Now we know why it's taking longer than we thought...

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

On this site we like our cites and set our sights on using them to back up our positions on contentious issues such as gun control, climate change, and political partisanship. After all, when it comes to eradicating ignorance, knowledge is supposedly attained through enlightenment. Show me the numbers, as it were.

Sadly, a new research paper from Yale law school professor Dan Kahan entitled Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government reveals two things which The Huffington Post calls the “Most Depressing Brain Finding Ever.”

Kahan conducted some ingenious experiments about the impact of political passion on people’s ability to think clearly. His conclusion, in Mooney’s words: partisanship “can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills… [People] who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.”

From what Kahan found, people given the same math problems give very different responses if the math problem pertains to a political issue that the subject is passionate about.

In Kahan’s experiment, some people were asked to interpret a table of numbers about whether a skin cream reduced rashes, and some people were asked to interpret a different table – containing the same numbers – about whether a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns reduced crime. Kahan found that when the numbers in the table conflicted with people’s positions on gun control, they couldn’t do the math right, though they could when the subject was skin cream. The bleakest finding was that the more advanced that people’s math skills were, the more likely it was that their political views, whether liberal or conservative, made them less able to solve the math problem.

The Huffington Post article also goes on to cite the work of Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor of government at Dartmouth.

Nyan and his collaborators have been running experiments trying to answer this terrifying question about American voters: Do facts matter?

]The answer, basically, is no. When people are misinformed, giving them facts to correct those errors only makes them cling to their beliefs more tenaciously.

Author Marty Kaplan, Director of the Norman Lear Center and Professor at the USC Annenberg School, makes the following sobering conclusion:

I keep hoping that one more photo of an iceberg the size of Manhattan calving off of Greenland, one more stretch of record-breaking heat and drought and fires, one more graph of how atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen in the past century, will do the trick. But what these studies of how our minds work suggest is that the political judgments we’ve already made are impervious to facts that contradict us.

Maybe climate change denial isn’t the right term; it implies a psychological disorder. Denial is business-as-usual for our brains. More and better facts don’t turn low-information voters into well-equipped citizens. It just makes them more committed to their misperceptions.

Now, it’s easy to take this information and gleefully point out folks on the other side of issues that we hold dear. When I first read it, my first instinct was to say to myself, “Well, this explains adaher.” But the fact is that your tree-hugging, Rachel Maddow-watching, Obama-supporting friends are just as likely to be rendered fact-repellent by partisan blindfolds as your crazy uncle who watches Fox News religiously.

Now, I fancy myself as a logical type. I like to think that if evidence mandated it, I would change my views on topics no matter how dear I hold them. But maybe I’m fooling myself… and maybe you are too?

Or maybe we are the outliers, people who can get past partisanship and examine facts on their own merits and come to conclusions based on them alone, without letting dogmatic prejudices get in the way of this. I changed my views on home schooling when I saw that home-schooled kids did pretty well. My views on American involvement overseas are evolving as well.

But even if you, like I, can point out that we are the outliers, what hope do we have as outliers in a world filled with true believers? Is fighting ignorance a proposition doomed from the start because we, as a species, prefer to find comfort in falsehood rather than accept painful truths? And if that’s the case, how the hell did we make it this far?

[Marley23]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Now, it’s easy to take this information and gleefully point out folks on the other side of issues that we hold dear. When I first read it, my first instinct was to say to myself, “Well, this explains adaher.”

Since you’re not in the Pit, it would have been better to make this point without mentioning anybody by name. It’s insulting. Don’t do this again.

[Farin]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

But even if you, like I, can point out that we are the outliers, what hope do we have as outliers in a world filled with true believers? Is fighting ignorance a proposition doomed from the start because we, as a species, prefer to find comfort in falsehood rather than accept painful truths? And if that’s the case, how the hell did we make it this far?

I’ve read that disinterested external parties are better used to solve problems and render judgement. In fact, the US’s system of justice is based on this.

Why? Because they aren’t emotionally invested. The reason that people ignore logic is emotions. If you are emotionally invested in a position (no matter WHAT it is) you will tend to fight for it tooth and nail. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective (e.g. you fight tooth and nail to save your progeny from a grizzly bear) but it is bad form when debating.

The most useful way to debate is to remove yourself from your emotional base. This is easy for some, hard for some, and hard to distinguish for most - e.g. “i have some emotional investment in saving the environment but not as much as I have invested in my fluffy wuffy doggie so it’s hard to decide if my arguments are sound about the environment (but I know my arguments about my dog aren’t!)”

Thus I regurgitate for you the advice that my debate and speech instructor gave me in High School: “If you feel yourself getting emotionally affected about something in the debate, concede your position. You’ve lost.”

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Marley23

Since you’re not in the Pit, it would have been better to make this point without mentioning anybody by name. It’s insulting. Don’t do this again.

