Facts don’t matter

MichaelB

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Site Team
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
40,737
Location
Chicagoland
From an NPR interview In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter : NPR
CONAN: Well, Brendan Nyhan is a health policy researcher at the University of Michigan. He recently published "When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions." That was in the June issue of the Journal of Political Behavior, and he joins us now from the studios of WUOM, Michigan Radio, our member station in Ann Arbor. Nice to have you with us today.
Mr. BRENDAN NYHAN (Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research, University of Michigan): Thanks for having me.
CONAN: And when facts are readily available, why are they not enough to change people's minds?
Mr. NYHAN: Well, the problem is, you know, as human beings, we want to believe, you know, the things that we already believe. And so when you hear some information that contradicts your pre-existing views, unfortunately, what we tend to do is think of why we believed those things in the first place.
And, you know, so when, you know, we get these corrections, we tend to say I'm right, and I'm going to stick with my view. And the thing that my research, which is with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, found is that in some cases, that corrective information can actually make the problem worse.
./.
CONAN: This is a phenomenon described as backfire. You say it's a natural defense mechanism to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Mr. NYHAN: That's right. You know, it's hard, it's threatening to us to admit that things we believe are wrong. And all of us, liberals and conservatives, you know, have some beliefs that aren't true, and when we find that out, you know, it's threatening to our beliefs and ourselves.
And so what we think happens is that the way people, you know, try to resolve this in some cases is to, you know, buttress that belief that they initially held, and, you know, there's a long line of research showing results like this.
CONAN: And again, we'd like to think of our brain as something that's been trained in, you know, Cartesian logic, when in fact, our brain is sort of hard-wired to leap to conclusions very quickly.
Mr. NYHAN: That's right. And what's interesting is in some of these cases, it's the people who are most sophisticated who are best able to defend their beliefs and keep coming up with more elaborate reasons why 9/11 was really a conspiracy or how the weapons of mass destruction were actually smuggled to Syria or whatever the case may be.
So this isn't a question of education, necessarily, or sophistication. It's really about, it's really about preserving that belief that we initially held.
CONAN: And you define sophistication, as I read your piece, you define it as somebody who is right a lot of the time, but the 10 percent of the time they're wrong, boy, they stick to being wrong
./.
Brendan Nyhan, why is it that highly partisan issues seem to be most subject to this backfire phenomenon?
Mr. NYHAN: Well, I think they're the cases where people care most about the actual outcome of the debate. So, you know, if you're going to buy a refrigerator at the store, you really don't care except to buy a good refrigerator.
But in the case of something like your political views, you don't just care about accuracy, you care about you essentially have a team in a lot of cases, right. You're either a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative.
And so you're filtering all the information you receive, you know, through that prism, and so what you end up getting is this real divergence on all sorts of issues, not just on, you know, what policies we should adopt as a country but on actually the underlying facts. And that makes it really hard to have a debate.
The article is about political debate and opinions, but is just as applicable to investing. So much is written and published on the web, people search for the opinions that reinforce their thoughts (and fears), leading them to act on emotions.
 
Yeah, but that never happens here, right:confused:
 
I think that this may be less than it appears. After all, what are facts? Much "research" cannot be trusted. What we call news is at best 2ndary sources, and generally if you directly know anything about the "events" recounted you will realize that you are being manipulated, or that the news gatherers are hopelessly inept, or both.

So I am not sure that people will not change their minds, if ever given trustworthy information. The cost of really trying to find out what is going on is so immense that we either consciously or unconsciously tend to default to the last position in which we had placed at least some confidence.

Ha
 
Mr. NYHAN: Well, the problem is, you know, as human beings, we want to believe, you know, the things that we already believe. And so when you hear some information that contradicts your pre-existing views, unfortunately, what we tend to do is think of why we believed those things in the first place.

This is odd. Why should we be surprised or consider it 'unfortunate' that we rely on what we already know to be true? Do I have to burn myself on the stove every day, or do I accept that fire is hot? Yes, it really is that silly.


Thanks for posting this. I listened to all of it, though it was rather long.

Can anyone provide a synopsis? I don't feel like investing 59 minutes (or what ever) w/o a hint that it might be worthwhile (as the poster offered no other info than the link).

I think that this may be less than it appears. ...

So I am not sure that people will not change their minds, if ever given trustworthy information.

Ha

Yep, in another recent thread, we were told that 'some people will never change their minds'. Well, I will (and have) changed my mind when presented with a solid argument. It's too easy to write off people as 'obstinate' when one cannot present a cognitive defense of their position.


From an NPR interview In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter : NPR

The article is about political debate and opinions, but is just as applicable to investing. So much is written and published on the web, people search for the opinions that reinforce their thoughts (and fears), leading them to act on emotions.

Ummmmm, or act on what they already know to be true (until proven other wise)? That sounds logical to me, not emotional (oh look, the Sun rose in the West! Silly me, looking to the East!)

