[Goober5000]

This is related to the Arizona shooting thread but distinct enough to form a separate discussion.  I found a very interesting article that discusses how "partisan beliefs color our perceptions"; and how quite often, evidence is sought to support a conclusion rather than a conclusion being formed based upon existing evidence.  Even scientists themselves are not immune from this trap, as this case study shows.

It is true that deeply partisan beliefs color our perceptions. Not just in our attitudes, but in the way our brain chemistry helps us perceive reality. When confronted with information that threatens our partisan beliefs, our brains divert processing and bloodflow from areas of the brain associated with "cold reasoning" to areas of the brain known to process social emotions. In other words, when our deeply held politics are threatened, we respond emotionally, and not rationally.

This ties in with what Battuta has often posted in the past, about how studies have shown that, counterintuitively, people very often become more invested in their beliefs when shown evidence which contradicts them.  It therefore behooves us to take a step back every once in a while and consider how the subjective might be interfering with the objective.

The article is succinct and even includes a comparison to football history.  Check it out:

http://telicthoughts.com/pz-myers-a-case-study/

[Flipside]

Interesting stuff, certainly helps maintain the position that people are passionate about politics, rather than analytical.

[QuantumDelta]

The reason I liked science so much when I was a kid was because I was taught that a good scientist works to all ends to disprove their ideas, before they decide they're fact.

I realise that's not the reality for most though.

[Flipside]

It's often social science that suffers from this, not only do you have to deal with bias from the scientist, but it's very difficult to reproduce results from social studies, whereas with more 'traditional' sciences like Chemistry and Physics, it relies on reproducable results.

[General Battuta]

The most frustrating thing about this kind of cognitive stuff is that knowing about it no more liberates you from it than understanding gravity allows you to fly.

It's often social science that suffers from this, not only do you have to deal with bias from the scientist, but it's very difficult to reproduce results from social studies, whereas with more 'traditional' sciences like Chemistry and Physics, it relies on reproducable results.

Anything whatsoever to substantiate this?


EDIT: oh wow hahaha this article was terrible

The self proclaimed skeptic and scientist has now completely abandoned skepticism and science.

No, he didn't; he never even kicked off any science. The entire discussion that is being, er, discussed seems to be colloquial. No hypothesis was formed, the scientific method was never invoked and data was never collected. You could argue he abandoned skepticism (which they do) but he no more abandoned science than Usain Bolt abandons running by taking a stroll to the grocery store.

[Flipside]

Check the Social Science Encyclopedia by Kuper and Kuper (1985). Also, check the work of Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, which is less formal, but still quite relevant.

Once again, it's hard to find empirical evidence for the exact reasons I stated, so if you're looking for a chart or the like then I cannot supply it.

[Goober5000]

The self proclaimed skeptic and scientist has now completely abandoned skepticism and science.

No, he didn't; he never even kicked off any science. The entire discussion that is being, er, discussed seems to be colloquial.

He most certainly did.  Science doesn't have to be done in a laboratory, all it needs to involve is collecting data and proceeding to a conclusion in a rational manner.  It is entirely possible and appropriate to differentiate between a scientific and a non-scientific manner of investigation, especially for an individual whose day job actually is being a scientist.

No hypothesis was formed,

Is that so?  This certainly looks like a hypothesis:

"I'll take a wild guess here. The scumbag who committed this crime has been caught; I'll bet he'll turn out to be a Teabagger who listens to a lot of AM talk radio."

the scientific method was never invoked

see above

and data was never collected.

Is that so?  Both the article and the linked blog name several pieces of evidence:

• the SarahPAC campaign poster
• witness reports on the shooter's behavior
• the shooter's reading material
• the shooter's web postings
• friends and acquaintances' reports on the shooter's political affiliations
• the skull altar in the shooter's backyard
• a screenshot of the shooter's political registration

Of these data, the first item is related to a third party, rather than the shooter himself; and the seventh item is later discovered to have been falsified.  Yet PZ Myers arbitrarily seizes upon these two points, to the exclusion of all the others, to justify his irrational agenda.

[Rodo]

****, I hate it when science can explain this easily why I behave like a dork sometimes.
Wonder If I'll ever be smart or trained enough to control it someday.

