Article: Threaten My Group, and I’ll Belittle Your Science

[GandK]

Threaten My Group, and I’ll Belittle Your Science

This was interesting to me, not because it was news that people behave this way, but because the author moved on to "How can we use this?" rather than the usual observation that human beings are stupid:

Perhaps this discovery can provide an opening for educators and policymakers as they attempt to get around this frustrating psychological block. If scientific findings are to be accepted and acted upon, they have to somehow be presented in a way that does not trigger a defensive reaction.

There are several threads on this board (climate change, et. al) where people bemoan the public response to studies that say something's gotta give. I wonder what the triggering remarks are in those cases, and if there's a way around them?

[jacob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_Peop ... %28book%29

I think transactional (adult, parent, child-roles) explains a lot of what's going on.

First, we should acknowledge that most people are functionally illiterate when it comes to scientific understanding of a specialized topic. Of course being uninformed doesn't prevent people from having an opinion anyway. Many/most will even freely admit to not knowing much of anything about X but because "they're smart in other areas of their life" or "have common sense" they'll proceed to make a decision anyway without blinking an eye. Yup!

The implication/demonstration is that the science/scientific argument itself carries no weight at all. It's like handing a written message to a 3 year old. They can see that it's a piece of paper with words on it, but they have no way of understanding those words and the message they carry(*). In transactional terms, this means it's mostly impossible to have adult-to-adult transactions.

So here's what happens ... I'll give a climate science example but it could just as easily be a GMO food example.

First person: (Putting on adult-mode) This is what the science says and (switching into parent mode) this is why the government must regulate your emission behavior.
Second person, who doesn't like government regulation (right-wing): (Switches into child-mode) No, your science is wrong!
Second person, who does like govregs (left-wing): (Switches into parent-mode) Yes, we must regulate to protect the "children".

This is how the climate science policy (and health care) has traditionally been framed. However, consider this instead ...

First person: (Putting on adult-mode) This is what the science says and (switching into parent mode) and this is why we must deregulate nuclear and wind power production to let the free market solve the problem.
Second person, who doesn't like deregulation (left-wing): (Switches into child-mode) No, your science is wrong!
Second person, who likes dereg (right-wing): (Switches into parent-mode) Yes, we must deregulate non-fossil fuels to protect the "children".

We would have had a very very different debate if deregulation had been emphasized instead. In that case, we'd have lefties decrying "the science" and righties believing that they were smarter and more rational, etc. GMO food safety is a good example of this one.

Since the great majority are scientifically illiterate, it means that almost conversions turn into parent-child interactions. It becomes a matter of politics. This is why for these subject areas, political orientation is a much stronger predictor of whether a person agrees with the "adults" than education (college degrees, etc.). Because scientifically, almost everybody is woefully uneducated.

It's further complicated by the fact that the scientists themselves have had their parent and child behavior trained out of their scientific discourse (not necessarily other aspects of their life). The scientific method is specifically intended to remove those destructive impulses in order to make the science objective. Hence, they don't really know how to convey scientific information to someone taking on the subjective child-role or the subjective parent-role BEFORE that person attempts to take on the adult-role. Taking on the adult-role is highly unlikely because it require substantial effort to gain literacy. It's a rare thing.

(*) This also means that anyone else is free to make up a different note and claim that it, the science, says the opposite. When people are illiterate, words or science is simply a prop in the play or interaction.

[Dragline]

Blinding with science, eh?

Time to break out that old Thomas Dolby CD (actually, I think I had a cassette): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x11lvw ... h-sc_music

[steveo73]

As a global warming skeptic I find articles like that interesting. I find it really fascinating that the skeptics are portrayed as anti-science and that they feel threatened when I think the opposite is really what is occurring. Science should be above this but unfortunately in a consumerist society it comes down to politics and money.

Skeptics use facts. Its a positive attribute. You don't just fall for something because the main stream viewpoint says its true. I think the question really should be very different. The question should be can you get people to think rationally and factually. Honestly I don't believe that you can in lots of instances simply because people that believe in something cannot be swayed by facts.

[theanimal]

Well, the argument that: "You're not using facts, but I am. However, I won't provide any to you when asked." is not science, rational, or logical. I think we settled that in the climate change thread.

Anyone else feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day?

[jacob]

Here's more on how we can use this along with a few additional effects.

