So I was perusing this little yahoo article and it got me thinking.

Assuming it is your agenda to convince someone of something which there confirmation bias is preventing the from accepting, what would be the most affective course of action?


Give up?

Wait for them to die?

Take holocaust deniers (or 9/11 conspiracy theorists) for example, is their any tactic which would result in them accepting the truth? Or is it just a lost cause?

Not meaning to be entirely facetious but if you are serious about tackling other peoples confirmation bias it may be reasonable to start with your own.

Consider your edit.

In real life I rarely bother because people cling to their delusions and dislike having them queried. It doesn't really matter online because if someone decides I've insulted something deeply sacred to them, the worst they can do is to make remarks about my mother. Anyways, the best way to change someone's mind is with courtesy and logic, most people will at least respect that you have a point of view if you take that line. But also most people don't change their opinion easily.

Obv. Force them at gun point to take in the information that their confirmation bias previously caused them to ignore.

We should all do it. Make a list of the media we enjoy, the sources of information that we consider authorities, and then find the exact opposite source and only pay attention to those for a while. Could be interesting.

I don't get it.

I think he's mistaking confirmation bias with something else, maybe an association, when he's suggesting that you posted this in RGT because of your own confirmation bias.

Since a confirmation bias is favouring information that supports what you want to believe, I don't really see that you did that, even if you assumed that confirmations bias plays a part in religious beliefs. That's still not one, it's just an assumption, maybe you were begging the question a little.

It's very difficult to say "The thing you believe is wrong" without implying "You are stupid". Or maybe it's more like it's difficult to hear the former without hearing the latter.

Someone on my Facebook posted an image macro purporting to describe the dangers of aspartame:


I don't know anything about the issue, but the little "product of GE" claim caught my eye, and I thought, Hey, I didn't know that, so I wiki'd aspartame:

So saith the Wiki and while it is just Wikipedia, the mere fact of its synthesis dating from 1965 leaves me fairly confident that no "genetic engineering", at least as commonly understood, is involved in the process.

GE is widely demonised among certain healthy-eating organic foodie types. It seems to tap in to feelings about "Nature" and technology. The number of people who give a crap about aspartame is (I assume) smaller than the number of people who harbour vague misgivings about GE. So if you're looking to get as many people as possible riled up about aspartame, making aspartame a subset of GE could seem attractive.

This offers a possible clue to the ways in which people get sucked into this kind of thing. People tend to investigate avenues that appeal to them. The more they investigate, the more evidence sympathetic to their sensibilities they uncover. It seems like it could easily become a self-reinforcing process.

But what do I say to my Facebook acquaintance ('friend' is too strong a word)? "Your image contains an untruth, quite plausibly a conscious falsehood, making the rest of its contents suspect"? Even if this doesn't make her resentful and thus yet further inclined to defend the image, what am I really doing? Just treating the symptoms. I can't make her investigate claims generally before accepting them as true. And if I keep picking off little nuggets of bull**** one-by-one, she'll presumably eventually just unfriend me.

That's a pretty mild case and I'm already stumped into apathy. Hardcore types like Holocaust-deniers and truthers etc are full into some pseudo-tribal affiliation business which you're not going to argue them out of. Not that you shouldn't on occasion engage them, but only to try and prevent their ideas spreading - you don't cure a zombie outbreak, you just try to stop it infecting everyone.

It unquestionably is. If the advert writer deliberately included the GE lie then that's a bit naughty, but the tendency for your friend to (possibly) have believed it without really thinking about it is a confirmation bias for sure.

Tell her that she's not as smart as she likes to think and that her brain is just doing what it's designed to and is tricking her in making a knee jerk reaction, poorly thought through, alarmist and sensational FaceBook image share, it'll make you really popular.

So I'll take these both together because Mightyboosh anticipates my point but inaccurately dismisses it.

We're all subject to confirmation bias, Mightyboosh even alludes to redress

In this instance I contend that OP's decision to post here is based upon the article confirming bias that the OP already held. His previously stated position that "I believe.. religion... to be evil in content and action" suggests a predisposition to bias in interrogating matters of faith. That he posted it in a thread where he asked whether it was "Immoral to be friends with a Christian?" enforces it.

There's really nothing contentious in that article. It may be worthy of some discussion but the decision to post it here with some previous context indicates that the OP's position is biased, whether supporting evidence is credible matters less than whether OP interrogates its credibility. In merely posting it he's not doing that.

If what OP actually wants to do is challenge peoples beliefs he has to be open to an honest recounting of what they are, if his own bias causes him to misinterpret their responses as a product of theirs he can't do that.

Obviously too smart for me.


This is probably the only correct answer.

I kept thinking of some Thomas Jefferson quote (which I couldn't find) that basically said mockery was the only way to deal with stupid people. Which, because it's easier for me to be an ******* than polite, I want to believe to be most effective.

.

