Facts Don't Win Fights: Here’s How to Cut Through Confirmation Bias | Tali Sharot | Big Think
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- Facts Don't Win Fights: Here’s How to Cut Through Confirmation Bias
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want someone to see an issue rationally, you just show them the facts, right? No one can refute a fact. Well, brain imaging and psychological studies are showing that, society wide, we may be on the wrong path by holding evidence up as an Ace card. Neuroscientist Tali Sharot and her colleagues have proven that reading the same set of facts polarizes groups of people even further, because of our in-built confirmation biases-something we all fall prey to, equally. In fact, Sharot cites research from Yale University that disproves the idea that the social divisions we are experiencing right now-over climate change, gun control, or vaccines-are somehow the result of an intelligence gap: smart people are just as illogical, and what's more, they are even more skilled at skewing data to align with their beliefs. So if facts aren't the way forward, what is? There is one thing that may help us swap the moral high ground for actual progress: finding common motives. Here, Sharot explains why identifying a shared goal is better than winning a fight. Tali Sharot's newest book is out now: The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals about Our Power to Change Others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TALI SHAROT:
Dr. Tali Sharot is the author of The Influential Mind (2017) and The Optimism Bias (2012). She is an Associate Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, and the founder and director of the Affective Brain Lab, at University College London. Her papers on decision making, emotion, and influence have been published in Nature, Science, Nature Neuroscience, Psychological Science, and many others. She has been featured in numerous outlets and written for The New York Times, Time Magazine, Washington Post, CNN, BBC, and more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Tali Sharot: So most of us think that information is the best way to convince people of our truth, and in fact it doesn’t work that well.We see that all the time. We see it with climate change, where there’s tons of data suggesting that climate change is man-made but about 50 percent of the population doesn’t believe it, or with people arguing about things like how many people were in the presidential inauguration. So we have facts but people decide which facts they want to listen to, which facts they want to take and change their opinions, and which they want to disregard. And one of the reasons for this is when something doesn’t conform to what I already believe, what people tend to do is either disregard it or rationalize it away; because information doesn’t take into account what makes us human, which is our emotions, our desires, our motives and our prior beliefs.
So for example, in one study my colleagues and I tried it to see whether we could use science to change people’s opinions about climate change. The first thing we did was ask people, “Do you believe in man-made climate change? Do you support the Paris Agreement?” And based on their answers we divided them into the strong believers and the weak believers. And then we gave them information.
For some people we said that scientists have reevaluated the data and now conclude that things are actually much worse than they thought before, that the temperature would rise by about seven degrees to ten degrees. For some people we said the scientists have reevaluated the data and they now believe that actually this situation is not as bad as they thought, it’s much better, and the rise in temperature would be quite small.
And what we found is that people who did not believe in climate change, when they heard that the scientists are saying, “Actually it’s not that bad,” they changed their beliefs even more in that direction, so they became more extremist in that direction, but when they heard that the scientists think it’s much worse they didn’t nudge.
And the people who already believe that climate change is man-made, when they heard that scientists are saying things are much worse than they said before, they moved more in that direction, so they became more polarized, but when they heard scientists are saying it’s not that bad they didn’t nudge much. So we gave people information and as a result it caused polarization, it didn’t cause people to come together.
So the question is, what’s happening inside our brain that causes this? And in one study my colleagues and I scanned brain activity of two people who were interacting, and what we found was when those two people ...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/v...
This confirms what I already knew about confirmation bias.
:))
Clearly you're a clever guy...
This comment made my day! Thank you for that.
Your confirmation further confirms my confirmation of what I already knew about confirmation bias
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. 😏
“It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person” -Bill Murray
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)
REAL ,
F.U
“It is much easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
I just used the same quote. Great minds think alike 😂
And the easiest person in the world to fool is yourself.
"Only a fool would go without an extended warranty on their vehicle" -Mark Twain
I'm hungry
- Cameron Gill
@@darrenehhhhhhtill8051 yes a quote from one of the great philosophers.
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 be fair you have to have no "beliefs" regarding data as well...
I use belief as a derogatory term
GOOD, AND I HEARD " BELIEF = A BELOVED THOUGHT"
They don't want you to know how they acquired their beliefs.
That's interesting to me....what are the words they use?
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
Doodle Master Whoa... Someone totally misjudged which group they belong to.
Doodle Master If I didn’t make it confidently it wouldn’t be an assertion, just a suggestion.
