3 ms·

Facts changing / not changing our mind will depend on what you define as a fact. Usually the nuance is that just because “someone” said that something is true,

Facts changing / not changing our mind will depend on what you define as a fact. Usually the nuance is that just because “someone” said that something is true, doesn’t make it automatically true. Most people will change an objectively held belief in light of tangible evidence. However; news, statistics and statements from other people are not inherently believable. Something we can see / smell / taste / hear / touch will absolutely change someone’s mind.

nine_k 2y ago
To accept even tangible evidence, one needs to be prepared to change their opinion at all. Very often the opinion, and the worldview it buttresses, is too important for the comfort and confidence in the world to allow any evidence ruin it. Counterexamples would be rejected as rare deviations or observational errors. Systemic evidence would be written off as propaganda and gaslighting. Persuasion by close friends may even be seen as perfidy and an attempt to maliciously pull a leg. Sadly, the most correct model of the world is not necessarily a prerequisite for the best fitness and thus survival.
intended 2y ago
In the article, people were critical about positions they themselves created though. There is a lot of weight being carried by “someone” and “tangible evidence”; based on that framing it’s possible that tangible evidence is only tangible if it is from the correct “someone”. Not sure if this what you wanted to say, but this seems to be the fundamental truth you are espousing. Vs “there is some set of facts that will change people minds.” People very much reject what they can see, smell, taste, hear and touch. The one thing that impacts such behavior is not facts, but people actually working on the problem (“what are the implications of your belief, what happens when this occurs? Etc.)
- foxglacier 2y ago
  Can you give examples of people rejecting what they see/touch/etc.? Or are they actually rejecting some other intangible information that's required to interpret those things in the "correct" way?
  - intended 2y ago
    For convenience’s sake we can use the article itself - >In step three, participants were shown one of the same problems, along with their answer and the answer of another participant, who’d come to a different conclusion. Once again, they were given the chance to change their responses. But a trick had been played: the answers presented to them as someone else’s were actually their own, and vice versa. About half the participants realized what was going on. Among the other half, suddenly people became a lot more critical. Nearly sixty per cent now rejected the responses that they’d earlier been satisfied with. People rejected what they themselves reasoned was acceptable - the exact same thing, when it was presented back to them. If you want other examples, which match specific conditions and criteria you are looking for, then I must admit that my laziness is sadly a bar to your edification. For the purposes and context of this thread though, this example should suffice. It clearly shows how our brains and cognition can reject information, which they themselves can see, touch and feel.
    - foxglacier 2y ago
      That's not rejecting what they saw. It's the opposite - trusting what they saw when re-presented with "their" answers combined with what the researchers told them about whose they were. They had apparently forgotten what they initially chose, or at least weren't very sure and trusted what the researchers told them instead. That's like going to a shop once and remembering it was on street X, then returning later and finding that it's actually on street Y. Nobody would think "The sign looks like it says Y but it really says X and my eyes are deceiving me.". They might think the sign was changed or the shop moved or they remembered it wrong or some other explanation that doesn't involve rejecting what they can see.
      - intended 2y ago
        >hey had apparently forgotten what they initially chose, or at least weren't very sure and trusted what the researchers told them instead. This wasn't a memmory test. The participants didnt simply "choose". They thought about the issues/questions and then selected answers, and also shared their reasoning. The particpants then rejected and criticized that reasoning, when the name was not provided. Are you saying that they "forgot" their own logic? Is that even 'logic' at that point?

nine_k 2y ago

To accept even tangible evidence, one needs to be prepared to change their opinion at all. Very often the opinion, and the worldview it buttresses, is too important for the comfort and confidence in the world to allow any evidence ruin it. Counterexamples would be rejected as rare deviations or observational errors. Systemic evidence would be written off as propaganda and gaslighting. Persuasion by close friends may even be seen as perfidy and an attempt to maliciously pull a leg. Sadly, the most correct model of the world is not necessarily a prerequisite for the best fitness and thus survival.

intended 2y ago

In the article, people were critical about positions they themselves created though. There is a lot of weight being carried by “someone” and “tangible evidence”; based on that framing it’s possible that tangible evidence is only tangible if it is from the correct “someone”. Not sure if this what you wanted to say, but this seems to be the fundamental truth you are espousing. Vs “there is some set of facts that will change people minds.” People very much reject what they can see, smell, taste, hear and touch. The one thing that impacts such behavior is not facts, but people actually working on the problem (“what are the implications of your belief, what happens when this occurs? Etc.)

foxglacier 2y ago
Can you give examples of people rejecting what they see/touch/etc.? Or are they actually rejecting some other intangible information that's required to interpret those things in the "correct" way?
- intended 2y ago
  For convenience’s sake we can use the article itself - >In step three, participants were shown one of the same problems, along with their answer and the answer of another participant, who’d come to a different conclusion. Once again, they were given the chance to change their responses. But a trick had been played: the answers presented to them as someone else’s were actually their own, and vice versa. About half the participants realized what was going on. Among the other half, suddenly people became a lot more critical. Nearly sixty per cent now rejected the responses that they’d earlier been satisfied with. People rejected what they themselves reasoned was acceptable - the exact same thing, when it was presented back to them. If you want other examples, which match specific conditions and criteria you are looking for, then I must admit that my laziness is sadly a bar to your edification. For the purposes and context of this thread though, this example should suffice. It clearly shows how our brains and cognition can reject information, which they themselves can see, touch and feel.
  - foxglacier 2y ago
    That's not rejecting what they saw. It's the opposite - trusting what they saw when re-presented with "their" answers combined with what the researchers told them about whose they were. They had apparently forgotten what they initially chose, or at least weren't very sure and trusted what the researchers told them instead. That's like going to a shop once and remembering it was on street X, then returning later and finding that it's actually on street Y. Nobody would think "The sign looks like it says Y but it really says X and my eyes are deceiving me.". They might think the sign was changed or the shop moved or they remembered it wrong or some other explanation that doesn't involve rejecting what they can see.
    - intended 2y ago
      >hey had apparently forgotten what they initially chose, or at least weren't very sure and trusted what the researchers told them instead. This wasn't a memmory test. The participants didnt simply "choose". They thought about the issues/questions and then selected answers, and also shared their reasoning. The particpants then rejected and criticized that reasoning, when the name was not provided. Are you saying that they "forgot" their own logic? Is that even 'logic' at that point?