Facts don't change minds

Post Reply New Topic

I understand not automatically believing something presented as fact. I just didn't understand why some people would dispute that fact once it's been proven.

Well, I'm glad Crocus and Another_1 shook hands and made good with each other.

But.. I am Exclavius, and I guess I have to give a memetic explanation why all changes in human behavior and opinion are based on self-interest. Even if, when we do them, we don't "feel" that they are just on self interest.

Being a "good guy (or gal)" is a benefit to humans. If we are thought of as nice, the ideas we speak and write get listened to more openly. Our minds are built on the spread of ideas, beliefs and behaviors (memes). Our memes drive us to behavior that will get our memes spread more. So, by obeying the "Friends don't let friends drink and drive" rules, we are seen as nicer people, so that not only does that meme of "friends don't let friends drink and drive" get passed on from one person to another person, other ideas that the person who is passing it on, also get passed on. The person receiving the meme, takes the other memes because he is conditioned to see the nice person as being someone to copy, so that he can be viewed as more nice, and hence have his memes passed on too. So, both people are working in their own self-interest (reciprocal altruism in a way)
The reason both people see it as something that is a nice thing, is BOTH the reasons you discuss, the ad campaign to condition us, and the punitive side that drives the nail home, "If it's illegal it must be bad"

Anyways, that's the memetic explanation. I'm sure others could explain it better, but it gives you the gist of it, and it's a better explanation that Evolutionary Psychology or Socio-biology could provide.

There is no areas for "truth" in the brain.

When people are learning new things, they immediately accept everything, and then after a short mental delay, decide whether it belongs or not- if they don't like it, it gets "thrown" out. Even though they are aware of the fact, it's like it is not really organized into their brains, in an objective sense. This is why religious fanatics can be so stubborn, even if they may be highly intelligent.

People think in emotional thought bubbles. If something doesn't fit in their bubble, it bounces off, and isn't "real" for them.

Also, apparently the brain organizes information differently if it is perceived to be from a "reliable" source- eg. from the same political party- rather than an "unreliable" source.

no worries




I think our short exchange was a good example of how people can get more entrenched with their opinion when presented with facts by someone supposedly proving a different opinion/theory..whatever. We feel we have to defend ourselves. Sometimes we even get so vehement in defending our own viewpoint that we miss where there is a convergence of opinion because we've developed tunnel vision of the mind.

If we're not aware of that happening an open-ended discussion about an issue quickly turns into a duel of wits with each person piling up their arsenal of facts, not a productive way to find answers to issues...in my opinion but it's what commonly happens. For example, you say that we could get into a discussion over which is the more important factor, after agreeing with my last paragraph. That's pretty much what we started to do and it doesn't lead to a resolution. I prefer a more scientific problem solving, creative, type of style in which you utilize both left and right brain thinking tearing apart an issue and looking at every nuance of it and then maybe coming to some conclusions.

What I find interesting is how supposed "truth" using facts can be manipulated in so many ways and then fed to us using our own ego defenses to make us believe pretty much anything. It's that kind of stuff we should be concerned about. Knowing our own bias is crucial. It's why advertising and propaganda work. It's how politicians drum up support for war..etc. etc. We don't just act or make up our minds about something because of laws. We often act out of unconscious emotional needs, deficiencies and motives.

Because when the emotional reasons for holding onto an idea are strong, logic doesn't stand a chance. People are often emotionally attached to their beliefs because those beliefs reassure them of their own worth or security. Even in the world's finest neurotypical, much of the emotional drive for behaviour is not available to consciousness analysis, though it doesn't feel that way to the brain's owner, it feels as if behaviour is completely the result of conscious thought. Brains are like that - one lobe doesn't like the other lobes to know exactly what it's up to.

Most of us have to feel that we're fairly strong, lovable, decent, honest, caring, intelligent, etc. But most of us aren't, so we delude ourselves and rationalise all we do so that it fits our self-image. If by some miracle we had a revelation and became instantly aware of what we really were, our minds probably couldn't cope with it all at once, because our entire self-image would have been destroyed.

There are some good examples in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

If you like Freud, look up Defense Mechanisms on the same site.....and Depressive Realism is another page that explains some of the facets of this intriguing question, why and how people hold onto false beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Thanks. It makes more sense now.

Indeed well put. Perhaps the best I've ever heard it put. Extremely consistent with a memetic approach and with the idea of the "self" being an extension of the "ideas" that the brain holds. That denying an idea which is held within the self is in fact denying and degrading the self.