-ERD50
 
"Facts are stubborn things." - John Adams

"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan
 
I think that this may be less than it appears. After all, what are facts? Much "research" cannot be trusted. What we call news is at best 2ndary sources, and generally if you directly know anything about the "events" recounted you will realize that you are being manipulated, or that the news gatherers are hopelessly inept, or both.

So I am not sure that people will not change their minds, if ever given trustworthy information. The cost of really trying to find out what is going on is so immense that we either consciously or unconsciously tend to default to the last position in which we had placed at least some confidence.

Ha
We often do not disagree over facts, but rather over interpretations of those facts.
 
Can anyone provide a synopsis? I don't feel like investing 59 minutes (or what ever) w/o a hint that it might be worthwhile (as the poster offered no other info than the link).
People choose political sides according to who they trust, not so much what positions are espoused. And they decide who they can trust according to competing stereotypes -- it's the "strict parent" for conservatives and the "nurturing family" for liberals. Voters all know about both stereotypes, so that for a conservative, if a politician does something to evoke the "nurturing family" image, the conservative voter knows he's against him.

Conservative politicians do better at working this stereotype game than liberal politicians.
 
Right out the the political handbook to get the party faithful stirred up. Who needs facts?? Facts are often inconvenient.

Sure if a fact exists that seems to support the position.. use it. If not weave together a half truth, throw in some exaggeration that seems to get the job done. If there isn't a half truth... then the complete deception seems to work. Just make sure it has a caveat (like a weather prediction to CYA... 90% confidence).

[-]Like WMD.[/-] Oops I thought out loud. :D
 
Ummmmm, or act on what they already know to be true (until proven other wise)? That sounds logical to me, not emotional (oh look, the Sun rose in the West! Silly me, looking to the East!)

-ERD50
Hmmm. I wrote people search for the opinions that reinforce their thoughts and fears. That is not what they know to be true, it is what they want to be true. When faced with facts that do not support their thoughts, they somehow discredit the facts, as you did to my post.
 
Hmmm. I wrote people search for the opinions that reinforce their thoughts and fears. That is not what they know to be true, it is what they want to be true. When faced with facts that do not support their thoughts, they somehow discredit the facts, as you did to my post.

Well, the quote I emphasized had the words "the things that we already believe", and I assumed "facts" would be included in that, and you used the word "facts" in your title. My comments don't seem like a stretch, but I'm obviously biased ;)

I'm not disagreeing with the idea at all, in fact, I think it holds true in many, many cases and sometimes to our own detriment. But I do find it to be illogically applied at times, often when one cannot make their case, and they blame it on "people just won't change their mind". Of course they won't. They stick to what they believe and that is a pretty strong survival tactic. We can't re-analyze every situation as if it was happening for the first time, we'd be frozen in analysis paralysis. We draw on what we know.

But when we stop to have a debate on a subject, we can step outside those preconceptions. But maybe the tendency still holds, and some are better than others at it. That's OK, if someone wants me to change my mind, they need good evidence. If they don't have it, maybe their case is not so strong?


-ERD50
 
They stick to what they believe and that is a pretty strong survival tactic.
Yes. On a small scale, that's "the conservatism of science". More broadly, we perceive the world in terms of theories that tell us, e.g., about the relationship between incandescence and heat, and so we would be completely unable to deal with reality without our preconceptions.
 
In the original quote, after the second "you know", gave up the read.
 
In the original quote, after the second "you know", gave up the read.

Yup. If I already knew, then I wouldn't need to listen to what this guy had to say. He's assuming I knew, so I figured he's right I already know.:D
 
In the original quote, after the second "you know", gave up the read.

Wait a minute, maybe I need to re-read this in a whole new (knew?) light!

Are you saying that the "you know"s in those quotes are used the way some people say "ummmm", or "like" in a conversation as they gather their thoughts? Since the subject was about how what you know affects your judgment, I thought those were part of the sentence construction!


As in: There are things we know we know, things we know we don't know, and things we don't know we don't know. Ya' know?

-ERD50
 
...things we don't know we don't know.
I hate it when that happens to me. Dang!

Thank goodness, this is of course rare, because I did not know in the first place.
 
Don't bother me with the facts.
I've already made up my mind !!! :D
Steve
 
Pot smoking

From Bloomberg Teens Smoking Pot Before 16 Show Brain Changes, Scientists Say - Bloomberg

Smoking marijuana regularly before the age of 16 causes changes in the brain that can impair a young person’s ability to focus, learn from mistakes and think abstractly, according to a Harvard study.

./.

Chronic, early users of marijuana “make repetitive incorrect responses despite the fact I’m telling them they’re wrong,” said Gruber, who is also an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard University. “That’s called ‘cognitive inflexibility’ and you see it in babies.”
Hmmm. Cognitive inflexibility. That term certainly describes more than a few posts around here :LOL:. Myself included, of course. Now I know why.

Maybe that's why so many people refuse to change their opinions when presented with facts. Pot smoking when young.
 
Back
Top Bottom