Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 560 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 160,054
Pageviews Today: 235,772Threads Today: 69Posts Today: 1,339
04:55 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Limitations of reason

 
Coelho
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 73670062
Brazil
02/22/2017 09:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Limitations of reason
The article is really good and explains why is so difficult to change peoples minds even when their beliefs and world view are irrational.

Less than 50%

[link to healthyhappiness.me]

---

In 1975, researchers at Stanford invited a group of undergraduates to take part in a study about suicide. They were presented with pairs of suicide notes. In each pair, one note had been composed by a random individual, the other by a person who had subsequently taken his own life. The students were then asked to distinguish between the genuine notes and the fake ones.

Some students discovered that they had a genius for the task. Out of twenty-five pairs of notes, they correctly identified the real one twenty-four times. Others discovered that they were hopeless. They identified the real note in only ten instances.

As is often the instance with psychological analyzes, the whole setup was a put-on. Though half the notes were indeed genuine–they’d been obtained from the Los Angeles County coroner’s office–the scores were fictitious. The students who’d been told they were almost always right were, on average , no more discerning than those who had been told they were mostly wrong.

In the second phase of the study, the subterfuge was uncovered. The students were told that the real phase of the experimentation was to gauge their responses to thinking they were right or wrong. (This, it turned out, was also a subterfuge.) Finally, the students were asked to estimate how many suicide notes they had actually categorized correctly, and how many they supposed an average student would get right. At this phase, something curious happened. The students in the high-score group said that they thought they had, in fact, done quite well–significantly better than the average student–even though, as they’d just been told, they had zero grounds for believing this. Conversely, those who’d been assigned to the low-score group said that they thought they had done significantly worse than the average student–a conclusion that was equally unfounded.

” Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

A few years later, a new define of Stanford students was recruited for a related investigate. The students were handed packets of information about a pair of firefighters, Frank K. and George H. Frank’s bio noted that, among other things, he had a babe daughter and he liked to scuba diving. George had a small son and played golf. The packets also included the men’s responses on what the researchers called the Risky-Conservative Choice Test. According to one version of the packet, Frank was a successful firefighter who, on the test, almost always ran with the safest option. In the other version, Frank also picked the safest option, but he was a lousy firefighter who’d been put” on report” by his supervisors several times. Once again, midway through such studies, the students were informed that they’d been misinformed, and that the information they’d received was solely fictitious. The students were then asked to describe their own notions. What kind of posture toward hazard did they envision a successful firefighter would have been able to? The students who’d received the first packet thought that he would avoid it. The students in the second group thought he’d embrace it.

Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revises in those notions ,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from.

The Stanford analyzes became famous. Arriving from a group of academics in the nineteen-seventies, the contention that people can’t think straight was shocking. It isn’t any longer. Thousands of subsequent experiments have confirmed (and elaborated on) this finding. As everyone who’s followed the research–or even occasionally picked up a copy of Psychology Today–knows, any graduate student with a clipboard can demonstrate that reasonable-seeming people are often wholly irrational. Rarely has this insight seemed more relevant than it does right now. Still, an essential puzzle remains: How did we come to be this way?

In a new volume, “The Enigma of Reason” (Harvard), the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber take a stab at answering this question. Mercier, who works at a French research institute in Lyon, and Sperber , now based at the Central European University, in Budapest, point out the above reasons is an evolved trait, like bipedalism or three-color vision. It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context.

Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to cooperate. Cooperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to assist us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.
Face Palmer

User ID: 43285854
Germany
02/22/2017 09:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
The article is really good and explains why is so difficult to change peoples minds even when their beliefs and world view are irrational.
 Quoting: Coelho


As seen here daily.
"The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title."

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

The woman who is not pursued sets up the doctrine that pursuit is offensive to her sex, and wants to make it a felony. No genuinely attractive woman has any such desire. - H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women
Coelho  (OP)

User ID: 73670062
Brazil
02/22/2017 09:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
The article is really good and explains why is so difficult to change peoples minds even when their beliefs and world view are irrational.
 Quoting: Coelho


As seen here daily.
 Quoting: Face Palmer


So true!
Coelho  (OP)

User ID: 73670062
Brazil
02/22/2017 09:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
This is why we can't have schools politically indoctrinating students as it will be extremely hard to make they change their minds.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 46033511
United States
02/22/2017 09:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
Al Magus

User ID: 74118613
Turkey
02/22/2017 09:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason

Chandalier
Arathorn II

User ID: 74058736
Korea, Republic of
02/22/2017 09:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
The article is really good and explains why is so difficult to change peoples minds even when their beliefs and world view are irrational.
 Quoting: Coelho


As seen here daily.
 Quoting: Face Palmer

Evidence means nothing to most people.


[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]


[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
Coelho  (OP)

User ID: 73670062
Brazil
02/22/2017 10:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73863700
United States
02/22/2017 10:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
This is why we can't have schools politically indoctrinating students as it will be extremely hard to make they change their minds.
 Quoting: Coelho


The best conclusion.

I think it's like most things we learn.

Good enough is good enough and we have to get on with other things.

For instance, we all learned to walk, and went on walking that way for the rest of our lives.

An expert may point out flaws and peculiarities in our individual walking styles, but most of us won't bother to take ballet training, or physical therapy to correct our quirks.

Thinking and decision making always involve limited information. We employ stereotypes, for instance, when anticipating people's reactions to our words and actions.

We know darned well that we have to make many decisions before we can gather every fact and anticipate every outcome.

It is in fact rational to accept some margin of error as part of the process.

Revising our general outlook or stereotypes - our handy shortcuts to hasty decision making - can be time consuming, like learning to correct the way we walk.

It probably usually isn't worth the bother.

It's good enough thinking.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72523356
Germany
02/22/2017 10:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
Critical thinking got eliminated in favor of complacency.
Coelho  (OP)

User ID: 73670062
Brazil
02/22/2017 10:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
The studies show how most people are really limited when reasoning and analyzing subjects. We are more prone to having good relations with our colleges, community, than engaging them to reason on their current belief system. That's why the majority of universities are full of social justice warriors. Students want to make their teachers proud and want to fit in with their fellow students.

The whole situation makes me think that the conclusion reached by the researches is correct.
Tis I

User ID: 73129406
United States
02/22/2017 11:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Limitations of reason
bump