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

[momeNt]

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.

I'm all on board for scientists studying science.

I'll love it when neuroscience can predict things as "accurately" as a social scientist can.

Eventually, neuroscience should absorb social science, as brain chemistry should be able to be understood to a great enough level to predict that sort of thing.

 

[bshole]

I'm all on board for scientists studying science.

I'll love it when neuroscience can predict things as "accurately" as a social scientist can.

Eventually, neuroscience should absorb social science, as brain chemistry should be able to be understood to a great enough level to predict that sort of thing.

Ok... I was misunderstanding you then. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

[agent00f]

What does it mean then?

Ad-hom is a logical fallacy whereby a diversion is created pertaining to the irrelevant particulars of the arguer. Pointing out someone is not smart enough to understand what's being argued is rather relevant to the situation.

I'm all on board for scientists studying science.

I'll love it when neuroscience can predict things as "accurately" as a social scientist can.

Eventually, neuroscience should absorb social science, as brain chemistry should be able to be understood to a great enough level to predict that sort of thing.

Social sciences tend to study subjects too complex for straightforward measurements.

 

[Zorba]

It would be interesting to see the back fire effect analyzed against hard sciences and see if people change their views on things. The problem is most of the hard sciences that people still have any disagreement on are so advanced the average person would have no hope of understanding it well enough to have an opinion.

Looking at social sciences does create some issues because very few things in social sciences are hard set rules, it is more "this generally happens." Also a ton of social science research is just pure garbage. I say this a someone that has done my own research and written research papers. Most of the social science papers I've read have poorly set up experiments, bad underlying assumptions, small non-random samples, abuse statistics then make far sweeping generalizations about the results.

I have had social science papers change my mind when the paper actually supported my original belief, because I realized the thing that originally gave me that belief was based on this research 2nd or 3rd hand and this research is crap.

I think giving people fake research papers, then measuring how it affects their believes could also result in biases. It would be a lot better to give them real research, high-quality papers that disagree with them and see what the result is. Probably even better to look at history facts that are easy to verify as wrong.

That being said, I definitely believe that the backfire effect is real, but you guys are being way too hard on momeNt. I agree with him that just because the backfire effect is real with social sciences doesn't mean it would be real in the hard sciences. I also do believe there are high quality social science papers out there, but there is also a lot of noise too.

Edit: I missed his post where he said he believed scientist couldn't tell you how the brain thinks, I do completely disagree with that.

 

[agent00f]

It would be interesting to see the back fire effect analyzed against hard sciences and see if people change their views on things. The problem is most of the hard sciences that people still have any disagreement on are so advanced the average person would have no hope of understanding it well enough to have an opinion.

Looking at social sciences does create some issues because very few things in social sciences are hard set rules, it is more "this generally happens." Also a ton of social science research is just pure garbage. I say this a someone that has done my own research and written research papers. Most of the social science papers I've read have poorly set up experiments, bad underlying assumptions, small non-random samples, abuse statistics then make far sweeping generalizations about the results.

I have had social science papers change my mind when the paper actually supported my original belief, because I realized the thing that originally gave me that belief was based on this research 2nd or 3rd hand and this research is crap.

I think giving people fake research papers, then measuring how it affects their believes could also result in biases. It would be a lot better to give them real research, high-quality papers that disagree with them and see what the result is. Probably even better to look at history facts that are easy to verify as wrong.

That being said, I definitely believe that the backfire effect is real, but you guys are being way too hard on momeNt. I agree with him that just because the backfire effect is real with social sciences doesn't mean it would be real in the hard sciences. I also do believe there are high quality social science papers out there, but there is also a lot of noise too.

Edit: I missed his post where he said he believed scientist couldn't tell you how the brain thinks, I do completely disagree with that.

There's a fairly influential work on the general matter, Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

A lot of social sciences do have somewhat questionable history, but there's been a general trend towards greater empiricism. However as mentioned what they're trying to study tends to be complex.

 

[momeNt]

Ad-hom is a logical fallacy whereby a diversion is created pertaining to the irrelevant particulars of the arguer. Pointing out someone is not smart enough to understand what's being argued is rather relevant to the situation.



Social sciences tend to study subjects too complex for straightforward measurements.

You actually don't understand ad-hominem. The argument stands on its own- separate from the arguer. You attacking my smarts, in no way should impact my argument. Who or what I am is actually irrelevant. Wow.

 

[agent00f]

You actually don't understand ad-hominem. The argument stands on its own- separate from the arguer. You attacking my smarts, in no way should impact my argument. Who or what I am is actually irrelevant. Wow.

No, inability to grasp what's being said definitely impacts your argument. In fact there's no greater vector of impact.

 

[momeNt]

No, inability to understand what's being said definitely impacts your argument. In fact there's no greater vector of impact.

The fallacy is not being able to extract the argument from the person saying it. Please tell me again how that comports with what you are saying it.

