User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 30

  1. #11
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    @Hard I trust in my judgement, which is impeccable. I trust in results. If a doctor tells me he's treated 100 schizophrenics successfully using niacin, that would have an impact, especially if I learn that the patients have corroborated that story. I trust in Amazon product reviews and yelp restaurant reviews. Sure you get burned once in a while but for the most part, they haven't failed me. I trust in my ability to follow the logic from policy to outcome. I can usually tell what the outcome of a policy decision will be because I understand human nature.
    That explains a lot. While I use some of that. The big difference is I defer judgement to larger groups, less so on individual opinions (unless that individual has clout).

    I find it interesting when others trust themselves and their judgement so implicitly, I certainly don't. A lot of that comes from being 1w2. I have to cross check it externally to see if it checks out. If I am overruled I let it go, even if I have to do it kicking and screaming. If there are potential consequences to my actions, I almost never rely on myself alone.

    I definitely do the same thing as well with amazon and yelp. I am really picky with it too. I've had friends get angry at me before because I refused resturants due to what I felt was too bad of a review. They thought it was worth overlooking. It can be paralyzing though. There's been a lot of products I haven't bought because one or two valid negative reviews scared me off.

    I don't trust anecdotes most of the time though. Partly because of the experience with my mother, that's pretty much all she does, and she is not capable of using critical thinking. When you have to force someone to accept that sea salt does not contain less sodium, you know there's a problem. I really really want her to stop wasting money at her "doctor" who isn't even a real medical doctor, but there's no reasoning with her.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  2. #12
    Senior Member burymecloser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    514

    Default

    Ok, now I wish the article hadn't led with the vaccine bit ... it immediately loses a portion of the audience who are emotionally involved by that issue (and simultaneously reinforces the author's point) and it sidetracks the larger issue, even though further examples are provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I think you missed the point of my argument.
    What a very clever response!
    i just want to be a sweetheart

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Moreover, the fact that this guy was engaged in trying to establish a political fact checking group turns me off as well.
    Are you trying to say that it's not a good idea to check for *all* facts when assessing political claims?


    There is no place where the truth is in between the lines more than in politics. There may be hard facts involved, but even simply stating facts betrays bias. What facts matter? How does this fact fit into how I assess a candidate, party, or policy? How does this fact compare to that fact?
    The answer is really simple. Check all facts, including ones that seem to go against your current opinion. Then see how all these facts work together. Yes sure it's a fucking complex process. Though some facts do speak for themselves.


    The reality is that people who want to seen as dispensers of truth and facts are seeking a power that will enable them to manipulate and control what people think.
    Heh, your interpretation. I just see the article's writer as someone who'd like people to be willing to evaluate all facts before mindlessly picking one opinion or mindlessly sticking with it.


    "But, despite its unwieldiness, the theory may still be useful. Facts and evidence, for one, may not be the answer everyone thinks they are: they simply aren’t that effective, given how selectively they are processed and interpreted."

    I think this statement makes it most clear that the author desires to just deposit knowledge in people's brains. That's just not how knowledge works and that's a good thing. I don't want people to be robots and i don't want people to unthinkingly assent to whatever someone in a lab coat tells them.
    This is still interesting, how you managed to read all that stuff into these lines. Nowhere was it stated that people should just accept everything "someone in a lab coat tells them".

    If you continue to read the article, you can see it explicitly talks about wanting to find strategies to help people think more broad-mindedly and also help people assess facts without mixing it all with self-affirmation issues. I would say this is a rather good and useful goal. Do you not agree with that goal then?


    I do believe in absolute truth and make a big deal out of that often here. However, the existence of absolute truth and access to that truth are two separate issues. The author seems to think that scientific facts handed down by the CDC are self evident which I think is hardly the case. I believe that the reality is that the best way to access truth is through indirect communication. You can see this in the way that Jesus relied on parables and the way that Plato and Socrates relied on dialectical conversation. Indirect communication actually involves the participant in an active way. It immediately engenders trust in the participant as it's success is reliant on the participant's own reasoning ability. Direct communication is in many ways inferior. It immediately creates a dichotomy between the authority and the recipient who is expected to passively accept the knowledge. Indeed every direct communication begins with an appeal to authority.
    Lol you're so weird. Just because someone talks to you in a direct way, it doesn't mean you're supposed to passively accept what they say. Nah. If you have a problem with authority, then just ignore this perceived and I would say, imagined, "appeal to authority".


    That is what the author misses when he's examining the results of the study on anti-vaxers. There was a common denominator between all the efforts to persuade. Maybe some rejected each method because they were just hard-headed, but my guess is that their minds turned off as soon as they realized the information was provided by the CDC. They rejected the authority of the CDC. Is that reasonable? Probably not. I think it's obvious that this stems from a broader distrust in government. So whereas these guys seem obsessed with figuring out a way to deposit knowledge in people's minds I'm more concerned with creating a culture where people are encouraged to think critically and fixing a very untrustworthy government.
    Lol, critical thinking involves avoiding knee-jerk reactions based on what the source of a piece of information is (e.g. CDC).

