# Rejection of science and/or factual information in favor of feelings **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2025, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208 "2025-03-06T14:46:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/81 "2025-03-09T07:44:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I’m reminded of a line I heard years ago, about people preferring certainty over truth. “People don’t want to be told that there’s a 90% chance that white is white and black is black. They want to be told that black is white and white is black, and you’ll _burn in Hell_ if you don’t believe it.” As Tim Minchin said in [“Storm”](https://genius.com/Tim-minchin-storm-lyrics), _Storm to her credit despite my derision keeps firing off clichés with startling precision_ _Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition_ _You’re so sure of your position but you’re just closed-minded_ _I think you’ll find that your faith in science and tests is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist_ _Wow that’s a good point, let me think for a bit_ _Oh wait, my mistake, that’s absolute bullshit_ _Science adjusts it’s views based on what’s observed_ _Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved_ [Animated version](https://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U) ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/82 "2025-03-09T09:55:20Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Yes, I was going to say this in my previous post – I don’t think the OP picked the best example of the phenomenon that (s)he then goes on to outline. I don’t think people should reject the data of course but there is still room for some degree of doubt or nuance when it comes to a topic like nutrition. The replication crisis started in psychology, but undoubtedly extends to nutrition science: > **[The Challenge of Reproducibility and Accuracy in Nutrition Research:...](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4785474/)** > > Inconsistent and contradictory results from nutrition studies conducted by different investigators continue to emerge, in part because of the inherent variability of natural products, as well as the unknown and therefore uncontrolled variables in ... We should have a low confidence in most scientific claims reported in the press, at least outside the hard sciences, and shouldn’t have a high confidence even in expert consensuses in the social sciences. But an awful lot of people seem to take an all-or-nothing view, where the experts are either infallible, or they are useless - and you believe random pundits instead. > [@Mijin](#): > > I think apart from religion, there is also a valueing of tangible over abstract things to many Americans. I rarely hear people describe say, chemistry as if it is just people making up stuff at will. Chemistry has beakers, and bunsen burners, that’s _real_ science, right? > Other fields of science are just equations on a blackboard; they don’t actually _test_ their ideas, do they? Or maybe chemistry just isn’t as visible to them? It’s not competing with religion to answer big questions like “how did we get here?” or giving them unwelcome diet and lifestyle advice, so there’s no reason to object to it or even think about it much. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/83 "2025-03-09T17:44:34Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > But an awful lot of people seem to take an all-or-nothing view, where the experts are either infallible, or they are useless That’s a huge problem I see- black and white / binary thinking. If one study says X is true, and another says X is false, then in their minds, the studies are entire BS, not an indication that more research and experimentation needs to be done. Or the classic “it’s just a theory” mentality where because it’s described as a theory, they think it’s not complete in some fashion. They don’t quite get that _everything_ is a theory except for some very specific scientific equations and concepts that are called “laws”. I don’t really know how you get past this stuff. I recall that in school, there was always about 20% of the class that flat out didn’t get it/didn’t care, another 60% or so that may or may not have got it, but could regurgitate enough to get whatever grade they were aiming for, and about 20% who actually “got it” in the fundamental sense that the teachers were hoping for. The big problem is that the votes of the bottom half of the class are equally valid as the top half. Which despite being a rabid democracy advocate, has always bothered me somewhat, because of the potential for demagogues, poorly considered votes, and the like. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/84 "2025-03-09T18:18:36Z")
Dog chow is one of the marketed products where the end user, the poor old dog, gets no say at all in what he gets to eat. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/85 "2025-03-09T20:28:25Z")
