The evidence I have also indicates that everyone cherry-picks their evidence, and as a result, no one should ever be taken too seriously in their conclusions and convolutions. 😏
Except that what she said in the video suggests that a smart person would be even harder to argue with. Intelligent people put their minds hard at work to rationalise the idea away, make the new information conform to their world view..
@@sirhetmanpirate There is a limit. Averages are applied. A complete and utter idiot is impossible to reason with. A person of average intelligence is still capable of reasoning. You cannot explain how an electric heater works to a person who does not understand electricity.
@@sirhetmanpirate Also we're not aware of what they meant as "intelligent" person. From my experience, if you have the facts, an "intelligent" person would recognize that and adjust their point of view. But that's just a day-to-day observation.
@@sirhetmanpirate Yeah, exactly, the original comment kind of goes against what she says. So apparently, "dumber" people would be actually easy to convince of a different thing (said thing being good or not)
Get the feeling Doodle's a little too dumb to have any opinion of his own about vaccines? Parroting a playboy model and a discredited scientist doesn't really give a reason to think you have much of a brain.
Most peoples opinions are formed by someone else and not individually thought through at all. Thinking properly and really reasoning things out is a very difficult and energy consuming task because we're so used to being told what to think as opposed to bring encouraged to think for ourselves
Opinions arent thinking, they are passive faith that we are already right. Honest thought demands that we genuinely challenge our opinions in the attempt to prove ourselves wong, this is uncomfortable.
m0L3ify, damn, this comment blew me away farther than it should have. But, so fucking true, too. So many people have been spared pain, death and heartache. And refute the data before them or never learn of it. It's a sad testament.
Doodle Master man I want to just call you a fucking moron so bad but that in no way will help the situation. Do you believe in even the concept of vaccination? Are all vaccines fake or just some of them? If only some of them are fake, which ones? And do the diseases exist, or are they made up too? Like, does measles or polio exist?
Drosta Dorianin I think this is the wrong attitude. There are unfortunately at this point a large cohort of people really no different from your average person on the street in who have been persuaded that vaccines don't work. If this was confined to the "the earth is flat" type people that would be one thing, but unfortunately it's not. They're not really any less rational than the average person but they've ended up in this completely counterfactual bubble. So how do we deal with them? I'm not exactly sure, but insulting and toying with they isn't going to win them around, if anything just convince them they are right. A troll is someone just looking for a response, unfortunately most of the anti-vacc commenters really believe what they're saying.
Yep, it's dumb when a person can't get over themselves. Dumb because it's selfish. When a person is unware of anythingsother than their own selfish wants and needs, they aren't aware of much at all. Not being aware of much at all, that's what being dumb is. Boom.
almost nothing involving people and psychology s that simple. sometimes pride is involved, sometimes not. jumping to simple conclusions is an example of the kind of limited, non-scientific, and frankly lazy "thinking" discussed in this video.
"The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe." - Voltaire
@@adropofgoldensun27 There are many people on social media (possibly just a few using different handles), who repeat these quotes ad nauseam to appear "profound" to naive, semi-educated users. As a wise man said, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to use cliche quotes and remove all doubt.
@@The1stDukeDroklar Are you effing kidding me? Are you so naive to think that we're not aware of the fact that any Joe Schmo can google quotes online on any subject and become an instant quoting machine?
I love how everyone in the comment section seem to think that this video is about "the other side", without reflecting that it might be their own bias which make them not realize that there is confirmation bias on their own side.
KeshmanOrange, we have centuries of experience at determining which facts describe reality best. We know what works. It's called the Scientific Method.
+IncognitoTorpedo Yes what you say is true. Just be aware that confirmation bias can still play a part when an existing scientific principle or theory is questioned or seemingly proved wrong. As long as you are mindful of confirmation bias you can steer clear of it.
@@erezsolomon3838 It supposed to be a sarcasm (actually, more autoirony). If I'm correct, the author understood that, some others probably not that much.
I was taught in grad school that scientists don’t use the word “believe” because it implies that beliefs don’t require facts or data. I’ve never forgot that lesson.
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason...is like administering medicine to the dead...." Thomas Paine "The American Crisis" March 1788
@@1974jrod you don’t see the irony in the fact you are also coming from a standpoint in which you also believe you are using the authority of reason? When two people both believe they’re using the authority of reason, who’s to say which one of them is objectively using the authority of reason? The thought process you’re criticizing is also the same thought process you’re actually using yourself.
It’s frustrating as often I’ve expressed an interest in actually being open and learning about a subject deeper, because of you think about it, what do we really know about climate change or health policy for instance. And never had anyone take me up on this.
Arguing with anyone is not a good way so I say, "have you check your fact? No, than think what you will." Then I go on am way. My mother would tell you, "Never argue with an idiot as will just get you upset. Beat you head on a wall, does not solve the problem but it works just as well."
@@jhdk356 Then you would have a problem with me, I walk point my in Nam as a Marine and anyone that knows me knows I go by saying, "the only thing to fear is fear itself!" Or how is this one, "You only die once but a coward dies a thousand death!" Who are you to other than yourself?
@@bornanatheist8346 he’s right . Look at the power of religion,divisive politics, most humans are guided by self preservation. Facts are useless to the sheep. It’s depressing but society is built that way. I like the quote you mentioned but courageous heroes are used and not appreciated enough .
Little notes for myself: -Information is not the best way to convince people, why? => Confirmation Bias Eventually, polarization -Two people agrees => they become more confident about their view else => theirs view doesn't change much -The more intelligent you are, you are more likely to twist data to conform to what you already believe -In a state of disagreement, you don't have to debunk the contadictory view to convince people. Focusing on a different but relevant direction instead of the contradicting argument's center is more feasible, especially when something significant that has been ignored and shared as a common motive is showed.
