Skip to navigationSkip to content
Close

Scientists show how opinions trick your understanding of facts

Read more on Quartz

Contributions

  • Should be obvious but certainly helpful when there are studies backing up the assertion. The question remains, however, how do we move past this to facilitate productive discussions?

    I have a friend who organizes dinners on controversial topics and after every statement, the speaker has to identify

    Should be obvious but certainly helpful when there are studies backing up the assertion. The question remains, however, how do we move past this to facilitate productive discussions?

    I have a friend who organizes dinners on controversial topics and after every statement, the speaker has to identify whether what they said was opinion or a fact. Still subject to bias, but at least one idea on how to create more awareness during heated debates.

  • I’d say it’s more than tricking. Our opinions bludgeon facts until they’re lying on the floor in pieces, we sweep them up, dump them in the trash and pretend they never existed.

  • “Humans are less rational than we wish to believe”. Understatement of the century.

    What this tells us that’s more profound than the ability to grammatically correct our friends and family, is that we scrutinize and pick apart the things we disagree with far more than the things we hold to be true

    “Humans are less rational than we wish to believe”. Understatement of the century.

    What this tells us that’s more profound than the ability to grammatically correct our friends and family, is that we scrutinize and pick apart the things we disagree with far more than the things we hold to be true.

    Once you think about this idea it appears self evident, but the implications are frightening—we are seemingly unable to reflect deeply on whether our beliefs are right and wrong, but extremely capable of finding faults in the beliefs of others. Enter partisanship, economic, religious, racial, and gender divides.

    The takeaway? We must be vigilant in constantly re-evaluating our own beliefs and opinions in the face of new information and be open to the idea that our worldview isn’t necessarily correct.

  • I think that we should learn to work with people’s feelings in a constructive way instead of simply correlating “emotion” with “bad”. The reason a lot of people care about climate change, for example, is because environmental activists appeal to emotion- whether it’s polar bears that are losing their

    I think that we should learn to work with people’s feelings in a constructive way instead of simply correlating “emotion” with “bad”. The reason a lot of people care about climate change, for example, is because environmental activists appeal to emotion- whether it’s polar bears that are losing their habitats or people left without homes because of a hurricane. There’s something about emotions, I think, that makes us human, so why work against them?

  • Stuff like this is Psych 101 and should be part of every US public high school’s core curriculum.

  • When our beliefs are threatened, we take flight to a land where facts do not matter. A big problem for organizations is that progress is hindered when teams disagree. If you grant everyone immunity, a safe place where opinions are welcomed but treated as creativity, the walls and blinders that cloud

    When our beliefs are threatened, we take flight to a land where facts do not matter. A big problem for organizations is that progress is hindered when teams disagree. If you grant everyone immunity, a safe place where opinions are welcomed but treated as creativity, the walls and blinders that cloud facts begin to fall away. *this is all experience and is in no way a fact.

  • From an evolutionary standpoint this makes perfect sense. We don't need to waste energy (in this case brain. power) on pondering things that make sense to us instinctively, yet when we come across something that does not make sense to us instinctively, we spend more time with it, possibly to learn and

    From an evolutionary standpoint this makes perfect sense. We don't need to waste energy (in this case brain. power) on pondering things that make sense to us instinctively, yet when we come across something that does not make sense to us instinctively, we spend more time with it, possibly to learn and adapt to new information (and in the case of our ancestors, to stay alive) Thus we spend more precious brain energy on it things that don't make sense. Unfortunately that input is overloaded in the digital age and our instincts have now become polarized in many more ways than just for survival.

  • We are in grave need of more epistemic responsibility — from our politicians, from our media, and from ourselves.

  • Hmmm. Checking sentences to make certain they are grammatically correct gets wrapped into story about facts versus opinions and how our world views color what we believe to be true or false? I would need to read the study results first before agreeing. Thus proving the point of the article while disagreeing with it.

  • language is alive, fluid, and reflective. conditions change pulse and respiration don't stop unless we do. as they say opinions are like rear ends we all have one. truth is not subjective we are.

  • “Human beings are less rational than we wish to believe, according to the psychologists.”

    I find it very interesting that this study was done with grammar, and seeing how this “involuntary opinion-confirmation bias” extends into very adverse political fields such as climate change.

  • Editorial anyone.LOL.

  • How interesting!!