On the plus side, it’s much easier to drop their weight, simply by measuring their feed differently. You also get a quick demonstration that, for as much as people much not like it, calorie reduction is really the core of it all. Everything else is just dealing with the psychology of it. As the thread notes, people don’t need much to depart from science if it conflicts with their emotions. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/86 "2025-03-09T21:06:05Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That’s a huge problem I see- black and white / binary thinking. If one study says X is true, and another says X is false, then in their minds, the studies are entire BS, not an indication that more research and experimentation needs to be done. Or the classic “it’s just a theory” mentality where because it’s described as a theory, they think it’s not complete in some fashion. They don’t quite get that _everything_ is a theory except for some very specific scientific equations and concepts that are called “laws”. > > I don’t really know how you get past this stuff. I recall that in school, there was always about 20% of the class that flat out didn’t get it/didn’t care, another 60% or so that may or may not have got it, but could regurgitate enough to get whatever grade they were aiming for, and about 20% who actually “got it” in the fundamental sense that the teachers were hoping for. Yes. And it ties into the wider debate about misinformation: if you don’t want people exposed to conspiracy theories, then you have to censor them somehow, but that means handing some probably-government body the power to decide what is true and false, and the ability to hide any information they don’t want us to know. We should not get complacent about this, either. Being smarter and more educated does not necessarily protect you from believing conspiracy theories: > **[Why smart people are more likely to believe fake news](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/01/why-smart-people-are-more-likely-to-believe-fake-news)** > > Research shows that smart people are more susceptible to fake news and conspiracy theories – but why? > [@bump](#): > > The big problem is that the votes of the bottom half of the class are equally valid as the top half. Which despite being a rabid democracy advocate, has always bothered me somewhat, because of the potential for demagogues, poorly considered votes, and the like. It is a problem, but there’s no good solution. The “bottom half of the class” - or at least the bottom fifth - are collectively going to have significantly different lives, problems, and preferences compared to the top half, and they need their interests represented too. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/87 "2025-03-09T21:13:15Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That’s a huge problem I see- black and white / binary thinking. If one study says X is true, and another says X is false, then in their minds, the studies are entire BS, not an indication that more research and experimentation needs to be done. Maybe that’s _two_ problems: 1. Being uncomfortable with uncertainly (“We think X is true, but we’re not sure, and additional evidence could make us more sure or could change our minds”), and 2. Being uncomfortable with things that aren’t black-and-white, all-or-nothing (“X is sort of true, or true in one sense but not in another, or true under certain conditions”). ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/88 "2025-03-09T21:54:52Z")
I suspect it’s a modification of #1- namely that if experts don’t conclusively know everything about their field, then they aren’t trusted. And never mind one who admits what they don’t know and/or changes their tune because of new information. For example during the pandemic, TPTB saying we didn’t need masks early on, then saying we indeed did need them did a whole lot of damage to their perception because it seemed either untruthful or it seemed to many like they didn’t know what they were talking about. There’s stuff like economics and meteorology where they’re inherently inexact, but that uncertainty just makes them un-credible to these people because they can’t quite fathom the idea of quantifying uncertainty as they do with rain forecasts ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/89 "2025-03-10T00:51:03Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Being smarter and more educated does not necessarily protect you from believing conspiracy theories: > > [Why smart people are more likely to believe fake news | Books | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/01/why-smart-people-are-more-likely-to-believe-fake-news) That Guardian article is selective in invoking research correlating advanced education levels with conspiracy theory beliefs. There are multiple studies showing the opposite. > [@](#): > > One demographic predictor of belief in conspiracy theories is education level. Various studies revealed that high education levels predict a decreased likelihood that people believe in conspiracy theories (Douglas et al., 2016; Van Prooijen, Krouwel, & Pollet, 2015). My take is that capacity for critical thinking is often, but not universally correlated with extent of education. We probably are all familiar with PhDs who believe the most outlandish crap, and I’m not just referring to Naomi Wolf (read up on Nobel Disease, for instance). It’d be terrific if teaching critical thinking skills was mandated starting in elementary school. There’d be a ton of resistance to this project though from elements of society that depend on manipulation to achieve their aims. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/90 "2025-03-10T02:43:14Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > It’d be terrific if teaching critical thinking skills was mandated starting in elementary school. There’d be a ton of resistance to this project though from elements of society that depend on manipulation to achieve their aims. It’s not a hypothetical. They already _do._ [Texas GOP: No More Critical Thinking in Schools](https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/texas-gop-no-more-critical-thinking-in-schools/2012/06) > We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/91 "2025-03-10T08:51:34Z")