Doodle master LMFAO thanks for the laugh this morning 😂😂😂😂😂
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.
"doing your own research" is an euphemism for seeking confirmation bias.
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.
@O.P.:
Brilliant! Thank you for that.
You should be a guest host on Talk Heathen!
Wouldn't consider that a good thing but it does keep the lights turning on
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.
15 seconds. We need you for every video. She just went on and on and repeated herself multiple times.
@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?
@@musicauthority7828 You replied to me (I can see it in my notifications), but then for some reason you have deleted your reply. Why?
@@musicauthority7828 that wasn't very intelligent.
Exactly, a strawman is the only thing that works with irrational people. ;^p
"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
"Cliche quote because I can't come up with something useful to say" - Random UA-cam comment
@@QoraxAudio you have quotes all wrong mate, it's exactly what I wanted to say except Voltaire said it better. Otherwise I'd sound just like you.
@@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.
@@deanronson6331 And there are more people that are simply better educated than the average person and can use a quote to get their point across.
@@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?
"Too often, we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-President John F. Kennedy
How is a thought different from an opinion?
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
@@johnnybecerra2647 The discomfort of thought as in thinking about it. Not just having an opinion but actively thinking about why
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.
I want to remember that.
It's pride! Once a person has made up his mind and made that thought public, his pride prevents him from accepting opposing evidence and retracting.
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.
too trite
I agree with you totally,people are afraid of being wrong and seemingly looking foolish.🇮🇪
Pretty much. It's pride that keeps people on the high-confidence-low-info side of the Dunning Kruger graph.
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.
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.
That's true, but how do we know that we have the facts which describe reality best? How do we know when our personal biases are coming into play?
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.
ShamPooSham so true... lol
+IncognitoTorpedo Agreed. =)
"Stop leaving quotes of famous people, it's annoying"
-Sun Tzu, Art of War
"No"
- All your dates
Thank you for this :)
I'm hungry
- Cameron Gill
"But I like reading interesting quotes!"
-Me
'Us roadsweepers have a saying....'look after your broom'.'
-Trigger
“For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories.”
- Plato
Done. Foot on the dragon.
@@Psy0psAgent it means that person has to understand themselves
Good! Debating ENDS.
know thy Self
What about women?
Obviously they didn’t exist back then, because Plato was smart, he would have known, right? Right?
No? … No.
“People turn their brains off when they disagree.” I can’t agree more on this haha
I, well, disagree with you. :-)
@@czakotmiszermawi battle royal then
@@musicauthority7828 is this a comment posted by a conscious mind? ;)
@@czakotmiszermawi explain yourself please
@@erezsolomon3838 It supposed to be a sarcasm (actually, more autoirony). If I'm correct, the author understood that, some others probably not that much.
It's a real testament to the effectiveness of vaccines that people have forgotten what they're for.
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?
Don't feed the troll, Muzik...well, unless you want to toy with an obviously defective degenerate. It's fun, I heartily recommend it.
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.
Then the loss of their genetics won't hurt the species at all. Let 'em go the way of the dodo.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"
- Abraham Lincoln
🤣
I thought that was Adems
it's in a constitution
🤣
Only proving that as believed by many, Abraham Lincoln was in fact a time traveller.
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
That's called a sociopath ... facts are to be avoided at all costs.
Would you've done things differently, knowing what you know today?
We’ve all had that experience, I’ll bet. Happened to me too.
They are everywhere. They seek positions of authority so that they can control people.
George Orwell - "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious."
Love that. Speaking of Orwell, "1984" is more relevant than ever.
Sounds like he was talking about Jordan Peterson. Common sense isn't common anymore.
Really good. Thank you.
Restatement to whom?
What's this from? Fantastic quote.
This video made me realize, I am a big culprit in utilizing confirmation bias to validate my beliefs :-)
That's awesome. Never stop letting new information help you grow as a person.
wow amazing!!! now I have some hope for humanity!
that's great
"This video made me realize, *We are a big culprit in utilizing confirmation bias* ....."
Now if we could just get the rest of humanity to make the same confession.
When you reduce facts to "your truth," you subvert fact by making everything subjective. Then you're in the vast ocean of "everything is opinion".
Yeah I'm not gonna live my truth. I'm gonna live, and I'm gonna try and become aware of the actual truth.
@@justinAclark2075How will you do that? Do you have a lens into the objective without looking through the subjective you?
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
@@thomascromwell6840 bro you sound like me when I was 12 years old, saying "yeah, but how do you KNOooOOooOOw?"