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/De ... ffect.html

Summary: If you mention a common myth and present the facts, the facts will actually be convincing. However, after a while, the facts will be forgotten (just uploaded to short-term memory) whereas the memory of the myth (already present in long-term memory) will have been reinforced. This effect is stronger in older people. Solution: Don't mention the myth in the first place.

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/De ... ffect.html

Summary: A simple myth is more cognitively attractive than a complicated set of facts. If people have to think hard to understand the facts they will prefer to keep the simpler misinformation that they already know. Solution: Make the facts easy to understand. Less is more.

(I've been totally guilty of this one. Naively believing that more facts make for a stronger argument. I bet most scientists tend this way. I'd also bet that it's obvious to PR experts that things should be kept simple.---That scientists are naive idiots wrt ordinary humans) Dragline, I'd be interested what the lawyer perspective is on these "cognitive faults"? Is it better to present a shorter but rationally weaker argument than a longer but rationally stronger argument?

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/De ... ffect.html

Summary: If people already have a strongly held worldview regarding the myth, then they will gravitate towards sources that confirms the myth. If such are not available, their main focus will be on thinking how to construct counter arguments to the facts. E.g. liberals read liberal newspapers and if such are not available and they're forced to read a conservative paper, they will be thinking about what's wrong with it. Presenting facts to people with strongly held beliefs in the myth will actually bolster their belief in the myth. For example, Republicans are actually better informed about the climate controversy than Democrats are informed about the actual climate science, i.e. Reps know more misinformation than Dems know information. (Before anyone get their panties in a twist. Yes, this is a fact. Yes, I'm speaking in generalities.). Solution: Given that presenting the facts actually strengthens the belief in the myth for some people, forget about the extremes and focus mainly on the undecided in the middle. Alternatively, frame the issue in a way that's less threatening to the person's world view. (E.g. deregulate nuclear power). Recognize the value of the person before threatening their world view. People who strongly associate their self with their worldview ("I'm a skeptic") are more likely to believe the facts if they aren't outright dismissed as being stupid."

Of course, knowing this, it also becomes immediately clear how to abuse it. So here's the black hat summary:

To play on the backfire effect, you should mention the myth as often as possible. Previously this was successfully done by hitting midlevel and regional newspapers---as many as possible---because these sources had less of a staff to do actual fact-checking and were thus likely to publish myths. Of course now we have the internet which lowers the bar of entry for myths to zero.

To play on the overkill effect, keep the myths simple. E.g. It's colder now than in 1998 (true until 2014). Vaccines cause autism. It's snowing on my backyard. It's common sense. It's the sun. Etc. Added benefits: Experts/eggheads are inherently unable to keep things simple---in fact they hate it when oversimplification leads to the wrong conclusions---so it should be a piece of cake to look like "the reasonable one". Bonus points for "skeptical environmentalism".---You see how that worked right there?

To play on the worldview effect, ... well it almost takes care of itself, because it takes advantage of cognitive effects like confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias which are very strong impulses. Most people will happily ignore facts when they're not aligned with their belief. Hence, once those beliefs are created in the first place, the strategy is to reinforce those beliefs. Since any contrary facts are ignored, facts don't matter here. This is red herring territory, so bring about any fact that support the in-group and ignore all others even if there's an overwhelming number of them. ("2014 wasn't hotter than 1998 within the bands of uncertain" ... ignoring the fact that most years between 1998 and 2014 were warmer than ALL other years previously. Don't worry, few people will bother to click the link).

....

If you read through this, consider yourself overkilled. Yes, I see the irony. You read and understood this much because you already agreed. If you didn't all this just reaffirmed your own belief that I'm wrong and you're the reasonable one in possession of the facts.

Incidentally, this is why the sociopath[ic] dark side has more fun. They got cookies ;-P

[steveo73]

Well, the argument that: "You're not using facts, but I am. However, I won't provide any to you when asked." is not science, rational, or logical. I think we settled that in the climate change thread.

Anyone else feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day?

Here is the point. When I state it there is something wrong with it but when everyone else states it its cool. The simple fact of the matter is that I am on the non-cool side and any piece of crap that can be thrown out is thrown out to justify why the cool side is right.

It should come down to facts but it doesn't because the cool side can't stand by the facts. Hence you get articles like this one and hence you get comments like your comment.

As for the climate change thread I think its pretty obvious who has the facts on their side and its not the cool side. I wouldn't be going there again.

[steveo73]

Naively believing that more facts make for a stronger argument.

For some reason it just doesn't work like that does it. You can have all the facts on your side but people just have cognitive biases that cannot be rationally argued against.

