Facts don’t win fights - but this can | Tali Sharot

We’ve all tried to win an argument by bringing up statistics that support our view. But here’s why that doesn’t work, according to a neuroscientist.
❍ Subscribe to The Well on KZbin: bit.ly/welcometothewell
❍ Up next: What is shared consciousness? • What is shared conscio...
We’ve all tried to win an argument by laying down some strong statistics to prove that we’re right. But cognitive neuroscientist Tali Sharot discusses the limitations of information in changing people's beliefs. In fact, intelligent people are likely to manipulate data to align with their pre-existing beliefs. That’s when your super smart statistics start to backfire.
In one experiment, providing more extreme data to both believers and skeptics resulted in increased polarization rather than consensus. Brain scans reveal that when two people disagree, the brain seems to "switch off," not encoding the opposing views.
In a study at UCLA aiming to convince parents to vaccinate, directly refuting the autism link wasn't effective. Instead, shifting the focus to the purpose of vaccines - protecting against deadly diseases like measles - was more persuasive. The key is identifying a shared objective or common motive, as seen with the mutual concern for children's health, rather than emphasizing divisive points.
Read the full video transcript: bigthink.com/the-well/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
❍ About The Well ❍
Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life’s biggest questions, and that’s why they’re the questions occupying the world’s brightest minds.
So what do they think?
How is the power of science advancing understanding? How are philosophers and theologians tackling these fascinating questions?
Let’s dive into The Well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Well on your favorite platforms:
❍ Facebook: bit.ly/thewellFB
❍ Instagram: bit.ly/thewellIG

[@monikagin]

That's why one needs to keep questioning themselves from time to time. Self-reflection & thinking via a 3rd person's pov might help keep us recalibrate/ recenter.

[@The-Well]

Wonderful insight! Thanks for sharing!

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

I suggest that an important finding from this study is stated at 2:41, which explains that the results of brain scans suggest that the brain "encodes" information strongly when it agrees with the information coming in and stops accepting information when our brain disagrees with the information coming in. In other words, our brain activity increases when we agree with information coming in and decreases when we disagree with information coming in. It would be interesting to do a study on children to determine whether this bias happens before or after social and cultural influences. If the brain has a predetermined design and configuration that causes this bias, then it seems like a design flaw.

[@juliarichter6987]

I always accept truth. Maybe my brain is different.

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

@@juliarichter6987 If your brain is totally unbiased and capable of never committing a logical fallacy, then your brain should be studied, and hopefully the reason for your unique brain can be determined. If your different brain has resulted from a genetic trait that would result in a better world, will you be the critical link that the human race needs to evolve into higher life forms? Our future may depend on the replication of your different brain.

[@juliarichter6987]

@@FairnessIsTheAnswer I guess I am biased towards the truth.🤔 If we have an argument and you know better, please just tell me, don't try to find some common ground first. How would the design of your study look like? I am curious. I work with teenagers and they are always right (you remember?). Thank good plasticity is a feature of all brains.

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

​@@juliarichter6987 You're making the claim that you are biased toward the truth. How can that claim be verified? When a claim can't be verified, it creates the dilemma of whether to accept it as truth or not. From what I've observed about others and myself, we all seem to have a habit of making statements without proof. It often happens that one group believes something to be absolutely true and another group believes the same thing to be absolutely false, often with little commitment to evaluate the claims, and so it just becomes a battle of who can be more willfully insistent. It's my opinion that the truth is established more through evaluation than insistence. People make claims about many things, but their claim is meaningless unless it's a conclusion at the end of a flawless argument. I'm very often tempted to make claims that somehow satisfy me. I recognize that about myself. I don't like admitting this truth about myself because admitting a flaw makes me feel vulnerable. But if I prioritize truth over discomfort, then I need to be willing to feel that discomfort. It's not easy, but my hope is to prove things rather than present beliefs. I've been led down a few paths by believing something that seemed very believable. I want to scrutinize things, hoping for a more enlightened understanding.

[@juliarichter6987]

@@FairnessIsTheAnswer Seems like you are (now) biased towards the truth, too, aren't you? If I don't know the truth (because of a lack of information or intelligence), I simply don't make statements on the matter. And I expect the same if others.

[@lourias]

1st comes knowledge, 2nd comes understanding, 3rd comes wisdom.