"Facts don't win fights ... " As Astonishing and bewildering as i found this to be it is undeniably true ! : (
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."
Paraphrasing the conclusion; Facts don't win fights, fear does...
@@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 .
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) .
Great Post,...but you need to add climate change to your list
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.
"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
Agreed. The toughest ones are the ones whom actually think they are using the authority of reason.
@@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.
@@Junior-zf7yy I don't think, I know. There is a difference.
@@1974jrod No that’s the problem. Have you ever considered that the people you dispute with also feel that they KNOW.
@@Junior-zf7yy I do. But someone has to know or everyone is ignorant. Is everyone ignorant?
This woman’s points are why Facebook, UA-cam, mainstream media are so careful about the “infotainment” you are exposed to.
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.
That also sounds familiar indeed :P
SpaceZombie WHOOPEEE!!!
I believe ego is THE problem here.
I agree
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".
Fun fact: You never win an emotional argument with logic.
...and pretty much all arguments are emotional.
@@alanduval4255 And most who are emotional are in denial.
Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired. - Jonathan Swift.
Logic is not for attacking people but communicating with people after all.
YJ0AUF Agree!
And most conversations on social media are emotional and not intellectual
Shows how flawed we humans are!
Find the common motives to change the outcome. Perfect, thank you!
It's not. You cannot find common ground with religious zealots and racists. They want you to suffer. That's why they do what they do.
The level of a person's fears has an impact on their openness to new viewpoints.
But not only fear, but also motivation impacts their openness to viewpoints, as well.
Fear is the mind-killer
@@TheMongrelCat522 Haha I was about to type just that!
"Two minutes' thought is sufficient to make this clear. But thought is arduous, and two minutes is a long time"
Bertrand Russel
Wow what a great quote. Thanks for sharing that one.
I'm hungry
- Cameron Gill
One hundred twenty seconds.
"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.
Yes. It's like the right combo... opens the lock!
👍
I want to see a study on the effects of mockery.
This great for one on one discussions. When was the last one one rally, or awareness campaign, news release etc?
@@scambammer6102 very interesting idea! I searched on Google Scholar but couldn't find anything relevant.
“Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.
Simon and Garfunkel (The Boxer)
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.
Yes. You reminded me of a great saying. People don't care how much you know; they want to know how much you care.
👍
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.
I already had alot of respect for bridge architects before, but after this comment Im just furious they dont get paid even more.
“I’m just making up a random quote to look smart here.”
-Me, a random youtube enjoyer
"You'd be surprised just how common this is" -Me, just now
I'll be quoting and referring to this brightly humoring line gladly!
This is both very witty and therefore wise. Quotable.
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.
Opinions will never change beliefs. Events do.
The best way to convince somebody is to act like you despise your own opinion.
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.
Can I quote you sometimes, especially the second sentence ? It is one of the best original quotes in the comment section.
@@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?)
When you see a video about confirmation bias but your biased to believe it so your bias makes you sceptical of your bias of your confirmation bias
Mikael Nevear you just blew my mind 💥
In other news, the six sheiks' sixth sheep's sick!
Skeptical feedback loop
@ john smith, wah I love that string of words now lol
I sweartoGod, I'm stealing this and making this a Facebook status
Title should be. How to win a "UA-cam comment section argument".
drink15 LOL there is rarely a winner it that situation. Just time wasted trying to convince some idiot that they are wrong in my experience.
Pun lovin criminal That's just because you think you're right and can't question that...
Simon Banks I only ever argue based purely on scientific studies. I constantly question if I am correct.
That's good, most people I've talked to don't do that
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.
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.
Maybe the goal shouldn't be to "get someone to do what YOU want"... Is your name an LDS reference?
@@SamsonDerrer Funny, I thought someone would eventually think I was a Mormon because of my UA-cam 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 UA-cam 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 video gives "Facts don't care about your feelings" a new meaning
And feelings don't care about your facts.
@@williamspell5692 yep, feelings are largely impervious to facts.
@@buffuniballerTheyre not impervious to EMOTIONAL DAMAGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
@@eeurr1306huh?
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.
Human nature is against humanity
I am distressed that your comment has 1/20th the likes of cringe quotes when you are actually hitting the nail straight on the head
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.
the leftist running schools want to censor anyone with a different opinion so they don't want people to think for themselves
@@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.
_"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?"_
NO!
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...
@Svein Are Karlsen I stand corrected, but not entirely mistaken.
