From a recent Boston Globe article entitled “How facts backfire”:
[A] few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
Yikes. If facts do not disabuse people of false beliefs but instead further entrench those beliefs, how can we (SHAFT) successfully promote skepticism and scientific literacy?
It’s said that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. So when logic fails, should we then resort to appeals to emotion? I have tried to be fair and reasonable with my arguments at this blog, but I understand that some people (atheist and theist alike) are just not receptive to that approach. Consequently, I am occasionally polemical in getting my point across. For example, in my post about the genocide in Third Nephi, I wrote that the god described therein is a “sadist.” Now, I think that statement is still fair and reasonable, but it is also emotionally-charged.
I’m convinced that this bold and confrontational approach lays bare the absurdity of some beliefs and can change minds that would have otherwise been unmoved by a more academic approach. Indeed, this is why the so-called New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al) are valuable voices. But in being more assertive, we run the risk of being rude and alienating those who are amenable to reasoned argumentation.
(On a related note: Science blogger Phil Plait gave what became known as the “don’t be a dick” speech at The Amazing Meeting earlier this month. It sparked a debate among the atheist/skeptic blogosphere about how best to dialogue with theists and believers in New Age “woo-woo.”)
In light of all this, I have a couple of questions for you, the readers:
1) How productive are the discussions/disagreements at this blog, generally?
2) And has your mind been changed due to something that you read here?
Thanks for posting this. I hadn’t heard about the speech by Plait, so I’m glad you shared it.
As a theist with a mormon background I’ve enjoyed being challenged by SHAFTS posts, but I must admit I am a theist with a hard core streak of agnosticism. Strong truth statements from either side, I don’t find compelling. For the most part I have a hard time correlating ‘scientific facts’ to disprove a general belief in the supernatural merely for the fact that it is supernatural. – however, as many of the posts on SHAFT point out, I don’t think theists can be ignorant of atheistic challenges. And I’ll admit a point of rethinking my beliefs because of things I’ve read here.
Appeals to emotion are an interesting thing. I’ll flat out admit that I’m economically a leftist because of appeals to emotion.
And if anything appeals to emotion regarding atheism if anything have only strengthened my belief in deity. I’d still rather take a sadist God than the crueler atheistic universe because I think atheism taken and embraced fully is scary and uncomfortably as hell. Thats not to say I don’t think there are good logical reasons to avoid athiesm, but just emotionally I’d not embrace it.
Jon wonders: “If facts do not disabuse people of false beliefs but instead further entrench those beliefs, how can we (SHAFT) successfully promote skepticism and scientific literacy?”
Since this study presumably articulates a problem across beliefs, one might also wonder: If facts or arguments do not disabuse people of false beliefs but instead further entrench those beliefs, how can we (theists) successfully promote theism and philosophical / theological literacy?
In all seriousness, this is a depressing study. I have to face this reality every time I teach Social Ethics. Many students are simply not moved by argument. The most compelling example of this is Peter Singer’s article on world poverty. For all of Singer’s errors, I find it hard to disagree with the argument he presents there. Students have the same experience. But many simply say, “Oh well, I still think what I thought before even though he does seem to have proven his conclusion.” I never know what to say to that, so I simply despair. It is not always so bad. I’ve had 4 students come to me in the last 2 years who have become vegetarians because of, they report, the arguments we went over on animal rights in the Social Ethics course.
I think there is a non-rational “attitudinal comportment” that is required for persuasion. Some are simply not open to it, so even great arguments will not move them. I don’t think arguments for the existence of God accomplish much until the listener has experienced a “baptism of the imagination”. A professor of mine once explained it in this way: when you are trying to take down a wall, you can shoot lots of bullets (rational arguments) at it with little effect. But if you get a big rainstorm, it will weaken and soften the ground the wall is built on, making it much easier to knock the wall over. What is the “rain”? I don’t know. Images, symbols, literature, friendship, love. People need to be hungry if they are to be fed, and you cannot force-feed truth.
No, Dr. Kleiner, the rainstorm is irresistible grace, provided to the elect.
I’m not so surprised by this study, both ways. It bothers me when people say, “Why won’t people listen to reason and logic,” as if 1) reason and logic have one ‘right’ answer and 2) humans are robots.
If we begin with different premises, we can easily (and *logically*) end with different conclusions. Even if not, it’s not as if we “crash” if the logic doesn’t work out, so trying to encourage an intellectual blue screen of reassessment may not work.
Are you a calvinist, Andrew?
I don’t think trust in reason’s capacity to discern truth requires thinking that humans are robots or that we are operating in an intellectual vacuum. You are right to reject those views, but I think wrong to then move to such a skeptical conclusion. That we are not agents of pure reason does not mean we are not rational. It does mean that the discernment of truth is going to involve not just argument and reason, but also a proper ordering of the passions and desires, proper moral and intellectual habituation, probably a proper ordering of culture, etc etc. In other words, Plato was really on to something in the Republic.
I went to your website, and now understand a bit better why you tend to bring some calvinist themes into your posts.
hehe, I only play a Calvinist on the internet.