[@hermitthefrog8951]

What my epistemological journey has highlighted for me is that the very foundation of belief - the veracity of facts - is the elephant in the room... our information ecosystem is so polluted as to be nearly useless. Nearly every issue is too complex or invisible to be independently confirmed so we have to rely on secondary sources (ie: "experts") who are more likely than not to be captured by a more powerful interest rendering their "facts" unreliable. It's not surprising, then, that opposing camps (often controlled opposition) engage in information warfare, usually with billions (or even trillions) of dollars at stake where our minds are the battleground. But, there's a fairly reliable 2-part method to cut through this: 1. Follow the money 2. Follow those being censored *"If you want to know who controls you, find out who you're not allowed to criticize."* - Voltaire

[@doru4248]

The only solution is to trust your own reason. And to learn fast.

[@hermitthefrog8951]

@@doru4248 - too bad schools don't teach that anymore...

[@doru4248]

​@@hermitthefrog8951 It cannot be taught. The best way is to let children be free and provide them with a good model yourself. Free thinking cannot be taught because it's a manifestation of freedom.

[@hermitthefrog8951]

@@doru4248 - agreed, but let me put it another way: schooling now seems to actively teach the opposite: to obediently trust only authority.

[@doru4248]

@@hermitthefrog8951 It has always done that. Alvin Toffler, in his book "The Third Wave", says that peasants were impossible to educate for the industrial life, and training children into obedience, punctuality and a repetitive work was the "hidden analytical program" of the industrial era schools. Do you know that the US Federal Government had to send in the army to "convince" farmers to give their children to government schools?

[@alanpreston1822]

And this is why the world drives people like us in the science and engineering community crazy.

[@MommaBeeb]

This seems to highlight the need to consistently state that you agree with someone even if it’s a small point. And that we shouldn’t try to prove someone wrong, but perhaps think about other information they had not considered before.

[@oladojagabriel8023]

Yes! "I understand" "I get your point" "I get what you perspective" This magic words help me a lot...

[@lourias]

1st comes knowledge, 2nd comes understanding, 3rd comes wisdom.

[@vnhistoryvn1571]

My method is to discuss about the bigger picture, to enlighten the philosophical core of the topic in a precise and rhetoric way. We first do not discuss about climate change but we do discuss about basics of reality like the question: Do you ever observed an ice cube melting? Did you ever wonder about that? Or even further: What is your own principle of life? Then step by step we come closer to an universal view which is determined to coexist because both of us know that each other has to exist to be in this conversation. We need to go back to our senses and consciousness and reconnect on this basic level. We can't lie about facts that can be observed with our senses like a rainbow or if you are blind the sound of water. Imagine if you are blind, your reality stays the same but it has other qualities. Its this qualities every living holds in their brains.

[@MichaeldeSousaCruz]

I disagree. I feel my brain switching off when I disagree with you… Tali is saying know and stick to the point, don’t get sucked into debunking conspiracy hypotheses.

[@NaufragandoEnLaRed]

but it wouldn't do much good if you have to deal with flat earthers.

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

Our emotions, desires, motives, and prior beliefs can affect how we perceive and evaluate information and what we conclude from the information.

[@archetaro]

Our individual experience is a key factor too. For example, if the factual evidence shows my city to be the safest place in the world, but I was recently attacked or robbed at home, it would understandably create a level of cognitive dissonance.

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

The study divided people into groups of strong and weak believers based on answers to questions. One of the questions was whether they supported the Paris Agreement. That question could introduce emotional bias. It's possible to strongly believe that climate change is happening but disagree on what should or can be done about it. Many people agree or disagree with the Paris Agreement without having read it or being able to describe the details of it. So, people have an opinion based on something other than personally evaluating it. Is it possible that the questions chosen for the study injected bias into conclusions that could affect the findings?

[@thewiseturtle]

All studies are biased. You can't create a universally meaningless question, or approaches to answering that question. This is a given in science, though it's often ignored or even denied.

[@Rickys-Grandson]

This is what memes do, they help reaffirm an individual’s belief on a topic. It does this succinctly and from an emotional standpoint, rather than logical. Which is something the neuroscientist didn’t directly state in the video. What worked in the example about vaccines is when a person’s emotions were used to persuade them.

[@rudolfpitcher503]

She explained it really well. Personally, I think the message here is deeper and more important nowadays than some of us might think. We focus too much at the things that separate us from others and in trying to convince others from our opinion. Searching for common motives/interests with the other person during a conversation is something I wanna try from now on. Let us enjoy 2024 with joy and inspiration 🎉😊

[@kikijewell2967]

Beautifully written. I, too, have seen this. In a world where 7 billion people are at your fingertips, it's easier to discard people and find new ones than it is to make things work with the people you already know. Getting along are skills being lost these days.

[@ravisankarparanam]

Perfect. Couldn’t get much better. Agreed to the point.