I think what you need to de-bunk something is verifiable proof that something doesn't exist. I think religion is a great example. You can't prove the existence of a god or an after life. Its impossible to prove this but proving they exist is basically impossible as well. For some reason people believe that you have to prove something doesn't exist but that can be really really hard.

My take is that you have to prove something exists for it to be a valid scientific fact.

If such are not available, their main focus will be on thinking how to construct counter arguments to the facts. E.g. liberals read liberal newspapers and if such are not available and they're forced to read a conservative paper, they will be thinking about what's wrong with it. Presenting facts to people with strongly held beliefs in the myth will actually bolster their belief in the myth.

Yep. Having a different viewpoint even if that viewpoint is rational and scientific is really hard for people who believe in the myth to take. If you believe in god and someone says - there is no proof that God exists - you don't care. You just state well there is no proof he doesn't exist.

People who strongly associate their self with their worldview ("I'm a skeptic") are more likely to believe the facts if they aren't outright dismissed as being stupid."

I think most skeptics base their believes on facts. We just have a much harder time buying into myths. A typical skeptic will not believe something just because its trendy or because person A says its correct. They take a step back and say lets look at the facts and then they form their opinions. Skeptics will also change their opinions based on facts because their opinions are based on facts.

well it almost takes care of itself, because it takes advantage of cognitive effects like confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias which are very strong impulses. Most people will happily ignore facts when they're not aligned with their belief.

This is the killer. You see this all the time in global warming proponents and the general public. Its hilarious. You get a hot day and you say GW is occurring. You get a cool front over summer and its due to GW. You get animals flocking somewhere and its unusual. The answer is GW.

Since any contrary facts are ignored, facts don't matter here.

Exactly.

You read and understood this much because you already agreed. If you didn't all this just reaffirmed your own belief that I'm wrong and you're the reasonable one in possession of the facts.

I agree with a lot of your comments here but I disagree completely with your opinion on GW.

[jacob]

Naively believing that more facts make for a stronger argument.

For some reason it just doesn't work like that does it. You can have all the facts on your side but people just have cognitive biases that cannot be rationally argued against.

Yup! You know it

[theanimal]

@Steveo- You really know how to test a man's patience. This will be my last comment on this thread regarding the matter since it's a bit off topic.

The problem with your statements is this. You do not state any facts. You do not provide any links. You do not provide any evidence.

Steveo:I'm a skeptic and I don't agree with that theory.
X: OK, care to share some links or evidence that proves otherwise?
Steveo: Nobody wants to argue with facts. Us skeptics argue with facts, though no one listens to us because we aren't the popular ones.
Y: Want to provide some info?
Steveo: (Some variation of Response 2)

The climate change thread was closed because that loop happened multiple times. There was no rational discussion. When someone else presented data, you obviously ignored it and continued to say generalized things that were refuted multiple_times.

If you're going to claim to be a skeptic, at least have some data to back it up instead of one of the lame non-answers.

[steveo73]

@theanimal - I suggest you re-read that thread. I gave plenty of facts. I don't understand why you are so delusional. I'm out.

[jennypenny]

Boys, play nice! If Ego and I can discuss religion without being disrespectful or smug, you guys can manage it on this topic.

[IlliniDave]

My thought on the topic is that it's much more about groups than any particular topic or perceived threat to groups, more like, "If you're not in my group, I disagree with any cascade of synaptic activity that occurs in your brain." The various topics are just convenient arenas for battle. Each side believes they have the evidence on their side, and that the other side is ignoring or misrepresenting the facts. The dislike between groups prevents nearly all rational openmindedness because being in staunch disagreement with the "enemy" from a posture of assumed intellectual superiority is far more important than being correct. For whatever reason, that behavior appears to be deeply ingrained in humans, possibly a primordial pack instinct that has biased cognitive evolution. It's very common to see individuals or groups interact disagreeably over topics they fundamentally agree on.

[jacob]

Or put it another way,... when groups do battle everybody likes to say/believe they're being reasonable, rational, and/or scientific or some combination thereof. It's simply inconceivable that anyone would start off an argument by say: "Look, I'm going to be complete unreasonable and irrational about this and proceed with my argument in an unscientific matter."

