Why facts dont change minds

[kindy64]

I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone in certain aspects of thinking. But it's a good reminder as we get into the swing of Presidential election craziness (imagine a world where all the money spent on lobbying and politics was spent helping individuals) to question everything.

Anyway, this guys article gives some good background on the phenomenon and I believe his final advice is akin to "don't feed the trolls."

https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds

The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”

Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

============

Feed the good ideas and let bad ideas die of starvation.

The Intellectual Soldier

I know what you might be thinking. “James, are you serious right now? I'm just supposed to let these idiots get away with this?”

Let me be clear. I'm not saying it's never useful to point out an error or criticize a bad idea. But you have to ask yourself, “What is the goal?”

Why do you want to criticize bad ideas in the first place? Presumably, you want to criticize bad ideas because you think the world would be better off if fewer people believed them. In other words, you think the world would improve if people changed their minds on a few important topics.

If the goal is to actually change minds, then I don't believe criticizing the other side is the best approach.

Most people argue to win, not to learn. As Julia Galef so aptly puts it: people often act like soldiers rather than scouts. Soldiers are on the intellectual attack, looking to defeat the people who differ from them. Victory is the operative emotion. Scouts, meanwhile, are like intellectual explorers, slowly trying to map the terrain with others. Curiosity is the driving force. [url=https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds#][/url]

If you want people to adopt your beliefs, you need to act more like a scout and less like a soldier. At the center of this approach is a question Tiago Forte poses beautifully, “Are you willing to not win in order to keep the conversation going?”

[CellarDweller]

The post above is so true. People don't argue to prove facts, they argue to prove themselves right. No one wants to admit they are wrong.

[Cardiganwearer]

The world is full of facts, they are testable, enduring and care nothing about what people believe. Many people acknowledge them and use them every day. How did these facts become established? Presumably there was a point where people didn't believe them and then there was a point where people did: fire is not a manifestation of phlogiston; diseases aren't caused and spread by miasmas. Minds were changed at some point. There is nothing noble or clever about not acknowledging evidence. It's not a cute human characteristic that we ought to pander to. It's maladaptive behaviour which in some cases can endanger the believer and the rest of us.

Notions such as this one can only prosper in a developed world where actual facts have been accepted and exploited. Not because they are believed but because they are testable, enduring and have real useful consequences. A world where smallpox is rare and cell phones common has not come about by pandering to people's precious egos and letting them hold onto and spread untruths because facts are just too hard for them. The contention that people are not persuaded by facts is not true for the doctors, scientists, engineers and, yes, perhaps even politicians that have created the world we live in. We would be in a very sorry state if these people thought there was some value in sticking their fingers in their ears and singing when confronted with actual evidence.

This whole notion belongs to the vapid world of self-help. It is a refuge for scoundrels and charlatans, the kind of people who exploit the gullible by telling them that being wilfully ignorant is somehow to be in the possession of some precious commodity. Dignity and self worth are not much use when you're dying of smallpox.

[InbetweenDreams]

I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone in certain aspects of thinking. But it's a good reminder as we get into the swing of Presidential election craziness (imagine a world where all the money spent on lobbying and politics was spent helping individuals) to question everything.

Absolutely. I do think we all want to be right. When it comes to politics, the facts are malleable, sometimes it's is a matter of preference or opinion. Even on issues such as HCQ (to an extent) we have seen flawed studies that come out that people simply don't look into and realize that they're flawed and why it's a flawed study (I'm referring to the Henry Ford Health System study on HCQ). Most people simply aren't going to look, despite being a few clicks away from the information.

The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”

Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

============

Feed the good ideas and let bad ideas die of starvation.

The Intellectual Soldier

I know what you might be thinking. “James, are you serious right now? I'm just supposed to let these idiots get away with this?”

Let me be clear. I'm not saying it's never useful to point out an error or criticize a bad idea. But you have to ask yourself, “What is the goal?”

Why do you want to criticize bad ideas in the first place? Presumably, you want to criticize bad ideas because you think the world would be better off if fewer people believed them. In other words, you think the world would improve if people changed their minds on a few important topics.

If the goal is to actually change minds, then I don't believe criticizing the other side is the best approach.

Most people argue to win, not to learn. As Julia Galef so aptly puts it: people often act like soldiers rather than scouts. Soldiers are on the intellectual attack, looking to defeat the people who differ from them. Victory is the operative emotion. Scouts, meanwhile, are like intellectual explorers, slowly trying to map the terrain with others. Curiosity is the driving force. [url=https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds#][/url]

If you want people to adopt your beliefs, you need to act more like a scout and less like a soldier. At the center of this approach is a question Tiago Forte poses beautifully, “Are you willing to not win in order to keep the conversation going?”

