a lot of material out there on what makes a scientific poll. Basically, demographic weighting and a derived margin of error. It's not the same thing as a web poll.

ycombinete 8y ago

I must admit to smirking at the unintended irony created by the title of the article, and the publication it appears in. That said, Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind does outline a very similar thing. That our 'reasoning' is almost always a post-hoc attempt to explain how we already feel. And Haidt, while claiming neutrality is very definitely on the right end of the spectrum.

js8 8y ago
> And Haidt, while claiming neutrality is very definitely on the right end of the spectrum. Is he? I have always felt like he is at the centre, if not slightly to the left, where most social psychologists are. (BTW, I am on the left myself.)
- casefields 8y ago
  He's always considered himself a left of center, moderate liberal until he wrote The Rightous Mind. He doesn't necessarily identify with the right but he disavows some of his older liberal beliefs. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/a-liberal-learns-to-compete.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/a-liberal-learns...
emodendroket 8y ago
> That said, Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind does outline a very similar thing. That our 'reasoning' is almost always a post-hoc attempt to explain how we already feel. I think Hume beat him to this position by a bit.
- ycombinete 8y ago
  And St. Augustine beat Hume to his position by more than a century :) In The Righteous Mind Haidt actually quotes Hume's "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Given the above, I'm still happy with Haidt as a reference here, as he references Hume, and also has a decade or two of research to back up his claims.

Retric 8y ago

The Left has plenty of unsupported ideas. The question is really why people debate Physics or Chemistry. People that thought the Sun was a perfect sphere would discount things they could directly see with their eyes.

powercf 8y ago
> People that thought the Sun was a perfect sphere would discount things they could directly see with their eyes. What do you mean by this? The Sun is, to a very good approximation, a perfect sphere. Or as perfect a sphere as one is likely to find in the physical world.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Or as perfect a sphere as one is likely to find in the physical world. That's precisely the point. One may argue that the sun being a perfect sphere is a fact, but someone else may also point the facy that the surface of the sun shows significant deviations from the perfect sphere, thus the facy being that the sun is not a sphere. The thing is, they wouldn't be discussing facts but instead personal opinions based on observations. Thus both would be right and wrong while the facts were still the same.
- Retric 8y ago
  It's one thing to say it's a very good approximation of a sphere. It's another thing to say it's in fact an absolutely perfect sphere. People had firm belief in the second and discounted evidence to the contrary. Even ignoring that rotation causes a significant distortion (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/oblate_sun.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/oblate_sun....) they would not accept https://eclipse2017.nso.edu/coronal-mass-ejections-cme/ https://eclipse2017.nso.edu/coronal-mass-ejections-cme/ as a 'real' thing.

gameswithgo 8y ago

How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? or "why don't facts change people's minds about gun control?" (this is an issue with both the left, they are both wrong about many aspects of gun issues!) These are just two cases that came to mind, where I have friends/family who I talk to about it, and I can explain some facts in great detail that I'm familiar with, and in that moment they will seem to change their mind a little bit. But a couple months later they are right back to their old thinking. Maybe people tend to forget the stuff they would rather not believe.

ryanmonroe 8y ago
"Do humans cause climate change?" is a question of fact. "What type of gun control should we have?" is not a question of fact, so you shouldn't expect that simply stating some facts relevant to the issue would automatically change someone's opinion.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  I agree, but there are facts about gun issues that make that gun control question harder to answer. People who believe strongly that guns make a country much safer. People who don't understand what assault rifles are, or that you can shoot up a school 99% as well with a `regular` rifle, people who think lack of guns will make a country MUCH safer. There are plenty of empirical evidence to refuse those kinds of beliefs but people hold on to them pretty strongly.
  - jasonlotito 8y ago
    > people who think lack of guns will make a country MUCH safer. There are plenty of empirical evidence to refuse those kinds of beliefs but people hold on to them pretty strongly. Well, I look at it this way. Both the left and the right (including our current administration in the US) as well as those who financially and politically support the current administration (such as the NRA) agree emphatically that gun control works, and lack of guns in the hands of laws abiding citizenry is safer. So when both the left and the right agree through words and policies, and it's demonstrated through safety and security, it's hard to argue otherwise. The question really then becomes one of scope.

