Researchers Say They've Figured Out What Makes People Reject Science, And It's Not Ignorance

[Quixote1818]

Snip>

In fact, the researchers found that people who reject scientific consensus on topics such as climate change, vaccine safety, and evolution are generally just as interested in science and as well-educated as the rest of us.

The issue is that when it comes to facts, people think more like lawyers than scientists, which means they 'cherry pick' the facts and studies that back up what they already believe to be true.

So if someone doesn't think humans are causing climate change, they will ignore the hundreds of studies that support that conclusion, but latch onto the one study they can find that casts doubt on this view. This is also known as cognitive bias.

"We find that people will take a flight from facts to protect all kinds of belief including their religious belief, their political beliefs, and even simple personal beliefs such as whether they are good at choosing a web browser," said one of the researchers, Troy Campbell from the University of Oregon.

More:

http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-figured-out-what-makes-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance

Fake news / science and websites with pure BS are also a big problem.


I think the left does this too ignoring the peer review science on things like organic vs non-organic (not too much science backs up organic being much safer or better for you) and the established safety of GMO's etc. The vast majority of peer review is mostly okay with these two things. For example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/

[angstlessk]

1. But where did their initial belief come from (grammar nazi's I know)

Their parents? I understand political, religious beliefs but where/when did they fail at critical thinking?

[marylandblue]

2. There are a few places

One is trusted sources. If you hear the same point of view from people near you who you trust, you are more likely to take on their views. So if you live in a red community, and most people you know don't believe in climate change, you won't as well. Then you will look for evidence to back this up and spread to others in your community.

Another source is motivated thinking. If you live in coal country or like to drive monster trucks, you can be biased against climate change because it threatens you job or preferences.

[Thirties Child]

5. I think a lot of what we believe comes from exposure. Or lack thereof.

I came out of a small town in the Texas Panhandle a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. (True blue conservative doesn't seem appropriate.) It was all I knew, all I'd ever been exposed to. I compare myself now to one particular classmate, brilliant, talented, creative, still a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. She stayed in West Texas. I left. My exposure changed and so did my politics. I was able to see the other side, realize how wrong I'd been. I repeatedly ask myself--what would my politics be if I'd stayed? I don't know.

[angstlessk]

7. That is very telling...place can change beliefs

[yallerdawg]

3. The old 'confirmation bias.'

There has been research indicating we are psychologically predisposed to a particular 'political' viewpoint - conservative/liberal and authoritarian/libertarian - and what we 'choose' to 'believe' is reinforced by what we watch/listen to/read, etc.

[Thirties Child]

8. Is our predisposal to liberal or conservative psychological or physiological?

It may be determined by the size of the amygdala in the brain--the larger the amygdala the more fearful and therefore the more conservative. My liberal sister and I figured we inherited a small amygdala from our mother, and our conservative sister a large one from our father. Of course it may be because the two of us who are liberal got out of Texas, and the conservative one stayed. Which, of course, brings up another question. Why did we leave? And why did she stay? Some questions go round and round and round.

[yallerdawg]

9. I suspect Republicanism has congenital, physiological, uncontrollable aspects.

It has to be a defect which will - over time - end through the extinction process of 'natural selection.'

Self-destruction is not a positive attribute for a species.

[AngryAmish]

11. I doubt that we will out breed them.

In fact the second half of the 21st century the first world will be vastly outnumbered.

[Iggo]

14. Of course not. They're also wilfully ignorant of the benefits of birth control.

[Thomas Hurt]

4. My world view will magically save us all, if only all you heathens would just believe what I do.

(snark)

[angstlessk]

6. Tell us what you believe and let us judge :-)

[TheBlackAdder]

10. Religion & politics also share common centers of the brain. Religious Inerrancy conflicts w/science.

.

But, there has to be the anti-GMO dig, which negates much of your post.


True, the majority of science labs back up the safety of GMO produce, especially if it's closer to an accelerated hybridity of crop development, but I draw the line on two issues, the DNA splicing of animal genes into crops, and Roundup2 Ready produce. Having owned a farm, and subscribing to many farm publications, there was a big push for RU2 usage. Large ad buys in the publications, multi-page ads. Nature is a wonderful thing. What doesn't kill species makes them stronger. The resistance of weeds requires further and more intense applications of RU2 which exposes the farmers and farm workers to it. The runoff, which occurs almost immediately enters drinking water and pollutes the first 10 miles of water bodies, where over 90% of life exists, and the benefit of GMO in crop yields is starting to ebb and cut into farmer profits. Personally, I don't want food constantly slathered in an Agent Orange derivative.

Many family-owned farms in South America, Africa and in the Pacific rim were lost to GMO crops. The large corporations, who will remain nameless, bought out governments to offer GMO seeds to poor farmers who make $1-3 a day. They were sold it was a better crop and not told that they wouldn't take 10% of their crop yields and replant them the following year. After 2 years of getting these free seeds, their old seeds went sterile, and they were forced to either buy the seeds, which they could not afford or have their farms taken by BigAg. Most lost their farms, further displacing farmers who were self-sufficient and put their families into extreme poverty.

So, while many tout the benefits of GMO, there is a shitload of corporatist profiteering and land thievery going on, were GMOs are used as the device to steal others farms. Also, limiting the crop diversity means that a regional or global blight could wipe out large quantities of food deliverables. Many don't realize that there is really only one variety of banana that is world-wide. A few dozen corn varieties, with most having small yields etc.

So, while GMO was touted as increasing crop yields in the 70s and 80s, the reality is that farm science, crop management, enhanced delivery systems and the like is what boosted crop yields the most.

.

[MyNameGoesHere]

12. Oh I get it now. They're not stupid or uninterested.

They're just fucking stupid, vs. regular stupid.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Willful ignorance is ...

the worst kind.

[Oneironaut]

15. Totally true. Politics is now a game of conformation bias. It's a football game with fanatics in

both bleachers. Russia didn't mislead people on anything - they fed them crap they wanted to believe. No amount of facts will change their minds. Their minds aren't impressionable - their minds are steel cages impenetrable to facts.

It's not fake news that's the biggest problem - it's how politics is treated like a football game. It is now ones duty to delude themselves, and in worst cases, spout facts they know to be untrue. It's party first, facts second.

Fyi - Louise Mensch is feeding the same bs to Democrats, and they're eating it up. None of it is real. It's an alternate reality sold to the masses who have strapped their party affiliation to their identities.

That's why there's so much anger. Disproving a fact is now seen as an attack on one's core identity. You can smell the pungent stench of Fascism in the air.