# 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:** 6
**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 11, 2025, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/101 "2025-03-11T20:50:43Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > 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. They do say science advances one funeral at a time. 😆 In reality, people are convinced by arguments regularly: when what is being argued for doesn’t dramatically contradict their existing beliefs and/or comes from someone they like, or a respected authority figure. Older scientists are often strongly invested in a particular theory and may never change their mind, but younger ones who don’t have entrenched beliefs are open to alternatives. I assume the same is true in other contexts - younger people, and especially children, will be more open to new beliefs. Ideas can spread from the top down - as people are more likely to adopt beliefs held by those of high status - and person to person: hearing an idea from multiple people around you means you are more likely to accept it, regardless of anything else. I think your idea of hearing a fact incidentally, rather than in the context of a debate, fits with this process. Depending how foundational the belief is, you may see people actually change their minds, as happened with opinions on gay marriage, or it may be only younger people who grow up with the new ideas who are convinced and it changes with the generations, as AFAIK we are seeing with decline in religiosity. But the ‘people around you’ mentioned above have to be part of your ‘in-group’, as do the experts. Neither of us would take very seriously arguments from the Ayatollah of Iran, for example. Nor are you likely to be influenced by what random Trump supporters say online. However, if you have conservative friends and neighbours, you _are_ likely to be influenced by their views, and vice-versa, as long as you see them as part of your ‘tribe’. A phenomenon I have witnessed repeatedly is the person who is part of some identity group - usually religious or political - who finds themselves in disagreement on an important issue. For religions, this will usually be questioning some aspect of theology. Due to the intolerant nature of such groups, the person may end up deconverting and being ostracised by their former peers, and when they do, they will often adopt diametrically opposite beliefs on a whole range of issues. I think it’s because their old ingroup and trusted authorities have been discredited in their eyes, and so they become receptive to ideas they would have rejected without seriously consideration before, as well as being surrounded by a new peer group who normalise them Something similar may be happening with the conspiracy theorists: they come across evidence an authority figure has lied about something, or showing a generally-denied ‘fact’ that happens to be very convincing to them, and this radically changes their view of who is their ingroup and outgroup. Other conspiracy theorists become their new peers; accounts promoting conspiracies, anon or not, are respected as experts in place of the real experts from wider society. This would explain the dramatic switch from trusting the experts to rejecting everything they say. And I think trust issues explain why a lot of conspiracies that used to be bipartisan or more common on the left, like anti-vaxxing, have now switched almost entirely to the right. Distrust in authority used to be prevalent on the far left, but as it has become clear how socially liberal and thus Democratic-supporting the majority of intellectuals and academic experts are, right-wingers are less and less likely to see them as part of their tribe and thus someone to listen to, while left-wingers have become more likely to trust them. > [@Mijin](#): > > 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. And at the end they will often deny they ever believed X. But yeah, if debates work, it’s usually slowly, and probably accompanied by knowing other people who believe in ‘not-X’. Honestly, I think anecdotes are probably more effective at changing minds, especially if they invoke an emotional response. Journalists always seem to try to include a few in their stories. ---
**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 11, 2025, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/102 "2025-03-11T21:09:31Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > But the ‘people around you’ mentioned above have to be part of your ‘in-group’, as do the experts. Neither of us would take very seriously arguments from the Ayatollah of Iran, for example. Speak for yourself. For me, _of course_ I would evaluate his arguments on its merits, the same as anyone else, and potentially change my mind about something. Now, in the full disclosure, it’s true that if he begins a sentence with “Islam teaches us that…” then I am anticipating nonsense. He may as well have said “Here’s what I’ve learned about quantum physics from watching Love Island…”. But it remains absolutely possible that I would think “good point” and even change my mind about something. > [@DemonTree](#): > > But yeah, if debates work, it’s usually slowly, and probably accompanied by knowing other people who believe in ‘not-X’. Absolutely, and on re-reading I didn’t state clearly what I meant. I’ve basically _never_ seen a person change their mind on the basis of a single debate. (The only exception being at events where people had to do some kind of vote before and after so there was the strong encouragement to at least claim to have changed your mind). But I have seen debates planting a seed of doubt. So, over the course of seeing several debates, and if the person’s