43 ms·

Facts don’t change our minds (2018)

168 points by nvr219 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ncmncm 5y ago
Facts change some of our minds.
- tooltower 5y ago
  Only sometimes ;-)
emrah 5y ago
Facts don't change decisions made by emotions
hilyen 5y ago
Depends on if their thinking is authority based (dogmatic) or logic based. The logical people definitely change their minds when new evidence arises.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Isn’t logic a framework that can be seen under different lens? If I say it’s caused by x does it mean that your logical analysis of it being caused by y become invalidated? Logical explanations are consistent but that doesn’t mean the logic is correct. If a racist says a problem is caused by races, another says it seems to be caused by environmental factors, another states it’s society’s failures and another says it’s economics they are all logically consistent but dogmatic still. >“People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.” >We don't always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about.
  - causi 5y ago
    You're citing things that aren't cut and dry Sometimes facts can change your mind even when you find those facts extremely irritating. For a personal example, I hate that direct cash payments are the most efficient way to supplement people in need of help, but every study says that's the case and so that's the way I argue and the way I vote.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      What if I told you that lower taxes so they don’t get money taken out is even better?
      - causi 5y ago
        How does that apply to poor people?
        GhettoComputers 5y ago
        They pay taxes too. Direct cash payments are good, but they’re often mostly consumed by the administration. I don’t rely on the government to help the poor, lower taxes from government and direct cash from gofundme and other sites is the most efficient.
        causi 5y ago
        I was mostly referring to the fact giving people money is more efficient than giving them material goods, even though it creates the opportunity for abuse.
- watwut 5y ago
  > The logical people definitely change their minds when new evidence arises. Nah. Logical people will happily simplify world ad absurdum and proceed ignoring all the facts that point to nuance.
- bidivia 5y ago
  Logical people(usually called Smart people) could be really really stupid. Einstein as a young fellow certainly did not change Planck's mind, and Heisenberg did not change Einstein's. Doesn't matter if we talk about Magellan, Newton or Darwin. They changed the world one death at a time. The reason is that logic is based on very few things(usually binary statements, true or false) and it can focus only on those things. They can dissect and understand deeply something very small and dead(static) but could have real problems understanding the whole system(big and alive[dynamic]). You only can focus on 5,6 things at a single time and need to invest a ton of time to get results. The world is not pure binary, like mathematics usually study it,the world have shades of gray and billions of things interacting all the time. In fact, without tools like cheap access to books that make it possible to complete the work someone else has done,and networks that share the knowledge like Universities, cities or the Internet, this process of analysis is so slow that it is completely useless. For understanding complete systems intuition is just much better and faster. Because it is an stochastic process that could integrate millions of things at once. For changing your mind you need proper training in the scientific process, and it takes a lot of work and effort to do, because it goes against our primal instincts. You need to be humble and train a beginner's mind all the time. The fact is that most people believe they are logical while everybody else is dogmatic. But they are not. They can not do something as basic exercise as proper debate in which they believe and defend only temporarly the opposite of what they really believe. Really logical people can see their own flaws as a human(illusions and biases) and only then compensate for them. I bet you,hilyen, believe your thinking is logic based. Hah!
- pydry 5y ago
  The "logical" people tend to cast doubt on the veracity of the evidence or believe unquestioningly according to tribe. "This study was badly done", etc.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Some «"logical" people tend to cast doubt». Then, anyway, will «definitely change their minds when new evidence arises». "Educated bets" are part of the intellectual game.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Logical people by definition do what is logical. You seem to have assigned tribehood to a group you call "the logical people" who behave illogically. Without a mental ideal of an actual logical person, how can you ever aspire to behave logically yourself?
    - pydry 5y ago
      I wasn't saying this behavior was illogical nor that "logical" people are a tribe (although on HN, professing a belief in the primacy of logicality is certainly a tribal marker...) I'm merely saying that people who consider themselves "logical people who will change their mind when the facts change" will still ascertain veracity of facts and how much weight to give them in a tribal manner, even if they are not consciously aware of it.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  It seems the people stressing to me about how logical they are tend to be equally dogmatic.
- mikkergp 5y ago
  I think this is less one vs the other and more about how closely aligned people find their beliefs and their ideas (Maybe this is what you mean by dogmatic) I believe that no one should go hungry, that everyone deserves health care, and that everyone should have a place to live. No 'fact' is going to change that belief, but for some people that belief translates directly into an ideology. For me, facts could change how closely aligned I am to more market-based or socialist views to solve these problems. I don't believe in market-oriented solutions because I like competition or want people to suffer(whereas for some the idea of winners and losers is attractive) I like market oriented solutions because I think given the whole system it's more effective. And this is one of those weird ingrained personality things. Some people can't understand and think my _beliefs_ waffle. I similarly can't understand why those who have closely aligned beliefs and ideas can't see that an idea that seems to solve a problem on it's face doesn't actually solve that problem.
hans1729 5y ago
Facts change the minds of XXTPs, if you subscribe to MBTI.
- readthenotes1 5y ago
  IIRC, the facts have shown MBTI to be hokum
  - hans1729 5y ago
    It has no validated scientific basis, but that doesn't mean that the concept of cognitive functions is flat wrong, does it? The discipline of psychology is somewhat broken since the 60s; something like a model for personality just doesn't get you a long way within the system of reward-incentives in academia, especially if the discipline still recovers from a significant loss of reputation some 60 years ago because of behaviourism. I don't want to ramble or off-track this thread, mbti just seems like a really interesting tool, one that has allowed me to get profound insights into minds I'd not have had without it - validated insights.
    - ezekiel68 5y ago
      I feel that you may be, unintentionally, reinforcing the point of the OP.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I've seen those facts. They don't begin to address what MBTI is about. Astrology is hokum, too, but it randomizes who gets which bit of advice on which day, and gives everybody different advice at different times. That birthdays and planets have no meaningful role beyond randomization does not lessen its usefulness at keeping people who follow it out of ruts. MBTI is a lesson in other valid ways to perceive and act in the world than what you are used to. Other people do, and it would be a poorer world if they didn't.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Nope, and I don't understand how this myth arose or keeps popping up. MBTI is not perfect but it has decent test-retest reliability and decent correlations with other measures.
winkeyless 5y ago
Good read. People are social/tribal than factual. Online comments, even non-political ones, can still get so heated. Etiquette seems to be better followed in the real world than in anonymous comment section.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > People are A number of people are tribal in belief-change, probably a large number. "Normal" (according to norm) people are not. Educated people who have been through Euclid and post do not believe that triangles eat turtles (or any false property) because doing otherwise offends their mates. The author of that article is tribal: non-tribals, objective people never write 'we' and 'our' in those contexts, as per the title, «...our minds». 'Our brains have glias', yes; 'We pick our nose', no. Edit: And it is not a matter of quantifiers (some, many). The author of the article wrote: «Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome» - universal quantifier. Following that, that author is a lunatic (or a criminally sloppy writer). No, James Clear, there exist people who do not accept cretinous assertions, absurdities, to be part of any group - they find "loneliness" (in fact, quite relative) preferable to absurd (which, by the way, also has a functional cost). Some people are not beasts.
XargonEnder 5y ago
If your tribe is one that values changing your mind based on the facts then at least that theater will be important. Great article, thanks for sharing!
andi999 5y ago
Is there any scientific study (facts...) to this article? Generally I think I change my mind if new (reliable and significant) facts come in.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Depends what you call a fact. If I say that this Processor is the best at these benchmark, does it matter that the benchmark favors it? If I say a camera takes the best images, but omit they’re difficult to do consistently does it have the best quality? If I said these headphones sound the best and produce the most accurate sound, what if it’s true for me but not for your music genres?
  - elcomet 5y ago
    - Then I trust that this processor is best au this benchmark (but not necessarily at other tasks) - I trust what you say, and the best camera for me will depend on those factors - I trust that you like those headphones, that does not necessarily mean I will too.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      But there’s no other measure and it’s implied it’s the best. People will think it’s the best. I might not say that it’s difficult, since it’s easy for me, or to trick you to buy it, it’s still a fact. Headphones might be the most subjective but I’ll say they produce the most accurate sound (to me). You don’t have a way to measure if you like them or not.
  - mitigating 5y ago
    from https://sure.nlb.gov.sg/tng/surevivors-activity5/ https://sure.nlb.gov.sg/tng/surevivors-activity5/ "Facts will also be unbiased. They do not support only one perspective and present the information in an objective manner" Of your examples only "Processor is the best at these benchmark" is a fact. You said "does it matter that the benchmark favors it" and I don't think that matters. You aren't saying "This processor is the best processor" then using the benchmark as evidence, you are saying the processor is the best at the particular benchmark which is true even if the benchmark is bias, manipulated, or whatever.
lordnacho 5y ago
