[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Weird Stuff/Unexplained Title: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason. 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 case with psychological studies, the whole setup was a put-on. Though half the notes were indeed genuinetheyd been obtained from the Los Angeles County coroners office the scores were fictitious. The students whod 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 deception was revealed. The students were told that the real point of the experiment was to gauge their responses to thinking they were right or wrong. (This, it turned out, was also a deception.) Finally, the students were asked to estimate how many suicide notes they had actually categorized correctly, and how many they thought an average student would get right. At this point, something curious happened. The students in the high-score group said that they thought they had, in fact, done quite wellsignificantly better than the average student even though, as theyd just been told, they had zero grounds for believing this. Conversely, those whod been assigned to the low-score group said that they thought they had done significantly worse than the average studenta conclusion that was equally unfounded. Once formed, the researchers observed dryly, impressions are remarkably perseverant. A few years later, a new set of Stanford students was recruited for a related study. The students were handed packets of information about a pair of firefighters, Frank K. and George H. Franks bio noted that, among other things, he had a baby daughter and he liked to scuba dive. George had a small son and played golf. The packets also included the mens 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 went with the safest option. In the other version, Frank also chose the safest option, but he was a lousy firefighter whod been put on report by his supervisors several times. Once again, midway through the study, the students were informed that theyd been misled, and that the information theyd received was entirely fictitious. The students were then asked to describe their own beliefs. What sort of attitude toward risk did they think a successful firefighter would have? The students whod received the first packet thought that he would avoid it. The students in the second group thought hed embrace it. Even after the evidence for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs, 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 studies became famous. Coming from a group of academics in the nineteen-seventies, the contention that people cant think straight was shocking. It isnt any longer. Thousands of subsequent experiments have confirmed (and elaborated on) this finding. As everyone whos followed the researchor even occasionally picked up a copy of Psychology Todayknows, any graduate student with a clipboard can demonstrate that reasonable-seeming people are often totally 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? Poster Comment: Repeating Even after the evidence for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs, the researchers noted. That people cant think straight was shocking. It isnt any longer. Thousands of subsequent experiments have confirmed (and elaborated on) this finding. Reasonable-seeming people are often totally 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? The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
||
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|