Facts don't change minds

Post Reply New Topic

That would be true for some people, yeah - those who really don't give a s**t and only care if they lose their car.

Other people have changed their perspective because they really do care and letting someone they care about take that chance would go against that. I've seen the change in attitude over the years as far as feelings of responsibility.

Then there are those that only do the responsible thing with a "gun to their head", which is different.

I've gotta go with Rakshasa on this one. I can't think of one time when I've heard someone say, "I'm not going to drive tonight because it would be a bad thing to do," and I can't possibly count the times I've heard some variation of, "I'm not going to drive tonight because I don't want to get caught."

Yup, that's the long and short of it, I think.

The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.

.......Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (from Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler)

The Nazis figured it out pretty well in regards to appealing to emotions versus facts. They picked up on the ideas from early 20th century psychologists and capitalists and expanded it greatly... Then the rest of the corporate and political world took notice and started doing the same things. Hey, it works pretty well on masses of dumb people and now it's such the norm that hardly anyone questions it anymore...

If one individual can 'self correct a belief' without the the aid and art of mass persuasion to correct the wrong notion, whilst a thousand others 'emote into the same belief' ( either because it triggers their feel good endorphins(ego) or because of a "moral majority" -fear) the only other option is it is a "neurological glitch"or defect.

I have my own faults and biases(as anyone) , but I never could understand HOW someone cannot see even the slightest possibility that they could be wrong .
Such ones will fight tooth and nail when confronted with an "alternate possibility".

I would suggest that (innate and high ) intelligence negatively correlates(strongly) with buying into this "faith".

As a reminder, the original topic was to do with what changes people's opinions. not their behaviours. The article was about how facts do not change opinions, and then it was discussed in the thread that manipulation does change opinions. Behaviour is another entirely.

My example was to do with people opinions and attitudes having shifted, not individual examples of behaviour. There is a difference between the two.

I started to drive when I was 16 years old. That was in 1978. I'm now 48 years old. That's 32 years of driving, living and being in social situations with drinkers. Have I seen a change in opinions and attitudes over that time? You bet I have. People have taken keys away and people have designated drivers. People have slept over instead of getting behind the wheel or they've called a cab. It's been progressive over the years but it's quite different then it was 30 years ago and that started even before the laws got strict with it.

Yup, that's probably the reason that religion still exists, along with the cults, conspiracies, etc.

And governments, said the anarchist with a wry smile.

And my pseudo-quotes illustrate that, from my observations, attitudes haven't changed.

DUI rates haven't gone down because people are now more concerned about the societal impact of it. They're still operating from simple self-interest - they are motivated by fear. In the old days, people didn't drink and drive if they thought they might get caught. Today, people don't drink and drive because they think they might get caught, and the punishment for getting caught is much, much higher than it was back then. If the punishments were reduced back to what they were in 1978, the rate of DUI would soon rise, also.

People are more likely to believe stuff that can be told as a cute story or that has an emotional "oomph" to it. Evidence and logical consistency don't enter into the equation. They also like to anthropomorphize everything so that they can pretend the cosmos revolves around their particular tribe, ethnicity, or sociocultural identity.

Plus, conspiracy theories are often way more interesting than the cold hard reality. Mystery and intrigue are exciting. I mean alien/ufo/nwo conspiracies are way cooler and more sinister sounding than more of the same 'ole, same 'ole. You know, one group of humans screwing over and disenfranchising another, basically what's been going on since humans first crawled out of their caves and began forming political hierarchies.

You see what's happening here?

Do you feel like you're sticking your feet firmer in the ground with your opinion?

I did acknowledge back a few posts ago that your viewpoint and mine both co-exist in the world. Do you think that only you are right?

Are all people motivated only out of pure self interest and will only obey laws with a gun to their head, as your statements assert? Or is it possible for you to open your mind and see that there are those who don't follow your biased worldview?

I can see both sides of it.

DUI rates have gone down probably because of both reasons - The law forcing people due to fear of losing their car or incarceration and because have changed their opinion on how irresponsible and possibly deadly it could be to drive drunk.

It's hard for me to understand why someone would dismiss facts in favor of contradictory opinion. I just don't get the mentality it takes to do such a thing.

Here are a couple reasonable reasons:

)They just don't believe that the thing being presented as a fact is true. Many times that skepticism is warranted. Just because something is presented as a fact does not mean that it is true. Callista pointed out the wisdom of this stance early in the thread. If a person changes their belief every time they encounter something that has been labeled "fact", they will be in in constant mental flux, which is very unstable.

2)Facts in isolation can mean very different things to different people. Witness the exchange between crocus and another 1 upthread. Both have presented facts and yet arrived at very different conclusions. A fact in isolation may be quite true but it is only one tiny facet of a much bigger picture.

Some facts from that exchange:

1)DUI has dropped in the U.S.

2)There has been a propaganda campaign of "Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk" and "Designated Driver" which urges people to consider social responsibilities to their friends in order to reduce drunk driving incidents.

3)Fines for drunk driving have increased.

These three facts can be proven with research (googling, at least). Both parties are in possession of these three facts and agree on them. And yet the disagreement continues because they are facts in isolation. What isn't a known fact, and what is in dispute, is what is going on in any given person's mind when they make the decision to not drive drunk. These facts in isolation can't change minds because they are only a very small facet of a much larger and impossible thing to know- what is going on in every single person's mind when they make a decision.

And so, often a fact won't change somebody's mind because the fact doesn't alter the big picture especially if the big picture is mostly guesswork- what is going on in peoples' minds in this case.

I missed where you acknowledged that both were legitimate.

No, I do not think that only I am right. I suppose I should have put in qualifiers, like ". . . haven't gone down primarily/solelybecause . . . ," and the like. I did not intend to come across as if your suggestion was entirely false. I just get a bit overzealous in defending my position, if I think someone is dismissing it out-of-hand.

I fully agree with the last paragraph quoted above, although I'll bet we could get into a discussion over which is the more important factor! I guess we were arguing past each other. Glad you caught it, and could see the humor in it - especially in THIS thread!

So it's more a case of filling in the blanks?

Yes, I think so.

When you hear a new fact, you have to decide if you believe it is true (given how easy it is to manipulate data and images, I can understand this). Then you have to decide where you think it fits into the big picture.

Deciding where a fact fits into the big picture seems to be where a lot of disagreements happen.

Consider global warming. The last time there was a horribly cold spell in the U.S., the coldest on record for that date in many years, opponents of global warming presented this fact to proponents of global warming as proof that there is no global warming. This cold spell was a fact. It did not change the minds of the proponents of global warming. Both sides of the issue were filling in the blanks of what this fact implied. To opponents, it implied the earth is no warmer than it used to be. To proponents it implied that there are variations within a larger pattern of overall increase and perhaps part of an increase in crazy weather overall.