@Music Authority What's your problem, are you one of those people who can't change their mind, and deep down you just realised it? And now you angry with the whole world, because of your own failing?
A willingness to change your mind when confronted with new evidence is one of the single most admirable traits I can think of. I’m always trying to catch myself when I see bias in my thought patterns. I’m always willing to hear your argument and give you the chance to change my mind as long as you’re using valid evidence of some kind. People need to beware the biases instilled by their parents/teachers/idols. We should always come to terms with the fact that the people who brought us up were humans too, and they don’t have all the answers either. This is what makes science so so valuable. Science is the personification of a person constantly trying to improve their opinion, and prove their self wrong. Science thrives on proving other science wrong or outdated. That’s what makes it the opposite of religion.
It's just not easy to cut thru our own biases n yrs of conditioning n yrs of brain washing. It takes a lot of attentive self awareness which most of us today, don hv time for. To reflect. To connect inward. Sometimes it takes practice to do self analysis.
Definitive Entertainment. I agree with you. I grew up in a cult church, that brain washed with fear, and guilt. Ten years after I left there, I found myself in an argument about religion with co-workers. I normally avoid this, but for some reason I heatedly responded. And stopped myself mid sentence. Apologized with, “I don’t even believe that, I don’t know why I’m arguing “. It was an eye opening moment. I try to be open minded, and learn every day. To me, that’s what science is. Because as long as we exist, we learn. I feel pity for the people I know who are in that religion still. It is voluntary, and any time I’ve attempted to rebuff their attempts at “bringing me back to jesus “, my arguments are met with a wall of almost violent “truth”. So, I let them be, and moved to a more open minded community. I guess I needed to get that off my chest. Whew! Lol.
@@verenahua4834 Depends on how old you are, and how ashamed. Motivated children can shed the cloak of brainwashing under a second if sufficiently disgusted by dogma. Adults too, if they feel deeply ashamed of having been misled. If you've become an adult without ever really thinking, and have now become prideful, then yeah - tough shit.
I had the misfortune of working with a guy who was very good at making arguments and influencing the top brass. I soon realized that he never let facts get in the way of his arguments. Some of us who were technical experts knew he was a fraud. He even cost me my job after I called him out on it. Since he had won over top management he had that kind of “credibility” to affect people’s standing within the company. He would plant seeds of lies about people who were a threat to him. However, facts eventually caught up with him and he was fired, but not without the wake of damage he had caused.
Kinda like Religion - zero evidence of anything yet "he is coming any day now" and even uneducated goat-herders realize that the boy crying wolf is just playing with them, educated, intelligent people of the 21st century, no less, drool over this promise Or of course, there is Heaven - billions of lazy people sponging off God for eternity - living a life of ease & comfort just like prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/freeloaders do down here - an idle, useless, pointless existence for eternity! And again those who questioned such promises were mass murdered in the past - still getting abused and killed in countries like Pak and Bangladesh
Everything is subjective. I don't have an omniscient perspective on reality and I'm quite sure neither do you. We use the scientific method to arrive at a common, demonstrable and identifiable truth. The theory of relativity for example depends on the inertial frame of reference. No two points share one. Also your misuse of the phrase 'my truth' shows you haven't seriously looked at its origins and uses. Might as well use 'woke' and 'literally' to mean whatever you personally want.
@@thomascromwell6840 I think you're nit picking here, bud. Things are not subjective, but our interpretations of them are. The person you're correcting is actually right, but they didn't use the best language
Lol. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two groups of youtube commenters. a) the eloquent b) the rest The eloquent group presents their views smartly, coherently, succinctly, and quotes evidence. They are genuinely interested in expressing their views even if they may or may not be interested in changing opinions. This is probably 1% of all the commenters. The 99% of the rest, are just that. "Fuck you", "you're a stupid twat", "STFU", "*penis picture*", etc. These are the ones you have to actively censor out of your view because they are just 'noise'. They are not interested in expressing their views partly because they have none, or they aren't smart enough to have the vocabulary to do so, they just wanted some attention. I must say I've learned some stuff from youtube commenters and I enjoy debating with people. I don't want to "win" any argument, I consider myself a winner just for finding another intellectual who isn't out to berate me with every argument, but merely to convey their views.
_"Do you BELIEVE in climate change"_ is a bad choice of words for that question. Belief should have NOTHING to do with it, at all. A better question would be *_"Do you ACCEPT the science of climate change?"_* The follow-up is _"Why do you deny the science of climate change?"_
I do accept that climate change exists, but I don't accept it's caused by men, just accelerated by us. The earth is the temperature it is because many years ago this big frappin rock collided with the earth, sending dust and debris into the upper atmosphere for hundreds of years, in effect cooling the planet and sending it into an ice age. We are now at the tail end of this ice age, the earth naturally warming. So we need one of two things.... A big frappin rock, or to figure out some way to block the cosmic rays bombarding our planet, because i really don't think solar panels and wind mills can save us...
@@MrSpiritchild If you are willing to listen to an excellent series of videos that explain how/why we know the mankind's burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the current (and future) climate change, then you will understand why most all deniers arguments are false. Watch videos by Potholer: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-52KLGqDSAjo.html
Ego is a big problem as well, some people don't want to "give in" and don't easily admit they are wrong (subconsciously, selectively filtering information. wanting to be right). I always try not to have any "interests" or get too emotional/personal. I don't mind being wrong. I'd rather be wrong then lie to myself.
