Belief vs Fact

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:23 pm

It's often frustrating for anyone trying to convince others to at least see your side of an issue, no less proving you're right. I found the following article insightful on why this happens and some ideas on how to structure arguments or conversations in order to overcome the dilemma.

"The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience (PDF): Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call "affect"). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of milliseconds—fast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we're aware of it. That shouldn't be surprising: Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It's a "basic human survival skill," explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

We're not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn't take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that's highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about."And"The upshot: All we can currently bank on is the fact that we all have blinders in some situations. The question then becomes: What can be done to counteract human nature itself?

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

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science | Mother Jones

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:43 pm

So perhaps it should come as no surprise that more education doesn't budge Republican views. On the contrary: In a 2008 Pew survey, for instance, only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college educated Republicans. In other words, a higher education correlated with an increased likelihood of denying the science on the issue. Meanwhile, among Democrats and independents, more education correlated with greater acceptance of the science. :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

I'd say that's as good of a summary as any...:yh_rotfl

In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.Say it isn't so!!!!!! BRILLIANT!!!!!

On a side note, I've come to take into consideration the fact that everything one observes cannot be viewed out of some biased reasoning...One cannot understand a fact until they've used a relative symbol in their brains in order to associate what it is they're observing...Without this relative association there's just quite simply no 100% accurate way to explain it, which makes every human perspective relative in a world that has an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests it's an absolute,..

Good luck!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:45 pm

Oh, btw, the article was a good read

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:07 am

K.Snyder;1377057 wrote:

On a side note, I've come to take into consideration the fact that everything one observes cannot be viewed out of some biased reasoning...One cannot understand a fact until they've used a relative symbol in their brains in order to associate what it is they're observing...Without this relative association there's just quite simply no 100% accurate way to explain it, which makes every human perspective relative in a world that has an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests it's an absolute,..

Good luck!That's an interesting, and perhaps astute observation, Kev. If true your theory highlights the need for careful early childhood experiences to get the initial symbolism right and consistent. Religions are very good at this.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:56 am

Kevin makes my ead urt !!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:53 pm

Bruv;1377142 wrote: Kevin makes my ead urt !!I wouldn't be so critical with posts like > http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1366001 <

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:35 pm

political science .... is that irony?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:16 am

Ahso!;1377194 wrote: I wouldn't be so critical with posts like > http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1366001

That's below the belt

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:05 pm

Bruv;1377218 wrote: That's below the belt

What is?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:37 pm

This forum is rapidly becoming like Monty Python , but without the class.

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:54 pm

It could become the new strapline for FG...

only saying:-3

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:24 pm

Just goes to show why marketing is everything , now days.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:36 pm

Ahso!;1377075 wrote: That's an interesting, and perhaps astute observation, Kev. If true your theory highlights the need for careful early childhood experiences to get the initial symbolism right and consistent. Religions are very good at this.I'd say the most absolute crucial period in a persons life is the time before they reach the age of about 2 or 3...I'd say everything beyond that point is an exponential progression of relating experiences off of past observations. What I personally would like to know is just the extent of which individuals are completely unaware of their subconscious and exactly why most people I've encountered choose to ignore it's potential...

Hmmm...