    I think the article here is actually about encouraging critical thinking.


    Finally, I don't give a shit what the CDC says about raw milk. It's delicious and well worth whatever risk I'm taking on and the same goes for over easy eggs and rare steak.
    That's all cool if you assessed risks and your priorities and chose based on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    1. One can't discount the power of the anecdote. Anecdotes are considered valid evidence by many people including myself.
    2. A scientific study finding no correlation between vaccines and autism at a 0.05 confidence interval may find significance at a 0.10 confidence interval.
    3. Scientific studies frequently come up with contradictory results. One week, coffee is good for you and the next week it's not.
    4. Government lies to us frequently and maintaining a healthy level of skepticism is a good thing.

    I also don't trust lefty academics to define what an "incorrect view" or a "false belief" is.
    1. Anecdotes are only circumstantial evidence. Sometimes they do tell you something, sometimes not.
    2. If you find significance at 0.10, you can repeat the experiment and see what happens then. And, of course, when a study says significant or no significant correlation at 0.05, you'll still want to see if other studies have been done and if they had the same result... and ideally, studies that were just shoved in a drawer because of someone not liking the results. Quite honestly though, even when it's 0.05, it's just a probability, you'll still need to explain the stuff properly. 0.05 isn't all that great IMO. Maybe at 0.0000001, or something like that, it's okay to just take it as fact without further explanation, though even then it would be great to have a real explanation.
    3. That's because in some kinds of sciences, such as with the topic of nutrition with the coffee, it's hard to control for all variables in one single study. Actually, impossible. Again, it's much better to have a real explanation beyond one study finding a correlation of a certain strength. It's just hard to do in these kinds of sciences. Will take a while to get there.
    4. Sure, critical thinking is good. Regardless of whether the govt has the intention of lying or they are just simply wrong about something.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    That explains a lot. While I use some of that. The big difference is I defer judgement to larger groups, less so on individual opinions (unless that individual has clout).
    God is that some Fe thing?! Why does it matter, when evaluating an opinion, if an individual has some kind of influence? That's really just silly. I prefer to use my logic and facts; regardless of source, logic is logic and fact is fact. (...ok that wording is not the best. I'm referring to hard facts, e.g. with scientific studies if they are repeatable that's good, then it's definitely not a false claim by one researcher faking the results.)


    I find it interesting when others trust themselves and their judgement so implicitly, I certainly don't. A lot of that comes from being 1w2. I have to cross check it externally to see if it checks out. If I am overruled I let it go, even if I have to do it kicking and screaming. If there are potential consequences to my actions, I almost never rely on myself alone.
    You're weird too O_o

    Or, I find it interesting you don't trust your own judgment. Yeah. Heh.

    (I'm not trying to be offensive with the laugh. It's just funny how you said "interesting")


    I definitely do the same thing as well with amazon and yelp. I am really picky with it too. I've had friends get angry at me before because I refused resturants due to what I felt was too bad of a review. They thought it was worth overlooking. It can be paralyzing though. There's been a lot of products I haven't bought because one or two valid negative reviews scared me off.
    Tbh quite a few reviews come from people who either have different preferences from yours - thus their experiences will not apply to you -, or they simply don't know what they're talking about. But yes, it can be some nice data reading/hearing about experiences of others.


    I don't trust anecdotes most of the time though.
    Hey! Agreement! And your mother must be a pain in the ass, I feel for you..

  4. #14
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinite View Post
    God is that some Fe thing?! Why does it matter, when evaluating an opinion, if an individual has some kind of influence? That's really just silly. I prefer to use my logic and facts; regardless of source, logic is logic and fact is fact. (...ok that wording is not the best. I'm referring to hard facts, e.g. with scientific studies if they are repeatable that's good, then it's definitely not a false claim by one researcher faking the results.)

    You're weird too O_o

    Or, I find it interesting you don't trust your own judgment. Yeah. Heh.

    (I'm not trying to be offensive with the laugh)

    Tbh a lot of reviews come from people who either have different preferences from yours, or they simply don't know what they're talking about. But yes, it can be some nice data reading/hearing about experiences of others.

    Hey! Agreement! And your mother must be a pain in the ass, I feel for you..
    I guess it is Fe. The way I look at it, is if a person has a reputation, the are an expert in their field/area, have proven to be competent and right over time, then they deserve to be listened to and take seriously. Sure if they err then it needs to be corrected, but I see it as a way to condense information. I trust people easily (it's implicit for me actually; I don't need to think about it) so that comes with it. Logic indeed is logic, but I take into consideration who is giving it. It can have an impact on the information they deliver. But yeah when it comes to hard factual data, that "check" need starts to go down a lot. But like, if the head of focus on the family released a study on families, I'd be like "yeah... that got released it? HA!" He's got a history, and it impacts it.

    Well I trust my own judgement to a certain extent, perhaps more than I present myself. Still, I find external things less likely to err, so checking external to myself reduces error. I mean, I check for what the person is, or what the review is. If it becomes apparent their judgement was poor, or had different issues/concerns with what I had then I can write it off.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  5. #15
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Is there a link to the actual study? I'd be interested in reading this.

