The Backfire Effect. (or, why you'll never win an internet argument)

[momeNt]

Good thing mine don't.

I firmly believe that studies can't tell me how I think. No amount of "empirical" evidence can make me believe that. Human thoughts cannot be studied empirically and anybody who thinks they can suffers from delusions of greater understanding.

 

[agent00f]

It appears you have no issue with making yourself the arbiter of worthiness. I wonder if such a stance could cause one to miss an occasional insight, instead becoming exactly what the article describes.

It's simply a matter of reality that many people don't have much going on between the ears but feel compelled to share that fact with the world, and this is an effective mechanism for filtering that. Of course it's possible that any judgement is wrong, which is why it's important to have good enough reading comprehension to for example understand the self-correcting mechanism mentioned.

Good thing mine don't.

I firmly believe that studies can't tell me how I think. No amount of "empirical" evidence can make me believe that. Human thoughts cannot be studied empirically and anybody who thinks they can suffers from delusions of greater understanding.

Well, it is easier to empirically study the thoughts of dumb predictable people, who often believe they're too unique to be studied.

 

[momeNt]

It's simply a matter of reality that many people don't have much going on between the ears but feel compelled to share that fact with the world, and this is an effective mechanism for filtering that. Of course it's possible that any judgement is wrong, which is why it's important to have good enough reading comprehension to for example understand the self-correcting mechanism mentioned.




Well, it is easier to empirically study the thoughts of dumb predictable people, who often believe they're too unique to be studied.

The scientific method fails when it comes to human action because the underlying properties of the human mind are not understood.

 

[thraashman]

Yup. This is the only reason I ever engaged the incorruptibles of AT. Can't let their bullshit go unchallenged lest it become the new reality. Or at least the perception of reality.

I love that Incorruptible has been gone how long? Years I think. And we still use him as an example of the worst behavior. As they say, sometimes your worth to society is to be an example to others of what not to do.

I still have leaves on my trees for the first day of winter, global warming is real. On the other hand, I have snow on the ground around that tree and it isn't even winter yet, WTF do scientist know.

What always shocks me is how even people that are supposed to be smart, like engineers, can be so irrational about so many things.

I have a friend on Facebook who a couple months ago was insisting that global warming isn't real because he works primarily outside and this past summer wasn't that hot in his opinion...

 

[soulcougher73]

Please post if you have ever changed anyone's mind by debate.
I never have. It is an exercise in futility and clarification(in my mind).

I dont know if i have personally, but people here have changed my mind on certain topics in the past. But i have an open mind since i adhere neither to the GOP or DEM mantra and im an atheist so that helps also.

 

[agent00f]

The scientific method fails when it comes to human action because the underlying properties of the human mind are not understood.

Plenty of scientific subjects were methodically studied before underlying mechanisms were understood. In fact, that seems rather the point.

 

[soulcougher73]

The scientific method fails when it comes to human action because the underlying properties of the human mind are not understood.

Thats the backfire effect the article talks about..you failed

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Someone who hates you will argue against 2+2=4 before they let you think they've surrendured.

Well, 2+2=4 is only true under a very narrow set of assumptions, most obvious of which is a base-10 number system, not to mention the symbology of the operators. In any other base number system (of which there are infinitely many) the expression is false, so really it's more often false than it is true. Therefore anyone who thinks 2+2=4 is true is mostly wrong.

 

[momeNt]

Plenty of scientific subjects were methodically studied before underlying mechanisms were understood. In fact, that seems rather the point.

It's the combination of "scientific method" and statistics to create "statistically significant" these probable outcomes in human behavior become "empirical evidence". Observing the temperature at which ice melts (really simple example) is a whole lot different, and variables can be controlled to where it can then be predicted with essentially perfect accuracy, not "statistically significant" accuracy.

It's just so wildly different that it's almost impossible to compare the two. Yet a long winded essay with survey percentages apparently convinced you that they have solved the mystery human thought and action.

 

[momeNt]

Here's a good example of the article.

Geoffrey Munro at the University of California and Peter Ditto at Kent State University concocted a series of fake scientific studies in 1997. One set of studies said homosexuality was probably a mental illness. The other set suggested homosexuality was normal and natural. They then separated subjects into two groups; one group said they believed homosexuality was a mental illness and one did not. Each group then read the fake studies full of pretend facts and figures suggesting their worldview was wrong. On either side of the issue, after reading studies which did not support their beliefs, most people didn’t report an epiphany, a realization they’ve been wrong all these years. Instead, they said the issue was something science couldn’t understand. When asked about other topics later on, like spanking or astrology, these same people said they no longer trusted research to determine the truth. Rather than shed their belief and face facts, they rejected science altogether.

I guarantee that all of them believed in at least one of Newton's law, so did they reject science? Or possibly just social sciences.

Maybe just try and write two opposing scientific studies on gravity. Take those same people who rejected science, and observe the outcome. Well, I think you may come to a statistically significant outcome that people don't readily accept social sciences. Maybe don't do that though, because you'll get your bullshit research defunded!

 

[agent00f]

It's the combination of "scientific method" and statistics to create "statistically significant" these probable outcomes in human behavior become "empirical evidence". Observing the temperature at which ice melts (really simple example) is a whole lot different, and variables can be controlled to where it can then be predicted with essentially perfect accuracy, not "statistically significant" accuracy.

