We Have Met the Enemy

[Perknose]

And he is us.

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason.

Not a new revelation here, I know, but this is a particularly well written and comprehensive look at three books that recount experiments that point to this distressing fact and the evolutionary reasons why.

Just in passing, towards the end, it gives a fine little one paragraph paean to science:

One way to look at science is as a system that corrects for people’s natural inclinations. In a well-run laboratory, there’s no room for myside bias; the results have to be reproducible in other laboratories, by researchers who have no motive to confirm them. And this, it could be argued, is why the system has proved so successful. At any given moment, a field may be dominated by squabbles, but, in the end, the methodology prevails. Science moves forward, even as we remain stuck in place.

In this day and age of authoritarian bullshit artists masking the short-sighted greed of grabbing gain for those who already have more with "alternative facts" and outright lies . . . science, bitches, science!

 

[sandorski]

Yup, which is why it pains me to see how people attempt to dismiss Science. It took us thousands of years and multiple complete collapses to get to where we are today and many of the very people who have benefited from all that are so willing to throw it all away to protect various disproved beliefs they hold dear. Maybe we'll turn it around, maybe our distant descendants will have a better go at it if we don't.

 

[Ichinisan]

Obligatory:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

 

[umbrella39]

Very good read and how interesting...

Like this: “Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

This is even further solidified in today's social media age where people can so easily find other like/simple minded people who share their same distorted view of what is reality and truth. Back in the 80's, 70's, etc... you actually had to get off your ass, get out of your house, and really put yourself out there to find like minded people. Now, DERP is no more than a LIKE away.

Once perception becomes their reality and they see others sharing that same distortion, they try to hold onto it at all cost. You can't pry it away no matter what contrary evidence is presented. For some... admitting they are or were wrong is simply impossible. They have been conditioned to never be wrong and cannot humble themselves to possibly find any fault in the mirror. The one they can't stand to look in...

 

[vi edit]

One of my favorite sayings - "You can't reason a person out of a position they never reasoned themselves into".

 

[Puffnstuff]

Like this: “Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

Club confirmation bias.

 

[Jaskalas]

but, in the end, the methodology prevails.​

That whole paragraph you quoted is well reasoned. But I'd like to stop and imagine a world where we've learned to communicate better. By trial and error we can arrive at a methodology that is most likely to weed out destructive lines of thinking. Perhaps that is our trouble today, poor thought processes are spread among humans like a disease, a contagion that threatens us all. And modern communication has allowed them to spread like wildfire, overwhelming advances in science and technology aimed at helping us identify objective reality.

We need, now, to evolve by adapting new methodology, and like missionaries, ascribe our barbaric brethren to our line of thinking. Draw them to our "religious" texts of science and observation. To help prove to them certain truths we hold to be self evident, but that they cannot agree upon. It is not enough to want our fellow Americans to be better stewards of our nation, we have to show them how to be. And we have to learn how to show them.

And even with a correct methodology, it will not be like flipping a switch and calling it a day. This is destined to be a hard fought battle spanning many years or decades. Akin to forcing the path of evolution for the human mind. Enlightenment is not some contest to be won, it is the struggle of our lifetime, perhaps the struggle to (re?)define our entire species. To become something better than we are today.

We must study the human mind, understand and overcome its limitations, and remain open to inviting to those who may some day seek to learn from us. A key we must learn in order to survive, is to not shut out and let our own bigotry condemn our fellow man. For if we do not strive to save as many as we can, then we ultimately doom ourselves in the end if we were not able to build a solid, new, majority.

 

[zinfamous]

Yup, which is why it pains me to see how people attempt to dismiss Science. It took us thousands of years and multiple complete collapses to get to where we are today and many of the very people who have benefited from all that are so willing to throw it all away to protect various disproved beliefs they hold dear. Maybe we'll turn it around, maybe our distant descendants will have a better go at it if we don't.

Science and Reason were moving like gangbusters at the turn of the first millennia, then the fanatics took over the armies and started murdering and repopulating entire nations in the name of their one true god. Strangely, some of those murderous god-armies maintained technological advancement, but the stasis of human progress that was "achieved" for the benefit of greater glorification of the true god throughout the ~thousand years-long dark ages in western Europe is one of those historic crimes against humanity that is never given the proper type of attention it deserves.

