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.

(io9)   Science finally explains the Politics tab   (io9.com) divider line 50
    More: Interesting, tabloids  
•       •       •

3447 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Oct 2013 at 12:53 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-15 01:03:49 PM
Let me guess...small penis...everytime....
 
2013-10-15 01:19:51 PM
Basically a rehash of this Fark story.
 
2013-10-15 01:27:01 PM
Actually, nothing can explain the Politics tab.
 
2013-10-15 01:38:43 PM
You need an explanation for the politics tab? Here you go:

47, XY, +21
 
2013-10-15 01:47:01 PM
FTFA: ...the participants were given one of two copies of a news story. Both had a quote from then-President Bush which was taken out of context and which seemed to indicate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One version had a quote from the Duelfer Report showing that there was no evidence of stockpiles of these weapons and no programs to create them. The other version did not include a discrediting quote.
After reading one version or the other of this article, the participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a statement claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion. The people who rated themselves as liberal, left of center, or centrist, did not agree - and whether they read the correction had little effect on their views. The people who rated themselves as conservative did agree. And they agreed even more, when they read the article with the correction than when they read the article without the correction.


Do the researchers not think that perhaps, maybe, liberals and conservatives have formed their opinions about the Iraq war based on information prior to reading their example article?

If you showed me the Bush quote without the correction, it would have had just as much effect on my opinion as showing me a quote that the moon landings were faked. This is not because I disregard facts; it's because I have had access to facts outside the scope of the experiment.

If they really wanted to test their hypothesis, why choose something so well-known? Why not choose something really obscure (or even hypothetical)?
 
2013-10-15 01:48:10 PM
Nothing is more open to interpretation than a fact, and nothing is more useless than a fact.  Charles Dickens.
 
2013-10-15 01:50:55 PM
[oldnewsexciting.jpg]

This story's been greenlit probably half a dozen times by now.  At least io9 had the decency to link the original paper.
 
2013-10-15 01:51:18 PM

draypresct: FTFA: ...the participants were given one of two copies of a news story. Both had a quote from then-President Bush which was taken out of context and which seemed to indicate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One version had a quote from the Duelfer Report showing that there was no evidence of stockpiles of these weapons and no programs to create them. The other version did not include a discrediting quote.
After reading one version or the other of this article, the participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a statement claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion. The people who rated themselves as liberal, left of center, or centrist, did not agree - and whether they read the correction had little effect on their views. The people who rated themselves as conservative did agree. And they agreed even more, when they read the article with the correction than when they read the article without the correction.

Do the researchers not think that perhaps, maybe, liberals and conservatives have formed their opinions about the Iraq war based on information prior to reading their example article?

If you showed me the Bush quote without the correction, it would have had just as much effect on my opinion as showing me a quote that the moon landings were faked. This is not because I disregard facts; it's because I have had access to facts outside the scope of the experiment.

If they really wanted to test their hypothesis, why choose something so well-known? Why not choose something really obscure (or even hypothetical)?


Reading comprehension fail on my part.

Let me try again:

They're reacting to something that has been argued back and forth ad nauseum. I still think they would have been better using an issue without the context if they really wanted to investigate this.

/I should really finish reading the paragraphs I quote before hitting "add comment".
 
2013-10-15 01:52:12 PM
I need science to tell me the fools who keep posting over and over and over and OVER in the Politics Tab are idiots? I'd like to meet the one person who had ever changed a political belief based on any argument in a Fark Politics thread.
 
2013-10-15 01:58:56 PM

Tyrosine: You need an explanation for the politics tab? Here you go:

47, XY, +21


Number of chromosomes, sex chromosomes, and status of chromosome 21?
 
2013-10-15 02:13:21 PM
My dog craps better sourced articles than that one.
 
2013-10-15 02:33:42 PM

draypresct: They're reacting to something that has been argued back and forth ad nauseum. I still think they would have been better using an issue without the context if they really wanted to investigate this.


