The Science of Science Denial: Motivated Reasoning
0
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
The article is a bit long, but is a worthwhile read. Here are some relevant bits:
The article concludes that to counteract this human tendency, we have to "lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance."
And now, to apply this to two recent headlines.
First a study funded and run by global warming critics which set out to "reveal biases" in the way the climate scientists analysed data actually found that their review of the data supported the current scientific consensus on global warming. (Source). However, the conservative backers were disappointed with the results, and the lead researcher even said that "further data-crunching 'could bring our current agreement into disagreement.'" In short, even in the face of facts, they still hold on to their scepticism of global warming.
On the flip side, we have the leader of the National Organization for Marriage (a conservative anti-gay marriage group) changing views and now supporting full marriage equality. (Source) Marinelli credits his exposure to gay families and marriage equality supporters on his anti-gay marriage tour for changing his mind. It all stemmed from the simple fact that he realised that gays "were not just political targets, they were real people who just… wanted to get married." He also realised that the people involved in his campaign were fostering a climate of hate. That got him looking at the facts and distinguishing between civil marriage and religious marriage. This is an example of how appealing to emotions can get someone to look at the facts and change their minds.
Long story short--to bring us to reason effectively, we have to first motivate our brains to do so by appealing to emotions, to values, and/or to authority. Head-on, fact-based rebuttals actually backfire in many cases, and people cling stronger to their erroneous views because they believe it as an attack on their values. It may not be logical to do so, but it is effective for getting our monkey brains to stop and look at the facts.
The article is a bit long, but is a worthwhile read. Here are some relevant bits:
Spoiler:
The article concludes that to counteract this human tendency, we have to "lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance."
And now, to apply this to two recent headlines.
First a study funded and run by global warming critics which set out to "reveal biases" in the way the climate scientists analysed data actually found that their review of the data supported the current scientific consensus on global warming. (Source). However, the conservative backers were disappointed with the results, and the lead researcher even said that "further data-crunching 'could bring our current agreement into disagreement.'" In short, even in the face of facts, they still hold on to their scepticism of global warming.
On the flip side, we have the leader of the National Organization for Marriage (a conservative anti-gay marriage group) changing views and now supporting full marriage equality. (Source) Marinelli credits his exposure to gay families and marriage equality supporters on his anti-gay marriage tour for changing his mind. It all stemmed from the simple fact that he realised that gays "were not just political targets, they were real people who just… wanted to get married." He also realised that the people involved in his campaign were fostering a climate of hate. That got him looking at the facts and distinguishing between civil marriage and religious marriage. This is an example of how appealing to emotions can get someone to look at the facts and change their minds.
Long story short--to bring us to reason effectively, we have to first motivate our brains to do so by appealing to emotions, to values, and/or to authority. Head-on, fact-based rebuttals actually backfire in many cases, and people cling stronger to their erroneous views because they believe it as an attack on their values. It may not be logical to do so, but it is effective for getting our monkey brains to stop and look at the facts.
0
Politicians have known this for centuries. Rather than discuss policy, they'd rather grandstand, because that sort of thing appeals first to people rather than a logical discussion.
There's a reason why so many people will toss appealing to emotions and such into a debate thread. In their experience, it is a more effective than having an intelligent discussion (likely that is how they were convinced themselves), and thus they will use it, thinking that it is the right way to do things.
On a personal level, I try to avoid using arguments like that. While I know appealing to emotions is more effective in swaying the masses, the opinion of the masses is not something I'm after. I'm more interested in changing the minds of people whom I can respect -- ie, people who use intelligence and facts rather than emotions when discussing something.
There's a reason why so many people will toss appealing to emotions and such into a debate thread. In their experience, it is a more effective than having an intelligent discussion (likely that is how they were convinced themselves), and thus they will use it, thinking that it is the right way to do things.
On a personal level, I try to avoid using arguments like that. While I know appealing to emotions is more effective in swaying the masses, the opinion of the masses is not something I'm after. I'm more interested in changing the minds of people whom I can respect -- ie, people who use intelligence and facts rather than emotions when discussing something.
0
well said, fatman. I avoid such speech like the plague, as I know well that danger that laces the tyranny of the majority. I'm a loner at heart though, so I most always only ever speak within the terms of logic and rationality. If you happenstance upon me as an individual unable to credit yourself with a free thinking, reasoning mind, then you are simply not worth my time.