Scientific American on 'the backfire effect'

wv wrote:

Just a General article on cognitive dissonance in humans:

I was about to post that same article!

So I just will.

====

How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail
Why worldview threats undermine evidence

By Michael Shermer

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_MB_OP

Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.
Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith. Anti-vaxxers distrust big pharma and think that money corrupts medicine, which leads them to believe that vaccines cause autism despite the inconvenient truth that the one and only study claiming such a link was retracted and its lead author accused of fraud. The 9/11 truthers focus on minutiae like the melting point of steel in the World Trade Center buildings that caused their collapse because they think the government lies and conducts “false flag” operations to create a New World Order. Climate deniers study tree rings, ice cores and the ppm of greenhouse gases because they are passionate about freedom, especially that of markets and industries to operate unencumbered by restrictive government regulations. Obama birthers desperately dissected the president’s long-form birth certificate in search of fraud because they believe that the nation’s first African-American president is a socialist bent on destroying the country.
In these examples, proponents’ deepest held worldviews were perceived to be threatened by skeptics, making facts the enemy to be slayed. This power of belief over evidence is the result of two factors: cognitive dissonance and the backfire effect. In the classic 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, psychologist Leon Festinger and his co-authors described what happened to a UFO cult when the mother ship failed to arrive at the appointed time. Instead of admitting error, “members of the group sought frantically to convince the world of their beliefs,” and they made “a series of desperate attempts to erase their rankling dissonance by making prediction after prediction in the hope that one would come true.” Festinger called this cognitive dissonance, or the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts simultaneously.
Two social psychologists, Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson (a former student of Festinger), in their 2007 book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) document thousands of experiments demonstrating how people spin-doctor facts to fit preconceived beliefs to reduce dissonance. Their metaphor of the “pyramid of choice” places two individuals side by side at the apex of the pyramid and shows how quickly they diverge and end up at the bottom opposite corners of the base as they each stake out a position to defend.
In a series of experiments by Dartmouth College professor Brendan Nyhan and University of Exeter professor Jason Reifler, the researchers identify a related factor they call the backfire effect “in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.” Why? “Because it threatens their worldview or self-concept.” For example, subjects were given fake newspaper articles that confirmed widespread misconceptions, such as that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When subjects were then given a corrective article that WMD were never found, liberals who opposed the war accepted the new article and rejected the old, whereas conservatives who supported the war did the opposite … and more: they reported being even more convinced there were WMD after the correction, arguing that this only proved that Saddam Hussein hid or destroyed them. In fact, Nyhan and Reifler note, among many conservatives “the belief that Iraq possessed WMD immediately before the U.S. invasion persisted long after the Bush administration itself concluded otherwise.”
If corrective facts only make matters worse, what can we do to convince people of the error of their beliefs? From my experience, 1. keep emotions out of the exchange, 2. discuss, don’t attack (no ad hominem and no ad Hitlerum), 3. listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately, 4. show respect, 5. acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion, and 6. try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews. These strategies may not always work to change people’s minds, but now that the nation has just been put through a political fact-check wringer, they may help reduce unnecessary divisiveness.

bnw wrote:

Watch the issue whither away in direct proportion to federal funding withheld.

It;s international.

American federal funding is just simply not the only thing supporting research which has led to robust, continuing international and multi-field consensus on the issue.

bnw wrote:

When the facts are on your side funding isn’t necessary.

Agreed. That explains the international, multi-field consensus. That;s not all “funding.”

But you don’t directly respond to the fact that deniers ARE well funded, and it’s from sources including big energy that ALSO accounted for global warming as a real thing in their own internal policies.

bnw wrote:

I’m not funded. However I am a geologist and geology and its related disciplines are specifically excluded from the “multi-field consensus”. I’ll answer your question but would you care to respond as to why geology is excluded from the “multi-field consensus”?

Geology hasn’t been excluded. And geologists not connected to the petroleum industry are part of the consensus on climate change.

Link: https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html

“Similarly, in response to the consensus on global warming, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists “respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data”. You’d call that type of endorsement damning with faint praise.

However, the broader community of geologists seems convinced by the evidence that humans are causing global warming. The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation. The Geological Society of America concurs that “greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s”. The Geological Society of London states that “evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater”.

Oh, good. A case study of the backfire effect.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

I’m not funded. However I am a geologist and geology and its related disciplines are specifically excluded from the “multi-field consensus”. I’ll answer your question but would you care to respond as to why geology is excluded from the “multi-field consensus”?

Geology hasn’t been excluded. And geologists not connected to the petroleum industry are part of the consensus on climate change.

Link: https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html

“Similarly, in response to the consensus on global warming, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists “respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data”. You’d call that type of endorsement damning with faint praise.

However, the broader community of geologists seems convinced by the evidence that humans are causing global warming. The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation. The Geological Society of America concurs that “greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s”. The Geological Society of London states that “evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater”.

Geologists most certainly have been excluded from the IPCC. The GSA is comprised of mostly academics and government geologists always on the make for government funding. Same goes for Environmental Geologists and Hydrogeologists who have a direct stake in government funding or activity mandated by law as do most geology departments not receiving funding from the mineral industry. They are susceptible to the fraud of man made global warming in the hope of getting government funding. However the data is clear and it predates human activity and shows there is no correlation between elevated CO2 and rising temperature. The AAPG is absolutely correct. That other geological organizations here and elsewhere ignored the science in the hope to secure government funding isn’t news either. What they can’t say is that there is proof in the geologic past because there isn’t. (When there is mention of the geologic past in trying to support man made global warming the misuse of the terms “sudden” or “abrupt” convey to the layman an incorrect perception of time. For these studies and the data therein are referring to geologic time which is very different. 100,000 years is an instant in geologic time and is referred to as sudden or abrupt. It makes no sense in the context of claiming over a 200 year period that is used in reference to man made global warming.) Therefore they are excluded from the panels since they can’t contribute anything to further the cause of man made global warming via increasing levels of CO2. When the hope of government funding fades so will the supposed support of man made global warming from the earth sciences in particular and other disciplines as well.