So right, ego effects everything. Not just discussions but all kinds of areas, especially the work place. Managers that dismiss ideas only to regurgitate them as their own. People that have to inject their own spin on an idea to feel like it's their's. Arguing semantics to somehow 'win' an argument (happens a lot on yt). Dismissing or belittling is a big tactic for dragging down others. It's all driven by ego.
"Just giving information without first considering where they are coming from may backfire at us." In other words, even if we find someone's beleifes repulsive we have to consider their upbringing and perspectives and not come off as threatening. Then we can begin to convice them of our own points and perspectives.
Early in my career as a systems and hardware design engineer I knew another older engineer who used to joke (he was joking about why some system designs fail), "Change the facts to match the theory" , in other words, don't do that. When designers cherry pick data to match their system performance expectations the result can be bad outcomes (fatal outcomes for Avionics systems, bridges and so on) .
The problem being that in situations for which large numbers of people need to be convinced of the facts, not just people that know what they're talking about, alternative methodologies to plain statements of fact need to be used. Facts don't easily get assimilated by the majority of people. Even simple ones.
Honestly I come away from this just distressed at people's inability to change their minds or take in new and opposing data. This should be our biggest focus, we should be teaching ourselves constantly how to listen to opposing information and re-evaluate our positions.
Changing one's mind, admitting you were wrong, admitting you've been fooled, etc., is incredibly painful. It causes a thing called cognitive dissonance: the discomfort of holding two ideas in your head that cannot possibly both be true. Human brains are designed to hate and avoid that feeling. I'm not sure you can teach them to do the opposite.
@@woutertron I’m not so sure. I grew up with an awareness of my own cognitive dissonance. Or at least a habit of deliberately trying to recognize them. Maybe that helps? I’m quite comfortable with some of my cognitive dissonances.
It basically said to not fight the other person's opinion directly, but to use arguments that would support another part of the person's fear (keeping kids safe from measles etc).
The very last part did show how to cut through: appeal to emotion. Show them the horror of the disease. Then see if they can accept responsibility for allowing their child to suffer that way. It's using an emotional tactic instead of a an intellectual tactic. Tough love.
I've heard this attributed to several different sources, nevertheless, it remains true : " When an honest man is proven wrong, he either stops being wrong, or, he stops being honest".
The purpose was to measure how people doubled down in thier biases after being given new information, and it pretty much showed that it didn’t matter what information they got, they only chose to believe what was convenient to them
Her point was that if the lie confirms your believe you will accept it as a fact without question, and if it does not confirm with your believe you just don't listen. In this it actually does not matter if it is a lie, it is about accepting something which does not follow your logic.
And here’s an example of someone immediately responding with a superficial emotional reaction instead of looking at the reasoning and results behind something.
GREAT commentary! I learned a long time ago that being able to find common ground was essential to building bridges! I also found out that simply acknowledging someone's experience, pain or beliefs is also a bridge-building skill.
Spot on. If you truly want to change someone's perspective, you absolutely always have to start with the common ground you share. The bonus is that sometimes starting at this point will help you realize that it was actually you that was incorrect the whole time.
This is actually consistent with the evolutionary processes that led to the development of reason. Check out "The Enigma of Reason" - Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. According to them, the purpose of reason is not to find the truth, but rather to convince, others and oneself.
"The Enigma of Reason" is probably the best (but quite difficult...) read about the "Confirmation Bias" topic. But on chapter 15 - "The Bright Side of Reason" they explain how, through argumentation in a group of people with different very view points, the "dark side" of reason, among it, confirmation bias, can be overcome...
This is a very good point! In our inner self we want to be right, we want to be "good". Therefore we use our reasoning to convince ourselves and others that we are right. It's always about self-consistency. You want to be at equilibrium with yourself and dissenting new information disturbs that. It takes effort and work to adjust your opinions and behavior to integrate the new information into your inner self and be balanced again. Because it is very easy to dismiss climate change, seemingly without (immediate) consequence, we tend to choose that as it is cheaper than changing our way of life.
We usually start from a set of premises which are arbitrarily cut from our tapestry of life experience and which are informed by all kinds of more primitive limbic tendencies and then we reason from them like they were true and like we’ve come up with a further truth. But, yesit’s about convincing more than about truth. Mark Twain said, “Tell the truth and you’ll be alone.” So, there’s not so much incentive to tell the truth. We are social creatures. Makes sense we would relegate truth telling to where it’s safer, such as in plays and writing and music.
Usually but not always. Some people like myself are obsessed with objectivity. My aim really, honestly, truly is to find the truth. My ego is built on being correct, not "right". If the evidence changes, or I realize I thought about the evidence wrong, I'll change my mind on the spot. I know I'm severely in the minority though.
Yes, of course, lying to people and manipulating them works to get them to "yes." Every used car salesman knows it. One wonders if the speaker was careful to check her own preconceptions, and make certain her own "intelligence" is not leading her astray.
Chris, you probably did. It would have just been called "bias" back then.... as in, the tendency to pick and choose what one wants to accept as true. Example: "No point telling them, they're biased". Confirmation Bias is simply a more explored concept for the same phenomenon.
From hearing this video I was left with the following realization: Conversation is pretty much useless and the only way to get someone to do what you want is to leave out details they don't want to hear.
Currently, there seems to be another way - arrest and a few weeks of confinement following a felony indictment. Jessica Watkins said something about never wanting to hear of the Oath Keepers again and just wanting to make sandwiches and serve drinks in her bar. Sounds convinced to me. That wasn’t the result of a conversation.
@@SamsonDerrer Funny, I thought someone would eventually think I was a Mormon because of my RU-vid name. Nope, never was a Mormon or even religious. And I don't live anywhere near where Mormons are known to live.