[@SameAsAnyOtherStranger]

"...when something doesn't 'confirm' to what I already believe..." The sentiment expressed is spot on, so it isn't wrong, but the usual vernacular would use the word "conform."

[@HollyJokerst]

It generally seems like the move for convincing people of something is to focus on helping them see how it aligns with values they already hold rather than explain why they are wrong.

[@juliarichter6987]

I am convinced by facts.

[@Playerone1287]

So that means there are very few people like me who only cares about information Even intelligent people tend to twist information to satisfy confirmation bias

[@chrisjoseph6775]

My psychiatrist showed me how with PTSD I was putting barriers up trying to guard against any chance of allowing my trauma to repeat. I wonder if this same neural pathway is involved in being closed off to new ideas. Perhaps because new ideas were tried before and resulted in false conclusions which in turn resulted in harm. Therefore, they guard against different/alternate ideas rather than learning from the bad ideas they have tried before. This would explain the intelligence gap of people who are open to new ideas vs. those who are not. In order to learn you have to be open to new ideas and give them due consideration. This doesn't necessarily mean that if you don't change your mind about an issue you are less intelligent. But if you don't even consider new ideas then it stiffles your intellectual growth.

[@MBheli621]

What gets crazy is when they right off all statistics period because they can “ be manipulated” to prove a point. So though true that an individual can and will do that , I’ve had people scrap all stats no matter what because they believe massive groups of people and those conducting the studies are all lying or trying to prove a point.

[@timelapsephotography6650]

Great way of argument! Thank you Tali!

[@The-Well]

Thanks for watching and for taking the time to comment!

[@doru4248]

1.5K upvotes in 10 days and not a single downvote in spite of negative comments all around. Got to love Google.

[@adicahya]

This is an interesting topics. Explain a lot what I see every day, in this polarizing world. Is there any other video exploring this topics?

[@antedox1]

I have been teaching my rhetoric freshman this idea for years. Sure, in reality, the facts don't care about our feelings, but, functionally, it's more important to understand our feelings don't care about the facts. If a person thinks gravity is a hoax, all the data in the world won't keep them from jumping. I hate it, but if we want to have a society, we have to approach each other understanding that we need to feel like something is true before we'll believe it's true.

[@CraquedEggs]

The lesson I learned is that data can be presented in a manner to get the reaction out of the masses that sponsors of scientists desire.

[@hosackies]

All these big grand scientific studies with lots of effort, time and resources. Just to realize that everyone needs to have their ego stroked in order to have them become more agreeable? I think we all knew that since we're kids.

[@inevski]

Behaviour change is politics

[@sihr07]

Extraordinarily relevant in a more and more polarized world, we need more of these insights and tools

[@c.1954]

Amazingly Freud said that more than a 100 years ago.

[@thewiseturtle]

Firstly, fights/arguments are a waste of time if the goal is learning and connection and problem solving. For learning, connection, and problem solving the process is to share the information that is most relevant to the goals of the individuals involved. The higher the number of different goals a single set of information serves, the more effective communicating it will be. The most important information for most individuals is personal experiences of loves, losses, dreams, and needs. Beyond that, it's all speculation.

[@mkrj2576]

There may be a few people out there really thinking and being open minded as possible in order to find better solutions and “truths”. Increasingly however many are more interested in believing rather than thinking. Survival use to correlate more strongly with one’s grasp of reality (well, relative reality). Like if you believed the salmon you depended on would “run” in a season they didn’t you’d starve to death. Now you can believe in most anything and still survive. Thrive actually, in many cases.

[@missh1774]

Sales pitching. Somewhere in the middle of taking in the information and fitting it to the longterm data, people have to pick up their bat and smack a 6 every now again. Its just not useful to layer it onto old paradigms of thinking, rather we have to know how it (the pitch) can lock us into a corner. If the focus is suggesting one thing, we should naturally want to know what is our own decision without the ghost of "stigma" sucking the life out of reason while adding to the constraints of people's time.

[@NaufragandoEnLaRed]

El último experimento me confirma lo difícil que es entender a la gente si te toca ser más inteligente que el promedio. Entonces allí tienes que utilizar tu inteligencia emocional y habilidades sociales para poder convencer a la gente de cosas que para ti pueden ser tan obvias como que la Tierra gira alrededor del Sol.

[@Torbu6286]

It's not about winning... Slightly misleading title for such a quality content. And it's fine to tackle arguments like this, i.e. what information to use and types of it and in what way in short-term. This is just treating the symptom. To cure is to teach open-mindedness, not saying we have to grab everyone and develop open-mindedness but it could have been mentioned, can be helpful for teens and children.