whole livelihood, community etc _doesn’t_ depend on holding that position, they can shift over time. But yes, it’s slow and I agree anecdotes can be more compelling (sadly…as you can find anecdotes to support anything). ---
**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 11, 2025, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/103 "2025-03-11T21:24:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [https://www.zarvana.com/blog/critical-thinking-can-be-learned-heres-the-evidence-based-way-how%2F](https://www.zarvana.com/blog/critical-thinking-can-be-learned-heres-the-evidence-based-way-how%2F) > [@](#): > > For example, though students participating in one experiment were shown how to solve a math word problem involving vegetables in a garden, only [19% successfully applied the methodology](https://eduq.info/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11515/19710/Crit_Thinking.pdf?sequence=1) used in the garden problem to solve a problem involving a marching band requiring the same methodology. They couldn’t see that the skill they had just learned was also applicable in the second scenario. Ahahaha, you were right, @bump: > [@bump](#): > > 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. And according to the PDF that link goes to, what the 20% ‘got’ was the deep structure of the problems, ie how they were similar mathematically, vs the surface structure of the specific situation the problem described (gardening or marching band). It’s an entertaining read, so thanks for linking it @GIGObuster. To summarise, you can’t teach ‘critical thinking’ as a universal skill, because applying it successfully requires domain knowledge. You have to understand enough about the subject you want to think critically on to know what questions to ask, recognise what factors might be important and haven’t been considered, and so on. You can learn some ‘metacognitive strategies’ that will help, but without the background knowledge they won’t get you very far. ---
**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 11, 2025, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/104 "2025-03-11T21:39:58Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I’ve basically _never_ seen a person change their mind on the basis of a single debate. > [@Mijin](#): > > For me, _of course_ I would evaluate his arguments on its merits, the same as anyone else, and potentially change my mind about something. You’ve never seen it happen, but you believe you’d do it? Or you think it not happening in the context of a debate would make you more willing to change your mind? Why should that make a difference? TBF, I also believe I’m an unusually rational person 😉. But realistically, I’m going to suffer the same biases as everyone else. Do you think the person making the argument affects your view at all? You’d take more seriously an argument about public health from some government official, right? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/105 "2025-03-11T21:40:52Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Though in defense of the founders of homeopathy they also believed (rightly) that their medicines were much better than a lot of the “scientific” medicines if the day, as they may not do very much but at least they were not actively harmful. It’s possible to die from an overdose of homeopathic medicine. Natalie Wood did. ---
**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 11, 2025, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/106 "2025-03-11T21:53:05Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > You’ve never seen it happen, but you believe you’d do it? Or you think it not happening in the context of a debate would make you more willing to change your mind? Why should that make a difference? There’s a bit of a bait and switch there, or motte and bailey, or whatever term the kids use now. What you said was “neither of us would take very seriously arguments from the Ayatollah of Iran”. Disagreeing with that, is not incompatible with saying most people rarely change their mind in a single debate, because: 1. You didn’t say debate in that claim 2. Taking an argument seriously in itself does not mean changing position. Because we usually hold positions _for reasons_, so hearing a reason to take a different position doesn’t immediately mean it has a more compelling case overall; there’s nothing irrational in that. 3. Frankly, I probably _am_ more objective than the average bear. e.g. If I watch a debate, and a person holds a position I agree with, but _makes an irrational argument_, I will still dive into the comments to highlight the flaw in their reasoning. At which point of course lots of people will assume I must be taking the opposite position. Always interesting to experience, because what seems like the warmest, welcoming community can look very different when they erroneously think you’re coming at it from the opposite “side”. ---
**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 11, 2025, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/107 "2025-03-11T22:22:35Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > What you said was “neither of us would take very seriously arguments from the Ayatollah of Iran”. What I was trying to express was that we wouldn’t give his arguments special weight as a respected figure or expert (and there are other people who _would_), because he isn’t those things in our social group(s). I didn’t phrase it very well. But: 1. Is there a logical reason why an argument expressed in a debate should be less convincing than one expressed outside of one? 2. You _did_ say you would potentially change your mind - but perhaps you meant later, after some reflection or whatever. 