That was what I was thinking.  If I read the article without the correction, I'd still disbelieve it, because so much else - the real media, the fact that, well, 10 years later and no WMDs have shown up - proves that Bush lied or was lied to.

The ONLY interesting part of the study is that Conservatives believed WMDs were found more strongly when they read the article that said that none were found.

Of course, controls are needed to make this meaningful.  A fake situation with non-existent politicians in which no parties in which readers have a stake (i.e. not identified as left/right, conservative/liberal, or otherwise familiar to test subjects) would be good, as would a similar article in which a Democrat is caught contradicting reality.

I would want to know:
Do people only do this when it's "their team", or do they do it all the time?
Is this mostly a conservative phenomenon, or are middle-of-the-road and/or liberals prone to it also?
Does the way in which the correction is presented make a difference?
 
2013-10-15 02:51:10 PM

DemonEater: draypresct: They're reacting to something that has been argued back and forth ad nauseum. I still think they would have been better using an issue without the context if they really wanted to investigate this.

That was what I was thinking.  If I read the article without the correction, I'd still disbelieve it, because so much else - the real media, the fact that, well, 10 years later and no WMDs have shown up - proves that Bush lied or was lied to.

The ONLY interesting part of the study is that Conservatives believed WMDs were found more strongly when they read the article that said that none were found.

Of course, controls are needed to make this meaningful.  A fake situation with non-existent politicians in which no parties in which readers have a stake (i.e. not identified as left/right, conservative/liberal, or otherwise familiar to test subjects) would be good, as would a similar article in which a Democrat is caught contradicting reality.

I would want to know:
Do people only do this when it's "their team", or do they do it all the time?
Is this mostly a conservative phenomenon, or are middle-of-the-road and/or liberals prone to it also?
Does the way in which the correction is presented make a difference?


I think it applies to both sides. Liberals would likely disregard a factually accurate report (even one that could be independently verified as such) that came from Fox News. Conservatives likewise would be prone to disregard a factually accurate report that came from MSNBC.

Very few people have the time needed to vet and verify each piece of information that they receive about an issue. So they develop a sense of the sources that they trust and distrust, and that often boils down to whether that particular source aligns with one's personal worldview.
 
2013-10-15 02:57:52 PM
I have problems not only with what has already been mentioned above but also the individuals deciding what their poltical leanings were without an outside reality check. I know many who believe they are conservative but are really middle of the road, or liberal but really are mostly centrists. Back in the days when I used to do research in college, I found people were not very good at determining what they were unless if a small rating test was used. People were constantly making statements like, "Really? I didn't think I was a centrist at all."
 
2013-10-15 03:06:35 PM
Participants in the experiments were more likely to experience the Backfire Effect when they sensed that the contradictory information had come from a source that was hostile to their political views.

That's because all sources that are hostile to my political views are objectively stupid.
 
2013-10-15 03:08:27 PM

red5ish: My dog craps better sourced articles than that one.


Which helps explain my eyerolling when I see any i09 link.
 
2013-10-15 03:19:00 PM
pl.memgenerator.pl
 
2013-10-15 03:21:19 PM
DemonEater:
I would want to know:
Do people only do this when it's "their team", or do they do it all the time?
Is this mostly a conservative phenomenon, or are middle-of-the-road and/or liberals prone to it also?
Does the way in which the correction is presented make a difference?