@@SamsonDerrer Funny, I thought someone would eventually think I was a Mormon because of my RU-vid name. Nope, never was a Mormon or even religious. And I don't live anywhere near where Mormons are known to live.
@@brigham2250 I always thought that Brigham is a rad name! its a bit charged now though lol. my name is also religious obviously. im not super religious myself
This was very insightful. I often wonder what it takes to convince someone of something. I like to say that I am more interested in finding truth than I am in confirming my biases, yet I must admit that despite this I am often very resistant to information that does not confirm what I already believe and I must work to control that impulse. How much more so, then, must people who have not consciously decided to pursue truth at the expense of previously held beliefs!
What seem to be your best methods? I know when; I'm simply nodding my head on a multi faceted subject (pretty much everything) I need further education. Had a fabulous deep dive on AI. I can feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that no one knows. Understanding, within my ability to do so, each "camp's" reasoning makes me feel my opinion is at least reasonable. Okay...it also let's me laugh and make up fabulously wild suppositions always prefaced with I'm totally making this up.
I think it means that all truth is subjective. Therefore any one person’s opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Apart from its manifest nonsense, this concept, if taken to its logical conclusion, would completely undermine scientific inquiry.
@WorldFlex Right. The answers change but not the observed phenomena. Ever wonder why there’s no “maybe” key on a debit machine? I’ve always wondered why holding two contradictory statements to both be true doesn’t create cognitive dissonance in some people. I still can’t figure that one out.
When the first words out of her mouth were, "So, most of us think that information is the best way to convince people of OUR truth," I suspected the subjective treatment of truth would find its way into her presentation. Naturally, every political issue she presented had a progressive bias, and worse, she suggested that people who disagree with the way those issues are framed don't belong to the smart set. So typical.
Subjective truth is the only real truth we can know. Human’s, by nature are emotional creatures. Even if you think you are a logical person who can objectively look at facts there are still several problems: - By believing you have an objective outlook you already have a confirmation bias regarding the information you take in. - Most of the information you will come across in life will be second hand. The nature of the scientific method is the ability for each individual to replicate an experiment so that they can observe and come to their own conclusions. - Even if you do an experiment or experience something for yourself other people have not, thus making your experience a subjective truth. There is an objective truth but we can never fully KNOW that truth,we can only BELIEVE that we are correct in our information. Besides, what the video is talking about is trying to get people who disagree on something to agree on it. Note that agree and disagree are defined by shared or differing opinions; and opinions are subjective.
"The common motive" IE Appeal to emotion. They dont care about facts, but show what can happen to their kids if they dont, and suddenly they want to do it. You used emotion, in this case, fear, to change their minds.
@@SteveWithers Am I? Showing someone that they could be exposing their kids to a horrible death via measles / polio. What emotion do you think that would evoke? joy? She's spinning it like just not talking about autism was the fix, when really it was terror and horror. I mean you want to see terror being used to convince people to get a needle, turn on the tv. It seems to work on MOST people.
One problem I see going on is the lack of trust in professionals such as scientists and doctors. When presented with studies and data, people question the validity of them, which stems from how some companies and organizations present their information to be more favorable to their argument. Unless the audience is knowledgeable in those topics, it can be difficult for them to understand if those information makes sense or not. Besides confirmation bias, I think the distrust of corporations and organizations is another big factor.
I find it interesting that this "new" discovery from the data supports what Dale Carnegie wrote about almost a hundred years ago in "How to win friends and influence people": He calls it "getting two 'yes'es before a 'no'". It's also a form of "priming". Also known as manipulation. Someday, hopefully the human species will have matured enough that manipulation isn't a common occurrence.
That will not happen any time soon. Most of human progress is focused around questions of how to more fairly produce and distribute resources and power. The better we balance people's resources and power the more manipulation becomes the only reliable way to dominate others and win conflicts. When society advances so much that you can't force people to do things with your power and wealth, powerful people turn to manipulation of human emotions and nature. I think that as human society progresses more, brute force will be replaced by even more manipulation.
The top religions of the day make promises that they very well know can never be verified - but where is the common sense? Billions sitting about doing nothing? An idle, useless & pointless existence for eternity? Every time i ask - so what does one DO in Heaven? Can you describe a DAY? JUST ONE DAY? Theists run away The amazing thing is that the media, the educated DO NOT ASK SUCH A QUESTION! The media is always happy to ask questions that religious people are more than happy to answer - will I be happy in Heaven? But of course! you will be soooooo happy, everything will be so wonderful! Amazing and horrifying that billions of highly educated fall for this ponzi-scheme over and over
@FrogRay Most human problems are not caused or solved by redistributing resources. The reason we think they are is because our Paleolithic instincts are focused on preventing someone in the tribe from getting too much power and taking all the deer meat. The reason we can’t solve big problems like climate change is because people aren’t interested in problems unless there’s a powerful oppressive bad guy and a virtuous good guy.
What she said is true.. a good example is herself.. if woke people stopped preaching climate change then probably more people would be open to the idea.
lol Theist: "There is a God" Scientist: "There is no evidence of such a being" Theist: "But, but, but I need to live an eternal life of comfort & ease, like prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/freeloaders live down here. There HAS TO BE a Sugar Daddy in the sky"(smashes the Scientists skull with a crowbar) Theists win
@@PatrickPease No, no Heaven or Hell either - primitive ideas from primitive people sadly being blindly followed by even the best of minds There is no magic Retirement Home in the sky where billions will get to just sit around chatting - an idle, useless & pointless existence for eternity THERE IS ONLY ONE WORLD! THIS ONE! THE ONE GOD MADE FOR US
Intelligent people are more likely to skew data analytics and recommendation’s to align with their beliefs or convictions. That is why social papers need to be reviewed from a critical perspective. Opposite Political views need to be embraced for social cohesion in the review process. Even current social peer reviews demonstrate confirmation bias.
