Por que Galileo quase foi para fogueira ao inves das pessoas aceitarem a verdade?
Por que o cara afunda a empresa, mas nao muda de opiniao antes que seja tarde demais?
Jesus nao veio ''nos salvar'' (de novo) no ano 2000, a tal virada. E ai? Arrumaram desculpa tambem para mais essa previsao fracassada. Mas nao mudaram a fe, aqueles que tinham certeza. Quando confrontados com o fato, dao uma desculpa qualquer ou se tornam agressivos.
Dois artigos que realmente valem seu tempo. Espero que possam mudar de opiniao com frequencia. Isso seria uma boa indicacao do seu bem estar mental....
Why It's Hard to Change People's Minds
October 7, 2008
A long time ago, Mark Twain told us: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Entwined in Twain's train of thought, is an implicit -- and important -- distinction: the difference between being uninformed and being misinformed.
Today, there's scholarship to back up Twain's theory that being ignorant isn't as troublesome as being certain about something that "just ain't so."
Ignorance can be educated. But what's the antidote to misinformation? Correct information?
Not exactly -- according to political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, co-authors of one of the few academic studies on the subject, "When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions."
While it may seem like common sense to think misinformation can be countered by giving people the real 411, Nyhan and Reifler's research indicates that correct information often fails to reduce misperceptions among the ideologically-committed, particularly doctrinaire conservatives.
That's something many readers of this column understand intuitively after having seen false claims like Obama-is-a-Muslim refuted over and over again and yet, unbelievably, somehow manages to persist.
There's lots of research on citizen ignorance but there's only a handful of studies that focus on misinformation and the effect it has on political opinions. Nyhan and Reifler's work adds to what Yale University political scientist Robert Bullock has found: it's possible to correct and change misinformed political opinions, but the truth (small 't') ain't enough.
In Bullock's experimental study, participants were shown the transcript for an ad created by a pro-choice group opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts. The ad falsely accused Roberts of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."
What Bullock found was that 56 percent of the Democratic participants disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation. After seeing the attack ad, it jumped to 80 percent.
When they were shown an ad that refuted the misinformation and were also told the pro-choice group had withdrawn the original ad, the disapproval rating didn't drop back down to 56 percent but to 72 percent.
Nyhan and Reifler conducted a series of studies where subjects were presented with mock news articles on "hot button" issues that included demonstrably false assertions like: Iraq possessed WMD immediately before the U.S. invasion. Tax cuts lead to economic growth. Bush banned stem cell research, as Sens. Kerry and Kennedy claimed during the 2004 presidential campaign.
With the Iraq-possessed-WMD-immediately-before-the-invasion assertion, participants were shown mock news articles supporting the unfounded Bush administration claim and then provided the refutation by way of the Duelfer Report, which authoritatively details the documented lack of WMD, or even an active production program, in Iraq just before the invasion.
But instead of changing the minds of ideologically-committed war-backers, Nyhan and Reifler found a "backfire effect," in which Iraq invasion-supporters only slightly modified their view without letting go of the misinformation by saying "Saddam Hussein was able to hide or destroy these weapons right before U.S. forces arrived." Sigh.
Nyhan and Reifler attribute that kind of "thinking" to the affects of "motivated reasoning," which can distort how people process information.
"As a result (of motivated reasoning), the corrections fail to reduce misperceptions for the most committed participants. Even worse, they actually strengthen misperceptions among ideological subgroups."
Now you know why those back-and-forth on-line debates so often prove to be fruitless. Unfortunately, neither Bullock, Nyhan, or Reifler suggest a way to successfully counter misinformation clung to by those who hold their political opinions with an air of certitude.
Washington Post columnist Shankar Vedantam suggests wrapping refutations in language that enhances the self-esteem of the misinformed.
Whatever you do, just don't forget Twain's timeless advice: "tell the truth or trump -- but get the trick."
Entwined in Twain's train of thought, is an implicit -- and important -- distinction: the difference between being uninformed and being misinformed.
Today, there's scholarship to back up Twain's theory that being ignorant isn't as troublesome as being certain about something that "just ain't so."
Ignorance can be educated. But what's the antidote to misinformation? Correct information?
Not exactly -- according to political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, co-authors of one of the few academic studies on the subject, "When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions."
While it may seem like common sense to think misinformation can be countered by giving people the real 411, Nyhan and Reifler's research indicates that correct information often fails to reduce misperceptions among the ideologically-committed, particularly doctrinaire conservatives.
That's something many readers of this column understand intuitively after having seen false claims like Obama-is-a-Muslim refuted over and over again and yet, unbelievably, somehow manages to persist.
There's lots of research on citizen ignorance but there's only a handful of studies that focus on misinformation and the effect it has on political opinions. Nyhan and Reifler's work adds to what Yale University political scientist Robert Bullock has found: it's possible to correct and change misinformed political opinions, but the truth (small 't') ain't enough.
In Bullock's experimental study, participants were shown the transcript for an ad created by a pro-choice group opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts. The ad falsely accused Roberts of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."
What Bullock found was that 56 percent of the Democratic participants disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation. After seeing the attack ad, it jumped to 80 percent.
When they were shown an ad that refuted the misinformation and were also told the pro-choice group had withdrawn the original ad, the disapproval rating didn't drop back down to 56 percent but to 72 percent.
Nyhan and Reifler conducted a series of studies where subjects were presented with mock news articles on "hot button" issues that included demonstrably false assertions like: Iraq possessed WMD immediately before the U.S. invasion. Tax cuts lead to economic growth. Bush banned stem cell research, as Sens. Kerry and Kennedy claimed during the 2004 presidential campaign.