3. I’ll buy that. I wouldn’t bother to debate with you otherwise. And boy is this true: > [@Mijin](#): > > Always interesting to experience, because what seems like the warmest, welcoming community can look very different when they erroneously think you’re coming at it from the opposite “side”. I also have this tendency to point out bad arguments even when made by people on ‘my side’, and the reaction can be quite disconcerting. It’s obvious how this would encourage group conformity. Going back to your comment, I assume all _you_ meant to say was that you would give the same consideration to the Ayatollah’s arguments as you would to anyone else’s. But it’s good to keep in mind that we are not immune to these biases ourselves. ---
**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 11, 2025, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/108 "2025-03-11T22:42:06Z")
Ok fair enough, seems we just misunderstood each other a bit there, I think we’re saying the thing. And good to hear you’re also willing to point out flaws that people arguing for your position make. We’re a small minority 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/109 "2025-03-12T00:07:19Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > This is another problem - most people dont understand how science works. That accepted theories may change over time or as new evidence emerges, or new technology changes the way things are tested. People want a steady and reliable answer to everything, something that _doesn’t_ change. Ever. That’s why they wont rely some room of eggheads in Washington doing fuzzy science, but instead rely on the bible. One book that changed my life, right around the time I graduated college, was called _Why People Believe Weird Things._ It delved into what seem like fairly banal things like alien abduction and less banal (Holocaust denial). But most relevant to this conversation, this book opened with an explanation of the scientific method. I was attending an elite university so you would think I would have some passing familiarity with the concept, but I had never seen it laid out like that, ever. And when I say, “It changed my life,” I really mean it. I don’t even know if it’s a particularly good book as far as those things go, but I never saw the world, or my choices, in the same way again. At the time I was with my husband, who was a student in clinical psychology who leaned heavily toward evidence-based therapies, cognitive behavioral theories of mental health, despite that fact that most of his cohort leaned pretty heavily psychodynamic. I had been receiving treatment for PTSD and severe debilitating depression, six years of psychodynamic therapy and not really getting anywhere, and like I suddenly understood why. It was a lightning rod moment. I switched to CBT. And they gave me some push back, let me tell you. “CBT doesn’t work for complex trauma.” “Yeah but my main problem is getting out of bed and taking a shower, and I think they can help with that.” Back and forth etc. I went ahead and did it. And it enabled me to start functioning again. I wasn’t happy by any means. I would suffer for a long time. But I was at least able to pursue my educational goals again. And the past twenty years of my life my mental health journey has been driven by the best available research. I’ve been very fortunate to have my husband to just say, “Hey, is this bullshit?” at virtually all times. I’ve done sooo many different types of evidence-based therapy and just tried to build myself a little toolbox. After twenty years undergoing treatment in the field of psychology, trying to stay aligned with the current research and keeping track of current trends, I am confident in saying that one of the foremost peddlers of magical thinking and unsupported bullshit are mental health therapists treating people for trauma. We can now extend this to youth on TikTok and people positioning themselves as experts on YouTube and through popular literature - almost everything you are reading and seeing online about trauma is wrong. It’s just wrong. Take one of the most popular books about trauma currently circulating, entitled _My Grandmother’s Hands._ I was required to read this at work. It starts with a solid premise - a lot of people have generational racial trauma. Not long after that it takes some utterly bizarre leaps, claiming such things as: research indicates trauma is passed down genetically (not really), white cops are traumatized by the genes they’ve inherited from their European ancestors because Medieval times were hella violent (seriously. This is a serious claim in this book.) Then I had to listen to my coworkers, some of whom are trauma counselors, ooh and ahh over what a revelation this book is. Part of the problem I’m encountering is that it’s very hard to find out what’s really reflected in the evidence these days with regard to trauma. There are so many people positioning themselves as experts in the field that have no grounding whatsoever in scientific research on this subject. And even for some of the evidence-based interventions, like EMDR, proponents have expressed zero interest - none whatsoever - in the theoretical underpinnings of EMDR, why it works, testing those theories, like they just don’t fucking care. And don’t even get me started on polyvagal theory, which took me forever to falsify because there is so little good information on the internet. I eventually found an interview with an expert in neurology saying, “This theory defies basic understanding of how the brain works.” And yes, my therapist used it on me. You can’t get away from this shit. I would now extend this proliferation of bullshit to ADHD and autism. There’s a guy who is extremely successful right now telling the