If people avoid information that contridicts their beliefs....

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
of what use would that information be? According to research that I have read, people often avoid information and situations that have the potential to contradict previously held beliefs and attitudes (i.e., situations that arouse cognitive dissonance). For example, according to the motivated social cognition model of political ideology, conservatives tend to have stronger epistemic needs to attain certainty and closure than liberals. This implies that there may be differences in how liberals and conservatives respond to dissonance-arousing situations. My question is that if such a theory were factual, would that imply that conservatives in such situations where their belief are challenged be exhibiting a brain defect. In short, if yes, then the assumption must be that the capacity to see the truth regardless of personal issues would have to be the preferred condition, that the normal state of morality is that objectivity is the best state to be in.

If the belief that objectivity is better than bias and conservatives are more biased than liberals, the information from such experiments and theories are useless to those to which they most apply, and that would be conservatives. They will have a condition they will avoid any information or situations that would help them see that fact

So if you have a condition you would not like to have and therefore will not see that you have, do you have defective thinking?


In two experiments, we investigated the possibility that conservatives would be more strongly motivated to avoid dissonance-arousing tasks than liberals. Indeed, U.S. residents who preferred more conservative presidents (George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan) complied less than Americans who preferred more liberal presidents (Barack Obama and Bill Clinton) with the request to write a counter-attitudinal essay about who made a “better president.” This difference was not observed under circumstances of low perceived choice or when the topic of the counter-attitudinal essay was non-political (i.e., when it pertained to computer or beverage preferences). The results of these experiments provide initial evidence of ideological differences in dissonance avoidance. Future work would do well to determine whether such differences are specific to political issues or topics that are personally important. Implications for political behavior are discussed.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
of what use would that information be? According to research that I have read, people often avoid information and situations that have the potential to contradict previously held beliefs and attitudes (i.e., situations that arouse cognitive dissonance). For example, according to the motivated social cognition model of political ideology, conservatives tend to have stronger epistemic needs to attain certainty and closure than liberals. This implies that there may be differences in how liberals and conservatives respond to dissonance-arousing situations. My question is that if such a theory were factual, would that imply that conservatives in such situations where their belief are challenged be exhibiting a brain defect. In short, if yes, then the assumption must be that the capacity to see the truth regardless of personal issues would have to be the preferred condition, that the normal state of morality is that objectivity is the best state to be in.

If the belief that objectivity is better than bias and conservatives are more biased than liberals, the information from such experiments and theories are useless to those to which they most apply, and that would be conservatives. They will have a condition they will avoid any information or situations that would help them see that fact

So if you have a condition you would not like to have and therefore will not see that you have, do you have defective thinking?


In two experiments, we investigated the possibility that conservatives would be more strongly motivated to avoid dissonance-arousing tasks than liberals. Indeed, U.S. residents who preferred more conservative presidents (George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan) complied less than Americans who preferred more liberal presidents (Barack Obama and Bill Clinton) with the request to write a counter-attitudinal essay about who made a “better president.” This difference was not observed under circumstances of low perceived choice or when the topic of the counter-attitudinal essay was non-political (i.e., when it pertained to computer or beverage preferences). The results of these experiments provide initial evidence of ideological differences in dissonance avoidance. Future work would do well to determine whether such differences are specific to political issues or topics that are personally important. Implications for political behavior are discussed.
Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in every single human, to varying degrees. What differentiates one group from another is whether they continue believing something that is objectively untrue, or at least attempt to weigh counter-explanations to determine which one is more likely and backed up by actual evidence.

What I've also read is that often, the more intelligent the person, the stronger the argument they'll make contrary to observable reality in order to defend their previously held belief.

I don't think that either side wins any prizes in terms of brain power, and once you actually delve into how the brain works, you realize that neuronal network development and neurotransmitter functioning is one of the most complicated things that humans have ever looked at. We're still trying to figure out how our own brains work, and consciousness can be a real son of a bitch sometimes.

The brain is affected not only by genetics but by environment, that it's hard to just say that someone has a better-working brain than someone else. It depends on the particular environment.

You can take a human baby from 30,000 years ago, drop them off in today's world, and they'd develop just fine. Yet, you take a 30 year old today and dump them 30,000 years into the past (and to some extent, because technology is so interwoven with culture, even 100 years ago) and there would be some issues with that person being able to survive.

What I'd postulate is that the brain is very complex, and that what you term CBD is just a modern way of looking at behavior in context of August 1st, 2015. It's not necessarily "wrong", as much as it is anachronistic thought and behaviors that really don't have any rhyme or reason today. And of course, it isn't just genetics, or environment, but both all mixed up in a manner that you can't separate them out.