The idea takes a life of it's own. That life is a parasite (more so than a virus), living on us, and controlling us for it's own means. Just as the aliens do in those cheesy sci-fi movies.
The funny thing is though, that that parasite doesn't even exist as a parasite until it comes in contact with a brain that is sufficiently developed to "properly hold it"

I'm suddenly reminded of a particular Sliders episode with a Symbiot.

i think this is a more complicated question really.

i am certainly very rigid about certain things, and nothing would sway me. this goes for what i consider ethical / human rights issues. i doubt i am swayed by misinformation; but i could be mislead, say, about a politician's true leanings due to a paucity of trustworthy information. (trying to stay unspecific with this reply.) IRL with actual human people, unfortunately i tend to also create very rigid rules about the person: trustworthy, not. and i will flip flop, seemingly unable to grasp someone in their totality as possibly trustworthy in some situations but not others, which is probably the truth about most people but a truth that i cannot seem to absorb and accept, even if i can verbalize it. one lie makes me distrust a person. so although i have very strong political beliefs, i distrust virtually all politicians as any of them can be caught disregarding a campaign promise or swaying to a special interest group instead of holding their ground on an issue. this may actually be sensible, in the grand scheme of things, but to me personally it does not make sense.

on the flipside, i never believe anything gossipy (email hoaxes, quotations that sound fluffy and may not be attributed to the right source) and will always find the source and correct untruths. and i have read many books on urban legend and can spot those kinds of things a mile away. so in that way, i believe a lot of people who perpetuate these sorts of things are probably swayed by emotional response or some sort of hysteria, while i sit coolly at my web browser and get the facts.

(btw re: urban legend, if anyone else has an interest in it, Jan Harold Brunvand's books are excellent.)



there seem to be two types of people (who feel "the system" is cheating someone): those who think the rich are getting away with too much, and those who think the poor (those on welfare, disability) are cheating the system and getting away with too much. how the rich could believe they are being cheated by the poor is a mystery i can't help you solve.

don't be sad. it's called manipulation, and you are a better person for not engaging in it.

I'm the same way about urban legends and all those email hoaxes or supposedly magical formulas. I got one a little while ago from my sister (she's a compulsive forwarder of mass emails most of which are a waste of my time), that was suppose to magically tell you which card you were thinking of. The first image had 5 playing cards and you were suppose to pick one then do a bunch of calculations and 5 more cards were shown. I can't remember how the whole thing went unfortunately, but the end of it was suppose to show your card as the only one missing. I immediately noticed a trompe l'oel trick they did by making some of the cards actually two suits at once (ie. one card was a Jack of spades and clubs). She got a whole bunch of replies from people saying basically "OMG! THAT"S AMAZING!! !" I sent her a reply explaining the trick and she her response was "oh...." The email was prefaced by all these capitalized dramatic exclamations of how "WOWed" you were going to be. So people were "Wowed". People see what they want to see.

Why do rich people blame poor people? To defend, in their minds, their own right to have so much. I'm sure there is a more suitable term for it, but I call it self justification. Say someone is well off financially. They came from a family that had a decent amount of money, so they were able to afford a good education and therefore get a job that pays well. They were probably also helped out financially to get on their feet, so they don't get into too much debt. They can buy a nice home, etc. Now they see some poor schmuck who can't make ends meet. Maybe he/she worked in the manufacturing sector and lost their job and now they are screwed working for minimum wage.

The rich person needs to justify in his or her own mind why they have so much and why the other guy is piss poor, so he attributes his own financial wealth all to his own doing and the other guy's all to his own doing. So, if you're poor, it's your own damn fault in the rich guys mind. This takes any accountability away from the richer person as a member of society to look at any built-in inequities in the system that contributed to the disparity of wealth.

Why they actually think they are being cheated is because any money given out by the government to help people comes from taxes. The extremely rich, although they pay out less proportionately in taxes because they find loopholes and tax shelters, are basically stingy. They hate paying taxes. I believe they resent any money being handed out by the government, even though, ironically they most often got handed their money from family. So, while it's true that there are many lazy people who are in a generational cycle of welfare loafing and do take advantage of the system, along with those who abuse it for disability, they are not all system abusers, as the rich would like to think.

well said (all). bad system, not bad rich folks or bad poor folks.

I too feel strongly about social justice and human rights, and would therefore be unlikely to be swayed by a position I see as small-minded and lacking in compassion, even if there are facts to support that it is a reasonable conclusion in some practical, realistic sense.

In real life I am very rigid about whether I consider someone to be a good person or a bad person, and I can't bring myself to see any good in someone who has done something cruel or manipulative. I can't grasp someone in their totality as part good and part bad either, though I don't flip-flop -- maybe I'm too rigid for that? This has caused me terrible problems, When people have been cruel to me I can't see it in any other light and I am shocked by people around me who shrug it off, which makes it even more painful for me to tolerate and entrenches me even more.

I'm assuming this is due to AS? I feel like I don't know anymore because everyone thinks that my pain is completely unreasonable, including my therapist.

Isn't better a relative term?
If i'm a better person for it, from what perspective am I better? From my own self-worth? I won't argue that one. From the perspective of other Aspies... perhaps.
But from the perspective of those around me... I'm not really sure that rings completely true.

My most loyal friend is also autie/aspie. The person I love the most isn't.... although I can't read motives well, I do believe that my relationship with her would be better if i were more manipulative. I just can't manage it. When I try, it turns out totally wrong from what I intended. And more often than not any manipulation I do manage, is done without even knowing I was doing it, let alone intending it (I think this is a by-product of being raised in a VERY VERY manipulative family, school, church etc)