Okay, now I'll be a non-jerk about it.
1. People use "team" thinking all the time.  We think in categories, and are biased in our processing of social information, with most biases based on upholding a positive self-concept.  So all groups to which I belong are likely to be seen by me as superior to all other groups, because that makes me feel good about myself.  And researchers have found that the nature of the group doesn't matter.  Political affiliation does it.  Religious affiliation (or lack thereof) does it.  Country does it.  Musical preference.  Preferences for different types of literature.  Hair color.  Language.  Anything.  In grad school I briefly studied under Don Byrne, who found that degree of similarity between two people predicted how positive an attitude one would have toward the other, and it didn't matter what they were similar about.  The math was the same if we were talking about the other person sharing your political affiliation as it was if we were talking about what side of the movie theater you prefer to sit on.  These are powerful motivational forces, and the best part is that we convince ourselves that our biased perceptions are not biased perceptions, they're just clearly seeing reality as it is (lying to yourself loses a bit of power if you know that you're lying).  Look at pretty much ANY fark thread, and you'll see this on parade (I've often wondered about the possibility of teaching an entire semester of social psychology using only fark threads).
2. Everyone does it.  No exceptions.
3. I'm sure that manner of presentation would make a difference.  For example, if the correction was presented as having originated from a right-wing think-tank, right-wingers would be more likely to accept it.

/social psychologist
 
2013-10-15 03:36:11 PM

Arkanaut: Number of chromosomes, sex chromosomes, and status of chromosome 21?


Yes, but are you supposed to have 47?
Yes.
No. The "+" notation in this context means extra.
 
2013-10-15 03:38:56 PM
The problem with this specific example is that reality really did contradict itself, and nobody really knows what happened.   Almost all the international experts agreed nearly unanimously that Iraq had WMD's, and the lead up to the war was broadcasted so far and wide that Saddam almost had enough time to hide the entire country of Iraq before the invasion actually happened.   Because of this, a lack of WMD's found does not mean that the experts nor George W was ever wrong about it....
 
2013-10-15 03:46:52 PM

Son of Thunder: DemonEater:
I would want to know:
Do people only do this when it's "their team", or do they do it all the time?
Is this mostly a conservative phenomenon, or are middle-of-the-road and/or liberals prone to it also?
Does the way in which the correction is presented make a difference?

Okay, now I'll be a non-jerk about it.
1. People use "team" thinking all the time.  We think in categories, and are biased in our processing of social information, with most biases based on upholding a positive self-concept.  So all groups to which I belong are likely to be seen by me as superior to all other groups, because that makes me feel good about myself.  And researchers have found that the nature of the group doesn't matter.  Political affiliation does it.  Religious affiliation (or lack thereof) does it.  Country does it.  Musical preference.  Preferences for different types of literature.  Hair color.  Language.  Anything.  In grad school I briefly studied under Don Byrne, who found that degree of similarity between two people predicted how positive an attitude one would have toward the other, and it didn't matter what they were similar about.  The math was the same if we were talking about the other person sharing your political affiliation as it was if we were talking about what side of the movie theater you prefer to sit on.  These are powerful motivational forces, and the best part is that we convince ourselves that our biased perceptions are not biased perceptions, they're just clearly seeing reality as it is (lying to yourself loses a bit of power if you know that you're lying).  Look at pretty much ANY fark thread, and you'll see this on parade (I've often wondered about the possibility of teaching an entire semester of social psychology using only fark threads).
2. Everyone does it.  No exceptions.
3. I'm sure that manner of presentation would make a difference.  For example, if the correction was presented as having originated from a right-wing think-tank, right-winge ...


Hell, the Robbers Cave experiment shows how little is really necessary to establish in-group/out-group identity. And, to make things more fun, Clifford Nass and colleagues have shown that we'll show this same kind of mentality for non-human objects that are identified as members of our in-group, even if only as part of a temporary in-group.

Also, there seem to be an awful lot of social psychologists on Fark. I'm wondering if maybe we should all get together and co-author an article.
 
2013-10-15 04:05:21 PM

draypresct: FTFA: ...the participants were given one of two copies of a news story. Both had a quote from then-President Bush which was taken out of context and which seemed to indicate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One version had a quote from the Duelfer Report showing that there was no evidence of stockpiles of these weapons and no programs to create them. The other version did not include a discrediting quote.
After reading one version or the other of this article, the participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a statement claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion. The people who rated themselves as liberal, left of center, or centrist, did not agree - and whether they read the correction had little effect on their views. The people who rated themselves as conservative did agree. And they agreed even more, when they read the article with the correction than when they read the article without the correction.