Hence, if a group a threatened by another group with a set of facts and laws of nature ("The Science" <- We'll assume for the sake of the argument that these facts are actual verifiable peer reviewed observations and conclusions meaning that anyone repeating the experiments will find exactly the same thing and not simply opinions and assertions, e.g. that GMO food is healthy to eat), they can not say "I'm going to be unreasonable about this and irrationally disagree because I don't believe in the scientific method [that lead to these conclusions]." No, they have to question/reject/belittle "the set of facts and laws of nature" directly. Alternatively, they can question/reject/belittle the scientists (ad hominem). But they can't go after the scientific method or rationality itself.

Attacking the scientists work because of group identity. Easy enough. Scientists are all eggheads, liberals, ... Done.

Attacking the peer-reviewed observations and laws of nature works because most people are scientifically illiterate despite science and technology being worshipped like a god. Hence, it's very easy to construct what looks like an argument simply by making up assertions or cherry-picking facts in order to make hasty generalizations. The counter-argument doesn't have to be scientific. It just has to LOOK scientific. Thus thousands of peer-reviewed papers and decades of research using the same methods that led to a whole host of other conclusions (that the opposing group might actually agree with) is considered equivalent to a simple made up argument as long as the latter looks scientific and is simple enough to understand with common sense.

To most people, anyone who is not an expert or close to being an expert in that particular field, when it comes to a specialized area real facts are indistinguishable from made up assertions. It is like how people who don't play chess or only has a rudimentary knowledge of it can't see why Kasparov is making much smarter moves than the Junior Chess Team Captain. They only see that chess is being played and maybe that means that "we" haven't figured out yet who the better player is. Yet from the position on the board, experienced players (e.g. International Master commentators) can see that Kasparov already has a huge edge (presumed to be due to his access to far superior theory and chess-data) and will inevitably win the game. They can also see that the Captain is sometimes making basic mistakes or moves that appear random. However, to non-players it's not clear who is the winner until the King falls.

The perception of the debate (chess game) therefore really depends on the level of expertise a given spectator or player brings to the game.

The Captain thinks that he is a strong player. He mostly works from a solid plan. When no moves are available to him, he improvises and makes the move he thinks is best. The Captain understands most of what Kasparov does but sometimes Kasparov is making moves that don't make sense to him. When that happens, the Captain just ignores them and plays on with his own strategy.

Conversely, Kasparov is in a position, where not only does he know why he is practically always making the right move. He also knows why the Captain sometimes makes the wrong move. Kasparov also knows why the Captain thought that the wrong move was the right move.

[jacob]

Another thing that distinguishes the public perception of "scientific debate" from e.g. red vs blue or hotdogs vs hamburgers is that:

1) There's an objective standard. Specifically, if something is science or scientific it means that there's existence of empirical observations (evidence) which can be obtained by ANYBODY on request and that the conclusion based on all the evidence can be demonstrated in a logical manner.

If you can not do this, it's not science and your conclusions are not scientific.

2) The amount of scientific knowledge that is known and the detail it is known to is vast. Only a few have taken the time and effort to learn it. In the 17th century learning everything that was known about physics at that time would take 500 hours. Today, you won't be considered an expert in a subsubfield before spending north of 20000 hours and you wouldn't be an employable prospect in industry with less than 2000 hours of subject matter expertise.

If your subject matter education for a given field is less than 1000 hours, you're missing a lot of details. Given how much there is to know, subject matter knowledge is under <1 hour for most fields for most people.

3) The less you know the less you know about what you don't know and therefore the more confident you will be. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

3b) Corollary: Someone who has spent 1 hour educating themselves on a subject will be unable to distinguish between the statements of someone who has spent 20000 hours and someone who has spent 100 hours. To a smaller degree, the same holds in the opposite direction. The 20000 hours will not easily be able to tell the difference 100 hours and 1 hour. "Do you know what a proton is?"

Ponder the effect of this until it sinks in.

The reason that scientists get angry and frustrated is that it is so easy for charlatans to fool laymen. They're angry at the charlatans for the deception. They're frustrated at the laymen because they can't be bothered to learn enough (100 hours) to end the deception of an apparent debate. They're also frustrated because it turns out that the most effective way to communicate the science to laymen is not to educate them but to use the same psychological manipulation as the charlatans.

[Dragline]

Skeptics use facts. Its a positive attribute. You don't just fall for something because the main stream viewpoint says its true. I think the question really should be very different. The question should be can you get people to think rationally and factually. Honestly I don't believe that you can in lots of instances simply because people that believe in something cannot be swayed by facts.

Actually, traditionally, skeptics do not use facts -- they simply doubt everything and demand higher and higher standards of proof, while finding reasons to continue doubting.