The specific DNA coding you get, good and bad alleles and gene segments, the specific chemicals and hormones circulating in your mother's and your blood stream, and quality of food you receive as a fetus, extending all the way to being 25 or so when the brain stops development proper. Your parents and their skill levels in raising a child, the culture you're raised in, the level of introspection you may or may not develop as an adolescent. Ad nauseum.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
nickqt, I don't disagree with anything you said, but this:

If, as a culture, we make the idea of being unbiased and objective superior to being biased and having a built in avoidance of truth that we find personally distasteful, in other words, as long as we create a value system where objective is superior and biased is inferior, why would it not be OK to describe being worshiping objectivity while avoiding the fact of out bias be anything other than defective? How can believing something is good and what you are to be bad and not being able to see that be not defective. Isn't being biased being defective if the standard of perfection is objectivity?
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,831
37
91
Don't bother thinking too deep about it. The world won't change if you do but you might drive yourself crazy instead.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
nickqt, I don't disagree with anything you said, but this:

If, as a culture, we make the idea of being unbiased and objective superior to being biased and having a built in avoidance of truth that we find personally distasteful, in other words, as long as we create a value system where objective is superior and biased is inferior, why would it not be OK to describe being worshiping objectivity while avoiding the fact of out bias be anything other than defective? How can believing something is good and what you are to be bad and not being able to see that be not defective. Isn't being biased being defective if the standard of perfection is objectivity?

I agree that recognizing observable reality is superior to believing in BS. And most likely the major difference in how we see it is semantics.

The brain simply integrates information regardless of the consciousness that interprets that information. And consciousness isn't just genetics or environment, but a mix of both plus culture, which is fluid and abstract but nonetheless real. Especially considering the present, where multiple cultures are all mixing and/or clashing, interpreting information is almost always filtered through a culture first, and then integrated. And then re-interpreted even more by culture, and re-integrated. Rinse, repeat.

And voila, there's the cognitive dissonance.

Often times, getting past bias and to objectivity requires the end user to try to identify beliefs and biases to tare out culture. And while that sentence is pretty simple, actually analyzing your own beliefs for bias requires turning off that cultural filter, which for many, isn't something that they even recognize as existing and therefore is "not there" to be turned off, in order to objectively analyze information for interpretation.

That first cultural filter can be a son of a bitch, especially if you're more willing to accept your own culture as the "better" or even "best" culture. It's why jingoism is often mistaken as patriotism for people who aren't interested in other cultures or history proper, which aims to describe the past in detailed, perplexing context. Social studies is memorizing dates, names and events. History is looking at a period of time and really trying to figure out what was going on. In essence, history is boring for people who take a snapshot of today and fail to acknowledge how the past directly led to today's snapshot. Generally, people like this know how to solve any number of problems in the space of a few paragraphs, as if human beings are inherently abstract.

So, perhaps rather than say brain defect, I'd label it as an issue between the hardware (brain) and the software (culture, technology, etc) that we use to help us interpret all of the information we receive. The brain can integrate that information pretty damn well, but it's the interpretation of that information that often distinguishes groups of people.

Whether or not you can turn off that cultural filter to interpret and re-interpret the information isn't necessarily a brain problem, but a consciousness problem. But since consciousness is just an artifact of our brains and senses and environment and culture, it's really just semantics of whether it should be CBD, LBD, or simply a data interpretation problem.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,137
382
126
What I've also read is that often, the more intelligent the person, the stronger the argument they'll make contrary to observable reality in order to defend their previously held belief.

What I hope you really read is that the more intelligent the person the stronger the argument they can make contrary to reality in order to defend their previously held beliefs. Your statement made it sound like they have no choice. Once aware of the potential problem, the choice to not fall into that trap is available no matter how intelligent the person is.

In fact, a certain level of intelligence is necessary to even understand the problem let alone implement the methods to prevent it. The scientific method is one example of just such a method.

Intelligence alone without the proper knowledge can be quite detrimental, sure. Even those two alone do not in and of themselves secure a positive outcome. They are only 2 of a myriad of ingredients in a complex system that is the human mind as you said yourself.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
I wonder how much of that primative thinking, if any is attributed to our ancestors.

The conservative brain seems to be centered on personal experience and black and white thinking. Those would seem to be useful traits for individuals hunting/living by themselves or in relatively small groups. However as humans began to work together in much larger numbers and in societies where more and more people became specialized in their capabilities, the ability to accept and understand someone else's experience becomes more efficient and necessary as society expands and evolves (complexity and technologically).

