People are resistant to logic: The study
 

You know how people don't believe scientific studies? They've done studies, you know.

"We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

"We're not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn't take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that's highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about."

"We have other important goals besides accurate thought, including identity affirmation and protecting one's sense of self, and often those make us highly resistant to changing our beliefs when the facts say we should."

"People reject the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views - and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario. A hierarchal individualist finds it difficult to believe that the things he prizes (commerce, industry, a man's freedom to possess a gun to defend his family) could lead to outcomes deleterious to society. Whereas egalitarian communitarians tend to think that the free market causes harm, that patriarchal families mess up kids, and that people can't handle their guns. The study subjects weren't "anti-science" - not in their own minds, anyway. It's just that 'science' was whatever they wanted it to be."

"And that undercuts the standard notion that the way to persuade people is via evidence and argument. In fact, head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts - they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever."

"Okay, so people gravitate toward information that confirms what they believe, and they select sources that deliver it. Same as it ever was, right? Maybe, but the problem is arguably growing more acute, given the way we now consume information - through the Facebook links of friends, or tweets that lack nuance or context, or 'narrowcast' and often highly ideological media that have relatively small, like-minded audiences."

"It all raises the question: Do left and right differ in any meaningful way when it comes to biases in processing information, or are we all equally susceptible?

"There are some clear differences. Science denial today is considerably more prominent on the political right - once you survey climate and related environmental issues, anti-evolutionism, attacks on reproductive health science by the Christian right, and stem-cell and biomedical matters. More tellingly, anti-vaccine positions are virtually nonexistent among Democratic officeholders today - whereas anti-climate-science views are becoming monolithic among Republican elected officials."

"The upshot: All we can currently bank on is the fact that we all have blinders in some situations. The question then becomes: What can be done to counteract human nature itself?

"Given the power of our prior beliefs to skew how we respond to new information, one thing is becoming clear: If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a defensive, emotional reaction."

So yeah. It's pretty clear to me we need to take a whole new approach to that whole debating on the Internet thing. The rules of constructive debate aren't built on civil behavior and examination of logical fallacies, but to begin with on creating a supportive, fear-free environment where debate can take place at all.

I think each of us need to ask ourselves, am I actually capable of taking in information that I disagree with? Do I question my decisions enough? Are my decisions, in fact, based on conscious analysis and reflection, or is my thought process more like a mist of unconscious urges and gut reactions?

And if you're debating with someone, don't be afraid to ask those questions for them.

But is there anything to this theory itself? Well, sample group of one: I'm rather extremely conscious of myself, given to analyzing and second-guessing my motivations and beliefs. I am engaged specifically in deconstructing my ego. And I'm one of those people who can be swayed by Internet debate. I guess that makes me a pretty awesome person.

Of course, that's just according to science.

I always try to actually look at the other person's view and see if there's any reason that I ought to bother keeping mine, whenever someone has a view that I disagree with. The thing is: Most of everything comes down to just opinions on stuff, and there's no reason that your opinion can't change. I wholeheartedly do what Thoreau said, that you ought to loudly and brashly state your opinions one day, then let them change and loudly and brashly state the exact opposite the other day, without being worried about the fact that you just changed your opinion.


In general, I've been noticing that, for the past few months, I've actually been doing decently at this. I feel like, because of the way an argument/debate is set up, people don't want to actually figure out which side is right or wrong, they just want to be the winning side, which is what leads to people not changing their opinions. They're like, "No, I'm arguing! I can't change my opinion, that'd be dumb and I'd lose!"

I think that I blame Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality for the fact that I'm trying to look at things like this more recently, but I would like to say that I was already predisposed to the idea, as I loved Thoreau, and how he was all, "Dude, just change your opinion." I'd like to also say that I was predisposed to it before Thoreau, because I liked the guy BECAUSE I agreed with him. But it's more fun to say that I have bettered myself based on a fanfic, regardless of the truth contained in that statement.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b.../High-Five.jpg

But seriously, yeah, I've noticed this. I've noticed I try to do it sometimes too. And every time I notice it I do my very best to remove the bias or look at the facts objectively, because if there's one thing I've learned from Methods of Rationality, it's that being unbiased gives you superpowers.

I try to be as logical as possible, not letting my emotions influence my decisions (that I am not an extremely emotional person helps with this), purely because of the reasoning in this study. Emotion and logic are not friends. :I I have trouble understanding how someone COULD be in such denial as to ignore blatant empirical evidence and such.


This is why Richard Dawkins, as awesome as he is, is not the guy who should be talking to creationists. :P


I've had discussions with my science-y friends usually ending in the same conclusion as the article: most people make decisions based on emotions, etc etc.

Where we differ in argument is that they think this means we should, when attempting to explain science (like making a pro-choice or whatever), play off of their emotions in our arguments rather than make purely logical points as usually happens.

However, I see this course of action as utterly lacking in integrity, and I would equate it to bringing yourself down to your opponent's level, which I find detestable.

"They don't use logic, so why should we?"

Illogical emotional response detected. Purging system.

Logically, one ought to try to get people to accept logical views.

My view is only illogical if you find "The ends justify the means" to be logical, which is debatable.

Attempt to define logic via logic. Paradox. Crashing. System reboot in 5 6 3 7 9 2 4...

There's this expression, "teaching by example..."

Logic is for little 19th century gentlemen, tinkering away in their little studies so they'll have something pleasant to show at the next society meeting and will be the talk of the town. Fuck those dudes.