This is basically why I tend to not associate myself with intellectual or political labels like libertarian or socialist, at least out loud. Once you say "I am an X" you find yourself making contortions in order to defend X, and you really really think you're right and everyone else is wrong. At best I say I have leanings, and I try to hear what is being said. For the same reason I don't follow people online who currently think what I'm thinking. To exercise my tribal gene I've followed one football club since childhood and I can tell my opinion is different from what commentators say after the game.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Why should you sclerotize on a position? It is irrational to begin with, to assume any statement outside a provisional role. About the risks, damaging world representation and individual's proper function, of those who "shout slogans", Charlie Munger spoke really worthy words (the Psychology of Human Misjudgement speeches) - transcript of the speech at Harvard in 1995 at https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/psychology-of-human-misjudgment-by-charlie-munger https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/psychology-of-human-mi... , revised version at https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/ https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/ > Well what I'm saying here is that the human mind is a lot like the human egg, and the human egg has a shut-off device. When one sperm gets in, it shuts down so the next one can't get in. The human mind has a big tendency of the same sort. And here again, it doesn't just catch ordinary mortals, it catches the deans of physics. According to Max Planck, the really innovative, important new physics was never really accepted by the old guard. Instead, a new guard came along that was less brain-blocked by its previous conclusions. And if Max Planck’s crowd had this consistency and commitment tendency that kept their old inclusions intact in spite of disconfirming evidence, you can imagine what the crowd that you and I are part of behaves like > And of course, if you make a public disclosure of your conclusion, you're pounding it into your own head. Many of these students that are screaming at us, you know, they aren't convincing us, but they're forming mental change for themselves, because what they're shouting out they're pounding in. And I think educational institutions that create a climate where too much of that goes on are in a fundamental sense, they're irresponsible institutions. It’s very important to not put your brain in chains too young by what you shout out > And all these things like painful qualifying and initiation rituals, all those things, pound in your commitments and your ideas. The Chinese brainwashing system, which was for war prisoners, was way better than anybody else's. They maneuvered people into making tiny little commitments and declarations, and then they'd slowly build. That worked way better than torture
afarrell 5y ago
There is a danger in taking this too far. If you assume that facts don’t change people’s minds, you fail to build the skill of arranging facts clearly in a way that helps people think most clearly and allows them to decide to change their mind. Without that skill, you cannot have influence with people who value making clear-eyed fact-based decisions enough to overcome their tribalism. If you expect people to not make fact-based decisions, you will associate with people who frequently fail to make fact-based decisions. Do that too much, and your life will be at the whims of people who do not even aspire to manage their emotions wisely. ——— Seek out the scout mindset in everyone you meet. Expect and bring out the best in those around you.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  If X really assumed «facts don’t change people's minds», X would live in a false and defeatist world image. If X assumed that 'facts do change people's minds', again X would fool himself and need more accurate representation and tools. Incidentally: the article (also) fails to point out clearly, "some people do not actually care about changing their mind (irregardless of facts, and even of tribe)" - inner statuses are so important to them, that not even tribalism shakes them. Of course the point is with defeatism, and its absiological and practical consequences: if one gave up (consequences), or resorted to paternalism (other bad consequences)... But do not forget the pars construens of TFA: "to change people's minds, there can be better strategies".
- tchalla 5y ago
  > There is a danger in taking this too far. Already done- many, many times "Diamonds are forever", "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day", "Bacon for Breakfast" etc etc. The "humble" origins began here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...
- sumtechguy 5y ago
  Are you sure about that? Even in your own life? Why did you eat the dinner you had last night? Was it because the caloric intake was the proper amount you needed for life? Or were there other reasons? You liked the taste? Just felt like it? many decisions we make are shortcuts in life. Maybe at one point something was a rational data decisions. But you can turn that into a 'gut feel' very quickly with little thought. Changing someone's opinion with facts almost rarely works. Unless they do not care about the outcome. Then you can easily change their minds. Something like 1+1=3 'hey you got that wrong' 'oh yeah you are right its 2'. That sort of fact decision is easy to 'fix'. But which steakhouse is the best one on the market? You will get lots of opinions and anecdotes. But there are known and sometimes manipulative methods to change someone's opinion on those things. Edward Bernays methods are usually manipulative and use extensively in politics and marketing campaigns. I usually personally use a more questioning methodology. You also have to get past the idea of 'right vs wrong' also, and be willing to change your own opinions. If not fact methodology usually makes people dig in and ignore you.
natmaka 5y ago
The War Nerd puts it clearly: "Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL: "my gang yay, your gang boo!" It really is that simple. The rest is cosmetics." "Most" seems adequate because many adults do have preconceptions, for many of us being quite sure that "don't be an ignorant" is a requirement, and concluding that "knowing about everything" also is. http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8366 http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8366
- pojzon 5y ago
  Its even simplier then that. “My feelings” > “Your rational points” We simply evolved like that and next step of evolution was to become more rational. We are somewhere in the middle.
  - wruza 5y ago
    Others say that feelings is everything and there is no point in going any further.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      Good luck in building an aqueduct.
    - jeofken 5y ago
      You may call it sophiststry rather than philosophy
      - dandanua 5y ago
        Not really, this is an egocentric philosophy (like solipsism) and you can't fight it with rational arguments.
    - atoav 5y ago
      As long as you have enough rational engineers, scientists and bureaucrats around you, you could indeed afford that luxury. But don't ever become naive enough to extrapolate yourself onto the rest of the world and call it a paradise.
galaxyLogic 5y ago
There's a difference between what people say they believe and what they truly believe. One way to find out would be to offer a bet. If you truly believe that are you willing to bet that nobody can prove you wrong. This often bothers me about commentary on TV. They say that this and that politician believes that ... But no. The TV commentators have no way of knowing what anybody actually thinks or believes. They can only know what people say they believe. Some people say they believe the election was stolen. Then it gets reported that this percentage of people believe the election was stolen. But there is no proof of that. There is only evidence that certain percentage of people SAY they believe the election was stolen. We don't know what they truly believe, only what they say they do.
- i5heu 5y ago
  This reminds me of the book "Skin in the Game". I have often the feeling that people "believe" in certain things to be edgy or interesting.
  - quinnjh 5y ago
    I think people acquire false beliefs using the peer-effect vulnerability. :| Virtue signalling is necessary to maintain social capital within social networks, and people will change their words and adapt worldviews accordingly- especially when theres no "skin in the game" !
    - necovek 5y ago
      What do you consider false beliefs? How many of the beliefs you have have you individually verified that they come from properly vetted facts and are properly interpreted too? Majority of our beliefs are vulnerable to "peer review". There is nothing negative about that, because otherwise, we'd all be spending time verifying everything anybody says. The only thing I am saying is that you should not try to discredit anyone for holding a set of beliefs, because we are all guilty of similarly not vetting the truth. Very rarely do we dive into establishing the facts fully, because it would be impossible to talk about anything. If you disagree, let's go through an exercise. So your car says it's now going 60km/h. I can't trust you or your car, let's put side markers on the road, and I'll use a stopwatch. We'll also have to do like 100 runs, and change the surface a bit so we control for skid (non-slippery, slippery...). Ok, for those side markers, how do we measure them? What about the time? I'll drop by Paris to get 1-true-meter and compare my stopwatch with their atomic clock to ensure the error is within, say, 1%. All this is the vetting required for a basic, easily measurable "fact". Anything involving the human mind, it's nigh impossible.
ohduran 5y ago
This people said this, this people said that, the ME LAW OF SOMETHING. Gosh, did this guy write a bestseller? Unbelievable.
- adamors 5y ago
  Unfortunately, writing ability has nothing to do with how well a non-fiction book sells, in fact if you can write concisely and well that 350 page non-fiction will just be a 40 page essay. But that can't be sold for 15 dollars.
mdp2021 5y ago
It is just published (past few hours) by the Spectator the article ‘I am not able to answer your question’: an irascible Paolo Sorrentino interviewed, from Hermione Eyre: > Loving the films of the Italian auteur Paolo Sorrentino, I thought he’d be easy to chat to. But a maestro is a maestro, as I was reminded when I interviewed him in London last week. Masked and communicating through a translator, I semaphored my admiration for his new film The Hand of God, starting with its spectacular opening shot. Like a bird, the camera flies over the sea, then focuses on a vintage car tooling along the promenade, before panning over the city again. But he rejected my praise: “It’s not complicated. It’s a normal shot by helicopter” (Skimmers: the post is about the preference of Sorrentino about adherence to facts, instead of going for contributing to sustaining the interviewer's emotions. No, not all people are tribal.)
marginalia_nu 5y ago
From an epistemological point of view, nobody has access to facts. Facts are the things that are. A fact isn't a true statement, but the thing that a true statement corresponds to. You're up on a very high horse if you conflate what you think or say with the facts. "I'm showing them truth and they aren't listening" should be "I'm listing things I believe are true, and they believe different things are true". If you put it that way, it's fairly obviously a naive and solipsistic way to think. You get into these bizarre pokemon battle-discussions where both sides are throwing out "facts" but it's never effective. "But I'm showing them science!", you say. Let's be honest here. It's demonstrably true that science isn't guaranteed to be correct. May the ghost of Karl Popper haunt and expound the ideas of scientific fallibilism to anyone who doesn't agree with this. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt scientific claims until you are convinced by them--not by who is saying it, but what they are saying. This is central to the scientific principle to do so. A prerequisite for knowledge isn't merely being correct, but understanding why things are correct. "Because it says so in this abstract" is not sufficient. If you do not understand why a statement is true, you do not know it is true. If anything, the reason people get stuck in these intellectual trenches is because they too are conflating the existence of an abstract with sufficient reason for knowledge. They too conflate their opinions about the truth for facts. All these fringe science groups like anti-vaxxers and 5g-conspiracists almost always have "sources" for their claims, and a superficially plausible story about some big cabal of mainstream science trying to suppress them.
