my notes ( ? )
If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias... a trait that should have been selected against. ... it must have some adaptive function... related to our “hypersociability.” ... Living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, our ancestors were primarily concerned with their social standing, and with making sure that they weren’t the ones risking their lives on the hunt while others loafed around in the cave.
One implication of the naturalness with which we divide cognitive labor... no sharp boundary between one person’s ideas and knowledge” and “those of other members” of the group... If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views...
If we... spent less time pontificating and more trying to work through the implications of policy proposals, we’d realize how clueless we are and moderate our views. ...
Providing people with accurate information doesn’t seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science.
Read the Full Post
The above notes were curated from the full post
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?utm_source=Daily+Lab+email+list&utm_campaign=5efbe69514-dailylabemail3&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d68264fd5e-5efbe69514-395968141.