Lord777
Professional
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 1,513
- Points
- 113
How strong is the voice of reason in a person? Are rational arguments capable of shaking our worldview, or is it determined only by gut, hidden interests and other biases?
My occupation pushes me to similar questions: I am a cognitive psychologist, I research and teach the principles of human thinking. Rational research is at the core of the cognitive psychologist's work, and it sometimes leads to dismal conclusions about human judgment. Every week, new research reveals another twist in our mind. For example, social issues will seem more important to a person if you put a heavier clipboard in their hands. And our [assessment of the reliability of a certain person and the reasonableness of his arguments] depends, among other things, on how attractive this person is.
Such studies instantly fall into the field of view of the popularizers of cognitive science. Dan Ariely talks about our Predictable Irrationality in his book. The preface states that “we are all pawns in the game of incomprehensible forces. It seems that we are in control of our decisions, but this is self-deception. "Cordelia Fine in" A Mind of its Own "promises to tell" how your brain distorts and deceives, "and David McRaney, without any equivocation, states in the title of his book that" You Are Not So Smart. "
The steps of modern science in understanding human nature as an animal affect the work of many psychologists. This is reflected in experiments designed to explain the mind as a mechanism, without regard to individual characteristics of people, subjectivity and non-determinism. The philosopher John Gray wrote about this trend in research:
“We think our actions are a reflection of our decisions. But in life, our will decides almost nothing. We cannot wake up or fall asleep by an effort of will; remember or forget a dream; stop thinking about what we don't want to think about. When we greet someone on the street, it is not a work of will, but the result of following a chain of unconscious reactions. These reactions are determined by an extremely complex structure of habits and skills. Most of our life passes without the participation of consciousness. "
Here science, it seems, claims that we are irrational creatures. For us, this is a problem, since many human institutions (like democracy) are based on the assumption that people are still rational and amenable to persuasion with reasonable arguments. If I believed in the idea of the prevalence of irrationality in a person, then I would have to choose who I should be: a convinced citizen of a democratic state or a cognitive psychologist?
Fortunately, as a scientist, I do not have to take other people's conclusions on faith, I can independently explore human nature. I intend to understand how we respond to rational reasoning. Does the mind always lose to the unconscious forces? Or is there any hope that the arguments can be more convincing than a pretty face and a heavy clipboard?
BELIEF
One of the most famous examples of how our brains twist arguments is the 1979 experiment by Charles Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper. These American social psychologists recruited respondents with views for or against the death penalty. The respondents were shown research on this topic. Research has supported this or that view of the death penalty. Here's a study that makes the case for the death penalty as a daunting factor:
“Croner and Phillips (1977) compared the relative homicide rates in the year before and after capital punishment in 14 states. In 11 out of 14, the relative number of homicides decreased after the introduction of the death penalty. "
Charles Lord and his colleagues found that people did not change their point of view towards the position for which they were arguing. In contrast, people who were against the death penalty found flaws and biases in the case for the death penalty presented to them. Supporters of capital punishment behaved in a similar way. As a result, the participants in the experiment began to adhere to even more extreme views: both supporters and opponents were only more convinced of their own righteousness. There has been a "biased learning effect" in which we only believe the evidence supporting our point of view.
In 2012, Adam Korner and colleagues at Cardiff University, Wales, demonstrated the same effect on a hot topic today - climate change. The study involved more and less skeptical respondents. They were given articles to read that said climate change was a real and significant problem. "Skeptics" gave the articles a lower credibility rating than "nesceptics".
At first glance, these data confirm the point of view of the “messengers of total irrationality”. And even the assumption of banal incompetence of the respondents does not save the situation: another recent study showed that more educated climate skeptics, on average, are more confident in the truth of their point of view.
But I want to convince you that this is actually evidence of the power of reason, not the power of irrationality. After all, the participants in psychological research do not have a tabula rasa in their heads: they are adults, usually with a university education. To be honest, a typical subject in the experiment is a student of the Faculty of Psychology. They often have years of consistent construction of their own picture of the world behind them. Not surprisingly, their gazes weren't shaken by a couple of stories on the other side of the barricades. What is this opinion that breaks down from the first counter-argument that comes across? Jumping between points of view is unwise.
A more complete picture is revealed when one looks at the action of strong rather than weak arguments. However, as two leading scholars wrote in 1998, "relatively little is known about what makes an argument compelling."
In 1979, one of the authors of this report, Richard Petty, conducted research that demonstrated an important factor in determining the credibility of an argument. Petty and John Cacioppo conducted an experiment to test how a person's involvement in the issue under discussion affects their perception of arguments as convincing or unconvincing. Researchers tried to convince students at the University of Missouri that it is necessary to include a clause in the university charter that requires additional examinations for all graduates. Cacioppo and Petty gave study participants unequal arguments for changing the bylaws. Half were presented with strong arguments, and the other half with weak arguments, easily refuted or with obvious flaws. The two groups were once again split in half: half of all students were told
The results show that if people have little involvement in the issue under discussion, neither strong nor weak arguments will persuade them. But those who are genuinely involved in the issue under discussion have been significantly influenced by both strong and weak arguments. Weak arguments in favor of the unpleasant innovation strengthened the position of his opponents - the students only showed more disagreement in response. Strong arguments, however, made opponents of the exam change their attitude towards less disagreement.
