User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 113

  1. #71
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I'm a little perturbed by that article. Sure I intuitively think it's got a point but the proofs they use just don't follow. The whole Koran flushing part, just because the percentage remains 10% elevated does not mean it's due to the misinformation, that's just not logical.
    How do you interpret the gap, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by LostInNerSpace View Post
    Interesting. Peoples likes and dislikes are emotional. The disinformation is just a convenient rationalization that lends weight and strengthens the negative emotion. This seems to show that the emotion is not dependent on the rationalization. The emotion remains when the rationalization is taken away.
    Indeed. I think the point I took away is that the evaluation of information is not rational. To actually seperate yourself, your feelings and evaluate with only the tangible information... We just don't do that. Even when we try, we don't.

    I think of it as the conclusion being 'sticky' - very much like cognitive dissonance. Even if we remove the evidence, the conclusion wants to stick with us. Likewise, when opposing information is introduced, our defense mechanism strengthens the conclusion rather than re-evaluate.

  2. #72
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    How do you interpret the gap, then?
    Well for starters how do you define the difference between those who are moved by the words fasly, as in they are still affected by it, and those who were prompted to re-evaluate their opinion and in that process changed their opinion and kept to the new decision? They are assuming that any change in opinion is due to the propoganda where as it's never that simple.

    If I were advising someone on their public image and those circumstances arose then my advice would be to look for other factors which may be still pressing upon people. You can't remove the past, which is the point the article makes, but similarly you can't predict what influences people. A million and one things could occur to someone in the time between the first issue of the initial propoganda to the retraction and those factors just aren't accounted for.

    As always there's lies, damn lies and statistics.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  3. #73
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Well for starters how do you define the difference between those who are moved by the words fasly, as in they are still affected by it, and those who were prompted to re-evaluate their opinion and in that process changed their opinion and kept to the new decision? They are assuming that any change in opinion is due to the propoganda where as it's never that simple.

    I'm not sure I understand.

    People reach a particular conclusion based on what they know. They are introduced new information, and are asked what they think. Some people become swayed by the new information. Then they are told that the information was actually false.

    What is being shown is that the removal of evidence does not cause a shift back to the previous state - that disinformation causes a permanent shift in beliefs.

    I don't see the difference between "moved by false information" and "prompted to re-evaluate their opinion". It comes down to the same thing - the 2nd being the rationalisation for the change. You could rewrite it to say "they were prompted to re-evaluate their opinion by introducing false information, but upon finding out the information was false, fewer people chose to re-evaluate down to their original conclusion."

  4. #74
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I'm not sure I understand.

    People reach a particular conclusion based on what they know. They are introduced new information, and are asked what they think. Some people become swayed by the new information. Then they are told that the information was actually false.

    What is being shown is that the removal of evidence does not cause a shift back to the previous state - that disinformation causes a permanent shift in beliefs.

    I don't see the difference between "moved by false information" and "prompted to re-evaluate their opinion". It comes down to the same thing - the 2nd being the rationalisation for the change. You could rewrite it to say "they were prompted to re-evaluate their opinion by introducing false information, but upon finding out the information was false, fewer people chose to re-evaluate down to their original conclusion."
    Okay I obviously missed that the test was one where people were seperated off from all other stimulae. Still the factor remains that if someone thinks you are 51% a nice guy and 49% a complete arse then it ain't going to take much for them to believe that you are an arse and (in this cynical world we live in) it'll take more than you rescinding what was said or done to actually remove the shift.

    Why not check the same idea but with positive propoganda and make sure to pick a good variety of people (also something not mentioned but presumed).

    The tests are non scientific, the results sketchy at best. The conclusion? Declared a certainty through the medium of statistics. I'm afraid it'd take more than someone reading through a bunch of stats to convince me.

    "88.2% of Statistics are made up on the spot" Vic Reeves.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #75
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    The tests are non scientific, the results sketchy at best. The conclusion? Declared a certainty through the medium of statistics. I'm afraid it'd take more than someone reading through a bunch of stats to convince me.
    Just to be clear, this isn't from one study. Multiple studies were mentioned in the article - I haven't read them yet (some are not yet published), so I agree that some caution is required.

    However, I wouldn't agree that they can be rejected yet - multiple studies have shown the same behaviour, tested in more than one way. It is highly suggestive, and unless each of them is fundamentally flawed, it likely indicates something of note.