memorylane 5y ago
You can’t use arguments to convince someone to change their mind when they didn’t get there rationally…
janto 5y ago
Vehemently disagree. We derive our allegiances and enemies not from facts, but from our goals and values. It is completely reasonable that (minor) facts have relatively little influence on our larger goals. The author is confused about this Is/Aught difference. Or attempting to manipulate the reader towards prioritizing Kindness without a single fact, scientific study or example anywhere in the article. Ironic.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > attempting to manipulate the reader towards prioritizing Kindness without I think you may have misunderstood the message: I think he is warning (as some psychologists like to stress) that causing discrepancies in one's world view can be very stressful and painful, and that showing facts may not be productive and effective with some people¹ - so he is warning about awareness for politeness and effectiveness. ¹(to the arm-tossing author of the article, seemingly (indiscriminately) you, janto, and your unknown neighbour - and you would be right in protesting against him for the insinuation)
  - janto 5y ago
    From the article: When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. When I am in a dialog, my goal is not to "integrate them into my tribe". Yuck. It is to express myself authentically in a skillful way. Whatever connection and conversation emerges is then meaningful. Where the article is advocating kindness as a manipulation tactic to avoid stirring up their partner's defenses, while pursuing a specific perspective change... that is being slimy.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      What I am saying is, it's not just that: the article is not wholly rubbish. It is written (paradoxically) for a public that excludes some more "normal" languages. Even that "integrate into the tribe": there exist plausible interpretations, such as "creating a communication that spreads truths, creating further building blocks for further commonality and keys for further communication". It is also true that to play squash, spending hours to throw balls at a wall, will get frustrating if you wanted them balls to reach the other side. If you want to be understood by someone specific, you have to understand that - unfortunately - there exist a large number of people who will only understand a limited number of message forms. It's warning you about the inefficacy of flooding an HTTP server with SMTP messages. And sometimes, it's that Joe exactly you have to speak. At work, you will not be able to override that.
kelnos 5y ago
This understanding is something that (pre-pandemic at least[0]) started entering the scientific consciousness. Some (but probably not enough) scientists were starting to realize that fact-based arguments around climate change weren't really winning hearts and minds. Emotional appeals (backed by facts, of course, but still focusing on emotional response) had the most impact on making skeptics understand that climate change is actually an urgent issue. I can't find the article right now, but I was probably reading about this in mid-2019. This also reminds me of some stories I've read about black people working to befriend racist people. Often it just takes a racist white person to get to know a black person on more than a superficial level, and then they realize their racism is based on bullshit. I say "just", but of course this isn't a trivial thing to do, and it puts the burden of effort on someone who shouldn't have to expend that effort, and potentially put themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. Something I always try to do when making decisions (don't always succeed, though) is to think about outcomes rather than what seems logical or just, or would make me feel the best. "Taking someone down" with the most logical argument ever might sound amazing in theory, and have some really feel-good vibes, but often that just won't work to persuade someone. What really matters in the end is the outcome: we want to "win friends and influence people"; that should be the driving motivation. Certainly we shouldn't compromise our ethics to do so, but often persuading someone of your point of view might involve more emotion than logic. I think the big challenge, covered in the article, is that you need to not only appeal to someone's emotions to change their minds, but you need to somehow convince them that leaving their "tribe" (full of close friends and often family who have the wrong idea) is safe and won't result in alienation and ostracization. It's a really tall order. And, frankly, often they will end up being alienated from many of the people they hold dear. It's really hard to get someone to accept that. Sure, you can try to pull them into your tribe, and make them comfortable with that. But what if doing so means they'll lose their closest friends and family, people they have been close with for years or decades? [0] Efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy and outright misinformation haven't been going so well. I think a big part of the problem is that people are trying to throw facts against emotion. That just doesn't work most of the time.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > Efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy and outright misinformation haven't been going so well. I think a big part of the problem is that people are trying to throw facts against emotion. That just doesn't work most of the time Oddly, I have noticed the exact opposite: an incredible and unduly resorting to emotional, sketchy, manipulative language - not only in fact, but also theorized by articles "do not speak to them using rational arguments", and from academicians (e.g. The Conversation) - which of course, had "alarm bells ring up to eleven" in "normal", rational people. Nobody¹ concedes trust when manipulative language is perceived. ¹(finally, a rare almost legitimate universal quantifier) -- > we want to "win friends and influence people"; that should be the driving motivation This probably needed much better expression.
known 5y ago
"Reason cannot defeat emotion, an emotion can only be displaced by a stronger emotion" --Baruch Spinoza (b. 1632)
rgomez 5y ago
"Everything we listen is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth" - Marcus Aurelius
giantg2 5y ago
I agree with the majority of the content. It does seem to miss or gloss over how "facts" are applied or presented. Many times I have seen someone present a fact to me or someone else that has no effect on the logical argument the other person has - and rightfully so since it is unrelated or not useful. Or they completely miss the context of the fact they are presenting, like not knowing the number is "good" or "bad", or not knowing what it actually represents (looking at you, gender wage gap). Then you have the the complexities of multiple arguments in different perspectives for or against a policy involving n-order impacts. One perspective/discipline might have a solid argument, but another might have a solid argument going the other direction. Then it's up to the individual to weigh which is more valuable to them. This sort of brings us to how scientific fact is not the same as policy, but the people need to decide if and how they want to implement a policy based on it. When I get new facts, I research them and my existing position.
talkingtab 5y ago
I agree that tribal et al is a factor, but there are other significant factors. One is that a belief is not a singularity, it is a part of a web. If I believe that the world is flat, then a gaggle of other beliefs are then impossible. If you tell me you sailed around the world I will not believe you, not because of your statement but because your statement contradicts an assumption which is part of my belief fabric. In addition, humans are not completely rational creatures. The concept of not knowing why you feel the way you do is common. And yet we are primarily driven by those things we feel but often cannot understand. Beliefs arise from emotions, not the other way around. At the present time in the US we live in a society which increasingly divided into two parts because the experiences of those people are distinctly different. We have the concept of social inequality - the Gini function - but we often do not realize that the higher the Gini function the more likely it is that we will have divided belief fabrics. As we do. Many people in the US (I'm only speaking for what I know ) live in a far different world than the readers of HN. They work just as hard if not harder than the readers of HN. The belief fabric of those people is far different because their experience sharing the benefits of our society is far different. The emotions of being treated unfairly give rise to a rejection of the predominant belief fabric as a whole. Imagine that you have repeatedly lost friends and family who sailed off the edge of the world because they accepted the official line that the world is round? Not a great example but perhaps a bit useful. So when we say "tribal" or "friendship" we need to understand that tribes or friendships tend to cluster around belief systems. Trying to change someones mind by thinking about a scale of 1-10 does not work when they are using a completely different numbering space. (edit changed "because they are using" to "when they are using".)
bob999 5y ago
Explains why so many people think that women can have penises
cainxinth 5y ago
The best technique I’ve heard of for nudging someone away from a deeply held (but maladaptive) belief is called deep canvassing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_canvassing The idea is basically that if you attack a strong belief head on, the person you’re talking to will reject your arguments instinctively. It’s a natural psychological defense mechanism. No one likes being wrong, particularly about things that are tied to their identity. Instead of dictating facts, you start a dialogue and ask questions that encourage critical thinking. If you are empathic, patient, and non-threatening, they sometimes (sometimes!) start making realizations on their own that change their opinion. And as many a good therapist has said, the patient has to want to change.
- emptybottle 5y ago
  Interesting, I've never heard of it called deep canvassing but it's something I'd been aware of for a long time. That essentially you can't get what you want through arguing. It's much more effective to act with patience, and in time either both people will compromise or one will accept the others idea as if it was their own.
- themodelplumber 5y ago
  Back when I was a cultist I was proud of how effectively I could canvas. :-) For context: If you look into street epistemology, it's similar to what I was doing. From the other side, so to speak. We then played doubt (I think the SE creator calls it the pebble in the shoe) into action, and as long as we could suggest the action, in the absence of other suggested actions, the actions we suggested were taken. Pray in this way, listen for the answers we tell you to listen for, act as if God told you to do this, add this new structure to your life, keep this one, subtract that one. Review what you're grateful for and be happy feeling content with all these amazing blessings...BTW did we mention that you have successfully changed your life, the thing you told us you wanted? You spread this across months of friendly visits against a backdrop of loneliness in a chillingly pragmatic society...I mean we taught people how to visit, respect and take care of their elders, which is STILL not something that's exactly on blast in modern society. Cults have pros in addition to the cons, those pros are where followers come from, the followers look at the cons and say "everything has faults," bada-bing, they're in, and that's the simple truth you have to come to terms with. It's infuriating to think about now in a lot of ways, but this is also a good lesson in how human psych works in general. Using these techniques I was told that I got doubters into the church at about 9x the average rate for our first-world region. I gave all credit to the big guy.
