Personal Beliefs

Facts Don't Change Our Minds

    The death of the "Best Korea" leader Kim Jong-il reminded sports fans of the fact that he was the greatest golfer ever. According to the government newspaper on his first round of golf he got 9 holes-in-one! His total for the round was something like 32 - about 30 shots better than Tiger Woods has ever scored.

    To someone outside the belief system, the story is literally unbelievable. Unpossible. And if we discussed it with someone inside the belief system (a North Korean true-believer) we would offer evidence such as the fact that you can fluke one good shot in a game but you can't do it all the time. Furthermore, even the most talented players with 10,000 hours of practice behind them, has never managed a round anything like that.

    But the True Believer sees your "evidence" the other way round. It's not proof that the newspapers lied to you. It's proof that the Dear Leader is actually god-like, superhuman. After all, look at his wonderful golf score. No human could do that! He must be divine.

    Exactly the same thing operates when you try to show a Creationist the huge mass of evidence that supports Evolution. They simply ignore it. It doesn't register in their minds.


Facts Don't Change Our Minds

    Here's how things would work in a perfect world: You and your friend are on opposing sides of an issue. After reaching an impasse, you pull out a piece of information so precise, so compelling, so perfect, that your buddy does a 180 and completely changes his mind. You high five and skip off into the distance.

    And this probably has happened ... as long as it was a subject that neither of you particularly cared about. But if it was some emotionally charged issue, like abortion? God help you.

    The Science:

    Let's go back to the beginning for a moment, and the theory that people figured out how to build arguments as a form of verbal bullying rather than a method of spreading correct information. That means that there are actually two reasons somebody might be arguing with you: because they actually want to get you to think the right thing, and because they're trying to establish dominance over you to lower your status in the tribe (or office or forum) and elevate their own. That means there's a pretty severe cost to being on the wrong side of an issue completely separate from the issue itself.

    Now think about the way people treat the two sides of a debate like teams. Not just political parties; remember how one side of the Leno vs. Conan debate referred to themselves as "Team Coco," or how Twilight fans refer to their factions as "Team Edward" vs. "Team Jacob."

    Then note how may debates involve people jumping into an issue in which they have nothing at stake (only a fraction of the millions of the "Team Coco" people supporting Conan on the Internet actually watch his show), just so they have the chance to join a team.

    Now think of how much it would hurt them to have to change teams.

    That is why confirmation bias exists. We read a news article that supports what we believe, and we add it to the "I'm right about this" column. News articles that contradict what we believe are dismissed. We make up a reason -- maybe the source is part of the conspiracy from the other side or whatever it takes to make sure the "I'm wrong about this" column remains empty.

    Researchers have done experiments where they hooked up people's brains to scanners and then made them read a story pointing out something stupid their favorite candidate said. The logical parts of the brain stayed quiet, while the emotional parts of the brain lit up. Their brains were weighing the story, not based on what it logically meant for their position, but on the emotional/social consequences of that position being wrong.


    Then, once the brain had decided that this news story being right would mean pain and humiliation for the reader, it told the logical part, "Figure out a way to use your 'logic' stuff to make this pain go away." The next day, you probably heard those test subjects at the coffee shop going on and on about how biased the press is against their guy.

    So During Your Next Argument, Remember ...

    You won't remember this. You're hard-wired to remain entrenched, and the Internet makes it worse because your political beliefs are pasted all over Facebook and wherever else you post your opinions. Backing down means going back on all that. It means letting down your team. Every inch of your psychology will fight it.

    Technology gives us the power to be wrong forever.

    The scary part? The same logical fallacy that prevents that crazy guy who keeps predicting the end of the world over and over from admitting maybe he was full of shit is the same fallacy that drives partisan politics and, therefore, government policy. Sleep tight, voters! Evolution is working against us.

Placebos and Personal Beliefs

  • Marketing of the placebo: Everyone gets their own belief.

    The placebo effect isn't a lie. In fact, if you believe something is going to help you get better, it may very well do just that.

    This very same effect works with stereo equipment, wine, politicians... just about everything where our belief intersects with reality.

    You can believe that Ford is better than Chevy, that California reds are better than French ones and that your particular tribe is right (and that everyone else is wrong.)

    Marketers love the placebo effect because it opens the door to stories and fables and word of mouth and varied perceptions. It gives marketers room to sell more than price and features. The first cultural byproduct this benefit creates is the notion that everyone is entitled to believe what they believe, and it's rude to question it.

    The second, is a real problem, though. If you spend enough time experiencing your own take on reality, you come to believe that what works for you might actually be a universal truth. Marketing plus psychology might equal science, it seems.

    For the placebo to work, you have to believe it, but sometimes believing requires suspension of your connection with verifiable fact.

    When that happens, we might believe that we're "entitled" to believe things that conflict with demonstrable truth and an understanding of reality. With enough internal spin, you can believe that the moon walk was a fake, that levitation is possible and that the world is only 6,000 years old. You are welcome to believe that aqua metals will improve your sports performance and that z-rays will cure your arthritis, but only until it collides with things that are actually true. Placebos are a good thing, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but they're not entitled to their own science.

    We now have to deal with the fallout from personal science. We've so blurred the lines between stories we tell ourselves and our perception of the outside world that it's easy to be confused and easier still to confuse others if it advances your cause.

    Consider the fact that the world is getting warmer. To be clear, everyone is entitled to have an opinion on what to do about global warming. The question I'm wondering about is whether we should solicit the opinions of the population as to whether or not it exists. We're asking people to bring their knowledge of statistics, earth science and atmospherics to bear on analyzing data... Of course, most people don't have that knowledge, or care that they don't. If all that matters is belief, why should they?

    Dylan told us that you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows... I'm not sure you need to take a poll either.

    Before you send me an angry email, consider that the question of what we should do about the trend is a different discussion, one that should be had. The question of how (or if) we should take action is not what this post is about. The trend I'm concerned with is the notion that we're entitled to get upset when the truth doesn't match our point of view. Does the weather care what you think?.

Title

    body

Go to Index page