It's honestly horrible that autism is considered a tragedy and to be avoided at all costs. The people who think that just don't want to deal with people with different needs and minds than their own and either outright reject people with differences or do so indirectly by negligence and baked-in ableism
I don't think it's unreasonable for people not to want that for their children or for anyone's children. Autistics have demonstrated some incredible gifts that may come along with their condition, but I imagine few people would feel these qualities or heightened abilities could outweigh the various struggles the person could face or have exacerbated as a result of their idiosyncrasies--im sure it's different for everyone, but parents don't know how the condition will affect their ability to understand and communicate with other people, take care of themselves, or succeed in school or work, and those are all important to their overall welfare. Parents just don't want the people they raise to have unnecessary roadblocks to the things they want and what they'll need, and they know autism would be likely to present someone with some serious challenges and impediments
I also think the phrase “scientists have found” has been so over used that people no longer trust it, especially with different conclusions tied to the a positive answer for the finder of the study.
@@bkf8166 Well, depends on the “scientist”. Most of the ones you hear about these days are demons in scientist garb. Follow the money my friend. Peace.
@@bkf8166 The devil is financing science. That is what I meant, to spell it out. The devil has funds. Bill Gates’ grandfather was the head of the Rockefeller foundation takeover of US medicine in the early 1900s. A good rabbit hole to investigate 🕳
This sounds so incredibly condescending and enabling. "Hey vaccines cause autism so I'm not vaccinating my child." "Well in that case I'm totally deflecting this point which indicates that you're correct, ma'am. But here take a gander at this measles pic. Measles bad, vaccines good." What's next? "Yes you're totally right, Nazism was a leftist movement as you noted the socialist in their very name, but you see, violent, ultranationalist movements are more typical of the right wing so that's what we should fight instead." "I mean of course this book you worship is correct and I'm in the wrong for not believing in it, but hey how about we still go against it and just don't enforce your holy laws on everybody else?" This just sounds like the Imperiatus curse with extra steps. Where I come from we don't fight stupid with cheap manipulation - we fight stupid with skepticism, demonstration, and fact-checking.
That, unfortunately, involves critical thinking and an open mind. Today, technology has made it easier to live in a one-voice bubble and education is going backwards. We're starting to teach kids to avoid books and issues that don't fit our thinking, rather than allowing them to learn critical thinking and read everything.
@@dm-2194 Now we're getting ino philosophy - things that have been held to be facts have later been shown not to be true. This is something that happens in the light of new discoveries.
It's hard to tell now if my skepticism towards this lecture stems from my own prior convictions negating the facts presented or are valid arguments aginst some of these facts. I guess now is the time to check my beliefs against other sources...
The "fact" that you are questioning the accuracy of you own current thoughts shows at least some understanding of the subject object distinction which will prevent you from falling into the trap of the dunning kruger effect and being stuck in a world of ignorance through confirmation bias. Your mental toughness to not be in an emotional panic during times of uncertainty is key for your intelligence. So I concur with your thoughts. However I am of course not totally certain about that...
I will tell you, what she is saying is absolutely fact because I have tested these theories using different types of communication. Understanding this creates better conversations and relationships. I have had many people tell me that they could not ever discuss politics or religion with a person who opposes their views before. I have people calling me (who do not agree with my views) so they can discuss our differences. Sometimes it's very enjoyable, but other times it's quite a struggle. These techniques are pretty simple to understand but not easy to employ.
If you are like me, you bristled against the this talk because she really tips her hat as to which side of the political spectrum she's on in the first few seconds, in a video that has the word "bias" right in the title. I guarantee every one of us would agree that if she votes, she's likely to vote left. In a talk about bias you should never, ever give this away. You should appear 100% neutral. She makes some good points in the talk but like me, you probably didn't like the fact she never once talked about reasonable skepticism stemming from hearing only one side of a debate. You will never get me to 100% buy in to anything at all if you only give me one side.
While I tend to agree with your sentiment, I cannot help but ask - did you check your facts? Are you referencing any data on general IQ of the population or statistics on fact-checking skills distribution? Or merely anecdotal evidence?
Nick Stor no I was making a general point that many people just are uninformed and dont like their core beliefs challenged and on top of that don't know how to fact check or cross reference sources.
Yes, I understand that. I specifically intended to address the possible source of that idea. I myself am fascinated by the process of learning and frequently found myself unable to pinpoint the source of some "facts" I thought were true. Some things are just "obvious", like your point is. The problem is unless we have at least some data we cannot make that kind of statements. Otherwise we just engage in precisely the topic of this video.
Humans are smart in general. Do you think stupidity would cause a rather physically weak, poorly weaponized and protected body to become the dominant species? Fact checking is hard on an individual basis as most scientific facts that people can even point to is only thought true due to trust in the method and those who do study and report it. I have no way to confirm most scientific facts other than to trust others. The issue isn't some particular person wising up to facts, but society as a whole over time.
Home Wall im not talking about the physiology of human evolution. Im talking about being able to cross reference facts and simple research rather than whichever blog agrees with your narrative or biases. It's quite easy to do
Gotta love how they're lecturing us on how confirmation bias works then proceeds to list incredibly partisan and frankly petty opinions- like how many people were at the Presidential inauguration.
hi ..I'm clearly an opinionated leftist ..let me tell you why if you disagree w me you are wrong and i am right. By you have the confirmation bias not me..This is either propaganda or the person is utterly dishonest w themselves
@@calvin2032 while I respect that sentiment, neuroscience has a very problematic history of reverse inference and bad methods as it relates to detecting higher order cognitive tasks.