Good article for the layman giving the IPCC claim and the NIPCC response at

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#18456b775097

bnw wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

I’m not funded. However I am a geologist and geology and its related disciplines are specifically excluded from the “multi-field consensus”. I’ll answer your question but would you care to respond as to why geology is excluded from the “multi-field consensus”?

Geology hasn’t been excluded. And geologists not connected to the petroleum industry are part of the consensus on climate change.

Link: https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html

“Similarly, in response to the consensus on global warming, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists “respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data”. You’d call that type of endorsement damning with faint praise.

However, the broader community of geologists seems convinced by the evidence that humans are causing global warming. The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation. The Geological Society of America concurs that “greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s”. The Geological Society of London states that “evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater”.

Geologists most certainly have been excluded from the IPCC. The GSA is comprised of mostly academics and government geologists always on the make for government funding. Same goes for Environmental Geologists and Hydrogeologists who have a direct stake in government funding or activity mandated by law as do most geology departments not receiving funding from the mineral industry. They are susceptible to the fraud of man made global warming in the hope of getting government funding. However the data is clear and it predates human activity and shows there is no correlation between elevated CO2 and rising temperature. The AAPG is absolutely correct. That other geological organizations here and elsewhere ignored the science in the hope to secure government funding isn’t news either. What they can’t say is that there is proof in the geologic past because there isn’t. (When there is mention of the geologic past in trying to support man made global warming the misuse of the terms “sudden” or “abrupt” convey to the layman an incorrect perception of time. For these studies and the data therein are referring to geologic time which is very different. 100,000 years is an instant in geologic time and is referred to as sudden or abrupt. It makes no sense in the context of claiming over a 200 year period that is used in reference to man made global warming.) Therefore they are excluded from the panels since they can’t contribute anything to further the cause of man made global warming via increasing levels of CO2. When the hope of government funding fades so will the supposed support of man made global warming from the earth sciences in particular and other disciplines as well.

Good article for the layman giving the IPCC claim and the NIPCC response at

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#18456b775097

You claim GSA geologists are always on the make for govt funding which is why they say climate change is real yet petroleum geologists have a stake in climate change not being real. The bias goes both ways.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

I’m not funded. However I am a geologist and geology and its related disciplines are specifically excluded from the “multi-field consensus”. I’ll answer your question but would you care to respond as to why geology is excluded from the “multi-field consensus”?

Geology hasn’t been excluded. And geologists not connected to the petroleum industry are part of the consensus on climate change.

Link: https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html

“Similarly, in response to the consensus on global warming, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists “respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data”. You’d call that type of endorsement damning with faint praise.

However, the broader community of geologists seems convinced by the evidence that humans are causing global warming. The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation. The Geological Society of America concurs that “greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s”. The Geological Society of London states that “evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater”.

Geologists most certainly have been excluded from the IPCC. The GSA is comprised of mostly academics and government geologists always on the make for government funding. Same goes for Environmental Geologists and Hydrogeologists who have a direct stake in government funding or activity mandated by law as do most geology departments not receiving funding from the mineral industry. They are susceptible to the fraud of man made global warming in the hope of getting government funding. However the data is clear and it predates human activity and shows there is no correlation between elevated CO2 and rising temperature. The AAPG is absolutely correct. That other geological organizations here and elsewhere ignored the science in the hope to secure government funding isn’t news either. What they can’t say is that there is proof in the geologic past because there isn’t. (When there is mention of the geologic past in trying to support man made global warming the misuse of the terms “sudden” or “abrupt” convey to the layman an incorrect perception of time. For these studies and the data therein are referring to geologic time which is very different. 100,000 years is an instant in geologic time and is referred to as sudden or abrupt. It makes no sense in the context of claiming over a 200 year period that is used in reference to man made global warming.) Therefore they are excluded from the panels since they can’t contribute anything to further the cause of man made global warming via increasing levels of CO2. When the hope of government funding fades so will the supposed support of man made global warming from the earth sciences in particular and other disciplines as well.

Good article for the layman giving the IPCC claim and the NIPCC response at

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#18456b775097

You claim GSA geologists are always on the make for govt funding which is why they say climate change is real yet petroleum geologists have a stake in climate change not being real. The bias goes both ways.

Not true. The mineral industry has to reconstruct past environments in order to locate exploration. The data generated for past climates is derived almost exclusively (I’d guess at least 95%.) from oil and coal exploration which mostly predates the human species. Environmental geology, hydrogeology etc. have no need to study past environments thus they lack the very data and expertise to form a valid opinion based upon the data. In fact practically all technical innovation in the science whether its drilling or computer modeling is developed by the mineral industry. To claim that the data developed by exploration/petroleum geology is biased against man made global warming is ridiculous. The data stands alone. The data also is generated by the needs of exploration which resides solely within the mineral industry.

That experiment was incomplete.

Why didn’t they do the same with the “liberals” as they did with the “conservatives”?

That is, use a false article that “liberals” would agree with and then show them a truthful article that challenged their views.

The outcome would probably be the same, but it would show a better light on conservatives than running the experiment on a one-way street.