  6. #76
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Just to be clear, this isn't from one study. Multiple studies were mentioned in the article - I haven't read them yet (some are not yet published), so I agree that some caution is required.

    However, I wouldn't agree that they can be rejected yet - multiple studies have shown the same behaviour, tested in more than one way. It is highly suggestive, and unless each of them is fundamentally flawed, it likely indicates something of note.
    I already said that my intuitive understanding of the concept was that it does work that way but I was merely disagreeing with the whole 10% and the certainty put forward.

    What you were reading was propoganda about propoganda.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #77
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post

    What you were reading was propoganda about propoganda.
    I'm pretty sure that I was reading a newspaper article highlighting conclusions from a couple of papers. But, if you prefer the dry part of it more, you can conclude the validity from these two papers mentioned in the article, if you wish.

    Bullock, J. G. , 2006-03-17 "The Enduring Importance of False Political Beliefs" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Albuquerque, Albuquerque, New Mexico Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2008-09-13 from The Enduring Importance of False Political Beliefs

    http://www.duke.edu/~bjn3/nyhan-reifler.pdf (PDF Warning)

  8. #78
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Well, it's the well known Myers Briggs Type Indicator, copied from the book, "Personality Types", written by the NAZI collaborator, Carl Jung, who failed his analysis with Freud and became a New Age Guru.

    blah blah blah...
    You haven't defined anything, you just said who created it. Then you added some irrelevant information about the creators.

    You are resolving your own cognitive dissonance, Victor. You detest Jung, so you don't want to believe that his theory has any merit, because if it did, you'd have to change your opinion of him. It's easier to just throw out every single thing he's ever done, and that's exactly what you're doing.

    There are a few people on this forum that have actually thought out these theories for themselves and picked parts out that made sense to them. Using MBTI does not mean blindly following Jung (although, in the case of many people on this forum, it means blindly following Myers and Briggs).

    I guess I could call my understanding of MBTI 'ETI', or Evan's Type Indicator.

  9. #79
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    You haven't defined anything, you just said who created it. Then you added some irrelevant information about the creators.
    I think you would like me to justify MBTI a priori.

    My father liked to argue like that and had a very old book called, "First Principles".

    And for him empirical evidence fell outside his argument.

    You couldn't quote history at him because he would always argue a priori from first principles.

    A priori gives a certain seductive certainty.

    And it was this certainty that fed his vanity.

    And whatever you feed, grows.

  10. #80
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    An example of cognitive dissonance is between a belief in MBTI and knowing that MBTI is Invalid and Unreliable.
    You could also hold a qualified belief, I'm not sure why you are polarizing the extremes as if one cannot see general merit in the ideas.

    (This is one horn you've leaned on ever since you've gotten here... rather amusing, considering you're posting on an MBTI site.)

    In any case, the best example of living with cognitive dissonance in my own life that I can come up with is the fact that I believe in [a permutation of the Christian] God and yet I truly doubt God's existence. For years, I kept trying to reduce it to one or the other... but that just hamstrung me, and realized that I no longer can. So I actually hold both beliefs at once -- which results in basically my living the way I believe God would have me live without apology, without needing to know whether God is factually real.

    (Reference Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant Chronicles" for a good example of living within the embrace of belief and doubt simultaneously.)

    And an example of positive disintegration is between delight and fear. As it is not usually possible or desirable to feel delight and fear at the same time, it then becomes impossible to feel and we start to disintegrate.
    Are you defining this as per the theory of Dabrowski, or have you formulated your own definition here?



    and positive disintegration leads us to lose our ability to feel.
    I usually just refer to this state as one of "bittersweetness" -- because I feel both at once, and since I define it as "one emotion," I have no need to toss either or both out. It hurts good and pleasures bad.

    Are you saying most people can't/don't do this?

    For dissonance and disintegration are the University of Life. And when you experience them, you are experiencing the University Orientation Week - a hiatus to prepare you for the changes ahead.
    I think they're both essential as well, but not everyone has the same capacity for either or both as some others do. I'm not sure how to judge that without inflicting my own subjective standard of good upon it.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. The Evolution of Human Cognition, Artificial Intelligence, Supervenience
    By ferunandesu in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-16-2012, 09:46 AM
  2. Archetypes, Cognitive Dissonance and all that Jazz
    By wolfy in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-17-2011, 09:56 PM
  3. Cognitive Dissonance
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 07:06 PM
  4. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 06:24 AM
  5. Cognitive Dissonance
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 09:53 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