 

[bshole]

From Scientific American, an interesting look at the social sciences:

Even when fortified by the latest findings from neuroscience, genetics, and other fields, social science will never approach the precision and predictive power of the hard sciences.
:
So we are left with a paradox: Although social science is in many respects quite weak, it can also be extraordinarily potent in terms of its impact, for ill or good, on our lives. Think of all the harm done in the name of Marx—and of social Darwinist and free-market theorists, from Herbert Spencer to Milton Friedman.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...al-science-an-oxymoron-will-that-ever-change/

 

[agent00f]

The fallacy is not being able to extract the argument from the person saying it. Please tell me again how that comports with what you are saying it.

I suppose if it makes you feel any better, the mockery is directed at the entire class of people who can't understand what's going on but think they're right anyway. Someone the OP doesn't apply to would ponder where they might've erred, but not you, which rather explains your entire situation.

 

[Moonbeam]

The fact that people become more convinced they are right when challenged has been known for thousands of years. Why this continues and will likely continue to happen is that the psychological mechanism by which this happens is the last thing anybody will face. We identify with our beliefs, they are part of our ego, they are there to make us feel worthy while because the real source of real self respect was painfully taken from us as children. We were all made to feel like the worst in the world by being put down and we would rather die than re-experience, remember, those feelings.

 

[momeNt]

The fact that people become more convinced they are right when challenged has been known for thousands of years. Why this continues and will likely continue to happen is that the psychological mechanism by which this happens is the last thing anybody will face. We identify with our beliefs, they are part of our ego, they are there to make us feel worthy while because the real source of real self respect was painfully taken from us as children. We were all made to feel like the worst in the world by being put down and we would rather die than re-experience, remember, those feelings.

Are you talking about foreskin and circumcision?

If so, that's true I want no more of my dick removed, what little I have left is precious to me.

 

[agent00f]

The fact that people become more convinced they are right when challenged has been known for thousands of years. Why this continues and will likely continue to happen is that the psychological mechanism by which this happens is the last thing anybody will face. We identify with our beliefs, they are part of our ego, they are there to make us feel worthy while because the real source of real self respect was painfully taken from us as children. We were all made to feel like the worst in the world by being put down and we would rather die than re-experience, remember, those feelings.

I think it's more likely that much self-doubt in a fast moving primal environment can be detrimental to survival. Some people are just particularly prone to be stupidly self-confident more so than others, though, which doesn't help mental development--evidence of which you've probably seen aplenty.

 

[Paratus]

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

Thanks!

I may not be convincing you but I think we've gotten to a place where we can have a meaningful conversation about it. I've also had to learn a lot when you guys challenge me on the specifics.


Maybe that's a take away. You may not have to convince the other party to "win" the debate if each party gets something beneficial out of it.

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.

Reminds me they made that joke at the end of the game Portal. After damaging GLaDOS she taunts you, "You think you are doing some damage! 2 + 2 is [bleep] 10 [pause] in base 4! I'm fine!"

 

[NesuD]

It is still worth the effort, because some people eventually see their error and correct their beliefs.

That almost never happens. People are invested in their positions to the point they intentionally misrepresent and misinterpret the information. To try and change someones opinion is pointless. Their loyalty is to their team and they will defend that teams position to the bitter end. If two people cannot come to the conversation already willing to agree that all points of view have some validity then it is pointless.

 

[sandorski]

That almost never happens.

Happens much more than you realize.

 

[interchange]

I think virtually every thread I have participated on in this forum has been a response to this problem.

No matter how good you are, if something is posed to you that directly challenges your identity, then you'll fail to appreciate it.

But I do think we can broaden our identities. We can relate to those of us with different beliefs as being human and much more than those beliefs. If two people have an identity-stable foundation, they can grow from each other's differences instead of reinforcing them.

It's sad, though, that we are so far removed from identifying with each other. Modern society has allowed us to feel individualistic and not depend upon others to meet our basic needs in any way. Yet we are social creatures, so we flock to places like this to come together. Sadly, this lack of need for reliance on each other has stripped away our experience with working together because we have to. This has weakened our ability to perceive that our commonalities outweigh our differences. And, by avoiding challenging our own selves (because we don't have to), we haven't developed good tools to benefit from the times someone else exposes our cracks.

But we can do better. We can imagine the experiences and feelings of another and recognize this is a valuable tool to understand their views without obligating us to share them. This does two things: 1. helps you engage in the beliefs of another without needing to protect your own identity 2. provides a cognitive dissonance when your own views conflict with your empathic experience.

As said before, we really can't force another person to change their mind. But we can participate in a culture of open-mindedness. I feel that is an identity many of us would love to attach to, but it is lacking when we look to our peers to support it in actual practice.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think virtually every thread I have participated on in this forum has been a response to this problem.

No matter how good you are, if something is posed to you that directly challenges your identity, then you'll fail to appreciate it.

But I do think we can broaden our identities. We can relate to those of us with different beliefs as being human and much more than those beliefs. If two people have an identity-stable foundation, they can grow from each other's differences instead of reinforcing them.

