• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why facts don't change your mind

W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
lewisnotmiller said:
That's not the thrust of the article though.
This is about how, and to some extent why, we disregard facts in favour or opinion. And it cites very interesting studies demonstrating just how unimportant facts are in relative terms.
Click to expand...
Our belief systems are based on foundation premises. Like the foundation of a house, these fundamental premises of our belief systems supports all the weight of the house; our belief system. A few facts may have an affect on one room in that house but, that alone may not alter the foundation, so the house remains as is. One can spackle the cracks, but not have to change anything.

Questioning one's own foundation premises is not an easy thing to do, since foundation premises take time to build and may not even be conscious, since they may have evolved over a long time, beginning many years ago.

For example, science and evolution can show that human DNA goes back millions of years. This fact is often used to discredit the stories of Genesis, which claim a smaller time window. However, one of my foundation premises, based on many years of research into consciousness and the unconscious mind, believes that Genesis is not talking about DNA, but about modern consciousness and the evolution of the modern ego.

For example, through will and choice, I can take steroids and lift weights to turn a body with DNA, that says I should weight 140 pounds, into a muscular body that weighs 240 pounds. This is mind over matter, that the DNA alone, could not explain, if we saw that 240 pound body; end result, and had some of the person's DNA. Consciousness and will can explain this, with consciousness, above the DNA in terms of hierarchy and priority. We can will to be unnatural, through collective learning.

Those facts of million year old human DNA are not relevant to me. This is more relevant to those with a retro foundation that assumes DNA can tell us all. This is why discussion of the facts of the ego and inner self can't get through. Science is still stuck at 1950's; discovery of one size fits all DNA. Advancing foundation premises is not that easy since if the foundation cracks, the weight above cannot be further expanded.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
wellwisher said:
Our belief systems are based on foundation premises. Like the foundation of a house, these fundamental premises of our belief systems supports all the weight of the house; our belief system. A few facts may have an affect on one room in that house but, that alone may not alter the foundation, so the house remains as is. One can spackle the cracks, but not have to change anything.

Questioning one's own foundation premises is not an easy thing to do, since foundation premises take time to build and may not even be conscious, since they may have evolved over a long time, beginning many years ago.

For example, science and evolution can show that human DNA goes back millions of years. This fact is often used to discredit the stories of Genesis, which claim a smaller time window. However, one of my foundation premises, based on many years of research into consciousness and the unconscious mind, believes that Genesis is not talking about DNA, but about modern consciousness and the evolution of the modern ego.

For example, through will and choice, I can take steroids and lift weights to turn a body with DNA, that says I should weight 140 pounds, into a muscular body that weighs 240 pounds. This is mind over matter, that the DNA alone, could not explain, if we saw that 240 pound body; end result, and had some of the person's DNA. Consciousness and will can explain this, with consciousness, above the DNA in terms of hierarchy and priority. We can will to be unnatural, through collective learning.

Those facts of million year old human DNA are not relevant to me. This is more relevant to those with a retro foundation that assumes DNA can tell us all. This is why discussion of the facts of the ego and inner self can't get through. Science is still stuck at 1950's; discovery of one size fits all DNA. Advancing foundation premises is not that easy since if the foundation cracks, the weight above cannot be further expanded.
Click to expand...
Just plain "facts ain't relevant" would do.
 
lewisnotmiller

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
wellwisher said:
Our belief systems are based on foundation premises. Like the foundation of a house, these fundamental premises of our belief systems supports all the weight of the house; our belief system. A few facts may have an affect on one room in that house but, that alone may not alter the foundation, so the house remains as is. One can spackle the cracks, but not have to change anything.

Questioning one's own foundation premises is not an easy thing to do, since foundation premises take time to build and may not even be conscious, since they may have evolved over a long time, beginning many years ago.

For example, science and evolution can show that human DNA goes back millions of years. This fact is often used to discredit the stories of Genesis, which claim a smaller time window. However, one of my foundation premises, based on many years of research into consciousness and the unconscious mind, believes that Genesis is not talking about DNA, but about modern consciousness and the evolution of the modern ego.

For example, through will and choice, I can take steroids and lift weights to turn a body with DNA, that says I should weight 140 pounds, into a muscular body that weighs 240 pounds. This is mind over matter, that the DNA alone, could not explain, if we saw that 240 pound body; end result, and had some of the person's DNA. Consciousness and will can explain this, with consciousness, above the DNA in terms of hierarchy and priority. We can will to be unnatural, through collective learning.