I’d be more impressed with the Guardian article if the standfirst hadn’t used ‘smart’ as a synonym for 'intelligent '. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/92 "2025-03-10T10:41:33Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > My take is that capacity for critical thinking is often, but not universally correlated with extent of education. We probably are all familiar with PhDs who believe the most outlandish crap, and I’m not just referring to Naomi Wolf (read up on Nobel Disease, for instance). What I’ve observed, including and maybe especially on this board, is that cleverer, better informed (which might come from education but doesn’t have to) people make better and more convincing arguments. And that’s true _whether or not they are correct_. When smart people debate, both sides have powerful arguments, but they can’t both be right. I’ve also observed that people are very rarely convinced by rational arguments, no matter how good they are - and they are probably right not to be! Because someone who is smarter or merely better informed on an issue than you are can make seemingly very convincing arguments, and the fact you can’t counter them on the spot does not mean that strong counter arguments do not exist. What these arguments do do, is make the arguer and those who already agree with them more convinced they are right, and they may also convince those who do not yet have strong opinions. The disadvantage for a smart person is that when they encounter a good argument or evidence against one of their beliefs, they are better able to explain it away to their own satisfaction, rather than actually questioning whether they are right. Not coincidentally, conspiracy theorists are generally a lot better informed on the area of their conspiracy than the general public are, even though a lot of the things they believe about it are incorrect. This is one reason they are able to convince others who may not have particularly strong beliefs yet. IMO the truth is that people mostly adopt the views of those around them, in particular of other people they like and trust, and who are high status in their (sub)culture. And that’s arguably better than them using their own judgement, given most people don’t have particularly good judgement, or enough background knowledge on the majority of subjects in order to exercise it effectively. What happens if you try to teach everyone critical thinking skills in school? For a start, you are going to get the same “20% simply don’t get it, 60% can regurgitate enough to pass a test but may or may not understand, 20% actually understand as intended” result you see in science lessons. I don’t think it’s entirely unlikely that the net result could be _more_ belief in conspiracy theories. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/93 "2025-03-10T11:13:36Z")
I’m not going to get involved in the philosophical discussion here, but I want to say a word about dog food, which was used as an example and it is indeed an interesting and contentious one. By “dog food” I mean commercially available kibble. In my view, there are three basic grades. There’s the rock-bottom cheap stuff you’ll find at discount stores and many supermarkets. There’s the higher quality name brand stuff, most notably Science Diet and Iams, which tends to be available mostly through pet supply stores and veterinary offices. Then there’s the expensive boutique stuff which has a cult following, said cult trying to “educate” the world on how terrible brands like Science Diet are. Who’s right? Damned if I know, but following your veterinarian’s guidance would seem to be sensible. The Cult, however, claims that vets have been “bought” by the dog food industry and bribed and cajoled into promoting their products. Vet’s offices, incidentally, also have prescription varieties of brands like Science Diet for special needs, which I believe can only be sold by vets. Here’s my take. My vet was a wonderful caregiver for my dog and truly cared about him, so I trusted him. He recommended Science Diet (not because he sold it, since it was available from any large pet supply store) but because he thought it was a good basic food. But I also feel that kibble alone may not be a sufficiently balanced diet and in any case isn’t terribly appetizing. So my dog’s meal would always be a base of kibble with hot food on top – things like boneless roast or grilled chicken, sausages, beef stew, and sometimes grilled steak. How much these things contributed to his nutrition I cannot say, but they definitely contributed to his happiness, and that counts for a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/94 "2025-03-10T14:19:38Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > I’d be more impressed with the Guardian article if the standfirst hadn’t used ‘smart’ as a synonym for 'intelligent '. The bigger issue for me was when they were suggesting that people more knowledgeable about republican politics represented “smarter” republicans as opposed to being more staunchly conservative. But overall I think it was a good article. > [@DemonTree](#): > > What these arguments do do, is make the arguer and those who already agree with them more convinced they are right, and they may also convince those who do not yet have strong opinions. The disadvantage for a smart person is that when they encounter a good argument or evidence against one of their beliefs, they are better able to explain it away to their own satisfaction, rather than actually questioning whether they are right. Which of course leads to the question of how people _ever_ change their opinions. The main way ISTM is incidentally; where a person hears a fact, or correction, without that source being aware that the person’s own view may differ. With no emotional capital invested, it’s easier to switch sides especially if the new fact seems more comprehensive or accurate than our current understanding. …and