gjm11 8y ago

> could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" Well, let's have a look at the actual examples in the article: what things are people apparently failing to change their minds about? (I've also included a few things that aren't examples of that but that seem relevant.) 1. Their ability to distinguish real from fake suicide notes. No obvious political slant. 2. What makes a good firefighter. No obvious political slant. 3. The effectiveness of capital punishment. Highly politicized topic, but reported experiment and reported results both symmetrical. 4. Answers to an unspecified set of reasoning problems. Presumably no political slant. 5. Next study described is one in which people actually did* change their minds, when asked to explain in detail things they thought they understood. Also not political.* 6. Next one also isn't about changing minds. Found that a rough proxy for ignorance about Ukraine is correlated with eagerness for the US to intervene there. Definite opportunity for political slant here. 7. General discussion about mutually reinforcing ignorance. Has kinda-gratuitous anti-Trump comment at end. 8. Next one also isn't about changing minds. Found that trying to explain things in detail leads to more moderate opinions, whichever side one's on. Politically contentious questions; procedure and results seem symmetrical. 9. Alleged dangers of vaccination. Anti-vax sentiment tends to skew left, though I think less drastically than is sometimes thought. Brief, semi-gratuitous, Trump comment here, but it isn't particularly negative. 10. Whether owning a gun makes you safer. Politically contentious question. So. Most of the stuff here is either entirely unpolitical (1,2,4,5) or concerned with political issues but balanced in both procedure and conclusions (3,8). The last section (9,10) describes a book that discusses demonstrably-false opinions held by some people who skew left (9) and some who skew right (10). That leaves 6 (which looks to me -- your opinion might differ -- like an unbiased attempt to investigate a question with political consequences) and that little swipe at the Trump administration in 7. (And, if you really find it offensive, the comment about Steve Bannon at the end.) I don't think any reasonable person could summarize this as anything even slightly like "Why don't everybody agree with the left?", even though those little swipes make it clear that the author is no fan of Donald Trump. (A characteristic he shares with plenty of Republicans, so it's not exactly a clear indicator of egregious bias.)

Nasrudith 8y ago
I think antivax is an example of bipartisan stupiity as well even if motivations differ. It seems to be an easy answer to uncomfortable questions and decisions. Whether it is accepting something from an uncomfortable source (science, something "unnatural", government mandate, etc.) or avoiding the pain involved. I am aware of my personal biases but I suspect that if the vaccine form factor was changed to be truly painless we would see antivax numbers decline. Also inspired by sociopathic scam "homeopathic vaccines" which were liquids to be drunk. (Especially ironic when vaccination is the one area where dilluiting something harmful to help with the original cause can actually work for a change.)

pixl97 8y ago

"You cannot convince a right person" This was a realization I came to years ago, long before it was a political topic. And when I say 'right person', I don't mean right in political views, but I mean "A person that believes they are correct in their thinking on the topic". But that's what politics seems to be these days "Convincing your side they are right", then repeat it often so they don't forget they are right. In this way you can create a person that never changes their mind.

emodendroket 8y ago

The question has political import but there is, of course, no way to write those in without someone skimming the article finding a way to call it a hatchet-job and refusing to consider it. Perhaps we might call this another way facts don't change our minds: we can't be bothered to consider them if interspersed with even a mild statement of opinion that differs from our own.

mrfredward 8y ago
Without endorsing, titanix's view of the article, I have to say it's bothersome that all the political examples leaned the same way. It's an article about confirmation bias, and while most examples were neutral, they only ventured into politics when it would confirm the biases of a left-leaning readership.
- klmr 8y ago
  > it's bothersome that all the political examples leaned the same way. But they don’t: The article also cites the example of vaccine denialism which is much more pervasive on the political left (though they tie it back to Trump). As an aside I agree that it’s somewhat lazy that these kinds of articles always come back to politics. Then again, it’s hard not to discuss the Trump administration when talking about “post-truth”. EDIT: apparently I was misinformed, vaccine denialism doesn’t seem to follow political leaning, though it does seem to follow political extremism (on both sides of the political spectrum), see [1]. But apparently my mistake is a somewhat widespread belief ([2]). [1] https://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001 https://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-fo... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/26/the-biggest-myth-about-vaccine-deniers-that-theyre-all-a-bunch-of-hippie-liberals https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    So you're saying they take an issue which is roundly described as wrong, vaccine denialism, state that it is much more pervasive on the political left, then without any irony, you state they didn't lean left even though they blamed this issue on Trump? I'm going out on a limb and claiming that taking a left leaning fault in society and blaming it on Trump, does not count as a right leaning example.