story that ADHD is caused by childhood trauma. [This excellent YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO19LWJ0ZnM) rips that guy a new asshole (the influencer here is one of the foremost experts on ADHD science.) TLDR; ADHD is caused by genetics, you guys. And I recently saw a Buzzfeed article highlighting a statement by some rando who said, “I didn’t realize you could develop ADHD in adulthood.” Uhhh… you can’t. By definition, you must have evidence of childhood difficulty in order to diagnose. If you suddenly have ADHD-like symptoms in adulthood, and you never did as a child, you need to get yourself a differential diagnosis and figure out what’s actually going on (that is the cost of this nonsense - people not getting treatment for the thing they actually have.) Mother of pearl. I know this is long, but it’s like a whole thing for me, because I’ve been directly affected by it. I’m not saying I don’t have blind spots, we all do – but I would never consciously choose to believe something if the evidence refuted it. Period. ---
**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 12, 2025, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/110 "2025-03-12T01:17:03Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > This is another problem - most people dont understand how science works. That accepted theories may change over time or as new evidence emerges, or new technology changes the way things are tested. People want a steady and reliable answer to everything, something that _doesn’t_ change. Ever. You’re right but I think the inverse problem is maybe worse: that people have a conception of science where it constantly, and trivially, gets overturned. The reality in the 21st century, is that almost all of the time we are _building_ on to our knowledge, making ever more complete and precise theories. Actual revolutions tend to be in areas where we only had a tentative hypothesis anyway, because if we are _outright wrong_ about something, how are we making accurate predictions? ---
**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 12, 2025, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/111 "2025-03-12T16:47:15Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > But most relevant to this conversation, this book opened with an explanation of the scientific method. I was attending an elite university so you would think I would have some passing familiarity with the concept, but I had never seen it laid out like that, ever. Damn, that’s kinda horrifying. Never mind critical thinking, kids should be learning this in school. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > After twenty years undergoing treatment in the field of psychology, trying to stay aligned with the current research and keeping track of current trends, I am confident in saying that one of the foremost peddlers of magical thinking and unsupported bullshit are mental health therapists treating people for trauma. We can now extend this to youth on TikTok and people positioning themselves as experts on YouTube and through popular literature - almost everything you are reading and seeing online about trauma is wrong. It’s just wrong. Oh dear. I knew popular conceptions of trauma and mental health were terrible - throw in all the Reddit users diagnosing each other with PTSD and narcissism after reading one probably-fictional story - but I didn’t know therapists themselves believed the bullshit. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Not long after that it takes some utterly bizarre leaps, claiming such things as: research indicates trauma is passed down genetically (not really), white cops are traumatized by the genes they’ve inherited from their European ancestors because Medieval times were hella violent (seriously. This is a serious claim in this book.) 😮 > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I would now extend this proliferation of bullshit to ADHD and autism. There’s a guy who is extremely successful right now telling the story that ADHD is caused by childhood trauma. [This excellent YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO19LWJ0ZnM) rips that guy a new asshole (the influencer here is one of the foremost experts on ADHD science.) TLDR; ADHD is caused by genetics, you guys. Refrigerator mothers, but for ADHD? 🥴 > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > “I didn’t realize you could develop ADHD in adulthood.” Uhhh… you can’t. By definition, you must have evidence of childhood difficulty in order to diagnose. If you suddenly have ADHD-like symptoms in adulthood, and you never did as a child, you need to get yourself a differential diagnosis and figure out what’s actually going on (that is the cost of this nonsense - people not getting treatment for the thing they actually have.) There may be an exception to this: not to alarm you, but peri-menopause can dramatically worsen ADHD symptoms - I was really struggling before I got on HRT - and I think it could potentially make a subclinical case serious enough to be diagnosable. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Part of the problem I’m encountering is that it’s very hard to find out what’s really reflected in the evidence these days with regard to trauma. There are so many people positioning themselves as experts in the field that have no grounding whatsoever in scientific research on this subject. And even for some of the evidence-based interventions, like EMDR, proponents have expressed zero interest - none whatsoever - in the theoretical underpinnings of EMDR, why it works, testing those theories, like they just don’t fucking care. And don’t even get me started on polyvagal theory, which took me forever to falsify because there is so little good information on the internet. I eventually found an interview with an expert in neurology saying, “This theory defies basic understanding of how the brain works.” And yes, my therapist used it on me. You can’t get away from this shit. I’m glad you managed to navigate the mess and get help with your own issues. Have you considered taking all the research you’ve done and writing a book to cut through the bullshit and act as an evidence-based guide for other people? ETA: > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I’m not saying I don’t have blind spots, we all do – but I would never consciously choose to believe something if the evidence refuted it. Period. Can anyone conciously choose to believe anything? Seems unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/112 "2025-03-12T19:41:22Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > You’re right but I think the inverse problem is maybe worse: that people have a conception of science where it constantly, and trivially, gets overturned. I think that’s still better than the idea that there’s “one answer” to anything, and once it’s discovered, it stays eternally unchanging. But I get what they’re irritated with; if you look at nutrition, the guidance is all over the place, and seems to change about once a decade. Fat is bad, fat is good, etc… A glass of wine with dinner is healthy, then it’s not healthy but not bad, and now it’s all alcohol is bad. I can understand people being somewhat frustrated with it- it’s not only that it changes, it’s as much that it flips 180 degrees, or so it seems. Right now, sugar is the devil, but I have faith that in a decade or so, that’ll have changed or been seriously modified. ---
**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 12, 2025, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/113 "2025-03-12T20:04:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > But I get what they’re irritated with; if you look at nutrition, the guidance is all over the place, and seems to change about once a decade. Yep. As I say, I think there are a few topics, nutrition being one of them, that’s not just complicated in the abstract, but in practice depends on people’s individual physiology and personal goals among many other factors. And “This food will heal/hurt you” is probably the original OG clickbait. So I don’t blame people for taking nutritional advice with a pinch of salt (Oh no, my sodium levels!) But on the more general topic of “rejection of science” I think it’s really a problem that people just think “what the bleep do we know” and just ignore science that has been used to make thousands of predictions and indeed devices that they use every day. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/114 "2025-03-12T21:06:43Z")
You’re absolutely right, but I think where we’re misunderstanding these people is that they have a tendency to tar _everything_ with the same brush. So when nutritional advice is all over the place, that taints their belief in science/experts in general. I’ve also heard people have disdain for more… abstract? (theoretical?) sciences, and faith in more tangible ones. Like they believe in chemistry, because it’s something that they feel can be experimentally proven, but stuff like a lot of astronomy/physics is just thought experiments and math, so it’s not “real” in their minds. Which of course is silly, because they get equally twisted about stuff like paleontology, which is about as tangible as things get, but they just can’t conceive of a 100 million year time span, and how much can happen over that time period. ---
**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 12, 2025, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/115 "2025-03-12T21:18:14Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’ve also heard people have disdain for more… abstract? (theoretical?) sciences, and faith in more tangible ones. Well you may have heard it from me, in this thread ([post 76](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/76)) 😃 > [@bump](#): > > Which of course is silly, because they get equally twisted about stuff like paleontology, which is about as tangible as things get I think many would beg to differ. Take a look at some videos on Answers in Genesis or Prager U. They depict evolution as finding, like, one fossil called “Lucy” and the rest is pie-in-the-sky guesswork. Paleontologists must spend all day leaning back in their chair just inventing stories of what they think happened… (Except, that is, when a sample of dinosaur fossil is described as having “soft tissue”…suddenly that’s actual science and needs to be widely disseminated (and misdescribed)) ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/116 "2025-03-12T23:22:45Z")
That what I’m talking about - they’re all ready to decry paleontology as speculative nonsense because they don’t understand how it works, which is silly because it actually has bones and rock strata that are usually dated. FWIW they also have issues with sciences that are “messy” like the social sciences, because there isn’t one right and true answer. Which I get–when I took an upper level psychology course, it seemed to be based on preponderance of evidence, and studies were often contradictory or inconclusive. But that doesn’t invalidate it. ---