 

[Puffnstuff]

This thread needs a theme song.

 

[realibrad]

But what do you do when science says something that we dont like? For example how different genders tend to have different traits and are better/worse at things.

 

[interchange]

Human beings have an insatiable need to make sense of our experiences and add cohesion. When that task proves impossible, some of us will be frankly psychotic, convincing ourselves that the world works differently in ways that are demonstrably incompatible with reality rather than distortions of reality. Others will have a need to maintain external reality to such a degree that they will then disintegrate themselves. They dissociate, feeling disconnected, out-of-body, feeling that their experiences are unreal, and in extreme cases dissociating aspects of themselves into discreet identities.

Once we have found sense that resonates with us, we will try to shoehorn all data receive into that explanation even when cognitively aware that the explanation is wrong.

I don't think this is a terminal condition. We can, individually, challenge ourselves to consider other positions (even with data that conclusively proves they are also flawed) and empathize with those who differ from us. We can treat our fellow man as generally doing their human best and allow them chance to adapt over time by positive identification with individuals who hold more useful beliefs. And we don't have to think that this flawed cognition is necessarily bad. It is a mechanism for which humanity can bond together in common cause and use that bond to create structures and systems that endure beyond our immediate experiences. That capacity separates us from other animals which can even solve puzzles, use tools, learn language, but whose progress over time is locked to their biologic adaptation.

 

[vi edit]

But what do you do when science says something that we dont like? For example how different genders tend to have different traits and are better/worse at things.

Why even put a gender label on it? People are different. Whether that is a physiologic difference in strength or endurance, or how they they process and store information. The important part is understanding your own strengths and weaknesses and how those affect your life and ability to learn and grow as a person.

 

[Perknose]

Why even put a gender label on it? People are different. Whether that is a physiologic difference in strength or endurance, or how they they process and store information. The important part is understanding your own strengths and weaknesses and how those affect your life and ability to learn and grow as a person.

Well put!

 

[Moonbeam]

But what do you do when science says something that we dont like? For example how different genders tend to have different traits and are better/worse at things.

Are you trying to inflame an otherwise objective thread with some notion you think is unpopularly scientifically sound and using that excuse to try to slip in under my door. I demand that you list all the ways women are different from men and then tell me what difference that makes. Black is the absence of color and white is all of them. They differ only in the presence or absence of color but what relates them is the science of color. It not about black and white, it's about color. You are a linear thinker, an engineering pin head. You need to become more like women with their larger corpus callosum and thus greater hemisphere communication. You need to stop dissecting and learn to integrate, Men can have and nourish a feminine brain. Just don't tell me how Sally does her makeup.

 

[zinfamous]

But what do you do when science says something that we dont like? For example how different genders tend to have different traits and are better/worse at things.

I don't understand the premise of your question here. Are you suggesting this is somehow popularly rejected?

 

[vi edit]

I don't understand the premise of your question here. Are you suggesting this is somehow popularly rejected?

Whataboutism is a hell of a drug.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why even put a gender label on it?

Are you trying to inflame an otherwise objective thread with some notion you think is unpopularly scientifically sound and using that excuse to try to slip in under my door.

Because he's a fucking troll, which adds a wrinkle into a lot of psychology studies into the defense of the mind from irrational ideas. They don't take into account trolls, who are happy to spew shit and garbage everywhere they squirm in an attempt to either drag everyone down to their mental level, or just get some entertainment from people gnashing about.

 

[woolfe9998]

But what do you do when science says something that we dont like? For example how different genders tend to have different traits and are better/worse at things.

We accept the science. Period.

It's interesting that you choose gender as example of ignoring science rather than something like global warming or evolution. What scientific findings in relation to gender do you think are being ignored? Clearly you think there is something we are failing to acknowledge in this area or you wouldn't have chosen it as an example.

 

[woolfe9998]

Why even put a gender label on it? People are different. Whether that is a physiologic difference in strength or endurance, or how they they process and store information. The important part is understanding your own strengths and weaknesses and how those affect your life and ability to learn and grow as a person.

We should always acknowledge what science tells us. Where reasonable people can disagree is about what we do with that knowledge.

