A new video on the psychology of misinformation. I don’t agree with everything in it, but there are very good points made
1 Like
When you are wrong - and you realize it - you become a better person.
I was trying to exchange with ultra-right people on a French forum.
I am giving up.
They give theirs opinons, i give facts proven by reliable sources, statistics and so.
First answer : you are assaulting and insulting us
Second answer : your posts are too long, i don’t read them
Third answer : don’t try to teach us with your so called biases facts, our feelings and opinions are as worth as your facts.
What should i have done ?
1 Like
It’s not something I can diagnose, even if I was there. Sometimes people actually are unreasonable and impossible to engage. Online dialog is especially challenging.
Leading with facts however was probably not a good start. If you saw opinion right away, and not much you agreed with, a question to start with is something like, “what led you to believe that?”
1 Like
I asked the question: their knowledge and their positions come from their feelings.
I pointed out to them that if we were to rely on our feelings to determine reality, the earth would be flat and the sun would revolve around it. They answered me that there was no connection.
I think you are right, it is better to give up.
It’s best not to try out something like this in the worst possible scenario. Maybe the local bridge club or a soccer match, before everyone is blind drunk.
There’s this
The org is based on US parties, but there are some US people working in France who get together. Not sure exactly how you contact them though.
2 Likes
Thanks very much. I will look
Melanie Trecek-King is a very sensible person.
1 Like
4:40 - Understanding your own thinking process.
{I believe an integral part of this appreciating who you are- and evolved sensing creature, the product of Earth’s process.
For all we fancy we know about evolution, it’s still rarely discussed, as if it were irrelevant to us. This also ties into appreciating “what is you WHY?”}
6:10 - What is your Why?
6:50 - But what if they are mocking you and the solid foundation of facts you stand on.
9:10 - Humans were used to small groups - (today, population explosion and globalization has turned that on its head . . . (a key point)
{The group thinking and group allegiance and dependence on group identity - that’s important, and deserves a much closer critical examination}
————
To my ears, in spite of the validity of much she said - the failing in her talk (and many others like it) is, that it is working from a perspective that all people are acting in more-or-less Good-Faith.
Blame human nature for our need to lie to ourselves.
On top of that I hear a subtle undercurrent of blaming the thinkers, the ones who want to weigh evidence and discuss facts, and think about outcomes, for being at the root of our current state of confusion and hostility.
When are serious people, going to seriously discuss the fact that billions of dollars are spend on tactical, strategic lying wrapped in irresistible sugar coating (if you include the Fox FAUX News Network - specifically created to take back American for the ultra-rich, Limbauer - Exxon Oil, Breitbart, etc., etc. … )?
“The Silencing Science Tracker is a joint initiative of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It tracks government attempts to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information, since the November 2016 election.
Read more about the tracker and related resources.
Please contact Olivia Guarna (ong2107@columbia.edu) or Dana Willbanks (dwillbanks@csldf.org) to recommend relevant media reports we may have missed or provide responses or corrections to media reports we have included.”
“Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie.”
We never discuss our relationship with this planet that created us.
Instead it is always ego against ego - in the thoughtless assumption that we and our talk is all that matters.
Heck we can’t even publicly acknowledge that our Earth created us.
In short, a splendid talk that goes well with sponge cake.
Yes of course. She covers that indirectly early on. She talks about figuring out if this is a person with whom you want to engage. If they are not acting in good faith, I wouldn’t. I have told people they are arguing just to argue, or that I disagree with them and they are not using convincing methods to discuss and engage in dialog.
They usually start attacking my personality at that point. Which proves my point. I will start using facts at that point. I simply state them and say it is what I would need to be addressed to continue the dialog. They usually bring up a “what about” and ignore my request. I point that out, and give them a couple chances.
Notice, no name calling, no shaming, no comments on intelligence. Almost always I find agreements and repeat them. I almost always learn something. But I still draw a line when I don’t think they are acting in good faith.
You kind of danced around the issue there.
I suggest the delicate issue here is, is one discussing with one or a couple individuals face to face, or is one discussing things on a forum (or podium, etc.) with multiple unknown people at the receiving end?
Yes. Thought that was clear. Me and the video.
I enjoy the Youtube face to face discussions by scientists. It may even be more informative than having a single classsroom teacher who must restrict to rote.
An excellent viewpoint.
1 Like
Strange coming from you, but thanks
Sabine doesnt trust scientists
Her video on autism was so uninformed and downright dangerous. She defends Autism Speaks but has ostensibly done little research into the organization and seems ignorant of the significant harm it has inflicted on many of us on the spectrum. One can unwittingly promote a great deal of misinformation when one makes confident (and often dismissive) pronouncements on a topic outside one’s area of expertise with only a tertiary amount of research. As someone with her own area of expertise (which she took years to acquire) she should know better.
The fallacious type of argument she makes is called the “Motte-and-Bailey”. In it, a claim has two interpretations: a broad, indefensible one, and a narrow, defensible one. A casual listener will typically hear the first, but when challenged, the arguer can claim they intended the second.
1 Like
Can you get any more specific?
,
,
.
Melanie’s approach is constructive. As a lab scientist and a former high school teacher I have had to overcome handicaps in my dealings with ideological non-scientists. In both cases, I have found that they will not “hear” me if they do not trust me. The first step in gaining their trust is to at some functional level (which I am afraid one learns mainly through experience) you must respect them. If they are not convinced you respect them, you’ve failed. As a first step, what works for me, the scientist, is to stress the uncertainty and failure that drive the true scientist. As a science teacher, the first step, is to acknowledge the regimes of knowledge science, and therefore, science teachers, cannot deal with. For religious parents, I may interpose that they are the logical determiners of such curricula. This approach has worked for creationist parents and is a standard for the NCSE. I’ll stop at this point, this is no place to teach a course.
1 Like
That’s true enough, but it’s no reason to stop at this point. It was getting interesting.
If ‘teaching’ seems pointless here - how about simply a good discussion?
This sentence left me confused.
Care to unwrap it?
How do you mean that?
For audience reference -