This primative thinking would also help to explain why conservatives are motivated by emotions. A necessary trait when living in the wild or a threatening environment but one that isn't needed as humans formed into more advanced societies.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
What I hope you really read is that the more intelligent the person the stronger the argument they can make contrary to reality in order to defend their previously held beliefs. Your statement made it sound like they have no choice. Once aware of the potential problem, the choice to not fall into that trap is available no matter how intelligent the person is.

In fact, a certain level of intelligence is necessary to even understand the problem let alone implement the methods to prevent it. The scientific method is one example of just such a method.

Intelligence alone without the proper knowledge can be quite detrimental, sure. Even those two alone do not in and of themselves secure a positive outcome. They are only 2 of a myriad of ingredients in a complex system that is the human mind as you said yourself.
I think what you said is what I said.

I'm not saying that someone who is intelligent has no choice but to defend a previously-held belief because of that intelligence, but that the person can make a stronger argument for that previously-held belief that is contradicted by evidence, because sometimes abstract ideas can be far more convincing than reality.

Intelligence, however measured, doesn't necessarily mean that you'll set aside personal bias and look at things in an objective manner.

I wonder how much of that primative thinking, if any is attributed to our ancestors.

The conservative brain seems to be centered on personal experience and black and white thinking. Those would seem to be useful traits for individuals hunting/living by themselves or in relatively small groups. However as humans began to work together in much larger numbers and in societies where more and more people became specialized in their capabilities, the ability to accept and understand someone else's experience becomes more efficient and necessary as society expands and evolves (complexity and technologically).

This primative thinking would also help to explain why conservatives are motivated by emotions. A necessary trait when living in the wild or a threatening environment but one that isn't needed as humans formed into more advanced societies.
I don't think that the thinking is necessarily "primitive", as much as because of development (and I'd argue it's heavily parental environment) the information is routed differently through the brain, i.e. through the amygdala and limbic system, with neural connections made there reinforced over and over, hence a more emotional, right vs. wrong connection made with that information afterwards.

On the other hand, in a different environment, that information would have the emotional content cut back, with less neural connections regarding that information being made in the amygdala and limbic system, and at the same time, more neural connections made in the frontal cortex. I.e. the information doesn't have the emotional right vs. wrong context, and is more neutral.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
I think what you said is what I said.

I'm not saying that someone who is intelligent has no choice but to defend a previously-held belief because of that intelligence, but that the person can make a stronger argument for that previously-held belief that is contradicted by evidence, because sometimes abstract ideas can be far more convincing than reality.

Intelligence, however measured, doesn't necessarily mean that you'll set aside personal bias and look at things in an objective manner.


I don't think that the thinking is necessarily "primitive", as much as because of development (and I'd argue it's heavily parental environment) the information is routed differently through the brain, i.e. through the amygdala and limbic system, with neural connections made there reinforced over and over, hence a more emotional, right vs. wrong connection made with that information afterwards.

On the other hand, in a different environment, that information would have the emotional content cut back, with less neural connections regarding that information being made in the amygdala and limbic system, and at the same time, more neural connections made in the frontal cortex. I.e. the information doesn't have the emotional right vs. wrong context, and is more neutral.


If that is correct then that would indicate that the type of thinking one uses can be changed. I know moonbeam would argue that the way people think can be changed as he has used himself as an example, so you may be right. The question then becomes, how do we change this type of thinking and to moonbeams point, is it a desired trait and more importantly should conservative thinking be changed if it's considered an undesirable trait?
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,753
6,368
136
OP your observation goes far beyond politics into the very fabric of life.

This is something I read today: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...al-caitlyn-jenner-gop-views-article-1.2311763

Basically Bruce/ Caitlyn Jenner is so used to living inside a bubble, she can't grasp that transgender folks have a very hard time making ends meet. They're reviled by family/ friends/ and it's hard to get jobs. No wonder most turn to prostitution to make ends meet.. and some are very very lucky if they end up not being murdered outright like omg that's not a woman, it's a dude. Not all qualify for benefits either and she just dismisses them as someone wanting to grab money from Caitlyn's purse and she's not open minded at all.

This just shows it can be anyone and once they live in that bubble, they're oblivious of everything else.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
If that is correct then that would indicate that the type of thinking one uses can be changed. I know moonbeam would argue that the way people think can be changed as he has used himself as an example, so you may be right. The question then becomes, how do we change this type of thinking and to moonbeams point, is it a desired trait and more importantly should conservative thinking be changed if it's considered an undesirable trait?
I absolutely believe that school should be more than just spelling, math and English. I think we should teach critical thinking and analysis from the get-go to children, so that they aren't just taught how to do math problems via formulas.