Those facts of million year old human DNA are not relevant to me. This is more relevant to those with a retro foundation that assumes DNA can tell us all. This is why discussion of the facts of the ego and inner self can't get through. Science is still stuck at 1950's; discovery of one size fits all DNA. Advancing foundation premises is not that easy since if the foundation cracks, the weight above cannot be further expanded.
Click to expand...
Again, this seems to have no relationship to the article linked to in the OP...
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Orbit said:
Interesting article here: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

"Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from."

The article is an account of research into why we fail to change our minds when presented with facts that are contrary to our beliefs. It has interesting implications for discussions on both religion and politics.
Click to expand...
It is a hoarding instinct. I have to think through things doggedly no matter what people say around me, because it feels otherwise like I have to throw away something I have cared about. My ideas are charged with emotions. I put feelings into them, and so they take on lives of their own.
 
Soandso

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Truth seeking requires real effort. Even if someone is presented with completely irrefutable evidence, there are years of deeply rooted bias that this evidence needs to compete with. Most people prefer the comfort of what biases they have already accepted to be true than to take the effort to learn this new information and to incorporate that as their new understanding - especially when that new understanding is so underdeveloped when compared to what they already know. Learning about new things takes time and reprogramming your brain to realize new realities is an active struggle
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
Orbit said:
Interesting article here: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

"Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from."

The article is an account of research into why we fail to change our minds when presented with facts that are contrary to our beliefs. It has interesting implications for discussions on both religion and politics.
Click to expand...

Another interesting study on a similar topic:

The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief

There is extensive evidence that people engage in motivated political reasoning, but recent research suggests that partisanship can alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgments. We propose an identity- based model of belief for understanding the influence of partisanship on these cognitive processes. This framework helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy, and even over truth... Because people believe that they see the world around them objectively, members of other parties who disagree with them are seen as uninformed, irrational, or biased [25].

...

In this vein, one study examined the relationship between math skills and political problem- solving [58]. In the control condition, people who were strong at math were able to effectively solve an analytical problem. However, when political content was added to the same analytical problem – comparing crime data in cities that banned handguns against cities that did not – math skills no longer predicted how well people solved the problem. Instead, liberals were good at solving the problem when it proved that gun control reduced crime, and conservatives were good at solving the problem when it proved the opposite. In short, people with high numeracy skills were unable to reason analytically when the correct answer collided with their political beliefs. This is consistent with research showing that people who score high on various indicators of information processing, such as political sophistication ([59]; although see [48]), science literacy [60], numeracy abilities [58], and cognitive reflection [61], are the most likely to express beliefs congruent with those of their party...
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Augustus said:
Another interesting study on a similar topic:

The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief

There is extensive evidence that people engage in motivated political reasoning, but recent research suggests that partisanship can alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgments. We propose an identity- based model of belief for understanding the influence of partisanship on these cognitive processes. This framework helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy, and even over truth... Because people believe that they see the world around them objectively, members of other parties who disagree with them are seen as uninformed, irrational, or biased [25].

...

In this vein, one study examined the relationship between math skills and political problem- solving [58]. In the control condition, people who were strong at math were able to effectively solve an analytical problem. However, when political content was added to the same analytical problem – comparing crime data in cities that banned handguns against cities that did not – math skills no longer predicted how well people solved the problem. Instead, liberals were good at solving the problem when it proved that gun control reduced crime, and conservatives were good at solving the problem when it proved the opposite. In short, people with high numeracy skills were unable to reason analytically when the correct answer collided with their political beliefs. This is consistent with research showing that people who score high on various indicators of information processing, such as political sophistication ([59]; although see [48]), science literacy [60], numeracy abilities [58], and cognitive reflection [61], are the most likely to express beliefs congruent with those of their party...
Click to expand...
That's why I say the evolution lines with Homer Simpson as us is really the best representation for us, because for good and bad we've all got a Homer in us.
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Audie said:
Just plain "facts ain't relevant" would do.
Click to expand...

lewisnotmiller said:
Again, this seems to have no relationship to the article linked to in the OP...
Click to expand...
I do not think the Psychologist took the time to question their own foundation premises. It is easy to see this in others, than to see this in yourself. Psychology has so many orientations, it is like rational polytheism. This is not right but there is no push to become unified. Why wouldn't they question this? It is about market niche.

The approach I took was to look at the obscure science literature, that had anomalous but verified data, that the standard models, could not account for. For example, the BB could not account for galaxies appearing to form very fast and early in the BB. These accepted data were enough for me to get past clan bias. Developing alternatives, that did not have such ignore data, was the next stage, which was much harder to do.

Climate science ignore the latest data of the inner earth, which controls the geological dynamics of the earth that impacts the surface. One volcano from the mantle can alter climate or heat the oceans. Half baked is not good enough for me, but appears good enough for many who do not question but obey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top