Perhaps you're interpreting "encode" a different way than it was meant. I infer from the video that it simply means that a brain scan shows heightened activity in particular regions, whereas I infer from your comment that you are thinking of it as something much more specific. Clearly we all have memories, and I think we can all accept that those memories are stored in the brain. Some process is going on in the brain, and I don't think "encode' is such a bad word to use to represent it.
Agreed. Rather than discuss the psychological implications of what's being presented most of these morons want to complain about "liberals". Feels like we're living in a George Orwell novel... :-(
Chris Stacey Well,if yoy examine geopolitics(hydrogeopilics in particular:Gwynne Dyer,Sandra Postel,Guy McPherson,..)we are half-way there. And Orwell's final warning...
"...Convince people of our truth". There is no "our truth", there is truth, untruth and hypotheses. This falls in the same vein as "settled science", when in truth, no science is ever settled.
The term "settled science" is contextual and nuanced. Typically, the only people who deride the use of the term are those who are incapable of nuance and can only grasp concepts that fit on bumper stickers and yard signs (I'm not saying you're one such limited thinker, though your comment indicates that the possibility is quite real). Because yes, in a practical sense, science is often "settled." Science is "settled" where CAGW is concerned, for example, the same way that the science on electricity or vaccines or gravity is "settled." We may always have more to learn about those or any other subjects, but we have an empirical, functionable, practicable understanding of all three of them. We're not suddenly going to discover that electricity doesn't actually work the way we have been using it for the past century and a half, or that it was magic faeries and not vaccines that largely eradicated a number of serious diseases, or that the reason we stick to the ground is because there's a layer of magic pixie dust in the atmosphere that keeps us from floating off into space. The science is "settled" enough on CAGW that we can turn data and theory into action. We're not going to wake up tomorrow and find out that decades of empirical data on those subjects have just all been misinterpreted, nor are we going to uncover some vast global conspiracy trying to foist non-existent CAGW on the public for sinister and nefarious reasons. That's just not how the real world works. So yes, the science is settled. The planet is warming at an exponential and historically-unprecedented rate, and human activity since the Industrial Age is the cause of it. Period. Done. That is as settled as any other scientific principle that underpins every aspect of life in the 21st century. The only question is whether we recognize this fact, or whether we use phrases like "the science is never settled" as excuses to keep ignoring the problem. Saying "the science is never settled" is like young Earthers saying "evolution is just a theory": it's a misuse of specific terms and it typically indicates a broader misunderstanding about what science is and how it works. No one who actually knows what "theory" means and understands evolutionary theory would try to dismiss it by saying "it's just a theory." Only people who don't know what "theory" means or how evolution works would say something like that. Using "the science is never settled" where CAGW is concerned is the same kind of weak argument. The science on CAGW is ABSOLUTELY settled. Despite what some outliers say (outliers who are almost always leveraging paychecks off of clickbait, subscription fees, and likes and shares), the consensus is overwhelming. If there really was any credible evidence disproving CAGW, researchers would be scrambling over each other to be the first to share it. That's how the real world works.
@@christheghostwriter "So yes, the science is settled. The planet is warming at an exponential and historically-unprecedented rate, and human activity since the Industrial Age is the cause of it. Period. Done. That is as settled as any other scientific principle that underpins every aspect of life in the 21st century. The only question is whether we recognize this fact, or whether we use phrases like "the science is never settled" as excuses to keep ignoring the problem." Except, it's not. And that's where the issue is, climate has changed far more rapidly in the past, before man stepped upon the earth and more rapidly than now even when man was here but had little or no means to change anything. Is man changing it currently? Probably. Is he changing it so much that it's spinning out of control and there is no reversing it? Probably not. Considering that we are still in a currently receding ice age, making the claim that "only man has caused this" and that it's settled science is, well, unscientific. Despite the claim that "97% of scientists agree" they don't. It's split fairly evenly. What is not split is the vast amount of governmental funds around the world flowing to those who say it's entirely man made. Let's say it is, is a kill all carbon emissions right this second the right way to go? Or should we move to alternatives first (which, btw, the same people oppose unless it's wind and solar). So no, the science on this is not "settled", despite your protestations to the opposite.
Our dear president, donald j. trump, likes his briefings giving only with pictures, videos and charts, and he will often interrupt the meetings with questions and unrelated asides - i.e., like his superior win in the 2016 elections:)
I think the biggest point is how much information the other person is being exposed to while in an suseptible state. I found that people are more likely to change their mind about something that I'm arguing against when I calm them down 1st. Usually I do this by signaling to them, in some way, that I'm not attacking their intelligence, I'm just trying to share information. No one listens when they feel angry and embarrassed.
Without correct initial axioms, I can have a huge complex sound and correct logic system giving me false results (Garbage in => garbage out). Hence we have to be careful having 100% faith in logic, specially when the axioms are shaky.
"We gave people information and, as a result, it caused polarization" - you gave different people different sets of data, how could you expect them to "come together"?!
The point was, the two groups (of the four) who had false data that should have brought them closer to agreement did no such thing, while the other two groups that had false data that should have pushed them farther apart were actually pushed apart
You misunderstood. Group A and Group B were split again. Half of Group A were given information X and the other half information Y. In the end you have Groups AX, AY, BX & BY. All combinations were covered. She could have been more clear when describing the groups as agreeing or disagreeing. I too thought she meant that it meant Group A and B were in more agreement. What she means is Group AX would be in agreement of the given information while Group AY would be in disagreement with the information. It is about agreeing with the made up data that was presented, not an agreement between the weak or strong believers.