gareiner 5y ago
People believe on what they choose to believe no matter how presentable and detailed the factual information presented in front of them.
mrfusion 5y ago
Don’t worry guys, it’s only the other tribe that’s affected by this. We follow facts.
joelbondurant 5y ago
Only the Fact-Check Algorithm from the Science Ministry ordains facts.
HPsquared 5y ago
"Feelings don't care about your facts" -Shen Bapiro
jonnycomputer 5y ago
When people's self-interest is on the line--a wager, an investment, etc.--often facts do matter. All that stubborn ideological pretense drops away. People's overconfident pronouncements on the economy, or whatever, would diminish into cautious qualified speculation if they had to put money where there mouth is. At least some of the times. (:
Layke1123 5y ago
Facts absolutely change our minds. Telling people facts they don't want to hear is the issue. Someone has to be open to receiving new information that might not align with their currents thoughts. Most people are not this open and can't handle it. It's a skill that can be built though.
User23 5y ago
Well over two millennia later, Aristotle remains highly relevant on the subject of instruction and persuasion[1]: Moreover, (2) before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Furthermore, it's evident that the standard American primary and secondary school system, either by accident or design, mutilates the student's ability to be instructed in favor of training desired responses. [1] http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html
xboxnolifes 5y ago
I generally disagree with the framing of this topic. I think the real issue is that what many people call "facts" are not facts at all. At least, they aren't easily or immediately verifiably true to the receiver, so unless you blindly trust everything you hear, you must make judgement calls. If you read a research paper by some John D, that spells out a hypothesis, study plan, results, and summary, the written summary of results (even the the actual results themselves) is not the "fact" of the study topic. The facts are: - John G wrote these things down into a report paper - John G claims to have followed the proposed plan properly - John G claims to have accurately recorded the results Even with replicated research, you are merely improving the statistical odds that the two people aren't putting out bad information, intentionally or otherwise. If I tell someone that type 1 diabetes is a genetic disorder, there is only 1 fact from the receiver's perspective: I claim that type 1 diabetes is genetic. I have provided no way of verifying that information to them. If they look it up, they are trusting some source or trusting someone else's information. That is still a tribal following, as they have a set of sources that are going to be more likely to trust than others. Most "facts" aren't shared through well vetted, replicated research. They are given though casual conversation or short internet comments. I'd say you'd be a madman if you take anything you've ever read or heard as fact. The closest you can come to fact is observing things yourself, and even that is flawed.
- jimsimmons 5y ago
  Great point. It’s usually “you are disagreeing with me so you don’t understand facts and rationality” when they themselves are making a poor case.
  - trees101 5y ago
    the article itself is an example of that. It's so frustrating to be preached to about "facts" by someone who makes no use of "facts" in their own argument. Same for "logic" and "rationality".
- brankoB 5y ago
  In a similar vein, people using scientific facts in non-scientific conversations. The amount of times I've heard "well the SCIENCE tells us..." in a moral debate is mind boggling.
dennysidler 5y ago
It's not true. If it were, nothing would be remotely rational in society. Facts can't force just anyone to change their mind if there are countervailing forces. OK. But there exist people for whom adhering to the facts of nearly any situation is in effect a kind of credo or top tier value they will not contravene.
- hn_sucks 5y ago
  > But there exist people for whom adhering to the facts of nearly any situation is in effect a kind of credo or top tier value they will not contravene. Where? Definitely not on this joke of a website. Just try bringing up the evidence for the genetic basis of race and IQ, or race and violence.
dennysidler 5y ago
Does it make you feel powerful to trash the best efforts of earnest people ? Just wondering what motivates the straight to the garbage can and shadow banning activity you engage in. It's hard to understand how wretched and empty a person you must be to get off on playing Lenin with other people's thoughts.
ezekiel68 5y ago
The Masters Degree in awarenes is to notice you've also put yourself into a tribe when you point out/ridicule that most "other" people are tribal. Now you belong to the "We are not irrational, emotion-based decision makers" tribe. And then two problem immediately becomes apparent: 1) This tribe never was and never will be large enough to meaningfully influence most decisions in any society. 2) This tribe does not control access to nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, or tank or infantry divisions.
- jimsimmons 5y ago
  Actually the bigger problem is that this tribe is no different from other tribes but with a lot of self aggrandisement.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ravenstine 5y ago
Facts can change minds but, for most, their minds will only be changed if those facts are sanctioned by someone they respect or see as an authority. This goes back to the theory that 80% or more of any population of humans are going to be followers. You can't have a tribe of nothing but chiefs, because eventually those chiefs are going to pontificate too much and fight over their decisions. Every group needs a majority of its members to follow along no matter what, and as humans are a communal species, we developed as such. Groups don't have time to have every individual understand and debate the facts. To be efficient, most will need to just do what the chief tells them to do. The tragedy of our era is that we've told ourselves that everyone will make better decisions if we all were educated and knew the facts. The result is we've told unremarkable people that they are really intelligent, and we've wasted the time of the intelligent by telling them that humans aren't the programmable species that they really are. Pointing out facts is simply a sport of one-upsmanship that has no accountability for how someone acts upon that information. The chiefs, so to speak, are free to reason themselves into any contorted belief to the point of religious zealotry, and the followers are only more glad than ever to join these new religions. For facts to not only change our minds, but change enough minds, we may need to move beyond the model of the tribe. At the very least, the chiefs need to be knocked down a peg.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > This goes back to the theory that 80% or more of any population of humans are going to be followers It gets even worse than that, those followers climb the ranks parroting whatever the previous people said, and after a while you have organizations where there are just followers all the way to the top. In those nobody cares about facts.
- 7952 5y ago
  Facts need to be balanced with analytical skills and that is often missing.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    Right. The best training I ever had was learning reasoning, formal logic and argument as part of philosophy. These are analytical skills and they're taught as such which you can then later apply to almost any aspect of your personal or professional life. Moreover, I'm a firm believer that their concepts should be appropriately scaled down and taught to kids at a very early age and that their underpinning principles should be the backbone of their learning throughout their education. Learning these analytical skills doesn't have to be boring or tedious either especially if their concepts are pitched to the kids' age. Whilst I wasn't lucky enough to be introduced to these subjects in primary school, I vividly remember the time that I was - and that was being thrust headlong into reading the great master himself - Plato. And there's no better starting point than Book I of his Republic - and Plato's subject 'What is justice?' is as both lofty and as meaningful as it can get. Here we see one of the great dialogues of all time played out - a formal argument between the philosopher Socrates and the sophist Thrasymachus. To watch Socrates methodically and systematically demolish Thrasymachus' proposition that 'Justice is evey man for himself' through logic and force of argument is a sheer delight - I get goose bumps on my neck every time I read it. And Plato delivers even more: as James Clear points out Facts don't change our minds - for that we first must get people on our side, which is exactly what Socrates does, as he eventually convinces Thrasymachus through friendliness, logic and pursuasion of argument of the error of his ways - thus the sophist is converted to the philosopher's much more powerful and just view (right, James Clear will have read Plato too!). There's more to developing analytical skills than just reading Book I and that's why it has to be an education-long process (and I'm appalled at how little attention we pay to it in our present-day education systems). Analytical skills work not only at the obvious level of the decision-making process but also when one is confronted with having to overturn a firmlyheld belief or fact that is wrong. When in possession of proper analytical skills one cannot simply ignore the issue and hope it will go away - thus, like it or not, one is confronted with having to deal with it. There have been times in my life when I've held what I have believed to be almost absolute fact - 'fact' that's turned out to be completely wrong. When finally confronted with (proof of) real fact my analytical training not only allowed me to switch position almost immediately but also it helped me understand why I was wrong initially. What that training does not do is to relieve one of the pain and smarting that comes from the realization that one was so very wrong in the first instance.
ss108 5y ago
I don't believe this article.
captainmuon 5y ago
For any given topic, there is a really small minority of people who are open for rational arguments and with whom you can and should discuss. Also, you can discuss with the undecided and the impressionable. The art is to recognize when somebody is not open to arguments. There is no need to argue e.g. that your country has plenty of resources and it is the ethical thing to do to accept refugees, when the other person just places zero value on their lives and is openly racist. What is completely rational for that person is insane for you and vice versa. In that situation you can switch away from discussion on eye level and it just becomes a power play. Try to "win" the discussion in any way, look good to bystanders, convince those who can be convinced. Amplify the voices that you want to amplify and silence the others. It sounds horrible to write this out loud, but so much of political discussion realls is not a scientific exchange of facts, but just power games.

168 points by nvr219 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ncmncm 5y ago

Facts change some of our minds.

tooltower 5y ago
Only sometimes ;-)

emrah 5y ago

Facts don't change decisions made by emotions

hilyen 5y ago

Depends on if their thinking is authority based (dogmatic) or logic based. The logical people definitely change their minds when new evidence arises.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Isn’t logic a framework that can be seen under different lens? If I say it’s caused by x does it mean that your logical analysis of it being caused by y become invalidated? Logical explanations are consistent but that doesn’t mean the logic is correct. If a racist says a problem is caused by races, another says it seems to be caused by environmental factors, another states it’s society’s failures and another says it’s economics they are all logically consistent but dogmatic still. >“People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.” >We don't always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about.
- causi 5y ago
  You're citing things that aren't cut and dry Sometimes facts can change your mind even when you find those facts extremely irritating. For a personal example, I hate that direct cash payments are the most efficient way to supplement people in need of help, but every study says that's the case and so that's the way I argue and the way I vote.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    What if I told you that lower taxes so they don’t get money taken out is even better?
    - causi 5y ago
      How does that apply to poor people?
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        They pay taxes too. Direct cash payments are good, but they’re often mostly consumed by the administration. I don’t rely on the government to help the poor, lower taxes from government and direct cash from gofundme and other sites is the most efficient.
        causi 5y ago
        I was mostly referring to the fact giving people money is more efficient than giving them material goods, even though it creates the opportunity for abuse.
watwut 5y ago
> The logical people definitely change their minds when new evidence arises. Nah. Logical people will happily simplify world ad absurdum and proceed ignoring all the facts that point to nuance.
bidivia 5y ago
Logical people(usually called Smart people) could be really really stupid. Einstein as a young fellow certainly did not change Planck's mind, and Heisenberg did not change Einstein's. Doesn't matter if we talk about Magellan, Newton or Darwin. They changed the world one death at a time. The reason is that logic is based on very few things(usually binary statements, true or false) and it can focus only on those things. They can dissect and understand deeply something very small and dead(static) but could have real problems understanding the whole system(big and alive[dynamic]). You only can focus on 5,6 things at a single time and need to invest a ton of time to get results. The world is not pure binary, like mathematics usually study it,the world have shades of gray and billions of things interacting all the time. In fact, without tools like cheap access to books that make it possible to complete the work someone else has done,and networks that share the knowledge like Universities, cities or the Internet, this process of analysis is so slow that it is completely useless. For understanding complete systems intuition is just much better and faster. Because it is an stochastic process that could integrate millions of things at once. For changing your mind you need proper training in the scientific process, and it takes a lot of work and effort to do, because it goes against our primal instincts. You need to be humble and train a beginner's mind all the time. The fact is that most people believe they are logical while everybody else is dogmatic. But they are not. They can not do something as basic exercise as proper debate in which they believe and defend only temporarly the opposite of what they really believe. Really logical people can see their own flaws as a human(illusions and biases) and only then compensate for them. I bet you,hilyen, believe your thinking is logic based. Hah!
pydry 5y ago
The "logical" people tend to cast doubt on the veracity of the evidence or believe unquestioningly according to tribe. "This study was badly done", etc.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Some «"logical" people tend to cast doubt». Then, anyway, will «definitely change their minds when new evidence arises». "Educated bets" are part of the intellectual game.
- dTal 5y ago
  Logical people by definition do what is logical. You seem to have assigned tribehood to a group you call "the logical people" who behave illogically. Without a mental ideal of an actual logical person, how can you ever aspire to behave logically yourself?
  - pydry 5y ago
    I wasn't saying this behavior was illogical nor that "logical" people are a tribe (although on HN, professing a belief in the primacy of logicality is certainly a tribal marker...) I'm merely saying that people who consider themselves "logical people who will change their mind when the facts change" will still ascertain veracity of facts and how much weight to give them in a tribal manner, even if they are not consciously aware of it.
the_only_law 5y ago
It seems the people stressing to me about how logical they are tend to be equally dogmatic.
mikkergp 5y ago
I think this is less one vs the other and more about how closely aligned people find their beliefs and their ideas (Maybe this is what you mean by dogmatic) I believe that no one should go hungry, that everyone deserves health care, and that everyone should have a place to live. No 'fact' is going to change that belief, but for some people that belief translates directly into an ideology. For me, facts could change how closely aligned I am to more market-based or socialist views to solve these problems. I don't believe in market-oriented solutions because I like competition or want people to suffer(whereas for some the idea of winners and losers is attractive) I like market oriented solutions because I think given the whole system it's more effective. And this is one of those weird ingrained personality things. Some people can't understand and think my _beliefs_ waffle. I similarly can't understand why those who have closely aligned beliefs and ideas can't see that an idea that seems to solve a problem on it's face doesn't actually solve that problem.

hans1729 5y ago

Facts change the minds of XXTPs, if you subscribe to MBTI.

readthenotes1 5y ago
IIRC, the facts have shown MBTI to be hokum
- hans1729 5y ago
  It has no validated scientific basis, but that doesn't mean that the concept of cognitive functions is flat wrong, does it? The discipline of psychology is somewhat broken since the 60s; something like a model for personality just doesn't get you a long way within the system of reward-incentives in academia, especially if the discipline still recovers from a significant loss of reputation some 60 years ago because of behaviourism. I don't want to ramble or off-track this thread, mbti just seems like a really interesting tool, one that has allowed me to get profound insights into minds I'd not have had without it - validated insights.
  - ezekiel68 5y ago
    I feel that you may be, unintentionally, reinforcing the point of the OP.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I've seen those facts. They don't begin to address what MBTI is about. Astrology is hokum, too, but it randomizes who gets which bit of advice on which day, and gives everybody different advice at different times. That birthdays and planets have no meaningful role beyond randomization does not lessen its usefulness at keeping people who follow it out of ruts. MBTI is a lesson in other valid ways to perceive and act in the world than what you are used to. Other people do, and it would be a poorer world if they didn't.
- lmm 5y ago
  Nope, and I don't understand how this myth arose or keeps popping up. MBTI is not perfect but it has decent test-retest reliability and decent correlations with other measures.

winkeyless 5y ago

Good read. People are social/tribal than factual. Online comments, even non-political ones, can still get so heated. Etiquette seems to be better followed in the real world than in anonymous comment section.

mdp2021 5y ago
> People are A number of people are tribal in belief-change, probably a large number. "Normal" (according to norm) people are not. Educated people who have been through Euclid and post do not believe that triangles eat turtles (or any false property) because doing otherwise offends their mates. The author of that article is tribal: non-tribals, objective people never write 'we' and 'our' in those contexts, as per the title, «...our minds». 'Our brains have glias', yes; 'We pick our nose', no. Edit: And it is not a matter of quantifiers (some, many). The author of the article wrote: «Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome» - universal quantifier. Following that, that author is a lunatic (or a criminally sloppy writer). No, James Clear, there exist people who do not accept cretinous assertions, absurdities, to be part of any group - they find "loneliness" (in fact, quite relative) preferable to absurd (which, by the way, also has a functional cost). Some people are not beasts.

XargonEnder 5y ago

If your tribe is one that values changing your mind based on the facts then at least that theater will be important. Great article, thanks for sharing!

andi999 5y ago

Is there any scientific study (facts...) to this article? Generally I think I change my mind if new (reliable and significant) facts come in.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Depends what you call a fact. If I say that this Processor is the best at these benchmark, does it matter that the benchmark favors it? If I say a camera takes the best images, but omit they’re difficult to do consistently does it have the best quality? If I said these headphones sound the best and produce the most accurate sound, what if it’s true for me but not for your music genres?
- elcomet 5y ago
  - Then I trust that this processor is best au this benchmark (but not necessarily at other tasks) - I trust what you say, and the best camera for me will depend on those factors - I trust that you like those headphones, that does not necessarily mean I will too.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    But there’s no other measure and it’s implied it’s the best. People will think it’s the best. I might not say that it’s difficult, since it’s easy for me, or to trick you to buy it, it’s still a fact. Headphones might be the most subjective but I’ll say they produce the most accurate sound (to me). You don’t have a way to measure if you like them or not.
- mitigating 5y ago
  from https://sure.nlb.gov.sg/tng/surevivors-activity5/ https://sure.nlb.gov.sg/tng/surevivors-activity5/ "Facts will also be unbiased. They do not support only one perspective and present the information in an objective manner" Of your examples only "Processor is the best at these benchmark" is a fact. You said "does it matter that the benchmark favors it" and I don't think that matters. You aren't saying "This processor is the best processor" then using the benchmark as evidence, you are saying the processor is the best at the particular benchmark which is true even if the benchmark is bias, manipulated, or whatever.

lordnacho 5y ago

This is basically why I tend to not associate myself with intellectual or political labels like libertarian or socialist, at least out loud. Once you say "I am an X" you find yourself making contortions in order to defend X, and you really really think you're right and everyone else is wrong. At best I say I have leanings, and I try to hear what is being said. For the same reason I don't follow people online who currently think what I'm thinking. To exercise my tribal gene I've followed one football club since childhood and I can tell my opinion is different from what commentators say after the game.

mdp2021 5y ago
Why should you sclerotize on a position? It is irrational to begin with, to assume any statement outside a provisional role. About the risks, damaging world representation and individual's proper function, of those who "shout slogans", Charlie Munger spoke really worthy words (the Psychology of Human Misjudgement speeches) - transcript of the speech at Harvard in 1995 at https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/psychology-of-human-misjudgment-by-charlie-munger https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/psychology-of-human-mi... , revised version at https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/ https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/ > Well what I'm saying here is that the human mind is a lot like the human egg, and the human egg has a shut-off device. When one sperm gets in, it shuts down so the next one can't get in. The human mind has a big tendency of the same sort. And here again, it doesn't just catch ordinary mortals, it catches the deans of physics. According to Max Planck, the really innovative, important new physics was never really accepted by the old guard. Instead, a new guard came along that was less brain-blocked by its previous conclusions. And if Max Planck’s crowd had this consistency and commitment tendency that kept their old inclusions intact in spite of disconfirming evidence, you can imagine what the crowd that you and I are part of behaves like > And of course, if you make a public disclosure of your conclusion, you're pounding it into your own head. Many of these students that are screaming at us, you know, they aren't convincing us, but they're forming mental change for themselves, because what they're shouting out they're pounding in. And I think educational institutions that create a climate where too much of that goes on are in a fundamental sense, they're irresponsible institutions. It’s very important to not put your brain in chains too young by what you shout out > And all these things like painful qualifying and initiation rituals, all those things, pound in your commitments and your ideas. The Chinese brainwashing system, which was for war prisoners, was way better than anybody else's. They maneuvered people into making tiny little commitments and declarations, and then they'd slowly build. That worked way better than torture

afarrell 5y ago

There is a danger in taking this too far. If you assume that facts don’t change people’s minds, you fail to build the skill of arranging facts clearly in a way that helps people think most clearly and allows them to decide to change their mind. Without that skill, you cannot have influence with people who value making clear-eyed fact-based decisions enough to overcome their tribalism. If you expect people to not make fact-based decisions, you will associate with people who frequently fail to make fact-based decisions. Do that too much, and your life will be at the whims of people who do not even aspire to manage their emotions wisely. ——— Seek out the scout mindset in everyone you meet. Expect and bring out the best in those around you.

mdp2021 5y ago
If X really assumed «facts don’t change people's minds», X would live in a false and defeatist world image. If X assumed that 'facts do change people's minds', again X would fool himself and need more accurate representation and tools. Incidentally: the article (also) fails to point out clearly, "some people do not actually care about changing their mind (irregardless of facts, and even of tribe)" - inner statuses are so important to them, that not even tribalism shakes them. Of course the point is with defeatism, and its absiological and practical consequences: if one gave up (consequences), or resorted to paternalism (other bad consequences)... But do not forget the pars construens of TFA: "to change people's minds, there can be better strategies".
tchalla 5y ago
> There is a danger in taking this too far. Already done- many, many times "Diamonds are forever", "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day", "Bacon for Breakfast" etc etc. The "humble" origins began here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...
sumtechguy 5y ago
Are you sure about that? Even in your own life? Why did you eat the dinner you had last night? Was it because the caloric intake was the proper amount you needed for life? Or were there other reasons? You liked the taste? Just felt like it? many decisions we make are shortcuts in life. Maybe at one point something was a rational data decisions. But you can turn that into a 'gut feel' very quickly with little thought. Changing someone's opinion with facts almost rarely works. Unless they do not care about the outcome. Then you can easily change their minds. Something like 1+1=3 'hey you got that wrong' 'oh yeah you are right its 2'. That sort of fact decision is easy to 'fix'. But which steakhouse is the best one on the market? You will get lots of opinions and anecdotes. But there are known and sometimes manipulative methods to change someone's opinion on those things. Edward Bernays methods are usually manipulative and use extensively in politics and marketing campaigns. I usually personally use a more questioning methodology. You also have to get past the idea of 'right vs wrong' also, and be willing to change your own opinions. If not fact methodology usually makes people dig in and ignore you.

natmaka 5y ago

The War Nerd puts it clearly: "Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL: "my gang yay, your gang boo!" It really is that simple. The rest is cosmetics." "Most" seems adequate because many adults do have preconceptions, for many of us being quite sure that "don't be an ignorant" is a requirement, and concluding that "knowing about everything" also is. http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8366 http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8366

pojzon 5y ago
Its even simplier then that. “My feelings” > “Your rational points” We simply evolved like that and next step of evolution was to become more rational. We are somewhere in the middle.
- wruza 5y ago
  Others say that feelings is everything and there is no point in going any further.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Good luck in building an aqueduct.
  - jeofken 5y ago
    You may call it sophiststry rather than philosophy
    - dandanua 5y ago
      Not really, this is an egocentric philosophy (like solipsism) and you can't fight it with rational arguments.
  - atoav 5y ago
    As long as you have enough rational engineers, scientists and bureaucrats around you, you could indeed afford that luxury. But don't ever become naive enough to extrapolate yourself onto the rest of the world and call it a paradise.

galaxyLogic 5y ago

There's a difference between what people say they believe and what they truly believe. One way to find out would be to offer a bet. If you truly believe that are you willing to bet that nobody can prove you wrong. This often bothers me about commentary on TV. They say that this and that politician believes that ... But no. The TV commentators have no way of knowing what anybody actually thinks or believes. They can only know what people say they believe. Some people say they believe the election was stolen. Then it gets reported that this percentage of people believe the election was stolen. But there is no proof of that. There is only evidence that certain percentage of people SAY they believe the election was stolen. We don't know what they truly believe, only what they say they do.

i5heu 5y ago
This reminds me of the book "Skin in the Game". I have often the feeling that people "believe" in certain things to be edgy or interesting.
- quinnjh 5y ago
  I think people acquire false beliefs using the peer-effect vulnerability. :| Virtue signalling is necessary to maintain social capital within social networks, and people will change their words and adapt worldviews accordingly- especially when theres no "skin in the game" !
  - necovek 5y ago
    What do you consider false beliefs? How many of the beliefs you have have you individually verified that they come from properly vetted facts and are properly interpreted too? Majority of our beliefs are vulnerable to "peer review". There is nothing negative about that, because otherwise, we'd all be spending time verifying everything anybody says. The only thing I am saying is that you should not try to discredit anyone for holding a set of beliefs, because we are all guilty of similarly not vetting the truth. Very rarely do we dive into establishing the facts fully, because it would be impossible to talk about anything. If you disagree, let's go through an exercise. So your car says it's now going 60km/h. I can't trust you or your car, let's put side markers on the road, and I'll use a stopwatch. We'll also have to do like 100 runs, and change the surface a bit so we control for skid (non-slippery, slippery...). Ok, for those side markers, how do we measure them? What about the time? I'll drop by Paris to get 1-true-meter and compare my stopwatch with their atomic clock to ensure the error is within, say, 1%. All this is the vetting required for a basic, easily measurable "fact". Anything involving the human mind, it's nigh impossible.

ohduran 5y ago

This people said this, this people said that, the ME LAW OF SOMETHING. Gosh, did this guy write a bestseller? Unbelievable.

adamors 5y ago
Unfortunately, writing ability has nothing to do with how well a non-fiction book sells, in fact if you can write concisely and well that 350 page non-fiction will just be a 40 page essay. But that can't be sold for 15 dollars.

mdp2021 5y ago

It is just published (past few hours) by the Spectator the article ‘I am not able to answer your question’: an irascible Paolo Sorrentino interviewed, from Hermione Eyre: > Loving the films of the Italian auteur Paolo Sorrentino, I thought he’d be easy to chat to. But a maestro is a maestro, as I was reminded when I interviewed him in London last week. Masked and communicating through a translator, I semaphored my admiration for his new film The Hand of God, starting with its spectacular opening shot. Like a bird, the camera flies over the sea, then focuses on a vintage car tooling along the promenade, before panning over the city again. But he rejected my praise: “It’s not complicated. It’s a normal shot by helicopter” (Skimmers: the post is about the preference of Sorrentino about adherence to facts, instead of going for contributing to sustaining the interviewer's emotions. No, not all people are tribal.)

marginalia_nu 5y ago

From an epistemological point of view, nobody has access to facts. Facts are the things that are. A fact isn't a true statement, but the thing that a true statement corresponds to. You're up on a very high horse if you conflate what you think or say with the facts. "I'm showing them truth and they aren't listening" should be "I'm listing things I believe are true, and they believe different things are true". If you put it that way, it's fairly obviously a naive and solipsistic way to think. You get into these bizarre pokemon battle-discussions where both sides are throwing out "facts" but it's never effective. "But I'm showing them science!", you say. Let's be honest here. It's demonstrably true that science isn't guaranteed to be correct. May the ghost of Karl Popper haunt and expound the ideas of scientific fallibilism to anyone who doesn't agree with this. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt scientific claims until you are convinced by them--not by who is saying it, but what they are saying. This is central to the scientific principle to do so. A prerequisite for knowledge isn't merely being correct, but understanding why things are correct. "Because it says so in this abstract" is not sufficient. If you do not understand why a statement is true, you do not know it is true. If anything, the reason people get stuck in these intellectual trenches is because they too are conflating the existence of an abstract with sufficient reason for knowledge. They too conflate their opinions about the truth for facts. All these fringe science groups like anti-vaxxers and 5g-conspiracists almost always have "sources" for their claims, and a superficially plausible story about some big cabal of mainstream science trying to suppress them.

memorylane 5y ago

You can’t use arguments to convince someone to change their mind when they didn’t get there rationally…

janto 5y ago

Vehemently disagree. We derive our allegiances and enemies not from facts, but from our goals and values. It is completely reasonable that (minor) facts have relatively little influence on our larger goals. The author is confused about this Is/Aught difference. Or attempting to manipulate the reader towards prioritizing Kindness without a single fact, scientific study or example anywhere in the article. Ironic.

mdp2021 5y ago
> attempting to manipulate the reader towards prioritizing Kindness without I think you may have misunderstood the message: I think he is warning (as some psychologists like to stress) that causing discrepancies in one's world view can be very stressful and painful, and that showing facts may not be productive and effective with some people¹ - so he is warning about awareness for politeness and effectiveness. ¹(to the arm-tossing author of the article, seemingly (indiscriminately) you, janto, and your unknown neighbour - and you would be right in protesting against him for the insinuation)
- janto 5y ago
  From the article: When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. When I am in a dialog, my goal is not to "integrate them into my tribe". Yuck. It is to express myself authentically in a skillful way. Whatever connection and conversation emerges is then meaningful. Where the article is advocating kindness as a manipulation tactic to avoid stirring up their partner's defenses, while pursuing a specific perspective change... that is being slimy.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    What I am saying is, it's not just that: the article is not wholly rubbish. It is written (paradoxically) for a public that excludes some more "normal" languages. Even that "integrate into the tribe": there exist plausible interpretations, such as "creating a communication that spreads truths, creating further building blocks for further commonality and keys for further communication". It is also true that to play squash, spending hours to throw balls at a wall, will get frustrating if you wanted them balls to reach the other side. If you want to be understood by someone specific, you have to understand that - unfortunately - there exist a large number of people who will only understand a limited number of message forms. It's warning you about the inefficacy of flooding an HTTP server with SMTP messages. And sometimes, it's that Joe exactly you have to speak. At work, you will not be able to override that.

kelnos 5y ago

This understanding is something that (pre-pandemic at least[0]) started entering the scientific consciousness. Some (but probably not enough) scientists were starting to realize that fact-based arguments around climate change weren't really winning hearts and minds. Emotional appeals (backed by facts, of course, but still focusing on emotional response) had the most impact on making skeptics understand that climate change is actually an urgent issue. I can't find the article right now, but I was probably reading about this in mid-2019. This also reminds me of some stories I've read about black people working to befriend racist people. Often it just takes a racist white person to get to know a black person on more than a superficial level, and then they realize their racism is based on bullshit. I say "just", but of course this isn't a trivial thing to do, and it puts the burden of effort on someone who shouldn't have to expend that effort, and potentially put themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. Something I always try to do when making decisions (don't always succeed, though) is to think about outcomes rather than what seems logical or just, or would make me feel the best. "Taking someone down" with the most logical argument ever might sound amazing in theory, and have some really feel-good vibes, but often that just won't work to persuade someone. What really matters in the end is the outcome: we want to "win friends and influence people"; that should be the driving motivation. Certainly we shouldn't compromise our ethics to do so, but often persuading someone of your point of view might involve more emotion than logic. I think the big challenge, covered in the article, is that you need to not only appeal to someone's emotions to change their minds, but you need to somehow convince them that leaving their "tribe" (full of close friends and often family who have the wrong idea) is safe and won't result in alienation and ostracization. It's a really tall order. And, frankly, often they will end up being alienated from many of the people they hold dear. It's really hard to get someone to accept that. Sure, you can try to pull them into your tribe, and make them comfortable with that. But what if doing so means they'll lose their closest friends and family, people they have been close with for years or decades? [0] Efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy and outright misinformation haven't been going so well. I think a big part of the problem is that people are trying to throw facts against emotion. That just doesn't work most of the time.

mdp2021 5y ago
> Efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy and outright misinformation haven't been going so well. I think a big part of the problem is that people are trying to throw facts against emotion. That just doesn't work most of the time Oddly, I have noticed the exact opposite: an incredible and unduly resorting to emotional, sketchy, manipulative language - not only in fact, but also theorized by articles "do not speak to them using rational arguments", and from academicians (e.g. The Conversation) - which of course, had "alarm bells ring up to eleven" in "normal", rational people. Nobody¹ concedes trust when manipulative language is perceived. ¹(finally, a rare almost legitimate universal quantifier) -- > we want to "win friends and influence people"; that should be the driving motivation This probably needed much better expression.

known 5y ago

"Reason cannot defeat emotion, an emotion can only be displaced by a stronger emotion" --Baruch Spinoza (b. 1632)

rgomez 5y ago

"Everything we listen is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth" - Marcus Aurelius

giantg2 5y ago

I agree with the majority of the content. It does seem to miss or gloss over how "facts" are applied or presented. Many times I have seen someone present a fact to me or someone else that has no effect on the logical argument the other person has - and rightfully so since it is unrelated or not useful. Or they completely miss the context of the fact they are presenting, like not knowing the number is "good" or "bad", or not knowing what it actually represents (looking at you, gender wage gap). Then you have the the complexities of multiple arguments in different perspectives for or against a policy involving n-order impacts. One perspective/discipline might have a solid argument, but another might have a solid argument going the other direction. Then it's up to the individual to weigh which is more valuable to them. This sort of brings us to how scientific fact is not the same as policy, but the people need to decide if and how they want to implement a policy based on it. When I get new facts, I research them and my existing position.

talkingtab 5y ago

I agree that tribal et al is a factor, but there are other significant factors. One is that a belief is not a singularity, it is a part of a web. If I believe that the world is flat, then a gaggle of other beliefs are then impossible. If you tell me you sailed around the world I will not believe you, not because of your statement but because your statement contradicts an assumption which is part of my belief fabric. In addition, humans are not completely rational creatures. The concept of not knowing why you feel the way you do is common. And yet we are primarily driven by those things we feel but often cannot understand. Beliefs arise from emotions, not the other way around. At the present time in the US we live in a society which increasingly divided into two parts because the experiences of those people are distinctly different. We have the concept of social inequality - the Gini function - but we often do not realize that the higher the Gini function the more likely it is that we will have divided belief fabrics. As we do. Many people in the US (I'm only speaking for what I know ) live in a far different world than the readers of HN. They work just as hard if not harder than the readers of HN. The belief fabric of those people is far different because their experience sharing the benefits of our society is far different. The emotions of being treated unfairly give rise to a rejection of the predominant belief fabric as a whole. Imagine that you have repeatedly lost friends and family who sailed off the edge of the world because they accepted the official line that the world is round? Not a great example but perhaps a bit useful. So when we say "tribal" or "friendship" we need to understand that tribes or friendships tend to cluster around belief systems. Trying to change someones mind by thinking about a scale of 1-10 does not work when they are using a completely different numbering space. (edit changed "because they are using" to "when they are using".)

bob999 5y ago

Explains why so many people think that women can have penises

cainxinth 5y ago

The best technique I’ve heard of for nudging someone away from a deeply held (but maladaptive) belief is called deep canvassing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_canvassing The idea is basically that if you attack a strong belief head on, the person you’re talking to will reject your arguments instinctively. It’s a natural psychological defense mechanism. No one likes being wrong, particularly about things that are tied to their identity. Instead of dictating facts, you start a dialogue and ask questions that encourage critical thinking. If you are empathic, patient, and non-threatening, they sometimes (sometimes!) start making realizations on their own that change their opinion. And as many a good therapist has said, the patient has to want to change.

emptybottle 5y ago
Interesting, I've never heard of it called deep canvassing but it's something I'd been aware of for a long time. That essentially you can't get what you want through arguing. It's much more effective to act with patience, and in time either both people will compromise or one will accept the others idea as if it was their own.
themodelplumber 5y ago
Back when I was a cultist I was proud of how effectively I could canvas. :-) For context: If you look into street epistemology, it's similar to what I was doing. From the other side, so to speak. We then played doubt (I think the SE creator calls it the pebble in the shoe) into action, and as long as we could suggest the action, in the absence of other suggested actions, the actions we suggested were taken. Pray in this way, listen for the answers we tell you to listen for, act as if God told you to do this, add this new structure to your life, keep this one, subtract that one. Review what you're grateful for and be happy feeling content with all these amazing blessings...BTW did we mention that you have successfully changed your life, the thing you told us you wanted? You spread this across months of friendly visits against a backdrop of loneliness in a chillingly pragmatic society...I mean we taught people how to visit, respect and take care of their elders, which is STILL not something that's exactly on blast in modern society. Cults have pros in addition to the cons, those pros are where followers come from, the followers look at the cons and say "everything has faults," bada-bing, they're in, and that's the simple truth you have to come to terms with. It's infuriating to think about now in a lot of ways, but this is also a good lesson in how human psych works in general. Using these techniques I was told that I got doubters into the church at about 9x the average rate for our first-world region. I gave all credit to the big guy.

gareiner 5y ago

People believe on what they choose to believe no matter how presentable and detailed the factual information presented in front of them.

mrfusion 5y ago

Don’t worry guys, it’s only the other tribe that’s affected by this. We follow facts.

joelbondurant 5y ago

Only the Fact-Check Algorithm from the Science Ministry ordains facts.

