We know that when incorrect beliefs are strongly held, direct refutation and evidence is not an effective means of persuading people out of them. It seems to have a lot to do with the degree to which the individual self-identifies with the belief in question, and how many other aspects of his or her worldview are interconnected with the belief. Small misconceptions not central to the individuals entire belief structure are relatively easy to change if a sufficiently reasonable argument is presented along with some evidential backing, while beliefs tied deeply into an individuals sense of self seem to be immutable even in the face of mountains of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Consequently, strong self-identification with a belief can cause people to be inconsistent about what they deem to be compelling arguments and evidence, and to reject the sources of contradictory information instead of questioning and revising the belief it refutes. Often the best we can hope for in online science debates/discussions is to reach people passively observing from the sidelines who may not yet have formed an inflexible point of view on the subject. However, this article discusses some of the work of Brendan Nyhan, which is aimed at figuring out if there is a more effective way to reach people by framing discussions in a manner that is less likely to trigger the resistance we always see when someone perceives their sense of identity as being threatened by the evidence being presented. newyorker/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right?utm_source=www&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=20140519
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:30:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015