My friend is a really smart guy, who loves facts and argue with people. But one day, after so many storms in his path, he asked me what characteristcs i had that made me be able to be inside different groups. I said: You dont really have to know all the facts, you just have to know their feelings and start from that.
facts might not win fights, but fights aren't about winning or losing, its about solving the problem. it doesn't matter if people are separating or "polarizing" because at the end of the day we all want the facts. i'd rather be told a hard truth so i could get my mind thinking to problem solve, rather than being lied to so we can just "come together" and live at peace in our own minds. for example, at the end of the video, she was talking about how parents were not convinced to vaccinate their kids because of the link with autism. she said that when they told the parents that there are no issues and gave facts about vaccinations, the parents were still not convinced. she then went to talk about how once they didn't bring autism up at all and just talked about benefits, that the parents were then interested in vaccines. now there are a few issues with what she brought up^^^^. she refers to the study above to prove the same point that facts don't win fights. I found this wrong because she is saying that schools recommending parents to vaccinate their kids, is fighting. This isn't fighting at all. This is a matter of keeping the kids safe with vaccines but also advising parents of any risks. you can't just tell the parents the benefits to convince them to vaccinate their kids. you're not trying to sell them on something. you are trying to inform them and get the best outcome in the end. giving straight facts might scare people off, but that is a personal problem for the person who is scared off. if the parent is not taking the precautions to vaccinate their kids because they can't get the information to their head, that's their fault, the schools don't have to lie to them to get them to vaccinate their kids. now you might be thinking that the school is doing a good thing in the end because they are helping out the parents who aren't getting it to their heads, and in this situation i agree too, but if you apply it to any other situation, it's just the oldest marketing trick in the book because of how the brain works. list as many pros as possible and leave out any cons so the consumer will be pulled to it more. i think this is a wrong tactic for communication because its not normal communication anymore. your now a salesperson and willing to exclude information and not be completely truthful, just so we can "come together". now remember, we are human and we can't all "come together". thats not natural. people will always have different beliefs and will always form different beliefs, so misleading people just to "win" the fight, is wrong especially if it's just simple communication. plus there is no "winning" in the end. now im not completely knocking the video because it did have useful information. she was completely right about how the brain works, but there could be much better intentions you could use this information for, like building a business or even something small, like growing a social media account. knowing how the brain receives information is very useful for ALL fields.
If you want to solve problems then understand that people are not like you and that stating facts has a polarizing effect (opposite from "solving").. so don't be stubborn and adopt to the situation, change strategy accordingly. Also you dont seem to get that initial problem occurs in differentiating true from false facts. People's biases tend to deny the obvious.
'at the end of the day we all want the facts.' I wish that were true. Purely inquisitive open minds are very rare if not non-existent. Almost everyone wants to surround themselves with information that confirms their own bias. So by talking about pros and cons that are unrelated to their main bias' talking points, you have the slim possibility of getting through their defenses.
3:35 - 3:54 This is a very interesting point. It shows that intelligence and rationality are completely separate. It reminds me of the Orthogonality Thesis in AI research. Intelligence in AI research simply refers to how effective an agent is to achieve its goals. It says nothing of how "intelligent" or stupid that goal may be. This fits well with this idea. An intelligent person is simply better at arguing their case, thus reaching their goal. Changing your goal is what's so difficult.
Not completely. If that were the case you could easily point out a living being that has ant level intelligence but is demonstrably able to use reason. But you can't, because they aren't. Were you trying to point out that intelligence and rationality aren't synonyms rather than separate, as in unrelated?
I think that's a bit exaggerated. An intelligent person is able to spin better, sure, but it wasn't said if he is doing this on purpose or subconsciously! Which is a big difference. I am pretty good ad this, you can give me any position and I can defend it, even switch sides in the middle of the discussion, but I still know the "truth" and if I am actively working against it or not. Of course I tend to stick to my beliefs, too, but when overwhelming evidence is presented, I relent. Deep down you just know.
@@Puschit1 But that's the whole point. You can be completely wrong and not realize it, continuing to argue against the evidence because deep down "you just know" that you're right. That's what's so dangerous.
@@DirtyPoul Sure, but the video implies that intelligent people are more susceptible to this which I don't agree with. You need intelligence in the first place to get closer to the truth. You might fail like everyone else and you might be able to spin better but you don't run an overall greater risk. Just have a look at the US: More educated people tend to vote blue, lower intelligence tends to be attracted to MAGA. Interlectuals on both sides are equally able to spin everything according to their agenda but bet everything I have that most of these right wing interlectuals pretty much know what's going on. They just go with it because there is money and power to be grabbed.
You've confirmed my belief (formed about half way through)! People are wired up to win fights, more than they are, to measure up the world around them. And for most people, an argument is a fight, not a mutual search for the truth.
@@akashtandel9633 Thanks. Yes, sure. No need to quote me. If the words express your own thoughts on the matter, you can just use them. (It's not a paper or something, just a conversation of sorts?)