**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 13, 2025, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/117 "2025-03-13T00:25:18Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Can anyone conciously choose to believe anything? Seems unlikely. To some extent, I think we can. We can seek out and consider arguments, evidence, and fellow-believers for things we want to believe, and we can avoid, argue against, or vilify those we don’t want to believe. And I believe (heh) there’s evidence that by acting as though we believe something, we strengthen and reinforce our actual belief in it. ---
**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 13, 2025, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/118 "2025-03-13T00:38:53Z")
Yeah it’s almost inevitable in the modern world. Let’s say you work in petrochemicals and really want to believe that climate change is a hoax, so you’re drawn to people saying that. Pretty soon the various algorithms are only serving up that kind of content. Enough superficially convincing arguments brush against you that eventually you are sold. Bish bash bosh. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2025, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/119 "2025-03-13T00:45:22Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > There may be an exception to this: not to alarm you, but peri-menopause can dramatically worsen ADHD symptoms - I was really struggling before I got on HRT - and I think it could potentially make a subclinical case serious enough to be diagnosable. Funny you mention that, I am experiencing this myself. I am now 42. While I have always struggled with executive function, it’s gotten so much worse. Just today I was at the doctor’s office, had three papers to keep track of, and my wallet. Left one paper on the desk, remembered my wallet but in the process lost track of another paper. The receptionist then grabbed all the papers, set them down gently on the desk, and said, “Let’s just keep these things together here.” 😂 > [@DemonTree](#): > > Can anyone conciously choose to believe anything? Seems unlikely. No. I appreciate you pointing this out. I don’t really think belief is a choice. I’m not sure why there is so much bullshit in mental health, but I mostly blame Freud, who had weird ideas about trauma that are still very evident in mental health circles. Rather than PTSD being this concrete thing with clear mechanisms that perpetuate it, it has to be dark and mysterious with all these subconscious flourishes. I really think people just find it sexier that way. PTSD is not an anxiety disorder, but it’s in some ways very similar to anxiety. Stimulus + response + avoidance. Avoidance reinforces the trigger. Etc. There are many approaches to treating trauma effectively, one of the most effective being prolonged exposure therapy, and EMDR is not exposure therapy but it certainly has elements of that. For EMDR, for example, its proponents largely remain unknowing and uncaring of why it works, but some other researchers have looked into the role of working memory in interfering with the development of PTSD. For example, there are studies indicating that if you give people who have just experienced trauma a regimen of playing Tetris, they are less likely to develop PTSD. I don’t understand this completely, but the logic is something like "Working memory tasks distract the brain enough during recall of trauma that it allows the trauma to encode as narrative memory (as opposed to traumatic memory, which manifests differently.) My armchair theory for why EMDR works is that. Bilateral stimulation (eye movement, sounds, whatever) functionally distracts the brain enough during traumatic recall to encode the memory into a more mundane context. Nothing woo about it. Though EMDR is weird, and I did it for three years and I still don’t fully understand it – and my therapist did it _without_ bilateral stimulation most of the time and it still worked. But it did work. I arguably have sub-clinical levels of PTSD at this point. By mutual agreement we terminated therapy last October and my mental health has never been better. After twenty years of living with PTSD, I truly had resigned myself to having this condition for the rest of my life. It has been a major adjustment for those symptoms to just be gone. (Potential factor here - I started doing zazen meditation regularly in March of last year and it was around this time my issues seemed to spontaneously resolve. I’m not claiming meditation caused it, just that it’s hard to pin down a single cause.) ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2025, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208/120 "2025-03-13T00:54:54Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I’m not sure why there is so much bullshit in mental health, but I mostly blame Freud, who had weird ideas about trauma that are still very evident in mental health circles. Rather than PTSD being this concrete thing with clear mechanisms that perpetuate it, it has to be dark and mysterious with all these subconscious flourishes. I really think people just find it sexier that way. Ever since I learned of the Oedius Complex, I knew it was a load of crap. Various mental health professionals told me that I just didn’t understand the human mind and/or that I was just on denial about my desire to kill my father and have sex with mom. Several years ago (In case anybody missed it) it was revealed to the world that Freud never NEVER believed in the Oedipus Complex (or the Electra Complex) himself. He came to the conclusion that some of the kids undergoing therapy had been molested by their fathers. Rather than report these crimes to the authorities and end up with rich and powerful enemies who would ruin him and put an end to his career, Freud invented the two complexes. ‘No, those memories of sex with your dad didn’t actually happen. It was a dream caused by your unconscious desires.’ My opinion of Freud was quite low before this revelation. You can imagine what I think of him now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rejection-of-science-and-or-factual-information-in-favor-of-feelings/1015208.md?page=7)