The problem is political. Politicians spin events like this so there are inconsistencies which leads to scepticism. I think you need to take the angle that small inconsistencies should be overlooked as the politicians who control the information are lying scumbags. It's the same with the moon landing photographs. They were obviously "enhanced" before being published but this does not mean that the whole project was a fraud.

Ok fair enough.

And if the belief is something like Holocaust denial? Would you listen with an open mind, prepared to be proved wrong in your belief that the Holocaust happened, or would your interpretation of their responses also be influenced by your own confirmation bias?

The OP asked what you could do to counter that.

Granted that dereds is being a touch histrionic, the OP really doesn't ask anything of the sort. It says nothing about countering one's own biases.

Poor phrasing on my part. The OP asked how to counter other people's confirmation biases and that's what I was referring to in that last sentence.

How do you counter the confirmation bias of someone who denies the holocaust? It's a good example, I've actually seen people interviewed who've said things like 'there's literally no evidence that could convince me'.

You pretty much can't. The only reason to engage a committed denialist is to prevent them from converting others. Outside of that, they're best ignored - engaging only risks legitimising them by association.

Other, less innately loathsome beliefs I judge case-by-case. Some people hold the view that holding a false belief itself constitutes harm and should therefore be resisted. I don't agree, so unless the belief is apt to be harmful I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. Sometimes I will argue (I'm here, aren't I? ), but failing to persuade them doesn't cost me any sleep.

you are privy to the entire truth about 9/11? there was a lot of suspect chit revolving around that, not so much the idea that the planes were remote-controlled but more along the lines of shady mossad and ISI characters popping up in investigations, pristine passports being found in the remnants of a fire that was hot enough to bend steel and so forth. condi rice going on record and stating that "there is no possible way we could have foreseen such an attack" when we now know there were multiple specific warnings etc. etc.

sorry but to lump all 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in with holocaust denial is a bit ignorant, at the very least there was massive incompetence and poor communication between agencies which was subsequently covered up as best as possible.

Reading back pompous may be slightly better than histrionic but point taken. It wasn't intended.

You can change people's minds, but it is hard work and some of the following techniques are probably a bit unethical.

Keep points short and concise, this is the best way to get an entire message across. When you have to write more in length, use the "hook, line and sinker" tactic... the hook should be short and make people curious, the line is your main argument, the sinker should be a short and precise conclusion. In general, people remember beginnings and ends, but tend to forget the specific of the middle... so when using "hook, line and sinker" - focus on making the tone of your "line" serious.

Don't alienate people to your person or message. If you write to infuriate, win or make people angry - this will reflect in your post and people will strenghten their resolve. Don't expect an idea to stick there and then. It is hard for someone to change an opinion on the fly, especially so in public where there is "loss of face" to be considered.

Make it in people's self interest to agree with you. Portray accepting your material as a "laudable skeptic move" and signal that agreeing with you will also confer acceptance of their person. Make the person able to identify with you; Point out cultural similarities or other shared background, though not to overtly. In conversation you should be confident and use eye contact. You must know your subject well enough to not be shaken by questions or challenges. Avoid aggressive outbursts as they will make you look defensive.

None of these are a guarantee to changing someone's mind. They do, however, all increase your chances of doing so.

I worry about this a lot. If I actually do engage someone, and try to use logic and whatnot to interact, I may be enabling them and their beliefs, essentially by taking them seriously.

With someone who holds clearly lunatic beliefs and has had ample opportunity to interact and discuss those beliefs with non-deluded people, there is little point in talking to them with the intention of helping them see reason.

However, when it comes to online debate in this kind of forum about widely held delusions - for example, creationism or 'anti-evolutionism' if you prefer - there are advantages to having such a discussion and using reason, logic etc.

It allows other posters, less firm in their delusions or who simply haven't had the opportunity to see the opposing point of view put in a cogent fashion, to be educated and possibly change their minds.

The authorities always cover up stuff so they can peddle their own agenda later. They didn't tell us JFK was dead for a day and that's when we all saw half of his head blown off.

Hector is posting in the wrong spirit. Dialogue and discussion is not about battering others into submission it's about an open exchange of views. We all learn something or should do. There will always be some bias in ourselves.

The point is about when others don't discuss in an open way.

Minor gripe, but neither of these is actually true. The WH announced his death about a half hour after it was declared by the doctors (which was on arrival at the hospital). And there was no live broadcast so the only people who saw it at the time were there.

You are probably overestimating how often anyone changes their mind due to "logic and whatnot". Also, you should look up the "fundamental attribution" error. What see as a result of situation in our own actions, we tend to see as a result of personality in others; "I refused his argument because it is contrary to what I know, he refused my argument because he is stubborn and ignorant".

Conspiracy theories and other forms of extremism are not "special cases" - they are beliefs formed by cognitive mechanisms which are very similar in all of us. Personally I view them as as a by-product of pattern recognition - we all tend to look for patterns and simple solutions to complex phenomena; "If people would just behave rationally, there would be peace!".