My occupation pushes me to similar questions: I am a cognitive psychologist, I research and teach the principles of human thinking. Rational research is at the core of the cognitive psychologist's work, and it sometimes leads to dismal conclusions about human judgment. Every week, new research reveals another twist in our mind. For example, social issues will seem more important to a person if you put a heavier clipboard in their hands. And our [assessment of the reliability of a certain person and the reasonableness of his arguments] depends, among other things, on how attractive this person is.
Such studies instantly fall into the field of view of the popularizers of cognitive science. Dan Ariely talks about our Predictable Irrationality in his book. The preface states that “we are all pawns in the game of incomprehensible forces. It seems that we are in control of our decisions, but this is self-deception. "Cordelia Fine in" A Mind of its Own "promises to tell" how your brain distorts and deceives, "and David McRaney, without any equivocation, states in the title of his book that" You Are Not So Smart. "
The steps of modern science in understanding human nature as an animal affect the work of many psychologists. This is reflected in experiments designed to explain the mind as a mechanism, without regard to individual characteristics of people, subjectivity and non-determinism. The philosopher John Gray wrote about this trend in research:
“We think our actions are a reflection of our decisions. But in life, our will decides almost nothing. We cannot wake up or fall asleep by an effort of will; remember or forget a dream; stop thinking about what we don't want to think about. When we greet someone on the street, it is not a work of will, but the result of following a chain of unconscious reactions. These reactions are determined by an extremely complex structure of habits and skills. Most of our life passes without the participation of consciousness. "
Here science, it seems, claims that we are irrational creatures. For us, this is a problem, since many human institutions (like democracy) are based on the assumption that people are still rational and amenable to persuasion with reasonable arguments. If I believed in the idea of the prevalence of irrationality in a person, then I would have to choose who I should be: a convinced citizen of a democratic state or a cognitive psychologist?
Fortunately, as a scientist, I do not have to take other people's conclusions on faith, I can independently explore human nature. I intend to understand how we respond to rational reasoning. Does the mind always lose to the unconscious forces? Or is there any hope that the arguments can be more convincing than a pretty face and a heavy clipboard?
BELIEF
One of the most famous examples of how our brains twist arguments is the 1979 experiment by Charles Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper. These American social psychologists recruited respondents with views for or against the death penalty. The respondents were shown research on this topic. Research has supported this or that view of the death penalty. Here's a study that makes the case for the death penalty as a daunting factor:
“Croner and Phillips (1977) compared the relative homicide rates in the year before and after capital punishment in 14 states. In 11 out of 14, the relative number of homicides decreased after the introduction of the death penalty. "
Charles Lord and his colleagues found that people did not change their point of view towards the position for which they were arguing. In contrast, people who were against the death penalty found flaws and biases in the case for the death penalty presented to them. Supporters of capital punishment behaved in a similar way. As a result, the participants in the experiment began to adhere to even more extreme views: both supporters and opponents were only more convinced of their own righteousness. There has been a "biased learning effect" in which we only believe the evidence supporting our point of view.
In 2012, Adam Korner and colleagues at Cardiff University, Wales, demonstrated the same effect on a hot topic today - climate change. The study involved more and less skeptical respondents. They were given articles to read that said climate change was a real and significant problem. "Skeptics" gave the articles a lower credibility rating than "nesceptics".
At first glance, these data confirm the point of view of the “messengers of total irrationality”. And even the assumption of banal incompetence of the respondents does not save the situation: another recent study showed that more educated climate skeptics, on average, are more confident in the truth of their point of view.
But I want to convince you that this is actually evidence of the power of reason, not the power of irrationality. After all, the participants in psychological research do not have a tabula rasa in their heads: they are adults, usually with a university education. To be honest, a typical subject in the experiment is a student of the Faculty of Psychology. They often have years of consistent construction of their own picture of the world behind them. Not surprisingly, their gazes weren't shaken by a couple of stories on the other side of the barricades. What is this opinion that breaks down from the first counter-argument that comes across? Jumping between points of view is unwise.
A more complete picture is revealed when one looks at the action of strong rather than weak arguments. However, as two leading scholars wrote in 1998, "relatively little is known about what makes an argument compelling."
In 1979, one of the authors of this report, Richard Petty, conducted research that demonstrated an important factor in determining the credibility of an argument. Petty and John Cacioppo conducted an experiment to test how a person's involvement in the issue under discussion affects their perception of arguments as convincing or unconvincing. Researchers tried to convince students at the University of Missouri that it is necessary to include a clause in the university charter that requires additional examinations for all graduates. Cacioppo and Petty gave study participants unequal arguments for changing the bylaws. Half were presented with strong arguments, and the other half with weak arguments, easily refuted or with obvious flaws. The two groups were once again split in half: half of all students were told
The results show that if people have little involvement in the issue under discussion, neither strong nor weak arguments will persuade them. But those who are genuinely involved in the issue under discussion have been significantly influenced by both strong and weak arguments. Weak arguments in favor of the unpleasant innovation strengthened the position of his opponents - the students only showed more disagreement in response. Strong arguments, however, made opponents of the exam change their attitude towards less disagreement.