@@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: ua-cam.com/video/52KLGqDSAjo/v-deo.html
YES!
Confirmation bias is something that I wish I had known 40 years ago...
You know, the more I learn about confirmation bias the more effects of it I can see
How old are you?
54
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.
Chris Dimitris yeah? Go back and read comment I posted today. Peace.
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 twisted the information in this video to make it conform to what I already believed. In the end I learned nothing.
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.
Correct. Finding experimentally verifiable laws was a side effect of processes that were originally useful only to form a wider consensus.
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"
The irony of this comment..
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.
As Maynard Keynes once said ' When the facts change, I change my mind' Let's all try to really take that on board.
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.
How does a fact change?! Having said that, I would change my mind in light of new information…
@@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.
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.
Completely agreed. One need to balance logic and emotion.
If I can’t “win” an argument without manipulating someone’s emotions I don’t even want to try.
I'm sorry but this really sounds like talking to people with mental limitations
@@juliahello6673 So you are the 100% facts type of person too?
@@ZipMapp Tell me more.
Didn't really explain how to "cut through the confirmation bias."
Really explained that you can't. We are going around it
Basically, confront the scared sheep with real, frightening consequences.
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.
You got to out crazy the crazies.
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
Well, that basically is the reality about anything that involves non-ordinary mental health, hell even for people with different physical needs
@@petermoore3439 Yeah but it shouldn't be that way, and it is something that can and has been changed before, or atleast, improved.
@@orbismworldbuilding8428 yes of course
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 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.
@@frogray7929 sadly, you're probably right; I have cautious optimism for otherwise.
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
I hope not, manipulating people is the only way I’ve gotten this far
@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.
"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.)
Strangely that might work better..
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?
@@AppleSauceGamingChannel Good point. They are of course not completely 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.
Could also be interpreted as "scaring someone more then they are scared of what they previously believed works"
I have this strange habit of simply ignoring and eliminating from my life, people who don't believe facts.
Facts, or your facts? Are you sure about the difference?
The truth is rarely pure and never simple - Oscar Wilde
Quote from a truly confused man for its obvious he didn't have the true definition of truth.
I wonder if she would consider confronting her thoughts on climate change though ;-)
well she believes most scientists. who would be more knowledgeable than the majority of scientists worldwide?
@@MrSimondaniel3 fox news
Never had issues with learning something new and admitting I was wrong..
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.
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.
@@jasondashney yep.
My take based on your presentation--when the scientists mislead the subject, the subject uses critical reasoning.
"the subject uses critical reasoning" usually with insufficient data.
Average person: "I understand that this happens, but it doesn't apply to me"
"FEELINGS!"
"NO, MATH!"
"FEELINGS!" ( smashes mathematicians skull in with crowbar)
Feelings won.
Both have their importance, neither need to "win", both are as they are, what people do with politics is what becomes the problem.
feelings won a battle, feelsdude will die and the truth still exist
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
@@ramaraksha01 afterlife does not imply a deity, and visa versa.
@@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
Starting to love this channel.
I find it so interesting that she mentions man made climate change in the first few seconds... Its like this video would be a hidden commercial.
Surprised she didn't hit on global cooling and global warming while she was at it.😻
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.
You're typical. In a bad way, if I'm being unclear.
@@elisabethscott20 You don’t even know me. How do you know what’s typical of anyone without the benefit of foreknowledge? Sounds like prejudice to me.
@@briancoulter4308 Sounds like more pontificating.
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.
Took the words right out of my mouth, Brian.
I have solved this problem by not caring enough about anything to form a strong bias about it in the first place. Who knew apathy was a virtue?
Thank you for the insightful presentation.
"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.
Did the information result in fear? You're assuming a few things here......
@@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.
What you would call facts are seen by many as bad studies that offer no support whatsoever for what is claimed. The simple fact of the matter is that there are substantial amounts of very flawed studies that people are all too willing to accept as facts without ever looking at the testing methodologies and questioning the results as being truly fact based. Science is a wonderful thing, when done properly. Sadly, statistics are also a very powerful tool through which data can be very seriously altered too say pretty much whatever a person wants. Only looking at the methodology reveals how real and useable the data sets really are, and only well educated people would have a clue of where to even begin with such an evaluation.
yes, but people usualy believe bad studies without question. So this can be the reason for more intelligent people to disbelieve anything they hear, but for the others it's just shear stupidity.