It's just so wildly different that it's almost impossible to compare the two. Yet a long winded essay with survey percentages apparently convinced you that they have solved the mystery human thought and action.

You must not know much of science given this comedic attempt to equate trivial physics to the rest of it, but I guess it's always that crowd these studies refer to.

 

[crashtech]

It's simply a matter of reality that many people don't have much going on between the ears but feel compelled to share that fact with the world, and this is an effective mechanism for filtering that. Of course it's possible that any judgement is wrong, which is why it's important to have good enough reading comprehension to for example understand the self-correcting mechanism mentioned.

I imagine that it's very easy for people to dismiss views which disagree with their own by asserting they must come from unintelligent or hopelessly deluded people. What it comes down to is that while we must use our best judgement when evaluating information, the fact remains that our judgement must always remain suspect.

 

[momeNt]

You must not know much of science given this comedic attempt to equate trivial physics to the rest of it, but I guess it's always that crowd these studies refer to.

You equate a social study to a physical science study then.

Would you still call argon a noble gas if it only reacted with like - oh ummm.... 35% of the periodic table?

 

[agent00f]

I imagine that it's very easy for people to dismiss views which disagree with their own by asserting they must come from unintelligent or hopelessly deluded people. What it comes down to is that while we must use our best judgement when evaluating information, the fact remains that our judgement must always remain suspect.

That's true, but also true that many lack the basic intellect necessary to create coherent arguments, which is a dominant first order of business. I'm sure you noticed every now and then:

You equate a social study to a physical science study then.

Would you still call argon a noble gas if it only reacted with like - oh ummm.... 35% of the periodic table?

Obviously that would be a noteworthy natural property to be aware of. Take a while to ponder what that means before replying with greater evidence of scientific illiteracy.

 

[momeNt]

That's true, but also true that many lack the basic intellect necessary to create coherent arguments, which is a dominant first order of business. I'm sure you noticed every now and then:



Obviously that would be a noteworthy natural property to be aware of. Take a while to ponder what that means before replying with greater evidence of scientific illiteracy.

Let's further say that it reacted 35% of the time, with random elements with basically no ability to predict which. That would be basically what social science does. It would be completely unreliable, and a lot of labs would get blown up relying on that 65% inertness. Basically what I'm saying is its garbage.

 

[bshole]

That's why my points are almost never for the person I'm arguing with. If they understood it they wouldn't be arguing with me.

If they were opened minded it would be a dialogue not an argument.

I have always appreciated this about you. I enjoy immensely our exchanges regarding climate change.

 

[agent00f]

Let's further say that it reacted 35% of the time, with random elements with basically no ability to predict which. That would be basically what social science does. It would be completely unreliable, and a lot of labs would get blown up relying on that 65% inertness. Basically what I'm saying is its garbage.

Just because something is garbage to someone who can barely understand the periodic table doesn't mean much.

It makes perfect sense why you don't care for the article's observation though.

 

[shortylickens]

I see this all the time. The more evidence you provide, the stronger the denials and more entrenched the beliefs of the person you're trying to help realize is just factually incorrect on a subject.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

It's long, but very well sourced and informative. An outtake:

"Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper."

its better to not have beliefs, but rather ideas.

the joke in Dogma is that religion is basically a mess and probably anti-god as well.

 

[momeNt]

Just because something is garbage to someone who can barely understand the periodic table doesn't mean much.

It makes perfect sense why you don't care for the article's observation though.

Hey, I won an internet argument. Told you the article was wrong. You've devolved to ad-hominems while I systematically destroyed the article from the base premise that it was science in the first place.

I feel really good about myself now.

 

[ivwshane]

Hey, I won an internet argument. Told you the article was wrong. You've devolved to ad-hominems while I systematically destroyed the article from the base premise that it was science in the first place.

I feel really good about myself now.

Lol. Is that what you think happened?

 

[momeNt]

Lol. Is that what you think happened?

I seriously doubt I could be convinced otherwise. Not when I know I'm right. To be able to be swayed from my position would be seriously stupid.

 

[agent00f]

I seriously doubt I could be convinced otherwise. Not when I know I'm right. To be able to be swayed from my position would be seriously stupid.

This is immaculately conceived evidence for the OP, and Dunning-Kruger in general.

Btw, "ad-hom" doesn't mean mocking someone's stupidity.

 

[ivwshane]

I seriously doubt I could be convinced otherwise. Not when I know I'm right. To be able to be swayed from my position would be seriously stupid.

Yes, we know that.

 

[momeNt]

This is immaculately conceived evidence for the OP, and Dunning-Kruger in general.

Btw, "ad-hom" doesn't mean mocking someone's stupidity.

What does it mean then?

 

[bshole]

Good thing mine don't.

I firmly believe that studies can't tell me how I think. No amount of "empirical" evidence can make me believe that. Human thoughts cannot be studied empirically and anybody who thinks they can suffers from delusions of greater understanding.

IF neuroscientists could remove the backfire effect by altering a certain portion of a test subjects brain, would that mean anything to you? The realm of the scientifically possible is expanding on a yearly basis.