Flickers Caring for the Next Generation
Birds have little need for politics though they have great need for human beings to act as stewards on their behalf.
Sleuths for Truths
During the last election cycle we often heard stories about Horrible Hillary. Taunts about her private email servers turn her into a criminal in the minds of many. However, she wasn’t the only one to use private email accounts. Competing politicians such as Jeb Bush, Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, and Sean Spicer acted similarly without receiving public rancor.
Hypocrisy and name calling are not new to politics, but chants that Clinton was a criminal unfit for office imbedded thoughts that she was shady. Lies abounded, like the video clip narrated by a medical doctor saying that she had Parkinson’s disease. The possibility that one lie might be true made us tremendously uncomfortable. Bullying and hacked internet sites bludgeoned her so thoroughly that it became impossible to separate truth from fiction. Could she have done anything differently to change the public’s mind?
For many years scientists have been trying to discover what factors influence beliefs. Every study I read came to the same conclusion—facts do not change minds. Back in 1957 Festinger, Riecken, and Schacter wrote in When Prophecy Fails:
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point…Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
Psychologists say that we are influenced by motivated reasoning. It is why we remain convinced that our beliefs are correct even when they are proven wrong. We are more comfortable holding on to false ideas and double down in our convictions when presented with conflicting evidence. We tend to seek out information we find agreeable and avoid or devalue contradictory arguments. Most people do not watch a variety of channels in order to obtain a balanced perspective on the news.
It took many years to convince sailors they would not fall off the end of the earth when traveling across the Atlantic. Strangely, some still hang on to that notion. The Flat World Society boasts of an increase in membership, proving that even when beliefs are totally refuted some people will not alter their thinking. In many instances, those appearing to be reasonable turn out to be the most irrational.
Harvard cognitive scientists Mercier and Sperber say the reason people turn away from rational thinking is because we are a cooperative species. We seek supporting information to confirm the group’s beliefs. Concerned with social standing, we feel more secure when our beliefs are not questioned. Arguments that call for change are likely to be at odds with the group’s expectations. New facts and information can burden the recipient with the responsibility to change the group’s thinking—not an easy task. We saw this play out when we learned that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, yet the establishment still decided to proceed with going after Saddam Hussein.
A Stanford University study divided a group of students into two categories based on their support for or disagreement with capital punishment. Participants were then presented with bogus pro and con articles to read. Filled with statistics, the papers gave solid sounding evidence in support of each point of view. By the conclusion of the study, those who started out in the pro camp were more in favor than they were before and those opposed became more hostile to using capital punishment. In other words, both sides dug into their positions and were stuck in the mud.
Most people do not understand the origin of their beliefs. Scientists say global warming is human induced, but those of us who accept their conclusions find it difficult to explain the basis of their claims to another person. Those against global warming theories are also unable to give reasoned arguments to support their point of view. The public mostly relies on media accounts that filter comments that come in sound bites by expert witnesses. Viewers do not want to receive information requiring them to change their way of life. If I were willing to follow my belief in global warming then I would become a vegan and stop driving, something I don’t want to do. Few of us are willing to take the time to analyze hidden agendas or understand the science behind our beliefs. Yet, despite our inadequate knowledge, we are quick to share misinformation with friends.
In the United States, technological developments are more readily accepted than sociological shifts. There is often an advantage to being an early adaptor of technology. The first people to use calculators were much more efficient than their slide rule colleagues and they got ahead in their work.
The political realm is more likely to get us into trouble for we cling to feelings around many issues. The need to be wary of those who are smug about their biased beliefs for they can easily become a danger to society.
Good science allows no room for bias and results doming from a well executed research plan provides a path towards rational decision making. It is a way to get unstuck from false beliefs. Yes, there are times when research needs to be confirmed with replication ,but at least the scientific method provides a system to encourage critical thinking.
In my opinion, Hillary was a poor campaigner who did not know how to inspire her audience. Her arguments were well researched but that is not what listeners wanted to hear. She talked statistics, presented facts and spoke in such a cerebral manner that people tuned out. Her audiences would have preferred receiving messages that spoke to their hearts instead of their brains. By not doing so, her arguments were ignored in favor of slogans from opposing candidates.
It is not unusual for an intellectual campaigner to be defeated in their bid for public office. Intellectuals as presidents are few—perhaps eight in all—two Adamses, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Obama (who tried to disguise it). Those who win are smart enough to package their intelligence as wit. Jokes, gibes, and slogans do more to inspire crowds than lectures.
References:
Meyers,S (2016) Use of Unclassified Email Systems Not Limited to Clinton. New York Times. retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/clinton-emails-routine-practice.html
Apuzzo,M & Haberman.M (2017) At Least 6 white House Advisers Used Private Email Accounts. New York times. retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
Beck,J. ( 2017) This Article won’t Change Your Mind.. The Atlantic. retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/
Kolbert,E. (2017) Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds. The New Yorker. retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
Cooper JR.,J ( 2017) The Historical Presidency: Few and Mostly Far Between: Reflections on Intellectuals as Presidents. Wiley Online Library. retrieved from abstract https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psq.12398
Birds have little need for politics though they have great need for human beings to act as stewards on their behalf.