The actual act of interpreting information is never really taught until in a college-level course. Until then it's all reading and repeating, which does not an informed citizenry make.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
I agree that recognizing observable reality is superior to believing in BS. And most likely the major difference in how we see it is semantics.

The brain simply integrates information regardless of the consciousness that interprets that information. And consciousness isn't just genetics or environment, but a mix of both plus culture, which is fluid and abstract but nonetheless real. Especially considering the present, where multiple cultures are all mixing and/or clashing, interpreting information is almost always filtered through a culture first, and then integrated. And then re-interpreted even more by culture, and re-integrated. Rinse, repeat.

And voila, there's the cognitive dissonance.

Often times, getting past bias and to objectivity requires the end user to try to identify beliefs and biases to tare out culture. And while that sentence is pretty simple, actually analyzing your own beliefs for bias requires turning off that cultural filter, which for many, isn't something that they even recognize as existing and therefore is "not there" to be turned off, in order to objectively analyze information for interpretation.

That first cultural filter can be a son of a bitch, especially if you're more willing to accept your own culture as the "better" or even "best" culture. It's why jingoism is often mistaken as patriotism for people who aren't interested in other cultures or history proper, which aims to describe the past in detailed, perplexing context. Social studies is memorizing dates, names and events. History is looking at a period of time and really trying to figure out what was going on. In essence, history is boring for people who take a snapshot of today and fail to acknowledge how the past directly led to today's snapshot. Generally, people like this know how to solve any number of problems in the space of a few paragraphs, as if human beings are inherently abstract.

So, perhaps rather than say brain defect, I'd label it as an issue between the hardware (brain) and the software (culture, technology, etc) that we use to help us interpret all of the information we receive. The brain can integrate that information pretty damn well, but it's the interpretation of that information that often distinguishes groups of people.

Whether or not you can turn off that cultural filter to interpret and re-interpret the information isn't necessarily a brain problem, but a consciousness problem. But since consciousness is just an artifact of our brains and senses and environment and culture, it's really just semantics of whether it should be CBD, LBD, or simply a data interpretation problem.

I don't disagree with your analysis of the situation. What I am saying is that since you also say one kind of thinking is superior to another, a description and analysis of the inferior form is really just describing something that is defective. If seeing reality is better than denying it, than denial works for the person denying as a defect. Now if conservatives are defensive about their denial it has to be because they too think seeing reality is better than denial so they too would call what they have a brain defect too. I am interested in this question because when I say they have a brain defect they get very upset when in fact the source of their upset has to be they believe the same as me, that denying reality is defective seeing. Why don't they blame themselves instead of me. Why do they think that I'm the one who is judgmental of them when it's their judgment too. This, of course, assumes that conservatives are more like this than liberals are. I have made here no case for that.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
I absolutely believe that school should be more than just spelling, math and English. I think we should teach critical thinking and analysis from the get-go to children, so that they aren't just taught how to do math problems via formulas.

The actual act of interpreting information is never really taught until in a college-level course. Until then it's all reading and repeating, which does not an informed citizenry make.

I agree and I thought that was one of the things common core was supposed to bring to the table (I might be wrong though, as it seems no body can define what cc is).
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
OP your observation goes far beyond politics into the very fabric of life.

This is something I read today: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...al-caitlyn-jenner-gop-views-article-1.2311763

Basically Bruce/ Caitlyn Jenner is so used to living inside a bubble, she can't grasp that transgender folks have a very hard time making ends meet. They're reviled by family/ friends/ and it's hard to get jobs. No wonder most turn to prostitution to make ends meet.. and some are very very lucky if they end up not being murdered outright like omg that's not a woman, it's a dude. Not all qualify for benefits either and she just dismisses them as someone wanting to grab money from Caitlyn's purse and she's not open minded at all.

This just shows it can be anyone and once they live in that bubble, they're oblivious of everything else.

Transgender people have always been low on the socioeconomic rung.
 
Last edited:

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
Y'all might be interested in my contribution to the "Trump" thread.

I've seen all sorts of nonsense.

In late 2000, I asked a 300-lb 23-year-old 7/11 counter-girl why she voted for Bush. "Clinton and that Monica thing." Another old lady sided against Obama because "I don't like his name."

I remember an IT guy -- you would think with more than his share of brain cells -- whining that "Clinton was a sexual predator" -- obsessively.

Political choices are shaped by all sorts of nonsense.

I saw someone's post here that "intelligent people may be more inclined to press their argument against the prevailing facts."

I'd say there are two uses of facts. People cherry-pick the facts to support their predetermined convictions. The scientific approach would simply load into an AI search program all the facts, rating them by relevance, independent validation (multiple sources), folklore, testimony, affidavit, the actual mechanics of events.