dabbledash 8y ago

I see it often come up with regard to alternative health topics like vaccine refusal or homeopathy. I could be wrong, but my perception is that people who hold these beliefs are more likely to be left leaning. It also comes up often in the global warming context, obviously, which goes the other way.

plouffy 8y ago
According to a Pew Research Study [1] in regards to vaccine refusal it appears to rather than politicial affiliation (left/right) it's the magnitude that is the big indicator. Which isn't surprising given that anti-vaccine is an extreme position, that those who are extreme in their political opinions are also extreme in their private lives. [1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-...
learc83 8y ago
There are anti-vaxxers on both sides, but since Trump's rise, I've noticed a big upswing in right wing anti-vaxxers. It shouldn't be surprising. He's been pushing the vaccine autism link since 2012: "Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism...." "Autism rates through the roof--why doesn't the Obama administration do something about doctor-inflicted autism. We lose nothing to try." "Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!" "I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

beat 8y ago

I see it differently. It appears to me that large swaths of the political right have gone over to intellectual relativism, where everything is reduced to mere opinion, equally valid to all other opinions, and facts simply don't matter. See any discussion of climate change for that. To be fair, it's happening some on the left as well, but not to the degree it's happening on the right. Of course, that's my opinion, and I'm a leftist, so you can just dismiss me out of hand.

opwieurposiu 8y ago
The left ignores facts when it suits them as well, but with different subjects. See race and IQ correlation, gender wage gap, implicit association test.
- beat 8y ago
  Race-IQ correlation? Really? Do tell.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    The Minnesota Transracial Adoption [1] study is something that, for better or for worse, changed my outlook. It was a major and longterm study designed to try to prove once and for all that environmental factors were the dominant factor in the correlation between race and IQ. The study followed the results of well to do white parents adopting children of black, half black, indigenous/asian, and white ancestry. In it they controlled for location, income, family stability, age of the adopted children, etc -- as many environmental variables as they could. The problem is that the study ended up showing the exact opposite of the desired outcome. By age 17 the difference in IQ between an adopted black child and an adopted white child was 18 points. Interestingly even adopted white children and the biological white children born to well to do parents showed a substantial 4 point difference in IQ which could be explained by genetic differences in those who end up of the means to adopt children, and those who end up in situations where they're left to give away their children for adoption. There was even a phenomenal accidental control. A number of the adopted children originally identified as having two black parents actually had one white and one black parent. And these children fit the IQ outcomes of the other half-black half-white children, which was about 10 points above the children from two black parents. This means even though the parents thought the children came from two black parents, and the children themselves also thought they came from two black parents - their performance mapped to their genetic background and not their environmental assumption. The authors have tried to undermine the results of their own study in two main ways. The first is by suggesting that differences could be attributable to prenatal environmental differences. This not only defies belief given the differences and extreme consistency, but if the authors actually believed this, it would have made the entire study, which went on for nearly 2 decade, completely pointless. The other is suggesting that skin color can create environmental differences. This is a much stronger argument against the results. However it also suffers from the same post-facto rationalization, but even more importantly -- this hypothesis is also strongly undermined by the accidental control group of half black children. Given their misidentification it's safe to say that these children did not have strongly indicative transracial features. And in any case they would have identified as 100% black given that's what they thought they were. I think that this study's results are precisely why there have been no further studies, of the same scale, performed on the topic. The results are not what we want to believe. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...