But actually, I do *find* some Calvinist themes rather plausible (for how abhorrent I find the theology as a whole.)
You talk about a proper ordering of passions and desires, moral and intellectual habituation, culture. But it seems to me that this is like saying, “Try not to be angry”; “try to like jazz music;” “try to understand Jackson Pollock,” and so on. Even if these orientation changes are crucial to “proper” reasoning, I don’t see how someone could freely choose or will to jump out of their own inclinations, desires, passions, etc., I *could* see how, for example, I could come to shift any of these things through some tremendous and mindshocking event that I could not anticipate and could not resist.
(but then again, I still need to read Plato, heh)
Since moral virtues (the ordering of passions) are habits and “it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks”, it will be quite difficult to change after their moral formation is largely finished (not impossible, but hard). So this needs to start very young. But I think the “like jazz music” comment is a pretty shallow take on this. Still, I think it is necessary for a person to love the right sorts of things. A love of the good, a desire for truth, intellectual habits that find order (why Plato thinks you should study mathematics for many years before doing philosophy), moderation, courage, temperance, etc. Thrasymachus (in Bk 1 of the Republic) is plenty smart and is capable of making arguments. But he has such a disordered soul (his reason being habitually put in service of the basest of passions) that he is impossible to reason with (in fact, he becomes so furious that he starts name calling and then mostly exits the dialogue). Being a “tone troll” on blogs, then, is really just insisting on the kind of moral and intellectual atmosphere in which real dialogue and understanding is even possible. Andrew S. has some ethos pathos stuff on his blog that makes this point, as does the “don’t be a dick” speech.
Here is another example of inculcated moral and intellectual habits making a difference in terms of intellectual growth. Some of this is quite simple, really. I am a stay-at-home Dad over the summers (and am home with my young kids 2 days a week during the school year). I notice at the park that some children have very little structure in their homes. You can see it in their behavior. If I was a betting man I would guess that these children will not be among the most academically strong once they are in school (from pre-K to college). How can you expect children to learn (I am thinking of toddlers and pre-schoolers in particular) if they don’t have any structure or regularity in their lives, and don’t know what is coming from minute to minute and day to day? What is happening to the intellectual habits of their mind when you are inculcating chaos at such a formative age?
It is the condition for the possibility of knowledge!
In other words, I am sternly engraining the principle of uniformity of nature in my children!
Do read the Republic someday, Andrew. One of the greatest masterpieces of thought and literature in the history of man.
Andrew is right, though, you can’t simply and plainly choose to have different passions. You can’t just “jump out of your inclinations”, as he says. I suspect we all have this experience – of desiring to desire something. But you cannot will your passions, nor simply trump them with reason (man is not pure will nor is he pure reason). Rather, the ordering of the passions comes from long periods of formation, repeated choices, habituation. I think the order of one’s passions can be changed, but not immediately like the flip of a switch. You’d have to be really self-conscious about it, incredibly self-aware and very diligent.
Mostly, though, Aristotle and Plato are probably right – if you don’t get proper formation starting at a very young age, the dye is mostly cast.
If you are an impatient person, for example, notice how hard it is to be and become patient? You have to work against yourself in a very severe way. But impatient people (a moral failing) will also have intellectual failings – say, the inability to see an argument through, or the unwillingness to stick with a text long enough to be nourished by it, etc.
I can think of any number of moral virtues that are necessary conditions for the flourishing of the intellect. Plato is rather heavy-handed about it in the Republic, but there people are not even allowed to do philosophy until they’ve had a certain intellectual formation (lots of math) and moral formation (tempering the passions through music, etc). There is even a “moral test” of sorts to see how well habituated you are before you can start the study of philosophy proper. He is keenly aware that fancy intellectual skills in the hands of people with disordered passions is a very dangerous thing indeed.
Another issue is…why would someone engage in those “long periods of formation, repeated choices, and habituation”? I think that, with time, these things can bring changes in a whole number of dimensions. Sometimes, the statistics are similar to gambling (how much time, money, and effort will you have to put in before you win?), so I think that the enterprise itself can be questionable (as the enterprise of gambling with the expectation of a payoff is questionable for many.)
But then the issue becomes what we direct things to.
After all, the LDS church argues similarly: the word is a seed, and one must have faith to plant it. One must engage in the commandments (preferably in the LDS church), and endure to the end to gain a testimony. Sometimes, things will only come after the trial of faith.
…with this kind of reasoning, one can justify keeping someone on a path forever, despite their feelings or inclinations. Despite any nagging doubts that may say, “This doesn’t feel right.” Why? Because you’re proposing a way to fundamentally erase and change these nagging doubts.
This doesn’t happen often in real life, and when it does, we don’t view it very positively. However, we more easily sympathize with the ability of people to endure through goals that they actually want. Of course, this doesn’t fix anything, because your entire argument is that people can be oriented toward, and desire the wrong things.
You have chosen one particular set of philosophic traditions, and like a motif, you integrate this set of traditions throughout the overture of comments (and, if I could imagine, the classes you teach). But you’re coming up against people who have other philosophical traditions and other motifs and other symphonies. How do you get someone situated “incorrectly” to jump over? How do you get them to even WANT to jump over, when it will, as you admit, take long periods of formation, repeated choice, and habituation?