Most people don't have the training (or willpower) to be able to refute actually flawed scientific papers, and thus when they say that study is flawed, they are often just repeating the talking points of someone else, who very likely does not also have the credentials to properly refute a scientific paper.
Some facts, however, are so obvious and easy to understand that analyzing a scientific study is not necessary.
The fact of human-caused global warming is so simple and obviously true that only political ideology, religion, or other similar form of brain damage can cause one to not understand it.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself I dissagree. You need to look at the studies to understand global warming. It's not obvious from just looking in the sky.
@@MaDrung
I am a retired environmental engineer. I have been studying climate for over 25 years.
You sound like a fool with your proud ignorance.
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!
YES!! CNN:'Do your own research is bad
:))))
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!
you shouldnt add annotations while she is explaining the "lesson". start it @ 5:35
oh u're here too :o
Noa Man WORKOUT yes sir.. watched yesterday a few things about the flat earth and reptilians on earth as well
I agree
I Agree !
And it sums up to, "it's easier to manipulate people through fear than actually convincing them">
I stumbled upon this concept just the other day! I have laundry soap sheets and wanted to get people to switch from plastic. I didn't mention the environment or dioxins once, I only talked about how I don't have to lug that huge, heavy bottle to the washer anymore and how it actually works better anyway! Lol These are people who fought me before on environmental issues, and they're switching!!! 👍 😃 👍
“Our truth” has no real meaning.
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 then they have not been replicated.
@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.
@@Mike__G like working for everyone to get paid more while claiming you want to save the environment what do you think they'll buy with that money
"Our/my truth"
This concept needs to be re-evaluated.
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.
Scientist = Satanist
@@SK-le1gm Well, that's not true. God inspires scientists to produce the knowledge and technology that He wants.
@@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.
@@SK-le1gm Many are. And "follow the money" is THE word of the day.
@@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 🕳
"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
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.
You dont expect old, uneducated, eccentric people to be able to read data
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:)
Actually, I thought it was his staff who like that because it's the only way to get info across to him
I'm eccentric but I read data
@@jessicacole8404 I'm old but I seek out data and alter my beliefs accordingly too.
This is so relevant today. I always say: "Anything you believe in long enough and strong enough will become the truth to you whether it's true or not." It's important to keep an open mind. Inflation theory? I'm not buying it. 😁
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon that can affect anyone even those who are convinced they Are not biased
This video has confirmed my bias
Never argue with a coffee table.
Morality is the basis of things and truth is the substance of all morality.
-Mahatma Gandhi
A basic of negotiation is first determine where all you both agree, then address the disagreement. Usually there is much more agreement than disagreement, which helps people feel more “alike” and listen better to each other.
This video defines "facts" as the logical fallacy, "appeal to authority".
varasano na-ah
More like appeal to cience I guess.
"Authority" as in the most logical conclusions agreed on by experts who considered all available evidence?
Yeah, what do you define it as?
Random opinion?
You spent the entire video going over the reasons i clicked on the video in the first place, not answering the proffered question.
Yep.
Oh no, this confirms my thesis that fear is a great motivator. That's why fear mongering feels more prevalent.
But there's nothing wrong with using fear as a motivator if you use it to improve life.
@@clintonalver2715 fear mongering to get public consent for war with Russia and China are examples of bad and dangerous use of fear as a motivator. But it probably temporarily improves the lives of the heads of military industry.
@@slappyfun Only if that fear is unjustified. Many times people are not educated enough on the facts to fear what they should be in fear of.
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.
Just yesterday i argued with someone on secular vs religious state, my friend says that his "new interpretation" of religious state will work for sure, although previous ones failed, today i get recommended this video and it seems like a blessing.
"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.
When we are constantly fed a only trickle of pre-filtered facts that fit a particular narrative, it's challenging to make logical conclusions.
but most like it that way. I heard a Trump supporter say he won't listen to anything that wasn't right wing news/entertainment because he didn't want to hear people who he didn't agree with.
Can we REALLY tell from a brain scan that a person is “encoding” information? That really sounds like a dubious statement.
I’m going to trust the trained scientists who have their studies peer reviewed over your untrained gut feeling
@@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.
Truth is always absolute.Reality keeps on changing.
‐Sadhguru.
This is the best thing I’ve read today, thank you!
@@Numbah3Son Welcome bro.🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
Sounds to me that people will realign their priorities based on the last scare tactic used against their greatest fears ie loss & death.
"There are four lights"
- Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise
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.