If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nature)   So, you know the old "Rabbit Season/Duck Season" trick? Turns out, it actually works   (nature.com) divider line 48
    More: Scary, original position, internet traffic, meat consumption, cogency  
•       •       •

7639 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Sep 2012 at 3:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-21 10:55:53 AM
In other words 69% of people are too insecure to admit they may have made a mistake.
 
2012-09-21 11:46:34 AM
I believe this is called 'Mitt Romney Syndrome'.
 
2012-09-21 12:09:13 PM
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

With the exception of arguing via the internet where I am infallible; I will always eat crow rather than allow myself to misstate something or be misstated.

I've tried it.

i38.photobucket.com

It's really not that bad.
 
2012-09-21 12:10:17 PM
To quote Chuck Jones: "Bugs is who we want to be. Daffy is who we are."

Sadly, today it might be closer to "Bugs is who we want to be. Elmer is who we are. Daffy is who we pick to lead us, because the signs made us think he was Daffy."

/GREAT cartoon
 
2012-09-21 12:11:28 PM

whistleridge: To quote Chuck Jones: "Bugs is who we want to be. Daffy is who we are."

Sadly, today it might be closer to "Bugs is who we want to be. Elmer is who we are. Daffy is who we pick to lead us, because the signs made us think he was Daffy Bugs."

/GREAT cartoon


FTFM
 
2012-09-21 12:20:21 PM
About half of the participants did not detect the changes, and 69% accepted at least one of the altered statements.

People were even willing to argue in favour of the reversed statements: A full 53% of participants argued unequivocally for the opposite of their original attitude in at least one of the manipulated statements, the authors write. Hall and his colleagues have previously reported this effect, called 'choice blindness', in other areas, including taste and smell2 and aesthetic choice3.


I often wonder how I would do on studies like this.
 
2012-09-21 12:30:21 PM

Voiceofreason01: In other words 69% of people are too insecure to admit they may have made a mistake.


or, answered one way given normative social pressures "prostitution is bad", but are able to see the other side of the position rationally enough that there isnt enough cognitive pressure to "correct" the mistake.

moral relativism is real, but people dont want to admit it?? HAHAHAHAHAH
 
2012-09-21 12:47:53 PM

Voiceofreason01: In other words 69% of people are too insecure to admit they may have made a mistake.


"I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong!" Benjamin J. Grimm.
 
2012-09-21 12:48:25 PM
AS if the Tea Party wasn't proof enough that it worked.
 
2012-09-21 01:32:41 PM
 
2012-09-21 01:51:52 PM
I'd have to think this works different in politically committed persons, which studies have shown respond less with their brain and more with emotion at times.
 
2012-09-21 01:53:39 PM
I don't even understand what I just saw.  Is ABBA getting back together?
 
2012-09-21 02:31:26 PM
Probably situations where they were on the fence about their decision anyhow, and "somewhat agreed" with one side or the other after some deliberation?
 
2012-09-21 03:40:15 PM
www.boingboing.net
 
2012-09-21 04:05:58 PM
All this proves is that people are bad at detecting magic tricks.
 
2012-09-21 04:06:09 PM

Introitus: [www.boingboing.net image 400x300]


Is that a uterus
 
2012-09-21 04:11:47 PM
NO it doesnt
 
2012-09-21 04:38:57 PM

thisiszombocom: NO it doesnt


Yes it does.
 
2012-09-21 04:41:14 PM
This is the sort of thing that wins Ig Nobels. I expect to hear about this in a year.
 
2012-09-21 04:56:15 PM

way south: thisiszombocom: NO it doesnt

Yes it does.


No it doesn't!
 
2012-09-21 04:57:14 PM

Voiceofreason01: In other words 69% of people are too insecure to admit they may have made a mistake.


the truth is people's opinions about politics and ethics are more malleable than food, sex, entertainment and money

people's steadfastness in their personal beliefs/political opinions/ethics are only as strong as the threat is to their access to any of the above

it's why if humanity ever got infinite access to food/sex/entertainment/money with 0 negative effect we'd all turn into big spoiled babies
 
2012-09-21 04:58:26 PM
I remember a TED talk about something similar: basically that the human mind has evolved in a way that prioritizes dominance over truthfulness which is why so many people naturally trust their gut and can use "facts" in arguments which they know to be inaccurate without feeling like they are lying. Simply put, relying on instinct was more effective than rational cold state analysis for survival and it created this weird feedback loop where the mind ignores those times they screwed up just flying by the seat of your pants and remembers vividly those times we deliberated and ultimately made the wrong choice. Same in reverse: the one-in-a-million pure luck guess sticks in our mind while the right choices we researched sort of fade into the back of our memories.

We know what are views on a subject are the second we hear the question, and the rationalization for feeling that way comes later. The respondent knows he must have agreed with the statement for some reason the first time he got the question, and then builds the mental case for it afterwards.
 
2012-09-21 05:23:35 PM

GAT_00: I'd have to think this works different in politically committed persons, which studies have shown respond less with their brain and more with emotion at times.


Link
 
JRB
2012-09-21 05:27:27 PM
Those people who drive faster, right when you are trying to pass them, are classic cases of losing the moral compass. "Speeding is ILLEGAL, so I'll speed FASTER, just to get ahead, then slow down to PUNISH you!"

Also when you say it' s okay for you to steal from a known thief (who never actually did anything to you), or you see no problem with assaulting someone if you hear that they have abused others.

Our morals shift in the wind more than we ever realize.
 
2012-09-21 05:35:43 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Introitus: [www.boingboing.net image 400x300]

Is that a uterus


That's no uterus. It's a space station.
 