[@johncliffalvarez6513]

Interesting. But could also the common motive themselves be manipulated in order to sway a certain result? It’s crazy how we seem not able to get out of the way of ourselves.

[@erselo2477]

Logic and emotion are two different things. Work on the emotion first. The logic will eventually follow.

[@Mewa-tv6qc]

I’m swayed by facts, at least by what we know.

[@BmoreBetterNOW]

First issue is the idea of any particular persons truth.

[@davedesigning]

Sorry, To the content creators, during the description of the study there were pronouns like “that direction” and even when looking at the screen, I couldn’t understand which viewpoint the participants were moving toward.

[@nooshoff]

Sad but really useful thing to watch

[@Vgallo]

Jonathan haidts the righteous mind proved all this years ago.

[@szesze-bw8fz]

You too Doctor. 🙂

[@josephpatterson2513]

Each side should steel-man the other sides belief to the other persons satisfaction before trying to reconcile each other's differences. Understanding should be each persons first priority.

[@JeremyHelm]

4:28 what about the approach of addressing what the parents say their concerned about? Not all stubborn beliefs have such a clear upside for abandoning them as protection against deadly diseases

[@happyshillmore]

it seems as though fundamental philosophy around awareness, metacognition & humility would resolve most conflicts. the effort to reduce complexity to something comprehensible is natural, calorie efficient and practical..but it's inherently an exercise of data exclusion. arbitrarily imposing abstract boundary conditions will inevitably result it variance across subjective models. pure "truth" is cosmic complexity, beyond the psychological patterning capabilities of humans. arguments are about one arbitrary model winning over another via mathematical validity a/o emotional influence. being "right" or valid, not truth. climate change is a great example for this. vague, vast & infinitely arguable. if we were capable of frameworks that result in truth, we would be able to model the the flow of every molecule in the atmosphere i.e. predict the future, and modulate accordingly. a better model would be pollution like it used to be. we would stop counterproductive argument over "climate change is real" or that humans could control such a complex system. yet ANY pro pollution argument would be considered absurd.

[@lucasgambit7248]

To think about how people did shit in History just because they were pissed, or their messy ego, or they were afraid... Basically, emotions... The common motives are actually the portal to solve a lot of problems in this world, including politics. But we need to shut down emotions and ego. Who the heck can do this for real?

[@inevski]

Directed here by Big Think. What a swizz

[@WindyJAMiller]

Very few people when in the present momment subconsciously can seperate apart what they think with what they feel with what they imagine with what the believe, in fact i think the exact number is zero people who can do this.

[@3glitch9]

I guess because it's not necessary to do so

[@jamesmcintyre3456]

Well, That's one way to look at the data. You do realize there are different interpretations possible of the same data, it's similar to putting the emphasis on different syllables of the same word 🎉

[@Alex-oy6wb]

5:19 “So, the lesson here is that we need to find the common motive.” What is the common motive in climate change?

[@rbgerald2469]

Continue our favourite pastime called living on this planet while ensuring having our comforts lol

[@NaufragandoEnLaRed]

The consensus in the scientific world on climate change is very high: more than 95%, supporting the thesis that it is real and caused by us. The vast majority of people also believe that climate change is real. Therefore it is not a question of convincing people whether it exists or not but of having the power to make the necessary decisions and sacrifices that must be made.

[@NaufragandoEnLaRed]

and it is a complex issue and difficult decisions such as buying Chinese electric cars en masse and removing all tariffs, given that they are cheaper and offer better quality depending on the price.

[@Alex-oy6wb]

@@NaufragandoEnLaRed uhhh did you watch the video? Not facts bro…common motive

[@pamfranklin882]

I'm not going to waste my time on conspiracy people. Too busy learning.

[@Elsolocup]

well, is this obervatrion a good or bad thing? on one hand we give power to a selective side that predetermines the outcome, but on the other hand we can convince the lamens to conform to a superior mindset.... so what is it?

[@tuckerbugeater]

"our" truth

[@nukiolbartes6279]

in democracy opinion matters than action.

[@mh60648]

Climate change might not have been the best choice as an example because the available research, and the different interpretations of that research, don’t all tell the same story, which is why scientists are still very much debating this topic, even though that is not reflected in the media. Of course, we can all agree that we need to start taking far better care of the earth’s ecosystem, but that is just common sense. But here’s the issue: People don’t listen to actual facts, but rather to a selection, interpretation, and simplification of facts (and some fiction may be included). And in most cases, depending on who selected, interpreted, and simplified those facts, they believe it or they don’t. On the topic of climate change, the reason scientists are still discussing the causes of, and human influence on climate change is because it is one of the most complex issues to get right. All models fall short because no model can handle all the variables. Furthermore, models are not meant to be used for real life predictions and policymaking; they are simply not reliable enough for many reasons, an important reason being that, when it comes to climate change, we don’t even know for sure yet what all the variables are.