If you remove the context it is. The very next sentence:

But the fact is that your tree-hugging, Rachel Maddow-watching, Obama-supporting friends are just as likely to be rendered fact-repellent by partisan blindfolds as your crazy uncle who watches Fox News religiously.

IOW, one shouldn’t just blame the likes of adaher. One should look everywhere including the mirror.

Using the context, I am actually pointing out that the victim of a recent Pit Thread pile-on is no different than anyone else in this regard.

I was hoping that point would be more obvious. Apologies if it wasn’t.

[Marley23]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Using the context, I am actually pointing out that the victim of a recent Pit Thread pile-on is no different than anyone else in this regard.

I was hoping that point would be more obvious. Apologies if it wasn’t.

I understood the context. I get that you were not intending to insult anyone, but it still reads that way.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Yes, it reads that way… if you remove the context.

But I guess I cannot persuade you otherwise… I mean, that’s the whole point of my OP, right?

[ITR_champion]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

On this site we like our cites and set our sights on using them to back up our positions on contentious issues such as gun control, climate change, and political partisanship. After all, when it comes to eradicating ignorance, knowledge is supposedly attained through enlightenment. Show me the numbers, as it were.

Sadly, a new research paper from Yale law school professor Dan Kahan entitled Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government reveals two things which The Huffington Post calls the “Most Depressing Brain Finding Ever.”

I don’t think Kahan’s findings are depressing, or even that they’re really findings. At best they merely confirm what’s been known for thousands of years. When a person deeply believes in something, he or she tends to ignore anything that might challenge that belief, and to twist facts and logic in order to make them conform to the desired belief. This is not new knowledge. “There are none so blind as those who will not see”–it’s an old proverb.

As Farin pointed out, this fact is not only known, but also put into use in some institutions. The jury system* is one of them. Likewise, public corporations have boards of directors who are supposed to bring a disinterested attitude towards decision-making. Likewise outside consultants are supposedly able to look into an institution and make fair judgments and recommendations, because they’re not wrapped up in that same institution. And so forth.

As for how one, personally, combats the this tendency within oneself, that’s a good question, and well worthy of discussion.

*Since we’re on the topic, I can’t help but recommending that everyone read The Twelve Men

[Bone]

Welcome to last week.

[coffeecat]

I never expect to convince anyone in a debate. If, five years later, the other guy sits bolt upright in bed and says, “Coffeecat made sense!” that’s a marvelous victory.

[Bricker]

@Bone

Welcome to last week.

And in an amazingly self-referential display, participants in that thread argued that perhaps the two different answers were perfectly correct, because skin rashes and gun control are very different things.

[GIGObuster]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Now, I fancy myself as a logical type. I like to think that if evidence mandated it, I would change my views on topics no matter how dear I hold them. But maybe I’m fooling myself… and maybe you are too?

Or maybe we are the outliers, people who can get past partisanship and examine facts on their own merits and come to conclusions based on them alone, without letting dogmatic prejudices get in the way of this. I changed my views on home schooling when I saw that home-schooled kids did pretty well. My views on American involvement overseas are evolving as well.

But even if you, like I, can point out that we are the outliers, what hope do we have as outliers in a world filled with true believers? Is fighting ignorance a proposition doomed from the start because we, as a species, prefer to find comfort in falsehood rather than accept painful truths? And if that’s the case, how the hell did we make it this far?

Speaking for myself, I have to report that (with caveats that many times NIMBY affects all ideologies too) in the cases of extreme gun control, genetically engineered food and other subjects considered to be the domain of the left wing are not given too much value by me as the evidence shows that many on the left does not have good evidence to support draconian solutions for those issues.

I think fighting ignorance has value in the sense that as there is a sea of information that even the ones fighting ignorance have to learn also. Eventually it is most of the ones in power that also notice that there comes a time when we have to ignore the ones that only push for ignorance and work for progress with the facts by their side.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Bone

Welcome to last week.

Well, yes, except for the additional information from another researcher about a related, but not entirely the same hypothesis.

[cantara]

My 12 year old son suffers from the same problem that many people do. He doesn’t feel that he needs to learn anymore because he already ‘knows’.

I suspect that this sums up both the OPs position as well as the partisan politics and typical right vs left ‘discussions’.

I already know my position
vs.
seek first to understand, then to be understood.
I think there is too much emphasis within society put on winning your side of the debate rather than to engage in meaningful discourse. There is no room to learn anything if you are simply trying to assert your position to sway the other side.

Referencing the study in the OP, I wonder which demographics were more likely to be more open to having their ideas challenged than to hold fast to their opinion?

[JKellyMap]

Good question. Do the “well-traveled” count as a “demographic”? If not, perhaps the “bi-racial.” That’s my hypothesis – that people with parents of two different US Census-defined races will score significantly higher than others for measures of “willingness to change one’s mind when presented with new evidence.”