The reason to criticize a bad idea is because it is a bad idea, but why is it a bad idea? Is it a matter of opinion or a matter of fact? I think the two can get kind of blurred. If someone thinks injecting some sort of "essential oil" is going to help them lose weight, or whatever it is people believe. I think criticizing that is a good thing, you're trying to stop them from poisoning themselves.

Vaccinations are a good example (and comes full circle back to conspiracy theories) of simply ignoring facts. You don't hear about people dying from smallpox or polio these days because we vaccinated everyone. The vaccines do still exist but the disease doesn't, so now the attention goes to the superstitions and conspiracies, despite the fact that nobody is sick and suffering from these diseases.

The other thing I wonder is how we end up with people accepting things as fact like the world is flat, vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax. Where did that all begin and why people seem to accept these "non-facts" when there's plenty of evidence that the world is round, vaccines don't cause autism and global warming is real and so on.

That being said, yes, most people argue to win the argument. I had a boss who would get steaming mad in a debate with someone, especially if he was losing the argument. Funny it was usually over politics. I don't think comparing people who don't accept the earth being round and watching the news, being presented a story that is assumed to be factual but biased. That is a bit of a conundrum as there can often be facts that lead people to different conclusions based on how the facts were delivered.

[JoelR]

This is a really powerful article, and it contains several elements that pertain to community building. I love the idea of "be kind first, be right later" -- this is so true in an online community, where it's not so much the goal of the community leader to ordain a certain set of beliefs, but to build a friendship and let the members trust him first before taking any decisive actions with the member.

One important note regarding online communities is that the web is becoming "balkanized" - there's now an online community or social group for every creed or belief. The explosion of these online communities, while beneficial in offering an outlet for every interest, hobby, niche, or belief is that unfortunately ... there's an outlet for every interest, hobby, niche, or belief including those that may not be socially acceptable. These focused community groups are now becoming a sounding chamber for the loudest echos and most extreme views. There's something to be said when disparate people all 'eat together' at the same table and break bread.

[Karl Rand]

This is a really powerful article, and it contains several elements that pertain to community building.  I love the idea of "be kind first, be right later" -- this is so true in an online community, where it's not so much the goal of the community leader to ordain a certain set of beliefs, but to build a friendship and let the members trust him first before taking any decisive actions with the member. 

One important note regarding online communities is that the web is becoming "balkanized" - there's now an online community or social group for every creed or belief.  The explosion of these online communities, while beneficial in offering an outlet for every interest, hobby, niche, or belief is that unfortunately ... there's an outlet for every interest, hobby, niche, or belief including those that may not be socially acceptable.  These focused community groups are now becoming a sounding chamber for the loudest echos and most extreme views.  There's something to be said when disparate people all 'eat together' at the same table and break bread.

Groupthink is nothing new. Tribal delusions have plagued our species throughout history.
Wouldn’t much matter apart from the terrifying fact the very survival of our species, and many others on this planet, are threatened with extinction.
Some decades ago Arthur Koestler confronted this problem in his ’The Ghost in The Machine’ . I’ve yet to read a cogent refutation of his theory. Another tome worth digesting if you have the stomach for it is Charles Mackay’s ”˜Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds. (Publ 1841!)

[JoelR]

Groupthink may not be new, but the ability for people to connect with likeminded people has changed ... and the virality, extremism, and phobias is at a whole new level. When you're in the 1800's and your only method of communication is a letter delivered by horse-drawn carriage to the village inn, it's literally slower. The ability for groups of extremist groups to come together now is infinitely faster than what it was.

[Karl Rand]

Groupthink may not be new, but the ability for people to connect with likeminded people has changed ... and the virality, extremism, and phobias is at a whole new level.  When you're in the 1800's and your only method of communication is a letter delivered by horse-drawn carriage to the village inn, it's literally slower.  The ability for groups of extremist groups to come together now is infinitely faster than what it was.

Not so. During the South Sea bubble crowds made up from all ranges of English society gathered in Exchange Alley in London feeding the latest financial rumours . Exchange Alley was every day blocked up with crowds, and was impassable for the number of carriages. In the words of a ballad published at the time, and sung about the streets.

Then stars and garters did appear,
Among the meaner rabble,
To buy and sell, to see and hear,
The Jews and Gentiles squabble.

The greatest ladies thither came,
And plied in chariots daily,
Or pawned their jewels for a sum,
To venture in the Alley.

Charles Mackay told us in 1841:-
“The inordinate thirst of gain that had afflicted all ranks of society was not to be slaked even by the South Sea scheme.  Other schemes of the most extravagant kind were started. The share lists were speedily filled up, and enormous traffic carried on in shares, while, of course, every means were resorted to raise them to an artificial value in the market."