Do the researchers not think that perhaps, maybe, liberals and conservatives have formed their opinions about the Iraq war based on information prior to reading their example article?

If you showed me the Bush quote without the correction, it would have had just as much effect on my opinion as showing me a quote that the moon landings were faked. This is not because I disregard facts; it's because I have had access to facts outside the scope of the experiment.

If they really wanted to test their hypothesis, why choose something so well-known? Why not choose something really obscure (or even hypothetical)?


draypresct: draypresct: FTFA: ...the participants were given one of two copies of a news story. Both had a quote from then-President Bush which was taken out of context and which seemed to indicate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One version had a quote from the Duelfer Report showing that there was no evidence of stockpiles of these weapons and no programs to create them. The other version did not include a discrediting quote.
After reading one version or the other of this article, the participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a statement claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion. The people who rated themselves as liberal, left of center, or centrist, did not agree - and whether they read the correction had little effect on their views. The people who rated themselves as conservative did agree. And they agreed even more, when they read the article with the correction than when they read the article without the correction.

Do the researchers not think that perhaps, maybe, liberals and conservatives have formed their opinions about the Iraq war based on information prior to reading their example article?

If you showed me the Bush quote without the correction, it would have had just as much effect on my opinion as showing me a quote that the moon landings were faked. This is not because I disregard facts; it's because I have had access to facts outside the scope of the experiment.

If they really wanted to test their hypothesis, why choose something so well-known? Why not choose something really obscure (or even hypothetical)?

Reading comprehension fail on my part.

Let me try again:

They're reacting to something that has been argued back and forth ad nauseum. I still think they would have been better using an issue without the context if they really wanted to investigate this.

/I should really finish reading the paragraphs I quote before hitting "add comment".


The fact that they use a really issue that has been argued ad-naseum makes the finding stronger, not weaker. Like you say, people had relatively well-formed opinions on this issue. Thus, using a real, well-known issue makes it more likely to find no effect from the experimental manipulation (the correction). But, in fact, the correction did have an effect - conservatives strengthened their attitudes in response to the correction.

If you did this with an obscure issue I'd be much more skeptical of the finding, because people's opinions on obscure issues move around very easily, and from a wide range of things (question phrasing, question order, etc.)
 
2013-10-15 04:08:11 PM
You can make points about tribalism and group thinking, and I will accept them up to a point.  But there is another big factor in the Fark politics tab:  Trolls.  There are a dozen or so accounts, representing, at most, a dozen or so people, that parrot the same rightwing talking points that the GOP is using on any given day.  Yes, you can find people parroting leftwing talking points too.  But these are people who (if you ask me) have as their goal deflecting the conversation from the thread topic, and turning it into bickering and name-calling.  I have them on ignore, but I will see that one of them makes a comment, and then a dozen people respond, and then they make another comment, and then two dozen responses...and as I said, the original topic is sidelined.  It's "you're so stupid it burns."

I don't frequent rightwing forums, so maybe there are leftwing trolls there to the same degree, I don't know.

What I do know is that a substantial percentage of all threads in the politics tab are devoted to trolls stirring people up, and people willingly, knowingly, eagerly, being stirred up by trolls.  It's all kabuki theater, and it mystifies me why anyone likes that, to about the same degree that it mystifies me why anyone likes reality TV.  Both are obviously fake.

At least, when I see a long stretch of "this commented hidden" entries, I know to jump out of the thread and move on.
 
2013-10-15 04:08:54 PM

Ambitwistor: Basically a rehash of this Fark story.


Which is a rehash is different books and papers that have been published in the last 5-6 years... This seems to show up rather regularly on Fark/. I think I've seen this same basic story 3 or 4 times since the beginning of the year at least.
 
db2
2013-10-15 04:10:56 PM
Hey look, a bunch of undergrads just discovered confirmation bias.
 