  6. #16
    Senior Member wildflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    318

    Default

    admittedly i only read the first two paragraphs but it sounds like they were trying to change people's entrenched beliefs through junk mail. too funny.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I guess it is Fe. The way I look at it, is if a person has a reputation, the are an expert in their field/area, have proven to be competent and right over time, then they deserve to be listened to and take seriously.
    Yeah, it's alright with the listening part. It's probably a good idea to hear what a person with expertise has to say. I still process that data the same way I would other data, though.


    Sure if they err then it needs to be corrected, but I see it as a way to condense information. I trust people easily (it's implicit for me actually; I don't need to think about it) so that comes with it. Logic indeed is logic, but I take into consideration who is giving it. It can have an impact on the information they deliver. But yeah when it comes to hard factual data, that "check" need starts to go down a lot. But like, if the head of focus on the family released a study on families, I'd be like "yeah... that got released it? HA!" He's got a history, and it impacts it.
    Of course, good idea to take into account possible biases.


    Well I trust my own judgement to a certain extent, perhaps more than I present myself.
    That would make sense

  8. #18
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    @Beorn, your point might be applicable to a few of the examples given (that is, they compared it to what the study conductor considered to be factual), but if you'll notice in the robbery scenario they did test both sides of the isle to keep to their previous misconceptions (and they did), and in that case we're talking about corrections made by the same source that delivered the story in the first place. politics provided a groundwork in which it was easy to find people who have a personal stake on similar topics (in contrast to personal matters which would be harder to test for commonalities), but the point isn't political, it's the degree to which people will revert back to their personal stance in face of contradicting information.

    @infinite - somewhat off topic, but since Ti/Fi almost never deviates in surveys from the 50/50% mark, for it to have made a significant difference would have dramatically altered the results of the study from an overwhelming majority of similar reactions to a dichotomy of different reactions. as it stands, this doesn't seem to be the case, but it's hard to tell without being able to look at the actual studies.

    what i am most interested in is the claim that self-affirmation drills counter this affect are claimed to be supported but not shown how, which is a shame, i find it the most interesting part of the article. if i am getting it right, the idea is "don't panic! your identity is safe! now look at the new information..", but wouldn't that just reaffirm the very information they hold to in contrast to the new information? would people be more resilient to the cognitive dissonance or will it dissolve over time? also, what differentiates those who modify the behavior in response to criticism from those who don't? the potential applications here are huge, this shouldn't be glossed over.

  9. #19
    the Dark Prophet of Kualu
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    RAD
    Posts
    860

    Default

    I'll go on a limb and propose that maybe you'd like to read this:

    The best way to win an argument « Mind Hacks
    Open for interpretation.
    Jo
    Fell for the temptation: Nohari / Johari

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Society View Post
    @infinite - somewhat off topic, but since Ti/Fi almost never deviates in surveys from the 50/50% mark, for it to have made a significant difference would have dramatically altered the results of the study from an overwhelming majority of similar reactions to a dichotomy of different reactions. as it stands, this doesn't seem to be the case, but it's hard to tell without being able to look at the actual studies.
    How do you think Ti/Fi would have been different from Te/Fe? I'm not sure I understand you there.


    what i am most interested in is the claim that self-affirmation drills counter this affect are claimed to be supported but not shown how, which is a shame, i find it the most interesting part of the article. if i am getting it right, the idea is "don't panic! your identity is safe! now look at the new information..", but wouldn't that just reaffirm the very information they hold to in contrast to the new information?
    As to the bolded: Apparently not. It makes sense to me.


    would people be more resilient to the cognitive dissonance or will it dissolve over time? also, what differentiates those who modify the behavior in response to criticism from those who don't? the potential applications here are huge, this shouldn't be glossed over.
    Where do we bring "criticism" into the picture? I thought this was just about presenting facts (and interpreting them).


    Quote Originally Posted by Serendipity View Post
    I'll go on a limb and propose that maybe you'd like to read this:

    The best way to win an argument « Mind Hacks
    Nice article. So am I alone in knowing very well that I don't know a lot about certain topics? I'm usually painfully aware of where my current understanding ends. The article gave examples about flushing toilets, car speedometers and sewing machines... yeah I have no idea how any of those really work and I would have willingly admitted that in the study. Honestly I've never really checked out these sorts of things, though I sometimes get curious for a second or two about how certain everyday things work "under the hood". But then I just forget to go look it up or something... Though if the study had said "computers", I would have responded differently

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] INTPs and always wanting to be right. Normal?
    By Scorquendo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-19-2015, 08:33 AM
  2. [E4] I'm a really special 4w5; I don't want to be special.
    By Tiltyred in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 08-25-2012, 05:12 PM
  3. Don't want to be spied on?
    By Rail Tracer in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-29-2012, 02:24 AM
  4. [ENTJ] ENTJ's: Why don't you want to be my friend??
    By theniteshadow3 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 11:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO