5 ms·

Hasn't it been shown that facts don't change people's mind, but (generally) makes them hold tighter to their view? > Belief perseverance (also known as concept

Hasn't it been shown that facts don't change people's mind, but (generally) makes them hold tighter to their view? > Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism[1]) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it.[2] Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect (compare boomerang effect).[3] For example, in a 2014 article in The Atlantic, journalist Cari Romm describes a study involving vaccination hesitancy. In the study, the subjects expressed their concerns of the side effects of flu shots. After being told that the vaccination was completely safe, they became even less eager to accept them. This new knowledge pushed them to distrust the vaccine even more, reinforcing the idea that they already had before.[4][5] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance * https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/01/24/facts-dont-change-minds-social-networks-group-dialogue-and-stories-do/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/01/24/fa... * https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-is-it-that-even-proven-facts-cant-change-some-peoples-minds https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-is-it-that-even-pr... * https://archive.is/BicuE https://archive.is/BicuE ; https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont... Perhaps useful towards that are more sitting on the fence?

duxup 3y ago
Is it "facts" or just how it's presented and such? I can imagine "False, that's not true here is a link" doesn't do much. Humans are not just fact consumers, there's all sorts of nuance to social interaction that aren't "facts".
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Yes. Verification of facts is not always easy. That's why, for practical reasons, we defer on many things to people we trust (or are intimidated into "trusting") as authorities, unless we have a reason not to. And reason is like a muscle. You must practice it, and you must not only practice it, but also practice self-discipline. A practiced intellect backed by vice will only be better at rationalizing bad things.
entrepy123 3y ago
Yeah, I think part of the reason that true facts may cause people to double down on their incorrect priors is because the presentation of the true facts is inadequate. (So it's not just a knee-jerk over-reaction due to emotional attachment, as the situation might seemingly be summarized; instead, IMO it's truly because either the presenter did not fully do their job of information gathering and presentation, or the listener was not able to fully do their job of paying attention with an open mind. This is the table stakes if we're having the discussion, and it's hard to even get there.) Most people do not have the time, energy, resources, background, or will to prepare adequate presentations of factual material. This is one huge deficit. Then, when such material is available or presented: most people do not have the time, energy, resources, background, or will to honestly analyze such adequate presentations of factual material. This is a second huge deficit. So, I think it's "back to basics" before worrying about some psychological mumbo-jumbo. And it turns out, people are really, really ill-equipped for the basics, on a huge scale. (This might sound just plain negative at first, but, on the contrary, I see this as a huge opportunity, since it seems tractable.)
- tivert 3y ago
  >> Hasn't it been shown that facts don't change people's mind, but (generally) makes them hold tighter to their view? > Yeah, I think part of the reason that true facts may cause people to double down on their incorrect priors is because the presentation of the true facts is inadequate. I think the reason is all about emotions and interpersonal dynamics. It has little to nothing to do about information or its presentation. When someone tries to change someone's mind with "facts," I think they often come off as conceited and disdainful of the person they're trying to correct. There's often very little true empathy for the person or why they may think "incorrectly." It's like the high-and-mighty out-group person trying to put you in your place as an inferior who must follow. But would you actually follow someone like that or resist them?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
layer8 3y ago
It may not change the minds of those who already strongly believe in the rumors, but it impedes the rumors’ further unfettered spread.
tharmas 3y ago
"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up".
jbandela1 3y ago
> Hasn't it been shown that facts don't change people's mind, but (generally) makes them hold tighter to their view? I think that is a very lazy dismissal of people you don't agree with by characterizing them as irrational. Actually people can be very rational to in rejecting "facts". Let's take a look at something that is widely recognized as safe and effective by almost all professionals - vaccines. First, it turns out many facts actually depend on a long chain of trust. For example, take vaccines. For a vaccine to be safe, you have to trust the safety and efficacy studies. You have the trust the Pharma company did not cheat on the studies. You have the trust the FDA did an adequate job evaluating the data. A similar situation is GMOs where there are a ton of studies demonstrating safety, but in part because of these trust issues (perhaps not helped by industry sponsorship of some of these studies), many people are unconvinced. Second, even with the facts, tradeoffs and goals matter. The goal of the people evaluating vaccines is population health, and they are willing to accept a certain rate of complications as long as it is significantly lower than the expected rate of complications of the disease itself. Which leads to an interesting situation. If the vaccine rate is low for a human-transmitted disease, it is in your individual best interest to be vaccinated since the risk of acquiring it is relatively high. If the vaccine rate is almost 100%, it may be in your best interest (selfish) to not get vaccinated since you get most of the benefits of vaccination from herd immunity (other people being vaccinated and not transmitting) and none of the risk. Secondly, even with definition of safety relative to the disease, there are tradeoffs. For example, the lifetime risk of dying of cancer in the US is around 20%. If you had a vaccine that 100% prevented you from getting cancer, but had a 1% risk of immediate death, is it safe? Would you get it? Would you give it to your children? Another thing that gets ignored is the feeling of agency. People will tolerate more risk if they perceive they are in control versus not being in control. Take for example flying verses driving. Commercial aviation is far safer than driving, but people are more worried about flying than driving. Also, self driving cars. Self driving cars, likely need to be orders of magnitude more safe than driving before people feel more safe relying solely on self-driving. Another example is general anesthesia. The loss of control knowing that you are dependent on someone else to even breathe is very scary, and anesthesia has invested a lot of effort in making that as safe as possible. Finally, tradeoffs matter. For example, you would likely save thousands of lives a year if you limited all cars' maximum speed to 35 miles per hour, but it would not be a tradeoff that many people would agree with. So, if you want to convince people, you need to treat them as rational creatures but with perhaps different values and tradeoffs and different priors of trusts. You need to try to meet them where they are and present the evidence with those in mind. That is hard work. Certainly, much harder than writing a list of "facts" and dismissing everyone who then disagrees as irrational. One thing I have found what works is building relationships and having skin in the game. I have reassured patients and friends about vaccines by sharing with them that my own children and the children of my fellow physicians in my social network were vaccinated. If the people well positioned and equipped to evaluate the evidence are betting the health of their own children on it, it is pretty powerful validation.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

duxup 3y ago

Is it "facts" or just how it's presented and such? I can imagine "False, that's not true here is a link" doesn't do much. Humans are not just fact consumers, there's all sorts of nuance to social interaction that aren't "facts".

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Yes. Verification of facts is not always easy. That's why, for practical reasons, we defer on many things to people we trust (or are intimidated into "trusting") as authorities, unless we have a reason not to. And reason is like a muscle. You must practice it, and you must not only practice it, but also practice self-discipline. A practiced intellect backed by vice will only be better at rationalizing bad things.

entrepy123 3y ago

Yeah, I think part of the reason that true facts may cause people to double down on their incorrect priors is because the presentation of the true facts is inadequate. (So it's not just a knee-jerk over-reaction due to emotional attachment, as the situation might seemingly be summarized; instead, IMO it's truly because either the presenter did not fully do their job of information gathering and presentation, or the listener was not able to fully do their job of paying attention with an open mind. This is the table stakes if we're having the discussion, and it's hard to even get there.) Most people do not have the time, energy, resources, background, or will to prepare adequate presentations of factual material. This is one huge deficit. Then, when such material is available or presented: most people do not have the time, energy, resources, background, or will to honestly analyze such adequate presentations of factual material. This is a second huge deficit. So, I think it's "back to basics" before worrying about some psychological mumbo-jumbo. And it turns out, people are really, really ill-equipped for the basics, on a huge scale. (This might sound just plain negative at first, but, on the contrary, I see this as a huge opportunity, since it seems tractable.)

tivert 3y ago
>> Hasn't it been shown that facts don't change people's mind, but (generally) makes them hold tighter to their view? > Yeah, I think part of the reason that true facts may cause people to double down on their incorrect priors is because the presentation of the true facts is inadequate. I think the reason is all about emotions and interpersonal dynamics. It has little to nothing to do about information or its presentation. When someone tries to change someone's mind with "facts," I think they often come off as conceited and disdainful of the person they're trying to correct. There's often very little true empathy for the person or why they may think "incorrectly." It's like the high-and-mighty out-group person trying to put you in your place as an inferior who must follow. But would you actually follow someone like that or resist them?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

layer8 3y ago

It may not change the minds of those who already strongly believe in the rumors, but it impedes the rumors’ further unfettered spread.

tharmas 3y ago

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up".

jbandela1 3y ago

> Hasn't it been shown that facts don't change people's mind, but (generally) makes them hold tighter to their view? I think that is a very lazy dismissal of people you don't agree with by characterizing them as irrational. Actually people can be very rational to in rejecting "facts". Let's take a look at something that is widely recognized as safe and effective by almost all professionals - vaccines. First, it turns out many facts actually depend on a long chain of trust. For example, take vaccines. For a vaccine to be safe, you have to trust the safety and efficacy studies. You have the trust the Pharma company did not cheat on the studies. You have the trust the FDA did an adequate job evaluating the data. A similar situation is GMOs where there are a ton of studies demonstrating safety, but in part because of these trust issues (perhaps not helped by industry sponsorship of some of these studies), many people are unconvinced. Second, even with the facts, tradeoffs and goals matter. The goal of the people evaluating vaccines is population health, and they are willing to accept a certain rate of complications as long as it is significantly lower than the expected rate of complications of the disease itself. Which leads to an interesting situation. If the vaccine rate is low for a human-transmitted disease, it is in your individual best interest to be vaccinated since the risk of acquiring it is relatively high. If the vaccine rate is almost 100%, it may be in your best interest (selfish) to not get vaccinated since you get most of the benefits of vaccination from herd immunity (other people being vaccinated and not transmitting) and none of the risk. Secondly, even with definition of safety relative to the disease, there are tradeoffs. For example, the lifetime risk of dying of cancer in the US is around 20%. If you had a vaccine that 100% prevented you from getting cancer, but had a 1% risk of immediate death, is it safe? Would you get it? Would you give it to your children? Another thing that gets ignored is the feeling of agency. People will tolerate more risk if they perceive they are in control versus not being in control. Take for example flying verses driving. Commercial aviation is far safer than driving, but people are more worried about flying than driving. Also, self driving cars. Self driving cars, likely need to be orders of magnitude more safe than driving before people feel more safe relying solely on self-driving. Another example is general anesthesia. The loss of control knowing that you are dependent on someone else to even breathe is very scary, and anesthesia has invested a lot of effort in making that as safe as possible. Finally, tradeoffs matter. For example, you would likely save thousands of lives a year if you limited all cars' maximum speed to 35 miles per hour, but it would not be a tradeoff that many people would agree with. So, if you want to convince people, you need to treat them as rational creatures but with perhaps different values and tradeoffs and different priors of trusts. You need to try to meet them where they are and present the evidence with those in mind. That is hard work. Certainly, much harder than writing a list of "facts" and dismissing everyone who then disagrees as irrational. One thing I have found what works is building relationships and having skin in the game. I have reassured patients and friends about vaccines by sharing with them that my own children and the children of my fellow physicians in my social network were vaccinated. If the people well positioned and equipped to evaluate the evidence are betting the health of their own children on it, it is pretty powerful validation.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]