2013-10-15 05:12:15 PM

Son of Thunder: DemonEater:
I would want to know:
Do people only do this when it's "their team", or do they do it all the time?
Is this mostly a conservative phenomenon, or are middle-of-the-road and/or liberals prone to it also?
Does the way in which the correction is presented make a difference?

Okay, now I'll be a non-jerk about it.
1. People use "team" thinking all the time.  We think in categories, and are biased in our processing of social information, with most biases based on upholding a positive self-concept.  So all groups to which I belong are likely to be seen by me as superior to all other groups, because that makes me feel good about myself.  And researchers have found that the nature of the group doesn't matter.  Political affiliation does it.  Religious affiliation (or lack thereof) does it.  Country does it.  Musical preference.  Preferences for different types of literature.  Hair color.  Language.  Anything.  In grad school I briefly studied under Don Byrne, who found that degree of similarity between two people predicted how positive an attitude one would have toward the other, and it didn't matter what they were similar about.  The math was the same if we were talking about the other person sharing your political affiliation as it was if we were talking about what side of the movie theater you prefer to sit on.  These are powerful motivational forces, and the best part is that we convince ourselves that our biased perceptions are not biased perceptions, they're just clearly seeing reality as it is (lying to yourself loses a bit of power if you know that you're lying).  Look at pretty much ANY fark thread, and you'll see this on parade (I've often wondered about the possibility of teaching an entire semester of social psychology using only fark threads).
2. Everyone does it.  No exceptions.
3. I'm sure that manner of presentation would make a difference.  For example, if the correction was presented as having originated from a right-wing think-tank, right-winge ...


You sound biased.

/socratic
 
2013-10-15 05:32:01 PM

Son of Thunder: DemonEater:
I would want to know:
Do people only do this when it's "their team", or do they do it all the time?
Is this mostly a conservative phenomenon, or are middle-of-the-road and/or liberals prone to it also?
Does the way in which the correction is presented make a difference?

Okay, now I'll be a non-jerk about it.
1. People use "team" thinking all the time.  We think in categories, and are biased in our processing of social information, with most biases based on upholding a positive self-concept.  So all groups to which I belong are likely to be seen by me as superior to all other groups, because that makes me feel good about myself.  And researchers have found that the nature of the group doesn't matter.  Political affiliation does it.  Religious affiliation (or lack thereof) does it.  Country does it.  Musical preference.  Preferences for different types of literature.  Hair color.  Language.  Anything.  In grad school I briefly studied under Don Byrne, who found that degree of similarity between two people predicted how positive an attitude one would have toward the other, and it didn't matter what they were similar about.  The math was the same if we were talking about the other person sharing your political affiliation as it was if we were talking about what side of the movie theater you prefer to sit on.  These are powerful motivational forces, and the best part is that we convince ourselves that our biased perceptions are not biased perceptions, they're just clearly seeing reality as it is (lying to yourself loses a bit of power if you know that you're lying).  Look at pretty much ANY fark thread, and you'll see this on parade (I've often wondered about the possibility of teaching an entire semester of social psychology using only fark threads).
2. Everyone does it.  No exceptions.


I strongly suspect that Byrne found a correlation, not a perfect predictor. If you have a citation showing perfect agreement between data and theory in social psychology (or just about any other field), I'd like to see it.

/Statistician, working in medical research.
 
2013-10-15 06:18:09 PM

StoPPeRmobile: You sound biased.


Guilty as charged.  I am human, so all the stuff I've learned about how humans suck applies to me just as much as everyone else.

draypresct: I strongly suspect that Byrne found a correlation, not a perfect predictor. If you have a citation showing perfect agreement between data and theory in social psychology (or just about any other field), I'd like to see it.


Whether or not 100% of variance is accounted for is not relevant, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm drawing all this from one Byrne study.  Cognitive biases are a robust set of findings, replicated over decades of research involving a wide range of samples drawn from diverse populations.
 
2013-10-15 06:42:14 PM

Son of Thunder: draypresct: I strongly suspect that Byrne found a correlation, not a perfect predictor. If you have a citation showing perfect agreement between data and theory in social psychology (or just about any other field), I'd like to see it.