hnbroseph 8y ago

> could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left? "the left" doesn't mean much of anything other than meaning "those i don't like". it's a general derogatory phrase used by (for example) commentators like ben shapiro... on most episodes of his show, it's an handwave reference to indistinct millions of people that is almost always followed by chatter about how terrible they are. just the absolute worst. evil people. etc. being one of "the right" doesn't mean you would like someone like steve bannon.

neilwilson 8y ago

A good point. When I see the word 'fact', I remind myself that even now evolution is still only considered a theory - despite the weight of evidence on its side. Because in science something might just show up that invalidates all that came before, and maintaining that faint skepticism is what separates science from belief. (And of course evolution is a theory, not a mere hypothesis because of this weight of evidence). If you want to show me a fact, make sure it comes with a mathematical proof attached.

minikites 8y ago
There's a difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution borne out by the fossil record. Using your definition, even gravity is a "theory", yet things still fall to the ground when we drop them from above.
- Ngunyan 8y ago
  The difference between the theory of evolution and the "theory of gravity" is that tests about gravity are reproducible and repeatable, but not tests on evolutionary theory. One can not test/replicate evolution happening over millions of years. This is why evolution will forever be a theory. Evolution is not a fact. Its a post-facto explanation, where fossils are made to fit a theory.
klmr 8y ago
> even now evolution is still only considered a theory No, you simply misunderstand what “theory” means in the scientific context. It’s a synonym for “explanatory model”. And “evolution” in this context stands for something close to “gradual change via random mutations and natural selection [as well as other, less important mechanisms]”. Calling it “theory” does not imply that it’s not based on observable facts, or that there’s doubt about it. It’s simply used to distinguish observable facts from an explanatory model. There is no “progression of certainty” from hypothesis → theory → fact. As another commenter has said, evolution is as much a theory as gravity.

mrfredward 8y ago

It was mostly a neutral, intelligently written article until that last paragraph. It's as if the author wrote a good article about confirmation bias, and someone jumped in at the last second and said "wait, add a line implying this is all about shitty conservatives so our readers will like it." I wonder if anyone at the New Yorker appreciates the irony. Only those idiots who disagree with me have cognitive biases.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

The problem is that the lab isn't isolated, and so facts produced by the lab can have strong political bias. A 'wrongthink' produced by a lab would have a far stronger criticism applied to it than a 'rightthink' using the same methodology. Combined with issues like competing for funding, publish or perish, and the extreme lack of reproduction, it casts a level of doubt on any facts coming from science, especially when they have strong tie in to political areas. And to specify, the 'rightthink' and 'wrongthink' examples I've studied in the past were cases that didn't breakdown by any common political stance like left or right, but were findings that either agreed or disagreed with positions held strongly by people regardless of political standing. I do think the results would apply as expected when considering a political issue that broken down per party lines, but the reaction is much stronger when there there is more uniform agreement for or against something.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

> Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left As someone on the left, I find it bothersome that when people say "the left" they either mean neoliberals or SJW, neither of which actually stand for leftist ideas. Neoliberals believe in a right-wing economic agenda, while playing identity politics and SJWs want to feel good about themselves from their couch, so they play identity politics. Both of these, I have a massive issue with, but due to this caricature of the left coming from the right, I cannot honestly debate with the other side.

clairity 8y ago

partisanship is a misleading mental shortcut. rather, loss aversion (a cognitive bias) can explain a fair bit of the behavior here. people with (perceived) status or privilege don't want to lose those statuses/privileges, so seek to rationalize their position. if it means attacking the underpinnings of facts and evidence, so be it (as the bias goes). it's part of our primitive brains to do so, and requires the use of our modern brains to keep in check. also, facts and evidence live on a continuum, where facts have low margin of error while evidence has high margin of error. the way you address a high margin of error is to gather lots of evidence, so that statistically, you narrow the margin of error to something tiny, and then you can call it a fact. for example, the sun rising tomorrow has a margin of error that's approximately zero, so we call it a fact. most reasonable people are not interested in arguing facts, especially if those calling into question those facts have no basis of expertise or credible counter-evidence. you can have your own beliefs, but you don't get to have your own facts. moreover, it's reasonable to discount people who believe something without evidence, especially in the face of evldience to the contrary.