In the case of the biological gender gap, it's actually quite irrational to take scientific findings like there being a barely statistically significant difference in performance on math and science tests between the two genders to justify labeling one gender as "bad" at science because doing so only discourages talented individuals from pursuing it. We are all individuals on a bell curve, and the two genders tend to have bell curves which significantly overlap. The rational approach is always to empower individuals to get as near as possible to their maximum potential. Using scientific data to apply an over-generalized group stigma is totally contrary to that goal.

 

[realibrad]

Why even put a gender label on it? People are different. Whether that is a physiologic difference in strength or endurance, or how they they process and store information. The important part is understanding your own strengths and weaknesses and how those affect your life and ability to learn and grow as a person.

Because understanding groups helps create efficiencies. For example, men and women generally benefit from different teaching styles. It would be more efficient to test people based on their groups to see where they fall in terms of abilities. This would mean that there would be time saved by working off of general assumptions rather than testing every individual for their abilities. It would also mean that the outcomes would be weighted against what we know to biologically true. So say a particular field is dominated by a specific gender, we could not assume that its systemic racism and that it would require more evidence beyond a non 50/50 split.

 

[realibrad]

Are you trying to inflame an otherwise objective thread with some notion you think is unpopularly scientifically sound and using that excuse to try to slip in under my door. I demand that you list all the ways women are different from men and then tell me what difference that makes. Black is the absence of color and white is all of them. They differ only in the presence or absence of color but what relates them is the science of color. It not about black and white, it's about color. You are a linear thinker, an engineering pin head. You need to become more like women with their larger corpus callosum and thus greater hemisphere communication. You need to stop dissecting and learn to integrate, Men can have and nourish a feminine brain. Just don't tell me how Sally does her makeup.

People born XX do not get testicular cancer. It would be silly to test someone born with XX for that type of cancer no?

And no, I was not attempting to inflame. I was seeing how those that say they believe in empirical truths would quickly disagree with empirical truths.

Sally also has low cheek bones so she likes to contouring the shadowing upward to lift them.

 

[woolfe9998]

Because understanding groups helps create efficiencies. For example, men and women generally benefit from different teaching styles. It would be more efficient to test people based on their groups to see where they fall in terms of abilities. This would mean that there would be time saved by working off of general assumptions rather than testing every individual for their abilities. It would also mean that the outcomes would be weighted against what we know to biologically true. So say a particular field is dominated by a specific gender, we could not assume that its systemic racism and that it would require more evidence beyond a non 50/50 split.

You are using hypotheticals here, talking theoretically about some possible denial of some unspecified scientific findings. What science is being denied? Please be specific. Because if you can't be specific here, your input into the thread is meaningless because the topic of the thread has to do with people denying scientific findings. I'll make it easy for you: you are suggesting that there is denial of certain scientific findings regarding gender differences. Can you name one?

 

[interchange]

Science is far from infallible, and studies should be challenged and repeated and not inappropriately generalized. But science is and always will be the best we've got to understand problems and solutions.

 

[realibrad]

I don't understand the premise of your question here. Are you suggesting this is somehow popularly rejected?

Yes I am indeed. A prime example of this is the Google doc incident.

 

[realibrad]

We should always acknowledge what science tells us. Where reasonable people can disagree is about what we do with that knowledge.

Agreed.

In the case of the biological gender gap, it's actually quite irrational to take scientific findings like there being a barely statistically significant difference in performance on math and science tests between the two genders to justify labeling one gender as "bad" at science because doing so only discourages talented individuals from pursuing it. We are all individuals on a bell curve, and the two genders tend to have bell curves which significantly overlap. The rational approach is always to empower individuals to get as near as possible to their maximum potential. Using scientific data to apply an over-generalized group stigma is totally contrary to that goal.

Two things here. The data shows that men tend to do better and its more than barely statistically significant. Labeling women as bad at math would be a dumb statement, but saying women are just as good would also be wrong.

It is true that the male and female curves that significantly overlap, but if you are trying to say that its an insignificant difference where they diverge then you are wrong. Those at the extreme right-hand tail are dominated by men. It's true that the group represents a small subsection of the population, but those are the people that go onto much higher paying jobs as the competition for those skills is very high.

So, even though the data is clear, people feel weird about admitting that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Science gets put aside because the ideals of the society take precedent. That is not always bad though.