With the Iraq-possessed-WMD-immediately-before-the-invasion assertion, participants were shown mock news articles supporting the unfounded Bush administration claim and then provided the refutation by way of the Duelfer Report, which authoritatively details the documented lack of WMD, or even an active production program, in Iraq just before the invasion.
But instead of changing the minds of ideologically-committed war-backers, Nyhan and Reifler found a "backfire effect," in which Iraq invasion-supporters only slightly modified their view without letting go of the misinformation by saying "Saddam Hussein was able to hide or destroy these weapons right before U.S. forces arrived." Sigh.
Nyhan and Reifler attribute that kind of "thinking" to the affects of "motivated reasoning," which can distort how people process information.
"As a result (of motivated reasoning), the corrections fail to reduce misperceptions for the most committed participants. Even worse, they actually strengthen misperceptions among ideological subgroups."
Now you know why those back-and-forth on-line debates so often prove to be fruitless. Unfortunately, neither Bullock, Nyhan, or Reifler suggest a way to successfully counter misinformation clung to by those who hold their political opinions with an air of certitude.
Washington Post columnist Shankar Vedantam suggests wrapping refutations in language that enhances the self-esteem of the misinformed.
Whatever you do, just don't forget Twain's timeless advice: "tell the truth or trump -- but get the trick."
----------------------------------xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--------------------------------------
The Psychology of Opinion: Why Even Facts Won't Change Some People's Minds
Posted in Depression by Cyndi Sarnoff-Ross on Sep 15, 2010
I recently read an interesting article about why being given the “facts” about something doesn’t necessarily change a person’s opinion. Recent research has been done to determine why it is that people are often so committed to their point of view as being the right one, despite compelling evidence to the contrary. As a mental health professional I found the results both interesting and unfortunate because they leave little hope for the idea that factual evidence actually matters in many cases.
Nowhere does this play out more than in the realm of politics. As human beings we are naturally drawn to information that supports our beliefs; this is why people form groups, whether around religion or simply shared interests. But what the studies bore out was that when presented with evidence debunking their convictions, people became even more rooted in their original beliefs either as a defense mechanism or as a form of protest.
It seems a bit silly until you really think about what it feels like to be proven wrong and what that may mean for one’s own sense of self. If you have held on to a belief about something for a long time and then you are suddenly forced to change your opinion, what does that say about you and how does that undermine your future credibility. These are all relatively unconscious thoughts which is why they are so incredibly powerful.
Of note was the correlation between a person’s level of self esteem and their willingness to alter their opinion. Those who generally had more self confidence were willing to reconsider their position while those who felt insecure or negatively challenged were less likely to budge. It often takes a long time for people to get comfortable with the phrase, “I don’t know” and even longer for people to cozy up to the idea that maybe they may have been wrong.
This is a difficult problem to tackle and it affects so many areas of people’s lives and interactions. I see this dilemma frequently when working with couples in therapy. Of course this only applies to those things that are actually factual and not those things that are subjective, where reasonable minds can in fact differ. It brings to mind the old adage, “everyone has a right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.”
Nowhere does this play out more than in the realm of politics. As human beings we are naturally drawn to information that supports our beliefs; this is why people form groups, whether around religion or simply shared interests. But what the studies bore out was that when presented with evidence debunking their convictions, people became even more rooted in their original beliefs either as a defense mechanism or as a form of protest.
It seems a bit silly until you really think about what it feels like to be proven wrong and what that may mean for one’s own sense of self. If you have held on to a belief about something for a long time and then you are suddenly forced to change your opinion, what does that say about you and how does that undermine your future credibility. These are all relatively unconscious thoughts which is why they are so incredibly powerful.
Of note was the correlation between a person’s level of self esteem and their willingness to alter their opinion. Those who generally had more self confidence were willing to reconsider their position while those who felt insecure or negatively challenged were less likely to budge. It often takes a long time for people to get comfortable with the phrase, “I don’t know” and even longer for people to cozy up to the idea that maybe they may have been wrong.
This is a difficult problem to tackle and it affects so many areas of people’s lives and interactions. I see this dilemma frequently when working with couples in therapy. Of course this only applies to those things that are actually factual and not those things that are subjective, where reasonable minds can in fact differ. It brings to mind the old adage, “everyone has a right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.”
For most people changing their minds about something even trivial is the same as admitting defeat, and acknowledging a coleague for just "being right" about something has become more and more rare these days.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying I'm free of such fate, but I believe it's important to be surrounded by people who'll somehow challenge us in any area of our lives. Being the enemy of stagnation, challenge is what drives us forward, both in our minds and in our daily actions.
Enfim, alguém precisa ser polêmico e desafiar o status quo de vez em quando, não é?
Quando você mencionou "Brunellos lixo" há alguns artigos atrás, por exemplo, eu tomei um susto, principalmente porque os italianos e a Sangiovese são meus vinhos favoritos, mas também entendo perfeitamente de onde veio essa afirmação.
Enquanto isso, vou ensaiando para provar meu primeiro Brunello a qualquer momento. :)
Cheers!
Hello.
DeleteAs of this morning (again) i was engaged into some conversation around the themes politics and religion. I can't defeat anyone's view, i don't want to, but i'm glad i have this subject more clear to me now; Why won't we change our views, that is.
Just look at what The D's supporters are doing right now. They won't concede the guy is dangerous or a lunatic or even completely not prepared to lead the country. The same applies to Pt x everybody else in Brazil. A hard evidence is useless.
Alfred E. Neuman was right all long.
Brunello bom somente os feitos por pequenos produtores, dos mais tradicionais, nada comercial. Va a direto a fonte! Igual a queijo bom na Franca, eles nem vendem para consumo apos viagem longa. Those were my 2 cents.
Beleza!
DeleteQuando acontecer volto exatamente a este post e te digo como foi o Brunello.
:)