Whether or not 100% of variance is accounted for is not relevant, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm drawing all this from one Byrne study. Cognitive biases are a robust set of findings, replicated over decades of research involving a wide range of samples drawn from diverse populations.


Apologies: Byrne and other researchers you were citing.

I was objecting to your "Everyone does it. No exceptions."

Cognitive biases are robust, sure. Let me try an analogy: the relationship between age and death rates has been verified many, many times, over lots of very different groups of people. It's incredibly robust and predictive. That being said, there are 60 year-olds who outlive 40 year-olds, and it's not even all that unusual. It's a strong correlation, but it's simply not the case that everyone who is younger will outlive everyone who is older. Lots of things make a difference.

Do you have any citation showing (for example) that every person studied felt more positive about the politics of people who happned to share their taste in music?

I'll bet you an internet that every well-run study found a correlation - people tended to be more positive on average, but there was lots of overlap.
 
2013-10-15 06:47:32 PM
Yes, this has been re-hashed over and over again.

Other than this behavior existing, is there any research going into "how to overcome it"? Not necessarily on a mass, sociological level, but on an individual 'walk someone into a trap and cause them to realize they're being a farking dipshiat and their friends are looking at them with this sad/embarrassed look like they just realized they've been doing the same thing' kind of level.
 
2013-10-15 06:58:25 PM
Poor choice of topic for the study, in my opinion.  The reason behind it is this:  I've been told first-hand accounts from a soldier who was tasked, among other things, to look for evidence of weapons, that there was indeed 'evidence' but not enough to stake a successful career on - suggesting that it had been moved.  In his case, it was a mobile chem lab that had been stripped of equipment and cleaned.

This would be akin to attempting to make a forensic case off of a sterilized motel room post-murder.  Motel rooms on average wouldn't be that sterile, but there is no hard evidence to cast reasonable doubt or proof of wrongdoing.
 
2013-10-15 07:22:49 PM
I'm not puzzled by the Politics tab. It's the Entertainment one that has me scratching my head and worried.
 
2013-10-15 07:54:48 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Actually, nothing can explain the Politics tab.


art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-10-15 10:04:50 PM
No one cares, science.

We asked to CURE it, not explain it.
 
2013-10-15 10:06:45 PM

pkellmey: I have problems not only with what has already been mentioned above but also the individuals deciding what their poltical leanings were without an outside reality check. I know many who believe they are conservative but are really middle of the road, or liberal but really are mostly centrists. Back in the days when I used to do research in college, I found people were not very good at determining what they were unless if a small rating test was used. People were constantly making statements like, "Really? I didn't think I was a centrist at all."


What system would you use? Every one I see, including the fark-favorite x-y axis, has some stupid questions on it.
 
2013-10-15 10:25:30 PM
You can't handle the TRUTH!!
 
2013-10-15 11:29:09 PM

DemonEater: draypresct: They're reacting to something that has been argued back and forth ad nauseum. I still think they would have been better using an issue without the context if they really wanted to investigate this.

That was what I was thinking.  If I read the article without the correction, I'd still disbelieve it, because so much else - the real media, the fact that, well, 10 years later and no WMDs have shown up - proves that Bush lied or was lied to.

The ONLY interesting part of the study is that Conservatives believed WMDs were found more strongly when they read the article that said that none were found.


I'm thinking that's a couple of potential factors:

1. People who already have an opinion on the subject tend to have "memories" regarding their decision as to what their opinion is -- the first part reinforces and brings those memories to the forefront, and the contradictory information only prompts skepticism as it's probably only one or two articles
2. Everyone wants to avoid "gotcha" indoctrination -- seeing this study makes the conservatives think "Oh crap, this isn't a research study, it's a propaganda ploy".  Something similar to what some people call "Concern Trolling" where someone starts of "agreeing but for one slight concern" and then proceeding to stick to that one concern, trying to shoot down everything else in your position.  They got the foot in the door, now they want to convert you to their position.  They don't realize the study is to test for reactions to contradictory information and get defensive.
 