[@OutSideTheBoxFormat]

I'm old enough to remember Climategate and read those emails.

[@orange25i]

But scientists are not discussing the fact that climate change is man made at all anymore... You seem to be mistaken here?

[@mh60648]

@@orange25i They are absolutely not in agreement yet because scientifically they can’t and should not be in agreement at this point. I do understand your confusion though, because of how this topic reaches most people through politics and mainstream media. You would have to dig a lot deeper to realize that we know much less about climate change than we are told, and any scientist claiming otherwise is not doing science a favor. Another thing most people currently don’t realize, but which has a huge influence on what we get to here in the mainstream media, is the problematic state that science and the science community are currently in. There are many contributing factors, but in the end they almost all trace back to money, and the consequences are severe. This has been going on for quite some time, but science is functioning very differently nowadays when compared to 30 or 40 years ago, for example. Huge amounts of papers are currently published, but there is a significant percentage of mediocre and bad science (if we even should call it that) put out there. Science is accumulative because we build on previous science, meaning bad science is also accumulative, and it is already being produced for decades. Anyway, you do not have to believe me about any of this. In fact, I encourage you to not take my word for it and dive deeper yourself.

[@nukiolbartes6279]

Power and influence do the work better

[@zolarichards]

She is assuming there is one absolute truth in those examples. One study alone should not totally change your perspectives especially in the social sciences arena in which the scientific method reproducibility threshold is so low. You do the same experiment and may get the expected results 6 out of ten times.

[@inevski]

Appealing to emotions her use of the word truth crowbarred in.

[@renegroulx7029]

If intelligent people take the information and twist it , then im an idiot , cause i just share it in hopes of enlightening others.

[@kiuk_kiks]

Took 5:40 to explain the cognitive bias of confirmation bias 😂

[@touchheartyoga]

Did you just say "People need opening skills before they access change skills"

[@leftenanalim]

Facts don't care about your feelings

[@elmoteroloco]

Succinct and excellently explained, thank you!

[@The-Well]

We’re glad you enjoyed! Thanks for watching!

[@cmack17]

I do not have arguments with people about "their truth" or "my truth". These phrases are code for arbitrary subjective beliefs.

[@nevinselman5819]

Reality is only perceived at the mind. Truth is not a measurable quantity. To understand truth you have to understand a specific perspective as well. Reference frames in physics probably illustrate this the best. The more perspectives one has, the closer to the idea(l) of truth we can get, but it's asymptotic in my opinion.

[@annettezaleski]

​@@nevinselman5819opinions aren't facts...there ARE facts to be told to the public and that should be the law! Intentional disinformation and misinformation will cost that network, not money but air time or 30 days at Rikers...something the media will not play games with...we need to get strict with repercussions for dividing our country on purpose!! That's the intention and it benefits who?? It benefits our foreign adversaries who are trying to, and succeeding at, dividing our country to WEAKEN US bc they have been trying to destroy America FOR MANY YEARS! We must unite against the real enemies...and it's not other Americans from a political side that are the cause of our country falling from the top where we were proudly at prior to Trump's term ...face it...Trump's bffs are all our countries rivals and arch enemies that have been trying to destroy us and any for of democracy around the world that we stood behind while the ppl in countries wanted to live in a democracy like us!! Now look at the world! It's happening bc we are at our weakest state ever bc we are divided within...even down to our families!! This happened when?? Scary how fast it happened...we must stand united. Forget any 1 person who makes you leave your own flesh and blood families bc he only wants full loyalty to him...bc he promises what? What is it that he can do for us! He is doing exactly what he is supposed to do...see the wars happening...it's do to him dividing US...making us weak as a nation...that's what Trump did for (to) US...ON PURPOSE!!

[@DarrylGold]

I want to see how she reacts to the facts from the other 50% on climate change.

[@iankane1733]

I had a piece of crab rangoon once. I remember it being really really good. Would like to try again, however, I am worried about the dairy in it.

[@Fnidner]

what

[@danryan4001]

The lesson here is that this video is advocating sneaky, dishonest psychological manipulation. Anybody born with a decent bullshit detector sees right though this behavior and ends up distrusting the manipulator, and their entire profession, because every "professional" represents their entire profession every time they practice it. Honesty is the best policy, always.

[@joleaneshmoleane8358]

She’s describing all the sheep over the last 10 years and especially the last 3. It didn’t matter how many times we showed them data, they still did what the government and news media told them. Even though I could prove they were wrong and knowingly lying in many cases.

[@davidanieland]

She's describing all of us actually. You're included.

[@TheBossDroid]

Especially you 😂

[@nanasabia]

@@TheBossDroidno actually not. The so called „vaccine“ has been officially proven to be useless when It comes to preventing contraction of the Corina virus (you know which one, right) - and you guys this was your main argument „ to protect others“ (besides wanting to travel and party again) But if you still believe it’s a conspiracy. Check out what the who daisy about it, even the EU said it this year and also the vaccine „makers“ themself. Some people just smell shit from the beginning 🤦‍♀️ and other never realise that there was shit from the beginning. But acknowledging the fact that one was wrong takes a small ego. Humans are weird.

[@minorsingingairhead]

"facts"

[@jackb1969]

This is interesting. Like why ppl vote for drumpf

[@eddychinwe1163]

I am not convinced

[@ASBOmarc]

So effectively we have gotten to the point whereby emotion has primacy over reason. I have no idea whether to laugh or cry.

[@joleaneshmoleane8358]

All that matters is “is it true?”. I don’t care who’s side or group it helps or hurts. I don’t even care where the truth is coming from. I only care “is it true?”. If the answer is yes then I can do more research to understand the full story on a given topic, but if something is true then you’re a fool not to align your worldview with that truth. 2+2=4. Reality is something that never changes no matter if you believe in it or not.

[@DixiitMC]

I would be curious how you define "true" and "reality"

[@joleaneshmoleane8358]

@@DixiitMCanything you can prove with facts AND an abundance of evidence. So for example 2+2=4.

[@joleaneshmoleane8358]

@@DixiitMCI literally defined BOTH of those in the original comment. 😂. Go read it again and see if you get it on second read.

[@gs1447]

Isn't 2 aka numbers made up? How is it true

[@romulosouzasantos8711]

But the problem is that it's not that simple in reality to find the truth. There's fake news, manipulative data, etc...

[@doru4248]

Good to know that you have broken the Nuremberg Code.

[@edwardk3]

Right away she shows her bias with the examples she chose

[@JeremyHelm]

2:22 "we gave people information, and as a result it caused polarization"

[@VOLightPortal]

Facts don't win but AI can and absolutely will in the end. Soon.

[@relicofthesoul]

What if she's just saying this to suggest people who twist facts to suit their beliefs are intelligent. Which seems counterfactual.

[@relicofthesoul]

But It makes sense to sustain the better argument or benefit than focus on the issues/misinformation etc.

[@doru4248]

@@relicofthesoul No, it does not make sense to ignore counterarguments and just to repeat your own story like a stupid parrot.

[@relicofthesoul]

@@doru4248 which are you? Polly want a cracker?

[@BB-gd5pk]

This reminds me of the time I showed FBI crime statistics to some leftist friends. They said the statistics regarding crime differences between races couldn’t possibly be true. lol.

[@Fnidner]

that’s dumb. of course theyre true, but the numbers themselves dont show that this is due to systemic oppression, which is the problem

[@annettezaleski]

Oh, I believe they're true...we have to remember every person is just that we should quit grouping everyone under 2 parties only...I used to agree with some points of both parties...I thought most Americans found they sided with topics from both parties at least a few good points from the other party is for...the sad part is, I DONT WANT A ONE PARTY SYSTEM, I could barely stand just two parties as it was. I WISH Republicans were running on something other than a person for President...who IS finally saying what his plans are once he is back in power and if we take him at his word, as was many peoples reason for initially liking Trump bc he yells it like it is and some said he gives them permission to speak freely bc they're tired of being politically correct or worried about offending someone bc of past generations wrongdoings that happened before you were even born and if everyone could get together and agree to start from scratch and let go of the past you'd be willing to try that and there's others that are worried they're losing their majority numbers and don't want to share with groups that are less than them in every way, no matter how good of an education they had available to them or they already graduated from, they still would never be equally smart as a white man with exactly the same education and credit scores... And I know ppl feel worried for the future of America if they aren't above the rest of all the other groups. It hurts to see how far back we got set in such a short period of time on that subject but, I know I'm not wanting to argue or debate anything someone feels or wants for whatever the reason is for how they think we are going to get our country or govt to work the way their job description details they should when elected for that position...work for their districts constituents...that's the job they're running to accomplish to the best of their ability and if they aren't then show them you're not satisfied with the way they chose to work for the Corporation, I mean personhood, who donated the most money to their campaign...I say if the personhood does not reside within your district, then any other Rep in Congress can NOT work on their behalf...they do not reside in your district you can't work for them ...idc how much $$ was donated to a congress member...work only for the residence in the district that elected you...that's what job you applied for ...just like of someone applies for a data entry position and gets the job but instead of doing data entry they decide to be the secretary instead ...it's the same difference...don't re elect someone who isn't making your neighborhood a better place or making life better for the family's living in the district they're elected to care for...if we cant easily get Dark money and bribery illegal again...at least restrict Congress to only working for those living in the district...I'm sure donors wont be bribing any other congress members but only the one that is elected in the district their headquarters resides...Let's see how many other Congress members don't think that's fair and start fighting to run in the few districts the Corp elites have their headquarters at...leaving many districts open for real people who care about things lacking in districts they are living in...and so they campaign to make the changes everyone there need!! Ta da!! This could happen with a magnifying glass and a real ethics committee looking at our countries corruption starting with voting enough to have enough seats to make the changes in rules, laws, and for ALL Americans to live way above the poverty line and allows families to put $$ that was spent during the World Wide pandemic back into our nest egg or college funds for the children, swipe all hospital bills clean for all Americans and give us the healthcare we deserve...Allow 23 and me to give us our own complete medical screening with just a swab of the cheek, and the info they are able to give "we, the people", direct to consumer, no clinic or doc needed in most cases and no need for Drs referrals or will all be right their for the person to make the appointments with specific professionals in whatever their results comeback directly to them which are simple for anyone to read and understand. That is something our country can do that keeps America's doctors from getting swamped with patients when our taxes we pay right now, not more of, can work to do for We, the people!! Just as every other industrialized country EXCEPT THE U.S. have...universal free healthcare for its citizens! Why don't we!! Our taxes should work to benefit US, not Corporations and the humongous AMT that goes to contractors overseas or wherever the money goes...no one knows and it's time to have an international tax on companies that move overseas to pay less wages...that needs to stop...manufacturing goods to fill Walmart with "made in the U.S.A." products inly like it started with, not China goods only as it is today...we all knew when these corporations were being built in our neighborhoods it was going to destroy mom and pop shops and small businesses and it did...this is rock bottom! We need to unite against our real enemies of America and our families...it's the Corp Elites!! Not any ppl from a political side...we can fix the 2 party system by changing the voting system from plurality voting to a ranking voting system and then ppl will vote for the candidate they like what they're about and what they are wanting to do for "We, the People", instead of voting for a party they stand for! We need more Federal laws that apply to our whole country instead of different laws in every State...we need some laws that apply to all of us the same...it's harder to do but also much harder to change when the next person wins the vote for that office in State legislatures it's way to easy and that's where the recent laws have been made...in each State ...I dont want to live in 50 different countries WE NEED TO BE THE UNITED STATES! We are too divided with state laws in big issues such as abortions and borders being used as a game in politics...and time for truth in all media that has news in their title to start with...and anyone found spreading misinformation or disinformation will get some form of punishment not a fine only...maybe 3 strikes your off the air for an amount of time or 30 days at Rickers for the owners AND the host who said the lie, no exceptions!! Also, if we use the ranking voting system, any elected official that isn't doing their job or is caught breaking the laws even the ones they make), can get a warning then replaced with the runner up if they still want and if they're taking bribes from corp elites or worse, foreign countries, BOTH PARTIES will get 30 days at Rickers, automatically! No more buybacks allowed AND No Congress member or family can play in the stock market...IF caught automatic removal from office and 5 years no govt positions for them!! We need to take out anyone who is being paid by our foreign adversaries right now,!! Deport them to whatever nationality they are and drop them at the border without a passport or citizenship!! Without dark money allowed in Congress all these corrupt ppl won't want to work in Congress anymore!! BUE, BYE...sorry so long

[@Fnidner]

@@annettezaleski u alright?

[@annettezaleski]

@@Fnidner YES...I believe Americans all have PTSD "Post Trump Stress Disorder". No doubt! And STILL he LINGERRRRRS....

[@jacksonjones813]

Your using statistics to prove that statistics don't work?

[@doru4248]

Scientists are themselves subject to emotions and they also use what little intelligence they have to reinforce their belief in personal gain at the expense of other people. Better yet, you should rely on religion. Tell people that Iehova recommends Pfizer.

[@FaithflNdscreet]

"I am the way and the truth...", "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household”...

[@UltraChongkak]

"Dodge all your opponents arguments and use social pressure to gaslight them into doing what you want" Got enough of that from Boomers

[@elinope4745]

I might believe you but just not care. I might care so much about other things that your thing is just a small fish in a big ocean of problems. I'll work on fixing the world after it becomes worth fixing.

[@scott-hr3hd]

Wrong.

[@jamesmcintyre3456]

I took a second listen to your discourse and believe that you need to listen yourself to what you've said. I think your conformational bias is showing and you need to look at your presentation from another angle and re-examine your conclusions. There is an old saying about having the cart before the horse that is applicable here.

[@LuisTorres-mk2hz]

Great example is politics. All the information tells us that Trump is not fit to be the president of the US, nonetheless, he’s on his way to win the primary and then the election.

[@legion404]

what a jaw

[@MUST-TRT]

Probably should have chosen to lead with three examples that are all much less politicized, censored and deeply nuanced than what is needed to accurately assess climate change(too many respectable experts on both sides), gun control(humans will never agree on stats because it's viewpoint and personal perspective) and vaccinating kids(too much emotional clout through parents with rare and exceptionally terrifying, unexplainabe cases). It is clear which side of the political spectrum the speaker sits. Facts on something that still politicized and censored but less emotionally justifiable - like Hunter Biden's drama and accusations vs Trump's and the evidencial proof for and against each, would have been more appropriate. Facts matter, and they matter to every person on both sides of any given debate or contested topic...but it's all about the actual SOURCE OF THOSE FACTS AND HOW THEY ARE DISCERNED. Jonathan Haidt explains this most accurately in his various books on moral psychology. Most people are/have at least one of the following true regarding their perspective on these publicly broadcasted issues that are fed to the masses: • lack time to investigate truth of a matter beyond reading a headline, paragraph or watching 2 minutes of their polarized news source, and or • too lazy to research truth of a matter, and or •lack critical thinking skills needed to do any of this at all. Objective Truth. It has never, and will never care whether or not you, me, or any particular person or group agrees or disagrees with it. It doesn't care who promotes or suppresses it. It does take some effort to find however. Effort that most people just don't care enough or have the will, to invest.

[@archetaro]

Climate change and vaccines are universal, with scientists in every country having to address opposition and arguments about the relevance of the scientific findings on a daily basis. Biden and Trump’s re-election campaigns are irrelevant to the majority of the global population given they cannot vote for them. Maybe you should listen to the video again with an open-mind, as even if you personally disagree with the examples used, it doesn’t take away from the findings on the reinforcement of biases.

[@jeffy141]

She explains very poorly.

[@1cyanideghost]

Unsubscribed.

[@t.m.8128]

Me too

[@muhammadkhattak265]

why?

[@brainxtc2171]

Subscribed.

[@shezario]

Its not an airport, no one cares about your departure and there is literally no use in announcing it if you don't even give a reasoning for why its even more of a waste of energy on everyones part....

[@dannytramontane]

confirmation bias of confirmation bias detected

[@Raoul684]

As the great David Hume wrote 250 years ago, we reason from our convictions. Not the other way round, as most people believed and continue to, today.

[@pohkeee]

🙄you still haven’t changed the focus! How cosmically ironic! Your goal, as you explained it is to find a way to convince in a direction toward conformity to your goal. 🫣…a neutral scientific goal should be a continuous improvement on currently available assessment of unbiased information! I have a master’s in PR and that is the two- edged sword of persuasion…it’s a powerful tool and its results are dependent on the motivation of those who use it! You are an example of why the masses have lost trust…now everything and everyone is suspected of propaganda and hidden agendas. Transparency is the beginning…but we are left trying to be detectives following the money and speculating on motives. It’s a sad state of lose in trust and lack of ethics!

[@Andrew.baltazar]

I get what you are saying. But transparency doesn't lead to the truth. Many well-meaning people end up at different conclusions at different stages of their lives and two contradictory approaches can be beneficial. Data isn't enough, people need to be given options and narratives to make sense of data. In some cases, you can be purely scientific. But it's not that many cases, look into the replication crisis and see how data is being shaped by researchers.

[@shanefowler9443]

​@Andrew.baltazar look at climate change and the covid Vax...no1 truly reports the facts its all politically based.

[@OutSideTheBoxFormat]

Anyone else remember Climategate and all those damning emails?

[@archetaro]

Who or what exactly did the masses have trust in before that was free from propaganda and hidden agendas? The media? Religion? The monarchy? We’re entering an Orwellian hellscape if a video discussing the critical thinking process is the enemy of free thought