By dictionary definition, a skeptic is (1) a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions: or (2) an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

None of that requires the use of facts in any way. It's merely a chosen intellectual or philosophical position.

However, in my view, this word -- which I personally think is a new marker of vanity -- has relatively recently evolved to imply "intellectual superiority" of some kind. Thus, on both sides of any issue, you will find people claiming to be the "skeptics" who are imbued with this superiority. Here's a whole website devoted to that idea (turned to its climate change page): http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/

This is why people actively compete to wear the "skeptic" badge in the modern world. It has come to mean "I think I'm better than you."

[steveo73]

^^^

Dragline - I disagree with your perception of skeptics and skepticism. That is nothing at all like my approach. My approach requires facts. If the facts are there then I believe. I know that site and I like it.

This is the way that I view skepticism (its from the same site):- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCgGae ... UYj6yVWUsg

I'd add that for me personally I just am not going to believe something because its considered the right thing to believe. I'll look at the facts and the data and form a conclusion based on that.

[Dragline]

^^^

Dragline - I disagree with your perception of skeptics and skepticism. That is nothing at all like my approach. My approach requires facts. If the facts are there then I believe. I know that site and I like it.

This is the way that I view skepticism (its from the same site):- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCgGae ... UYj6yVWUsg

I'd add that for me personally I just am not going to believe something because its considered the right thing to believe. I'll look at the facts and the data and form a conclusion based on that.

They seem to agree that they are attempting to redefine the word from its classical meaning.

But if you know the site and like its approach, I should think you would believe what they say based on the facts they have presented there. Or are you not really the skeptic you claim to be? Sorry, that's a cheeky Q.

Curious they cite Spinoza as a basis for scientific inquiry, who lived more than a century before the word "scientist" was even coined, but ignore people like Karl Jaspers, who combined Kierkegaard and Nietsche in the early 20th century and really blew up the idea that "everything can be explained through science" and described its limitations in excruciating detail. (Although I think climate change can be explained through science, because it involves data that can be measured.)

I stand by my position that self-proclaimed skeptics who put on the badge, whether right or wrong on a particular topic, are essentially intellectual snobs who aim more for a feeling of superiority (a/k/a "vanity") than truth. But I recognize that we disagree and believe that I hold a minority position on the topic of skepticism.

[steveo73]

But if you know the site and like its approach, I should think you would believe what they say based on the facts they have presented there. Or are you not really the skeptic you claim to be? Sorry, that's a cheeky Q.

Its a fair question. For me personally I feel that I am highly educated on the GW theory and I can't agree with the predominant sentiment in the media regarding the theory regardless on where that sentiment comes from. I should add that there are plenty of respected scientists who have the same opinion on the subject as I do. I'm pretty sure that there are some dissenting viewpoints on that site as well.

Curious they cite Spinoza as a basis for scientific inquiry, who lived more than a century before the word "scientist" was even coined, but ignore people like Karl Jaspers, who combined Kierkegaard and Nietsche in the early 20th century and really blew up the idea that "everything can be explained through science" and described its limitations in excruciating detail.

I suppose its the same as all forms of philosophical groupings. There will be some holes in it because it comes from people and we aren't perfect machines.

Although I think climate change can be explained through science, because it involves data that can be measured.

I suggest you do some research on this. Just investigate the theory and the data in a little more detail.

I stand by my position that self-proclaimed skeptics who put on the badge, whether right or wrong on a particular topic, are essentially intellectual snobs who aim more for a feeling of superiority (a/k/a "vanity") than truth. But I recognize that we disagree and believe that I hold a minority position on the topic of skepticism.

Its cool that is your opinion. I don't see myself though at all in your assessment. That doesn't mean that some skeptics don't fit your opinion of them. To me stating that I'm naturally skeptical by nature means that I believe that I don't buy into opinions simply because someone says that is the way it is. I don't have to argue every single point or use my approach to state I'm better than anyone else. People state the same thing on this forum all the time - i.e. we think differently. Its pretty obvious to me that on certain topics this group thinks differently but on others they will jump into the predominant viewpoint. People are complex.

[Dragline]

As we say in my religion: "Peace be with you." Or you could substitute the Force or "Live Long and Prosper" for the same sentiment.

But I still think the modern badge/attribution of "skeptic" bears all the resemblance to "high priest of real knowledge all you ignorant peons should believe if you knew what was good for you", although I didn't think of that analogy until just now.