2013-10-15 11:30:59 PM

elchupacabra: DemonEater: draypresct: They're reacting to something that has been argued back and forth ad nauseum. I still think they would have been better using an issue without the context if they really wanted to investigate this.

That was what I was thinking.  If I read the article without the correction, I'd still disbelieve it, because so much else - the real media, the fact that, well, 10 years later and no WMDs have shown up - proves that Bush lied or was lied to.

The ONLY interesting part of the study is that Conservatives believed WMDs were found more strongly when they read the article that said that none were found.

I'm thinking that's a couple of potential factors:

1. People who already have an opinion on the subject tend to have "memories" regarding their decision as to what their opinion is -- the first part reinforces and brings those memories to the forefront, and the contradictory information only prompts skepticism as it's probably only one or two articles
2. Everyone wants to avoid "gotcha" indoctrination -- seeing this study makes the conservatives think "Oh crap, this isn't a research study, it's a propaganda ploy".  Something similar to what some people call "Concern Trolling" where someone starts of "agreeing but for one slight concern" and then proceeding to stick to that one concern, trying to shoot down everything else in your position.  They got the foot in the door, now they want to convert you to their position.   They The study participants don't realize the study is to test for reactions to contradictory information and get defensive.


FIFM

/carry on my wayward son
 
2013-10-15 11:49:50 PM
No one is going to change their mind when they don't accept what you are telling them as fact. The "study" was poorly thought out, and the paper is a joke.
 
2013-10-16 01:01:10 AM
"What the thinker thinks, the prover will prove," to quote Robert Anton Wilson...
 
2013-10-16 03:53:25 AM

Kome: Hell, the Robbers Cave experiment shows how little is really necessary to establish in-group/out-group identity. And, to make things more fun, Clifford Nass and colleagues have shown that we'll show this same kind of mentality for non-human objects that are identified as members of our in-group, even if only as part of a temporary in-group.


Interesting study, thanks for bringing it up.

Maul555: The problem with this specific example is that reality really did contradict itself, and nobody really knows what happened.   Almost all the international experts agreed nearly unanimously that Iraq had WMD's, and the lead up to the war was broadcasted so far and wide that Saddam almost had enough time to hide the entire country of Iraq before the invasion actually happened.   Because of this, a lack of WMD's found does not mean that the experts nor George W was ever wrong about it....


Is this guy serious?
 
2013-10-16 05:07:01 AM

Kibbler: You can make points about tribalism and group thinking, and I will accept them up to a point.  But there is another big factor in the Fark politics tab:  Trolls.  There are a dozen or so accounts, representing, at most, a dozen or so people, that parrot the same rightwing talking points that the GOP is using on any given day.  Yes, you can find people parroting leftwing talking points too.


I tke it you are left wing, yes? Support the democrats? If course you do.

You just fail to understand the essence of group think, because you are too heavily affected by it.
 
2013-10-16 05:09:36 AM

draypresct: 2. Everyone does it.  No exceptions.

I strongly suspect that Byrne found a correlation, not a perfect predictor. If you have a citation showing perfect agreement between data and theory in soci ...


No, he's right. Everyone does it. Including you.

This is the problem with the "psychology of the normal". Everyone tries to insist that it doesn't apply to them.
 
2013-10-16 09:26:54 AM
Just why do people choose to believe what they believe, even rationalizing away or ignoring evidence they're wrong, then refuse to admit they chose to believe what they believe and tell the real reason why they want it to be true?
 
2013-10-16 09:35:58 AM

THE GREAT NAME: draypresct: 2. Everyone does it.  No exceptions.

I strongly suspect that Byrne found a correlation, not a perfect predictor. If you have a citation showing perfect agreement between data and theory in soci ...

No, he's right. Everyone does it. Including you.

This is the problem with the "psychology of the normal". Everyone tries to insist that it doesn't apply to them.