Sleuths for Truths
During the last election cycle we often heard stories about Horrible Hillary. Taunts about her private email servers turn her into a criminal in the minds of many. However, she wasn’t the only one to use private email accounts. Competing politicians such as Jeb Bush, Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, and Sean Spicer acted similarly without receiving public rancor.
Hypocrisy and name calling are not new to politics, but chants that Clinton was a criminal unfit for office imbedded thoughts that she was shady. Lies abounded, like the video clip narrated by a medical doctor saying that she had Parkinson’s disease. The possibility that one lie might be true made us tremendously uncomfortable. Bullying and hacked internet sites bludgeoned her so thoroughly that it became impossible to separate truth from fiction. Could she have done anything differently to change the public’s mind?
For many years scientists have been trying to discover what factors influence beliefs. Every study I read came to the same conclusion—facts do not change minds. Back in 1957 Festinger, Riecken, and Schacter wrote in When Prophecy Fails:
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point…Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
Psychologists say that we are influenced by motivated reasoning. It is why we remain convinced that our beliefs are correct even when they are proven wrong. We are more comfortable holding on to false ideas and double down in our convictions when presented with conflicting evidence. We tend to seek out information we find agreeable and avoid or devalue contradictory arguments. Most people do not watch a variety of channels in order to obtain a balanced perspective on the news.
It took many years to convince sailors they would not fall off the end of the earth when traveling across the Atlantic. Strangely, some still hang on to that notion. The Flat World Society boasts of an increase in membership, proving that even when beliefs are totally refuted some people will not alter their thinking. In many instances, those appearing to be reasonable turn out to be the most irrational.
Harvard cognitive scientists Mercier and Sperber say the reason people turn away from rational thinking is because we are a cooperative species. We seek supporting information to confirm the group’s beliefs. Concerned with social standing, we feel more secure when our beliefs are not questioned. Arguments that call for change are likely to be at odds with the group’s expectations. New facts and information can burden the recipient with the responsibility to change the group’s thinking—not an easy task. We saw this play out when we learned that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, yet the establishment still decided to proceed with going after Saddam Hussein.
A Stanford University study divided a group of students into two categories based on their support for or disagreement with capital punishment. Participants were then presented with bogus pro and con articles to read. Filled with statistics, the papers gave solid sounding evidence in support of each point of view. By the conclusion of the study, those who started out in the pro camp were more in favor than they were before and those opposed became more hostile to using capital punishment. In other words, both sides dug into their positions and were stuck in the mud.
Most people do not understand the origin of their beliefs. Scientists say global warming is human induced, but those of us who accept their conclusions find it difficult to explain the basis of their claims to another person. Those against global warming theories are also unable to give reasoned arguments to support their point of view. The public mostly relies on media accounts that filter comments that come in sound bites by expert witnesses. Viewers do not want to receive information requiring them to change their way of life. If I were willing to follow my belief in global warming then I would become a vegan and stop driving, something I don’t want to do. Few of us are willing to take the time to analyze hidden agendas or understand the science behind our beliefs. Yet, despite our inadequate knowledge, we are quick to share misinformation with friends.
In the United States, technological developments are more readily accepted than sociological shifts. There is often an advantage to being an early adaptor of technology. The first people to use calculators were much more efficient than their slide rule colleagues and they got ahead in their work.
The political realm is more likely to get us into trouble for we cling to feelings around many issues. The need to be wary of those who are smug about their biased beliefs for they can easily become a danger to society.
Good science allows no room for bias and results doming from a well executed research plan provides a path towards rational decision making. It is a way to get unstuck from false beliefs. Yes, there are times when research needs to be confirmed with replication ,but at least the scientific method provides a system to encourage critical thinking.
In my opinion, Hillary was a poor campaigner who did not know how to inspire her audience. Her arguments were well researched but that is not what listeners wanted to hear. She talked statistics, presented facts and spoke in such a cerebral manner that people tuned out. Her audiences would have preferred receiving messages that spoke to their hearts instead of their brains. By not doing so, her arguments were ignored in favor of slogans from opposing candidates.
It is not unusual for an intellectual campaigner to be defeated in their bid for public office. Intellectuals as presidents are few—perhaps eight in all—two Adamses, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Obama (who tried to disguise it). Those who win are smart enough to package their intelligence as wit. Jokes, gibes, and slogans do more to inspire crowds than lectures.
References:
Meyers,S (2016) Use of Unclassified Email Systems Not Limited to Clinton. New York Times. retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/clinton-emails-routine-practice.html
Apuzzo,M & Haberman.M (2017) At Least 6 white House Advisers Used Private Email Accounts. New York times. retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
Beck,J. ( 2017) This Article won’t Change Your Mind.. The Atlantic. retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/
Kolbert,E. (2017) Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds. The New Yorker. retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
Cooper JR.,J ( 2017) The Historical Presidency: Few and Mostly Far Between: Reflections on Intellectuals as Presidents. Wiley Online Library. retrieved from abstract https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psq.12398