of course in our new media environment, such incidental contact with facts seems to happen less and less often. I agree with you that debates are largely useless. I’m always amazed when, after watching a very one-sided debate, the comments remain largely an equal split of people believing their side won. e.g. Darth Dawkins has a devout fanbase just for “owning the atheists” despite the fact his (pre-sup) arguments can all be trivially refuted. But he insults and talks over people, and that looks like “winning”, I guess, if you started out with a position similar to his. I have seen on occasion though, that a person can go from a strong belief in X to a weak belief, to “I don’t want to talk about X” to finally switching their view, only on the basis of watching, or taking part in, debates where numerous flaws of X were exposed. It tends to be a slow process though. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/95 "2025-03-10T15:50:17Z")
I don’t know that rational arguments have ever convinced me, but the training in making them has given me great skills in discerning irrational arguments, and the disconnect between other people’s arguments & actions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/96 "2025-03-10T19:05:45Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > What happens if you try to teach everyone critical thinking skills in school? For a start, you are going to get the same “20% simply don’t get it, 60% can regurgitate enough to pass a test but may or may not understand, 20% actually understand as intended” result you see in science lessons. I don’t think it’s entirely unlikely that the net result could be _more_ belief in conspiracy theories. This sounds a lot like the observation that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Yes, teaching Critical Thinking is not perfect, but the effort is good rather than bad. > **[Critical Thinking Can Be Learned. Here’s The Evidence-Based Way How.](https://www.zarvana.com/blog/critical-thinking-can-be-learned-heres-the-evidence-based-way-how%2F)** > > Critical thinking can be learned, but it's hard. Reading a book on logic probably won't help. Instead, work on all 4 of these components. Of course, the issue in the USA and other countries is that in Schools, it is not a priority in many places and in many places, it is not taught at all. > **[The State of Critical Thinking in 2020 | REBOOT FOUNDATION](https://reboot-foundation.org/the-state-of-critical-thinking-2020/)** > > Misinformation, from both foreign and domestic sources, continues to proliferate online and, perhaps most disturbingly, surrounding the COVID-19 health crisis. ---
**Author:** ![scudsucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scudsucker/32/14101_2.png) [@scudsucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scudsucker)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/97 "2025-03-11T07:37:21Z")
> [@bump](#): > > they apparently can’t even comprehend the idea of millions and billions of years passing Somewhere (I was young, no source, alas) I read that humans struggle to conceive numbers bigger than 6. Which kind of suprised me, while looking at my hands. But it was a genuine report on a psychology paper. I can’t conceive millions or billions. I understand the concepts, and even, say, number of grains of sand on a beach being in that range, but it is completely an abstract, not a concrete. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/98 "2025-03-11T13:48:18Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Same Crazy Aunt got bent out of shape about something I said (some part of an inane conversation my wife started about the ingredients in yogurt). > Crazy Aunt: Not everyone had the benefit of coming from money > Me: I didn’t “come from money”. My parents worked for a living, just like I do. > Crazy Aunt: Well some places don’t have the same opportunities. I was raised lower middle class in West Virginia, but I’m always encountering people who assume that since I’ve been to college, my family must have been wealthy. I think this is an example of the OP’s point, that people often adopt beliefs that make them feel good, regardless of the facts. _“If only rich people can go to college, I’m not to blame for my lousy life.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/99 "2025-03-11T16:03:20Z")
> [@scudsucker](#): > > Somewhere (I was young, no source, alas) I read that humans struggle to conceive numbers bigger than 6. Which kind of suprised me, while looking at my hands. Actually, that kind of demonstrates the point; looking at your hands is turning to _something outside your own mind_ to anchor its attempts to work with higher numbers. Just a less sophisticated version of writing the numbers down. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/100 "2025-03-11T16:16:18Z")
> [@scudsucker](#): > > Somewhere (I was young, no source, alas) I read that humans struggle to conceive numbers bigger than 6. Which kind of suprised me, while looking at my hands. But it was a genuine report on a psychology paper. > > I can’t conceive millions or billions. I understand the concepts, and even, say, number of grains of sand on a beach being in that range, but it is completely an abstract, not a concrete. When I was young, I remember reading an example of how to see big numbers from the Reader’s Digest, no less. From one of the little notes and tales at the bottom of articles: "A rich guy gave his wife one million dollars, with instructions to spend $1000 every day, it took her 2 years and 9 months to do it. Then the husband gave the wife one billion dollars with the same rule. It would have taken her 2,740 years!" [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208.md?page=6)