Just to be clear: I'm not really objecting on my own behalf. I don't have a problem with saying that I am influenced by advertising or that I can be biased in favor of someone in 'my group'.

I have a problem with saying that A) it doesn't matter how my group is defined, I will feel the same bias, and B) everyone does it, no exceptions.

Do you have evidence supporting your statement that "everyone does it"? Some study (with a reasonable N) where 100% of the test group behaved one way and 100% of the control group behaved another?

I have never, ever seen a reasonable* study involving human subjects with sufficient statistical power that showed 100% agreement between data and theory. It's always a correlation. Sometimes it's a strong correlation, but there are always outliers. Sort of like the 5% of the nation that thinks Congress is doing a good job . . .

/*Reasonable = not a case study with fewer subjects than authors, not a study where cases that didn't conform to the theory were thrown out of the study, etc.
 
2013-10-16 02:59:45 PM

skinink: I need science to tell me the fools who keep posting over and over and over and OVER in the Politics Tab are idiots? I'd like to meet the one person who had ever changed a political belief based on any argument in a Fark Politics thread.


Are you kidding?  I'll take Weaver and Hubie .  Hell, they changed so dramatically that I refarkied thema couple times over the years.

Many others have changed or ammended their beliefs over the years, too.  Of course, you'd have to be regular to know that.
 
2013-10-16 03:00:00 PM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Just why do people choose to believe what they believe, even rationalizing away or ignoring evidence they're wrong, then refuse to admit they chose to believe what they believe and tell the real reason why they want it to be true?


For the same reason you don't rush out and buy product X whenever an advertisement comes out saying that product X is the best product ever. You have to weigh the information coming in against prior data.
 
2013-10-16 03:01:55 PM

DirkValentine: skinink: I need science to tell me the fools who keep posting over and over and over and OVER in the Politics Tab are idiots? I'd like to meet the one person who had ever changed a political belief based on any argument in a Fark Politics thread.

Are you kidding?  I'll take Weaver and Hubie .  Hell, they changed so dramatically that I refarkied thema couple times over the years.

Many others have changed or ammended their beliefs over the years, too.  Of course, you'd have to be regular to know that.


Also, there were others that went more in the direction they already came from.
 
2013-10-16 04:20:50 PM
How amusing, an article about the Fark tab that is blocked by work filters, and the source is a site also blocked by work filters.
 
2013-10-16 05:49:58 PM

Baryogenesis: Kome: Hell, the Robbers Cave experiment shows how little is really necessary to establish in-group/out-group identity. And, to make things more fun, Clifford Nass and colleagues have shown that we'll show this same kind of mentality for non-human objects that are identified as members of our in-group, even if only as part of a temporary in-group.

Interesting study, thanks for bringing it up.

Maul555: The problem with this specific example is that reality really did contradict itself, and nobody really knows what happened.   Almost all the international experts agreed nearly unanimously that Iraq had WMD's, and the lead up to the war was broadcasted so far and wide that Saddam almost had enough time to hide the entire country of Iraq before the invasion actually happened.   Because of this, a lack of WMD's found does not mean that the experts nor George W was ever wrong about it....

Is this guy serious?


That's not an unreasonable theory he's presenting. Yeah, Saddam would hide the weapons and move them around if he had them.

However, it begs many more questions:
-did we have a plan to seize those weapons?
-did we actually intend to seize those weapons?
-how/why did we invade if not to seize the weapons?
-where did the weapons go?
-wasn't the war a failure if the weapons got away?

On and on with more questions like that forever...

It makes sense even with the "moved weapons" assumption that the weapons were a red herring. The Iraq War was about something entirely different and the weapons (Condi's mushroom cloud) were fear-mongering. The Bush administration wanted the war. What they lacked was a reason to start it.

So, yeah, Maul555 has a reasonable idea and was relevant to TFA. However, his point (like the weapons argument, itself) is merely a technical matter that distracts from the real, significant matters.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report