oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    Psychology: Artappraiser's Thought Provoking Article

    I just now caught this...

    It's over in the News Feed.

    Artappraiser: Fascinating and very apropos to everything we members do on this site as well as the current political and social situation in this country. To sum a major point of the article up, which is itself a summary gleaned from several recently published books: Scientists from several disciplines are beginning to think that the more evolved a human is, the less "confirmation bias" they will have in selecting facts and other information.

    At the New Yorker:

    Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds: New discoveries
    about the human mind show the limitations of reason


    Now here is a video that I was turned on to by a fellow at TPM/Hive.

    At the 38 minute mark is Julia Hahn. Julia is a Steve Bannon Breitbart-writer protégée and now a special assistant to Donald Trump. Heady for a 25 year old. Julia's forté at Breitbart? "immigration writer" ... "whose most recent articles on the site have bent over backward to dishonestly defend the lifelong racism of Trumps Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions." All that education to write hit-pieces and polishing a turd like Sessions? Oh well...

    So with that said, This is found in the description of the You Tube:

    Why do people act as they do? Their more critical traditions both begin from the shared premise that human beings are less free than they know, and that this awareness is crucial for their future liberation. But what precisely is the relationship between perspectives that begin with the society and its tendencies and those that begin with the individual and her stymied desires?




    It's a wacky world... But I'm just a visitor.





    well more fascinating stuff. But I would like to add what I think is important point: the New Yorker article is not about people purposely trying to be a spinmeister, it is more about: no matter how objective people think they are being in selecting their information, it may just be natural for them to have confirmation bias (I.e., us here relying on liberal sources), depending upon how evolved they are from the more tribal world. And it follows that those that are more evolved, and can handle picking out facts that don't just confirm their bias, will be more successful in the modern world, that that's a positive trait for survival now.

    Sooo, I think it follows that what spinmeisters (of all leanings, left right and center) are basically doing is: writing narratives in order to keep others down! Cause if you were interested in helping people improve, you wouldn't be working spin, or even an adverserial position or debate, you'd be trying to filter spin out for people and offer them facts alone no matter where those facts led them. Like scientists try to do.

    Confirmation bias is a problem for everyone. We all have to guard against it in ourselves and even our best guard doesn't mean we're free of it. But I'd like to point out  that most of us here read multiple sources.  As I've mentioned recently I read Brooks regularly. You're right about Friedman though he's one I just can't stomach. A few months ago I told lulu I read consortium, and I read Kristol, I even go to Red State to read Eric Ericson. Not everyday but with some frequency. RCP is on my daily list to make sure I get some conservative news every day. Along with the more conventional sources like the NYT and Politico. There are more but I'm not going to list them all. There are many people who work hard to avoid getting caught in a liberal bubble and becoming victims of confirmation bias. I'm sure you're one of them.

    I sometimes throw up into my mouth when I hear the words:


    Nobody knew how complicated our health system was?

    I cannot help it.

    Every time words come out of this guy's mouth, he is most probably mistaken or lying or contradicting what he just said the day before (or the hour before)...

    My prejudices know no bounds.

    Hey Dick...

    You're not alone. The sumbitch is driving everyone crazy.

    And he's using this technique to do it.

    From Psychology Today | January 22, 2017

    Gaslighting: Know It and Identify It to Protect Yourself

    Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works much better than you may think. Anyone is susceptible to gaslighting, and it is a common technique of abusers, dictators, narcissists, and cult leaders. It is done slowly, so the victim doesn't realize how much they've been brainwashed.
    1. They tell blatant lies.
    2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
    3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
    4. They wear you down over time.
    5. Their actions do not match their words.
    6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
    7. They know confusion weakens people.
    8. They project.
    9. They try to align people against you.
    10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
    11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.


    The more you are aware of these techniques, the quicker you can identify them and avoid falling into the gaslighter's trap.



    I'm with you, DDay.  Every time I hear "president trump," I have to do a reboot just to go on with my day.


    PS:  Your prejudice is based on facts and is therefore not a prejudice.  

    These controlled tests for confirmation bias are removed from the feedback loop where some intuitions prove to be on to something and others are an amble down a hall of mirrors. If one has no skin in the game, deciding between alternatives is a parlor game.

    Consider the very visible differences amongst people's ability to perceive other peoples' emotional responses. Now one can look at that skill from many different points of view. For those who get better at it through practice, the skill is a form of perception. That practice is not like an exercise program or learning German in your sleep. It is work that either produces or leads to nothing.

    You make me think about how we will surely be figuring more of this perception thing out the more "artificial intelligence" is developed. Just by comparison of what we can do that it can't and vicey versa.

    Your comment about artificial intelligence makes me wonder -- is there an opposite?  Perhaps true ignorance?

    Willful ignorance is so 2016.

    Truthfully, artificial intelligence is really fascinating.  But I admit to being curious, and wanting to learn more.

    Latest Comments