Irrelevant or possibly misleading facts would simply fall out of the equation. In other words, more is better. But this would not be the approach used by your public prosecutor, if there is just enough reasonable likelihood that a suspect committed a crime.

A Nobel laureate once told his Economics class about his frustration with vetted articles in journals like American Economic Review: The goal is to win the argument; not to find the Truth.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Y'all might be interested in my contribution to the "Trump" thread.

I've seen all sorts of nonsense.

In late 2000, I asked a 300-lb 23-year-old 7/11 counter-girl why she voted for Bush. "Clinton and that Monica thing." Another old lady sided against Obama because "I don't like his name."

I remember an IT guy -- you would think with more than his share of brain cells -- whining that "Clinton was a sexual predator" -- obsessively.

Political choices are shaped by all sorts of nonsense.

Why are you including their weight and age and what relevance does that have to do with their voting?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
Y'all might be interested in my contribution to the "Trump" thread.

I've seen all sorts of nonsense.

In late 2000, I asked a 300-lb 23-year-old 7/11 counter-girl why she voted for Bush. "Clinton and that Monica thing." Another old lady sided against Obama because "I don't like his name."

I remember an IT guy -- you would think with more than his share of brain cells -- whining that "Clinton was a sexual predator" -- obsessively.

Political choices are shaped by all sorts of nonsense.

I saw someone's post here that "intelligent people may be more inclined to press their argument against the prevailing facts."

I'd say there are two uses of facts. People cherry-pick the facts to support their predetermined convictions. The scientific approach would simply load into an AI search program all the facts, rating them by relevance, independent validation (multiple sources), folklore, testimony, affidavit, the actual mechanics of events.

Irrelevant or possibly misleading facts would simply fall out of the equation. In other words, more is better. But this would not be the approach used by your public prosecutor, if there is just enough reasonable likelihood that a suspect committed a crime.

A Nobel laureate once told his Economics class about his frustration with vetted articles in journals like American Economic Review: The goal is to win the argument; not to find the Truth.

Already saw your post in the Trump thread. I could not and can not find words to accurately express the effect it had on me. It was amazing, both from the point of view of content, quantity and quality, and the motivation and shear intellectual capacity I project it would have taken to make it.

I have a friend who seldom anymore posts here because he feels that nobody is interested in truth and with whom I spoke at length with about this thread who said pretty exactly as you have here.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
The actual act of interpreting information is never really taught until in a college-level course. Until then it's all reading and repeating, which does not an informed citizenry make.

And the South is chock full of poverty.
Coincidence?

I mean... we've practically reached chicken or egg at this point. The environment may be reinforcing itself due to lack of proper education where those skills are never presented. Means parents don't have it to teach, schools don't bother, and college isn't reached. People are poor and now there's a huge monetary barrier. Rinse repeat...
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
Why are you including their weight and age and what relevance does that have to do with their voting?

The intent was to portray her as being ignorant and slovenly. It helps to bolster the negative image of republicans he's trying to create with his story.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,855
26,646
136
So I'll continue to continue to pretend
My life will never end
And flowers never bend
With the rainfall
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
Why are you including their weight and age and what relevance does that have to do with their voting?

Perhaps, since this is a thread about avoiding information that doesn't set well, I should point out that you left out some of his post and in particular, this part:

"In other words, more is better. But this would not be the approach used by your public prosecutor, if there is just enough reasonable likelihood that a suspect committed a crime."

Perhaps you were looking to prosecute a side issue rather than critically evaluate the central ideas he expressed.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
The intent was to portray her as being ignorant and slovenly. It helps to bolster the negative image of republicans he's trying to create with his story.

Assuming for a minute that he had used the terms, beauty queen, corporate executive and brain surgeon for his examples. Would voting against Obama because of his name, or against Clinton for his fling strike you as logical reasons to vote a particular way. I do not really care about your answers, two of them make perfect sense to me, I hold marriage fidelity as a high ideal, but want to draw attention to the fact that you only focused on one side of the equation. And furthermore, in keeping with what I said in my OP, in order for you to find certain statements offensive and that information to be avoided, is because you have already internalized the standards you don't wish to face.

When you say his intent was to portray her as ignorant and slovenly, you yourself already have to have a built in recognition and assumption those are negative traits, It's your own bigotry you don't like. It's something you imponian plandors are want to do, a high complement indeed, if I may say so.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Does what?

The wall isn't organized by date or time but how much you agree with that person. The more you like someones comments any comments they make will be at the top of your wall.

At least so I've heard.