1:11. She was on shaky ground by immediately talking about two things that are associated almost exclusively with the right, then lost me completely when she equated believing in climate change with believing in the Paris Accord. You can fully be in agreement that manmade climate change is a thing, yet disagree that the Paris Accord is a good thing in so far as the ROI on that particular approach to tackling the problem. This is ironic to see in a video titled "How to cut through confirmation bias". If I could tell with a high degree of probability which side of the political aisle she most likely identifies with in the first 10 seconds, she is not the right person to be giving this talk. Jesus, this talk is getting worse and worse. She says "we said the scientists re-evaluated the data and now conclude things are now actually much worse than we thought before", then says another group was told the opposite. Any rational person would think: "Re-evaluate? You mean they looked at the same data and look it completely differently now? Why should I trust that this interpretation is right and the other was wrong, and what about the last few years when you guys were pounding the table and we believed you?" type deal. We should also think "Why am I only being told one side of this story?". I never, ever 100% buy in to anything I only hear one side of. Beyond that, climate change is a bad example to use, since it's so grey. Drop a thumble full of water on me vs a barrel full. Both technically get me wet but are markedly different. Climate change is a massive umbrella that we like to break down, as she ironically does here, in terms of a simple binary. It's much more nuanced than that. Flat earth would be a much better example than climate change. Flat earth is a definitive yes/no issue. Gun control is not either. On a societal level or personal level? Walking down a dangerous dark alley it's better to have a gun than not, but on a mass level it's less safe. Nuance, people! As a truly politically homeless person, stuff like this is frustrating beyond belief. In a talk like this I should not be able to figure out which side of the political spectrum you are on in the first few seconds. The point she makes about more intelligent people being able to interpret data in a way that supports their already held position is interesting, and probably spot on. This is more like what the rest of the talk should've been about because she's saying it in a non partisan way. It's not so much that what she's saying is "wrong" in any of it, but more about how you shouldn't tip your political beliefs in a sub 5 minute talk about bias.
They didn’t tell the two groups opposing information. I’m fact there’s were four groups. The strong believers were split into two groups that have opposing information. Same with the weak believers. And the disagreement or agreement wasn’t with other groups, it was if they agreed/disagreed with the data given. An environmentalist being told that the earth wasn’t going to warm much would have their opinion moved very little, but if the same person were told it was much worse than originally anticipated, their opinion would become much more entrenched.
I'd say you're intellectually homeless too 🙁 it's clear you did not understand the study being performed or the message being conveyed. What's that saying about forests and trees?
@@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 Yeah but they have a trap. They've created a sort of logic circle because if you point out when they have been incorrect, they'll say that's only because of the preventative measures they helped put in place. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong but there's no way to tell, and no way they'd ever accept any notion other than theirs.
Actually, you should include the source of the information as a strong factor in the study that can drastically change the results of your conclusions. Vaccination and climate change could be good examples to choose to make your point but unfortunately, both are politicized which means logic can't apply to them. Let's take the example of the vaccine, can't any one see that there is an obsession about vaccine(s) and CLEARLY ignoring other deadly issues. Statistically speaking obesity, smoking, drugs, wars, violence due to poverty... are way worse than either the COVID or other issues that need vaccination. IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY TO SOLVE THESE issues(My opinion). Some people like me make up their minds because there is a process in our heads that leads to confusion when we seat on the balcony and try to see the full picture. Focusing on one issue and ignoring millions of others is something that can trigger anyone who puts little thinking into it. I can find millions of examples of how the media and these "research" studies are controlled by lobbyists, especially in the US. I am well educated, I am not conservative, I am not liberal. I don't belong to any political party, I just see things and try to make sense of them. People don't accept the vaccine(s) not because they doubt its effectiveness but because they don't trust the system due to what I mentioned above.
Yeah you are right. If someone doesn't trust the government and government tells them to take the vaccine then it is obvious they will refuse. No matter the data, people will find evidence to align with their own views and will stick to their ideas. Now that some governments are making it mandatory without taking the public in confidence then it is like adding fuel to the fire.
"I'm not interested in facts. I find they tend to cloud my judgement. I prefer to rely on instincts and blind prejudice" (Steward Lee's The Taxi driver argument.)
funny how the earth has 30 degree swings in temperature daily when the sun rises and sets. And the left says the world will end if it warms up another degree or two! like heat radiating out into space never happens, hahaha.
Damn, making sure people think the right things sure sounds like tough work! Thank God they're doing all this research to solve the awful problem of independent thought!
wow so “independent thought” = “fact-proof stupidity incapable of learning”... yea I think we agree on that, it’s been true for eveyone who whines ‘independent thought’.
@@schmoborama You're right, propaganda doesnt exist. Whatever programming the news puts out is the irrefutable cutting edge of knowledge and social discourse!
Yes, I frequently find that most people I encounter are much more concerned with defending their presumptions rather than critically interpreting the data and the validity of their inferences as well as other people's inferences. The only times that felt like fruitful argumentation/brainstorming was occurring was typically when the topic at hand was very narrow and not overtly interfering with their values and worldview. In those times, which are fun, it feels more like a collaboration to collectively scrutinize data and efficiently employ rational inferences.
I keep asking what does one DO in Heaven? Like in what kind of WORK? And why would an allmighty being need any work to be done? I was also threatened with Hell by a Christian - it seems who I am as a person does not matter - so I ask - does that include Children? Babies? babies! old people? Pregnant women? So the after life is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany for billions of Atheists, Hindus and others? set apart based on belief and dumped into gas chambers in hell!
@@bspr9062 How do you explain NAZI ideas of hate & division being PROMOTED OPENLY? Hindus, Atheists & Buddhists are told who they are as people does not matter, all "God" cares about is the "right" belief, all these people will be set apart based on their belief and dumped into gas chambers in hell! Women, children, pregnant women, even babies won't be spared! Just like how Jews suffered under the Nazis! And these ideas can be OPENLY PROMOTED! So much for all our "Critical thinking"
"Marge, there's an empty spot I've always had inside me. I tried to fill it with family, religion and community service but those were dead ends. I think this chair is the answer." Homer Simpson
“convince people of -our- truth”!! You’ve already bought into the relativism that makes truth irrelevant. Anyway, this research is about the basis of confirmation bias, not truth or persuasion.