2012-09-21 05:42:06 PM
bullshiat. Reading comprehension fail and stubborness does not equal a change in moral decision making.
 
2012-09-21 05:44:00 PM

Voiceofreason01: In other words 69% of people are too insecure to admit they may have made a mistake.


Done.
 
2012-09-21 05:44:09 PM

whither_apophis: way south: thisiszombocom: NO it doesnt

Yes it does.

No it doesn't!


Yes it doesn't!
 
2012-09-21 06:09:54 PM
Shoot him now! Shoot him now!
 
2012-09-21 06:15:46 PM

LindenFark: whither_apophis: way south: thisiszombocom: NO it doesnt

Yes it does.

No it doesn't!

Yes it doesn't!


Do it nesn't!
 
2012-09-21 06:21:49 PM

Voiceofreason01: In other words 69% of people are too insecure to admit they may have made a mistake don't care enough about the issue to know what they really think.


Alternate interpretation.

I've found myself doing that, actually. I was arguing with someone over something trivial, and at one point I said "Am I still arguing the same position? Did we switch sides?" I ended up saying "I don't care about being correct, I just have to be right, dammit!" Mostly tongue in cheek, especially when I realised I was getting far too invested in a stupid argument in a pub.
 
2012-09-21 07:00:38 PM
Yeah, but what about dressing up in drag? That works too, right?
 
2012-09-21 07:23:48 PM
My family has a long tradition of swapping sides in arguments without realizing it.

/Sometimes in error. Never in doubt.
 
2012-09-21 07:29:38 PM
Alternative conclusion: People don't care about frivolous things like Psychology Experiments. They don't even remember the questions they filled out because they're not thinking about it.

If you tried this with a serious issue, you'd get your ass beat for putting glue on the clipboard. Literally held down on the ground and punched and kicked in the buttocks.
 
2012-09-21 08:08:50 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: bullshiat. Reading comprehension fail and stubborness does not equal a change in moral decision making.


very astute observation. me likey.
 
2012-09-21 08:37:21 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Reading comprehension fail and stubborness equals a change in moral decision making.


Really? They seem like different things to me.
 
2012-09-21 08:49:38 PM
Dumb article. Any rational and sufficiently smart person should be able to argue in favor of both (or more) positions. It has exactly zero relevance on what they actually believe.

That's how lawyers exist. Do you think lawyers morally agree with everything they defend? Not really, but it's their job to argue otherwise.

In fact, finding arguments for positions different to yours is actually a GOOD strategy if you want to win. It's the "devil's advocate" tactic.
I love being a devil's advocate in sociopolitical groups I support. I make them realize things the actual adversaries are going to use on the field and then we can plan accordingly.
 
2012-09-21 09:01:33 PM
"160 volunteers" = 160 first-year psychology students who were promised free pizza.
 
2012-09-21 09:56:46 PM
This would not work on me.

This would not work on most of you either.
 
2012-09-21 10:23:56 PM

randomjsa: This would not work on me.

This would not work on most of you either.


Yes, it would.

i268.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-21 10:27:54 PM
160 volunteers blah blah willing to argue in favour of the reversed statements: A full 53%

How about there's a coin toss for someone who is not a subject material expert answers one way or the other no matter what the statements.

In that case, 53% or 85 people is not a significant change from a coin toss, that is you could flip a coin 160 times and get 85 heads and it would still be fair.

Just sayin'
 
2012-09-22 12:01:04 AM

12349876: LindenFark: whither_apophis: way south: thisiszombocom: NO it doesnt

Yes it does.

No it doesn't!

Yes it doesn't!

Do it nesn't!


De durka derr.
 
2012-09-22 12:24:32 AM

Voiceofreason01: In other words 69% of people are too insecure to admit they may have made a mistake.


Yep.
 
2012-09-22 12:26:05 AM

EvilEgg: It's easy with toddlers


I love the mentality that keeps acting like toddlers are a lot different from adults. Look around at the world and tell me that's true.
 
2012-09-22 02:37:06 AM
So is it Elmer season yet?
 
2012-09-22 02:40:43 AM
I insist it's two bits or nothing!
 
2012-09-22 10:23:57 AM
People need to be made acutely aware of the ability of the brain to make assumptions about what is being read, seen, or heard or what was read, seen, or heard. The problem is with several items a person does not remember the rationale to answers across the entire survey, therefore you assume you read this correctly and answered for a reason you are able now able to create; this last part is easier when you have not formed a well-defined position on the matter previously.
 
2012-09-22 03:54:13 PM

The technical paper is at (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045457), no subscription required. It seems to fill in another interesting piece of the puzzle from (doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00280.x)... which isn't even cited as a reference.

Voiceofreason01: In other words 69% of people are too insecure to admit they may have made a mistake.


Not quite. The result from this paper actually suggests that for 69% of people, when their views are changed they may not even notice that their views have changed.

Results from the other paper I mentioned suggests it's may be more like 98% won't admit having made a mistake -- though that may be in part because of the experiment involved a mistake disproportionately likely to be made by conservatives.

GAT_00: I'd have to think this works different in politically committed persons


From the technical piece, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

We presented the participants with a questionnaire containing 12 moral principles (condition one, N = 81) or statements describing 12 current moral issues (condition two, N = 79), [...] the participants in condition two who classified themselves as politically active were more likely to concurrently detect the manipulations when comparing with the politically active participants in condition one [...] Therefore, unless one is directly involved with the current dilemmas (as the politically active participants in condition two were), level of abstraction does not seem to affect levels of CB.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report