[QuantumDelta]

...did you really mean to say dork?

[General Battuta]

:words:

All that happened here is lay cognition. No science. Does this entire process affect actual scientific reasoning? **** yes. Is this a great example of what goes wrong in actual scientific investigation? **** no. Is it a good example of generalized heuristic failings? **** yes.

When it comes to the claim that this was 'science', you disproved it yourself: 'wild guess', 'I bet'. No null hypothesis was established and thus no null could be rejected. This is lay reasoning. It would never be accepted as a scientific hypothesis or a scientific investigation because no controls are possible and no reproducibility can occur. He never proposed two alternatives to use strong inference between.

If you want to use this as an example of the scientific method, though, you can go ahead, because in that wrongheaded definition it it's an example of the scientific method working perfectly: the incorrect assumption was disproved. There's no requirement that anyone be gracious in the concession. Entire lines of research proven false are often defended by invested researchers for years or decades after their effective collapse.

The entire point of the scientific method is that it cannot be done casually in one's head without enormous risk because so many biases and fallacies exist in human reasoning. Scientists are not mentats. They are in no way immune to their brains ****ing up. You cannot render yourself immune, any more than understanding the theory of gravity can allow you to fly.

The article linked was really bad at explaining its stuff, wince-inducingly amateur work.

[NGTM-1R]

The most frustrating thing about this kind of cognitive stuff is that knowing about it no more liberates you from it than understanding gravity allows you to fly.

I find this difficult to accept, considering that I can recognize, and correct, other subconcious processes and have done so before.

[General Battuta]

The most frustrating thing about this kind of cognitive stuff is that knowing about it no more liberates you from it than understanding gravity allows you to fly.

I find this difficult to accept, considering that I can recognize, and correct, other subconcious processes and have done so before.

A lot of these statements come up everywhere and we just shrug and keep collecting the data. I think they come from a generation of young (mostly) men raised to admire Spock.

[Bobboau]

it might make you somewhat resistant to them but it won't make you immune, the fact of the matter is that the human mind was never intended to be reason based or objective, it was intended to react, remember and find patterns.

[General Battuta]

Indeed this is correct Mr. Bobbau. One of the first things you learn in any good cognitive or social course is that people are completely terrible at self-assessment, and will hold systematic biases in just about every respect - their own performance as a driver, their own fluency in social situations, the quality of their writing, so on, so forth, people consistently rate themselves as being in the top quartile. People are also much less accurate than their own roommates at predicting their own social behavior and performance.

One sometimes-unpleasant side effect is that you learn to disregard just about anything anybody says about themselves as self-flattery while looking keenly at things people say about each other (which tend to be much more accurate). Depressed people are also closer to accuracy in most of these domains, something called depressive realism.

Except me, of course, I am the master of my own brain.

[SpardaSon21]

All hail Mentattuta.

[General Battuta]

It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

hahahaha i would be the worst mentat

[redsniper]

Except me, of course, I am the master of my own brain.

And me. And everyone else.

[NGTM-1R]

it might make you somewhat resistant to them but it won't make you immune

I don't think I'm immune. It's always a conscious process, I fear, and I probably slip up a good bit (and am sometimes aware I'm in the process of doing it, as I have been a couple of times arguing with Trashman...good luck finding them, Trash!). However I think Battuta's blanket "there is no defense" statement is a bit misleading. It might (or might not) be a crappy defense, but it does work sometimes.

[General Battuta]

It is a possibility that you can exert some kind of top-down control on some specific processes, though I question whether you'd want to control all of them. Go take an IAT, see how you do.

[Mongoose]

The most frustrating thing about this kind of cognitive stuff is that knowing about it no more liberates you from it than understanding gravity allows you to fly.

I find this difficult to accept, considering that I can recognize, and correct, other subconcious processes and have done so before.

A lot of these statements come up everywhere and we just shrug and keep collecting the data. I think they come from a generation of young (mostly) men raised to admire Spock.

So what does that say about those of us who admire Kirk and think Spock should have lightened up?

The point about "depressive realism" is an interesting one, though, since I usually find that I'm trying to sell myself short over the protestations of others than loft myself up on a pedestal.  Silly brain.