It's sad, though, that we are so far removed from identifying with each other. Modern society has allowed us to feel individualistic and not depend upon others to meet our basic needs in any way. Yet we are social creatures, so we flock to places like this to come together. Sadly, this lack of need for reliance on each other has stripped away our experience with working together because we have to. This has weakened our ability to perceive that our commonalities outweigh our differences. And, by avoiding challenging our own selves (because we don't have to), we haven't developed good tools to benefit from the times someone else exposes our cracks.

But we can do better. We can imagine the experiences and feelings of another and recognize this is a valuable tool to understand their views without obligating us to share them. This does two things: 1. helps you engage in the beliefs of another without needing to protect your own identity 2. provides a cognitive dissonance when your own views conflict with your empathic experience.

As said before, we really can't force another person to change their mind. But we can participate in a culture of open-mindedness. I feel that is an identity many of us would love to attach to, but it is lacking when we look to our peers to support it in actual practice.

A quite meaningful and insightful post in my opinion. I believe that many have trouble listening to others because they were never listened to. They were treated as inferior beings as children that needed to be taught rather than have their inner selves develop naturally and at ones own pace. The sense of inferiority imbued thereby makes people close off to anything that might imply personal development.

It seems to me, for example, that the best I can do is to say what I see and let the chips fall where they may. And as a person who seems to hunger for a healthier world, I my opinion again, I try to carefully consider what you have to say.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think it's more likely that much self-doubt in a fast moving primal environment can be detrimental to survival. Some people are just particularly prone to be stupidly self-confident more so than others, though, which doesn't help mental development--evidence of which you've probably seen aplenty.

I think that self confidence is a mask we put on feelings of inferiority. If so, any so afflicted would not want to know it and self confidently deny my claim.

 

[crashtech]

In some arenas one may be confident, while in others, timid. Confidence or self-assurance must not necessarily be a contrivance, though in many cases it can be seen to be so.

 

[interchange]

A quite meaningful and insightful post in my opinion. I believe that many have trouble listening to others because they were never listened to. They were treated as inferior beings as children that needed to be taught rather than have their inner selves develop naturally and at ones own pace. The sense of inferiority imbued thereby makes people close off to anything that might imply personal development.

It seems to me, for example, that the best I can do is to say what I see and let the chips fall where they may. And as a person who seems to hunger for a healthier world, I my opinion again, I try to carefully consider what you have to say.

We're just people too. I was reflecting on myself a lot writing that post.

 

[agent00f]

I think virtually every thread I have participated on in this forum has been a response to this problem.

No matter how good you are, if something is posed to you that directly challenges your identity, then you'll fail to appreciate it.

But I do think we can broaden our identities. We can relate to those of us with different beliefs as being human and much more than those beliefs. If two people have an identity-stable foundation, they can grow from each other's differences instead of reinforcing them.

It's sad, though, that we are so far removed from identifying with each other. Modern society has allowed us to feel individualistic and not depend upon others to meet our basic needs in any way. Yet we are social creatures, so we flock to places like this to come together. Sadly, this lack of need for reliance on each other has stripped away our experience with working together because we have to. This has weakened our ability to perceive that our commonalities outweigh our differences. And, by avoiding challenging our own selves (because we don't have to), we haven't developed good tools to benefit from the times someone else exposes our cracks.

But we can do better. We can imagine the experiences and feelings of another and recognize this is a valuable tool to understand their views without obligating us to share them. This does two things: 1. helps you engage in the beliefs of another without needing to protect your own identity 2. provides a cognitive dissonance when your own views conflict with your empathic experience.

As said before, we really can't force another person to change their mind. But we can participate in a culture of open-mindedness. I feel that is an identity many of us would love to attach to, but it is lacking when we look to our peers to support it in actual practice.

The modern western liberal ideal often ignores the Hobbesian assessment of animalistic nature. As you might've seen in the posts of the frankly rather honest chucky2 or the various muslim-genocide advocates we have here, the reality is some people just never developed past deserving more than short brutish lives. I really can't see that sort thinking their way out of the primordial swamp. We rectify some of these social failures with laws that throw offenders in jail, but there are still quite a few around civilized society would be better off without. Really there should be another way to break the implied social contract and split them off so the rest of us can have good things.

 

[agent00f]

I think that self confidence is a mask we put on feelings of inferiority. If so, any so afflicted would not want to know it and self confidently deny my claim.

Self-confidence seems to be an internal metric of how much we trust our own choices/judgement. It works well when it tracks our ability to work a situation, but it's a curiosity in those where it doesn't. My take is that some portion of humans were meant to be stupidly brave or such and live those aforementioned short brutish lives, perhaps to the benefit of the rest in more primitive times. So in a way it's problematic that egalitarian society keep them around and provide equal treatment as the now more useful thinkers. As recent events show that has a way of backfiring.

 

[Mai72]

I've stopped arguing online. It's stupid and I don't care what people think.

I've also noticed what I go thru emotionally when I'm trying to get my point across. I start getting anxious, blood pressure goes up, etc. It's not worth it. Why ruin my emotional health because some idiot believes Sandy Hook was fake? Or the Holocaust? You aren't going to change their minds. Those people are delusional.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm still laughing at the irony of you guys debating this thread since the whole point is about the backfire effect and how some of you are doing exactly what it says you'll do