HPsquared 5y ago

"Feelings don't care about your facts" -Shen Bapiro

jonnycomputer 5y ago

When people's self-interest is on the line--a wager, an investment, etc.--often facts do matter. All that stubborn ideological pretense drops away. People's overconfident pronouncements on the economy, or whatever, would diminish into cautious qualified speculation if they had to put money where there mouth is. At least some of the times. (:

Layke1123 5y ago

Facts absolutely change our minds. Telling people facts they don't want to hear is the issue. Someone has to be open to receiving new information that might not align with their currents thoughts. Most people are not this open and can't handle it. It's a skill that can be built though.

User23 5y ago

Well over two millennia later, Aristotle remains highly relevant on the subject of instruction and persuasion[1]: Moreover, (2) before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Furthermore, it's evident that the standard American primary and secondary school system, either by accident or design, mutilates the student's ability to be instructed in favor of training desired responses. [1] http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html

xboxnolifes 5y ago

I generally disagree with the framing of this topic. I think the real issue is that what many people call "facts" are not facts at all. At least, they aren't easily or immediately verifiably true to the receiver, so unless you blindly trust everything you hear, you must make judgement calls. If you read a research paper by some John D, that spells out a hypothesis, study plan, results, and summary, the written summary of results (even the the actual results themselves) is not the "fact" of the study topic. The facts are: - John G wrote these things down into a report paper - John G claims to have followed the proposed plan properly - John G claims to have accurately recorded the results Even with replicated research, you are merely improving the statistical odds that the two people aren't putting out bad information, intentionally or otherwise. If I tell someone that type 1 diabetes is a genetic disorder, there is only 1 fact from the receiver's perspective: I claim that type 1 diabetes is genetic. I have provided no way of verifying that information to them. If they look it up, they are trusting some source or trusting someone else's information. That is still a tribal following, as they have a set of sources that are going to be more likely to trust than others. Most "facts" aren't shared through well vetted, replicated research. They are given though casual conversation or short internet comments. I'd say you'd be a madman if you take anything you've ever read or heard as fact. The closest you can come to fact is observing things yourself, and even that is flawed.

jimsimmons 5y ago
Great point. It’s usually “you are disagreeing with me so you don’t understand facts and rationality” when they themselves are making a poor case.
- trees101 5y ago
  the article itself is an example of that. It's so frustrating to be preached to about "facts" by someone who makes no use of "facts" in their own argument. Same for "logic" and "rationality".
brankoB 5y ago
In a similar vein, people using scientific facts in non-scientific conversations. The amount of times I've heard "well the SCIENCE tells us..." in a moral debate is mind boggling.

dennysidler 5y ago

It's not true. If it were, nothing would be remotely rational in society. Facts can't force just anyone to change their mind if there are countervailing forces. OK. But there exist people for whom adhering to the facts of nearly any situation is in effect a kind of credo or top tier value they will not contravene.

hn_sucks 5y ago
> But there exist people for whom adhering to the facts of nearly any situation is in effect a kind of credo or top tier value they will not contravene. Where? Definitely not on this joke of a website. Just try bringing up the evidence for the genetic basis of race and IQ, or race and violence.

dennysidler 5y ago

Does it make you feel powerful to trash the best efforts of earnest people ? Just wondering what motivates the straight to the garbage can and shadow banning activity you engage in. It's hard to understand how wretched and empty a person you must be to get off on playing Lenin with other people's thoughts.

ezekiel68 5y ago

The Masters Degree in awarenes is to notice you've also put yourself into a tribe when you point out/ridicule that most "other" people are tribal. Now you belong to the "We are not irrational, emotion-based decision makers" tribe. And then two problem immediately becomes apparent: 1) This tribe never was and never will be large enough to meaningfully influence most decisions in any society. 2) This tribe does not control access to nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, or tank or infantry divisions.

jimsimmons 5y ago
Actually the bigger problem is that this tribe is no different from other tribes but with a lot of self aggrandisement.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ravenstine 5y ago

Facts can change minds but, for most, their minds will only be changed if those facts are sanctioned by someone they respect or see as an authority. This goes back to the theory that 80% or more of any population of humans are going to be followers. You can't have a tribe of nothing but chiefs, because eventually those chiefs are going to pontificate too much and fight over their decisions. Every group needs a majority of its members to follow along no matter what, and as humans are a communal species, we developed as such. Groups don't have time to have every individual understand and debate the facts. To be efficient, most will need to just do what the chief tells them to do. The tragedy of our era is that we've told ourselves that everyone will make better decisions if we all were educated and knew the facts. The result is we've told unremarkable people that they are really intelligent, and we've wasted the time of the intelligent by telling them that humans aren't the programmable species that they really are. Pointing out facts is simply a sport of one-upsmanship that has no accountability for how someone acts upon that information. The chiefs, so to speak, are free to reason themselves into any contorted belief to the point of religious zealotry, and the followers are only more glad than ever to join these new religions. For facts to not only change our minds, but change enough minds, we may need to move beyond the model of the tribe. At the very least, the chiefs need to be knocked down a peg.

Jensson 5y ago
> This goes back to the theory that 80% or more of any population of humans are going to be followers It gets even worse than that, those followers climb the ranks parroting whatever the previous people said, and after a while you have organizations where there are just followers all the way to the top. In those nobody cares about facts.
7952 5y ago
Facts need to be balanced with analytical skills and that is often missing.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  Right. The best training I ever had was learning reasoning, formal logic and argument as part of philosophy. These are analytical skills and they're taught as such which you can then later apply to almost any aspect of your personal or professional life. Moreover, I'm a firm believer that their concepts should be appropriately scaled down and taught to kids at a very early age and that their underpinning principles should be the backbone of their learning throughout their education. Learning these analytical skills doesn't have to be boring or tedious either especially if their concepts are pitched to the kids' age. Whilst I wasn't lucky enough to be introduced to these subjects in primary school, I vividly remember the time that I was - and that was being thrust headlong into reading the great master himself - Plato. And there's no better starting point than Book I of his Republic - and Plato's subject 'What is justice?' is as both lofty and as meaningful as it can get. Here we see one of the great dialogues of all time played out - a formal argument between the philosopher Socrates and the sophist Thrasymachus. To watch Socrates methodically and systematically demolish Thrasymachus' proposition that 'Justice is evey man for himself' through logic and force of argument is a sheer delight - I get goose bumps on my neck every time I read it. And Plato delivers even more: as James Clear points out Facts don't change our minds - for that we first must get people on our side, which is exactly what Socrates does, as he eventually convinces Thrasymachus through friendliness, logic and pursuasion of argument of the error of his ways - thus the sophist is converted to the philosopher's much more powerful and just view (right, James Clear will have read Plato too!). There's more to developing analytical skills than just reading Book I and that's why it has to be an education-long process (and I'm appalled at how little attention we pay to it in our present-day education systems). Analytical skills work not only at the obvious level of the decision-making process but also when one is confronted with having to overturn a firmlyheld belief or fact that is wrong. When in possession of proper analytical skills one cannot simply ignore the issue and hope it will go away - thus, like it or not, one is confronted with having to deal with it. There have been times in my life when I've held what I have believed to be almost absolute fact - 'fact' that's turned out to be completely wrong. When finally confronted with (proof of) real fact my analytical training not only allowed me to switch position almost immediately but also it helped me understand why I was wrong initially. What that training does not do is to relieve one of the pain and smarting that comes from the realization that one was so very wrong in the first instance.

ss108 5y ago

I don't believe this article.

captainmuon 5y ago

For any given topic, there is a really small minority of people who are open for rational arguments and with whom you can and should discuss. Also, you can discuss with the undecided and the impressionable. The art is to recognize when somebody is not open to arguments. There is no need to argue e.g. that your country has plenty of resources and it is the ethical thing to do to accept refugees, when the other person just places zero value on their lives and is openly racist. What is completely rational for that person is insane for you and vice versa. In that situation you can switch away from discussion on eye level and it just becomes a power play. Try to "win" the discussion in any way, look good to bystanders, convince those who can be convinced. Amplify the voices that you want to amplify and silence the others. It sounds horrible to write this out loud, but so much of political discussion realls is not a scientific exchange of facts, but just power games.