On 27 July 2010 17:11, Francis Irving <[email protected]> wrote: > An interesting article about how facts don't help, link from Julian > below. >
One of the very positive things that comes out of some of the academic research it links to is the finding that the more self-confidence people have, the more easily they will drop preconceived notions in the face of conflicting evidence. That, I think, is something to work on. I've always been attracted to the idea of "mind training" (a term I found in A.E. Van Vogt's "Weapon Shops" series). If people are trained to think well, then they are more likely to be able to contribute effectively to a democratic society: not merely narrowly in terms of the way in which they vote, but more broadly in the way they contribute to society. There are preconceptions which are relatively easy to dispel in safe and comfortable environments. Getting someone into the habit of evaluating evidence properly without directly challenging their core beliefs would, I hope, spill over into the more important parts of their lives. Sneaky, but, I think, effective. So, maybe that's something we should think about doing? I'm not sure of the shape of it. Really its something that happens to a very minimal degree in school (eg in media studies or in data handling) but not to a very great extent and not very practically. Certainly pushing straight thinking may be more effective that pushing whatever real agenda you may have. Something to think about maybe? Taking on someone's belief system head on is very rarely the right way to go about things. It is very easy to find oneself becoming convinced of one's own arguments. This is sufficiently trite that I don't need to read academic research on it (they haven't really affected my priors 8-). For example, (with my Christian hat on) I can tell you that participating in evangelism makes one believe in the Christian faith more not less, because, not despite, spending time arguing with people who disagree with you. This is well understood by effective Christian organisations who make use of it. Equally, experience in de-programming, suggests that the most helpful and long-lasting forms of de-programming (and ones that are not abusive) simply involve giving cult members time and space to stop and think without any pressure. Putting someone in a relaxed environment with people to talk about random things, can be the most effective of all. My profession (the bar) is very well aware of the problems of confirmation bias. Advocates all too easily come to believe the objective certainty of their own cases, which is a danger we are trained to avoid. Note: there's nothing wrong with believing you are right, the problem comes when you think that you are self-evidently right, then your advocacy goes to pot. It is also vital to be able to assess a client's case objectively. That is extremely tough since you may already have views about it, but your bottom line is affected by a probabilistic assessment of the likely outcome. To do that you have to anticipate arguments that will be raised against you. Lots of bar training is directed at being able to do that well, but one still sees many failures in practice. > One of the cultural things I like about the community around mySociety > is our susceptibility to facts. It's key to our non-partisanship. > More fundamentally though, it's a built in geek trait. I think this is coupled with habit again. As a programmer one is habituated to dealing with a device (a computer) which has an objective reality that is relatively inflexible and that is not susceptible to persuasion, flannel or otherwise able to behave other than its internal logic demands. When I was teaching children mathematics they were often sceptical of some of my conclusions (however well explained) but a quick appeal to a calculator resolved their doubts instantly. Its a classic amongst maths teachers, but 0.2*0.2=0.04 is a result many children do not believe (they are already convinced its 0.4, on the basis that 0.5*0.5=0.25 and extrapolating from there), it helps to be able to show that the *calculator* shows otherwise 8-). > > We admit when we're wrong. > Even more fundamentally we are used to being put in situations where it is meaningful to be wrong and easily so ascertainable. Having said that, I've had plenty of arguments with you personally which generated more heat than light so as another person said we aren't perfect 8-). -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