I think it is plausible, as Calvinists say, that it *requires* something huge and ultimately irresistible ever to get someone to consider such. Of course, I don’t agree with Calvinists that what is irresistible will be what is right.
It is not always a question of “why would someone engage in these long periods of formation”. We all do this, it is simply unavoidable. Everyone develops moral habits. Children don’t really have a choice in the matter, they will develop moral and intellectual habits. Which ones they develop will heavily depend on their parents and culture. You cannot but “impose” your beliefs and habits on your children. The idea that you could avoid this is simply foolish. Empirical evidence backs up this ancient wisdom, sometimes tragically. For instance, children raised in abusive homes are more than likely going to grow up abusers themselves. Why, because all moral learning is first and foremost imitation.
Subtle things, I believe, make a big difference here. I don’t think you should reason with a 3 year old (because they are not yet reasonable), but yet I always give reasons when I set limits. When I set a limit, I always say why, I always give the reason. Why do I do this? Because I do not want my children to be formed with the idea that justice and the proper exercise of power (parental or otherwise) is a matter of pure will. Rather, there are reasons behind why we should act in one way rather than another. Justice, reason, and love all meet up somewhere. Sometimes you can allow natural consequences to teach the lesson (you burn yourself on the stove, whatever) and even young children can pretty well sort out the reasons for themselves.
Point is, how you parent and even just how you talk to your children will shape beliefs and and attitudes (both moral and intellectual) that they are likely to have for the rest of their lives. It is an extraordinary power to have over another, and quite humbling.
I suppose your question is: why would an adult try to re-form himself? I suppose there might be any number of reasons. Perhaps you are unhappy. Maybe you recognize that a certain habit (drinking too much, losing your temper, whatever) is interfering with other values and goals. Maybe your heart is longing for something.
I should note that I am not making a religious argument here in the slightest. And my point here does not have to do with the actual content of beliefs. It does have to do with trust (faith?) in some sense – I think we ought to inculcate in our children the belief that reason is not impotent, that knowledge is possible, that reasonability is a good, that justice and mercy are values, etc. It is for this reason that I think many students make a grave mistake by reading figures like Nietzsche and Foucault too early in their education. If you start by asking “why truth, why not untruth”, you will never really understand the Greeks.
So when it comes to the moral and intellectual virtues and habits, what I am proposing is not necessarily theistic. Huenemann (an atheist prof who sometimes posts here) and I, despite all of our difference of opinion, basically agree on what education should look like and even what books people should read. This does not guarantee that we will all arrive at the same conclusions – obviously Huenemann and I have not. But I do think it does a lot to ensure reasonability of discourse, humility, etc. There is a reason why Huenemann and I can discourse so effectively together, neither of us are Thrasymachuses in our discussions.
Anyway, if you believe that someone has disordered ends, what do you do? I don’t know. I don’t impose my ends on anyone else. But I changed my ends as an adult. Why? Because I saw people living lives that were richer and deeper than my fairly superficial, selfish, and ultimately unprincipled and intellectually dishonest life. This gets back to the root of moral and intellectual formation – we tend to imitate role models. This is why the “culture wars” are so important. I don’t know if I am a role model for my students. The idea that I might be is extremely humbling, it not a little terrifying. If I end up being a role model for some of my students, so they end up striving to desire what I desire, then some might “jump over”. I am sure a great many do not see me that way, and so do not move. I also think, though I am absolutely not a Calvinist, that Providence and Grace can have something to do with what happens in our lives and why we move now instead of then.
But when I encounter people who simply have basic difference in fundamental presuppositions (I am not talking about content of belief, but presuppositions about the value of reason and truth), I think discourse is largely a waste of time. Why have a reasonable discussion with someone who is unreasonable? Why try to search for the truth with someone who thinks there is no truth? You might need to engage them in some other way, but making arguments will have almost no effect. That our culture is so incredibly anti-intellectual has, I think, a lot to do with the findings of the study that Jon posted. Many of my students have absolutely sacrificed their reason at the altar of their faith. I don’t expect them to move all that much from a philosophy course (mine or anyone else’s).
I consider myself a humanist (a Christian humanist, not a secular humanist). But I suspect that, when it comes to these moral and intellectual habits, the secular humanists on this blog and I would agree on a great number of things.
There is nothing nasty about trying to promote moral and intellectual habits. SHAFT does this. SHAFT has the purpose (I am quoting from the “About” link) of “promote the ideals of scientific inquiry, critical thinking, secularism, and humanist ethics on Utah State’s campus.” In other words, they are trying to change the intellectual and moral culture of the campus, including changing the ends toward which other students strive. They even make a statement of trust with regard to the power of reason: “We believe that free inquiry, and empirical investigation when possible, lead to a more accurate understanding of the universe and our place in it than does revelation, faith, or authority.”
Lol, I wrote that. Nice to see someone actually read it
@kleiner: aren’t you afraid that by so carefully ordering and structuring your kids lives, they won’t be sufficiently equipped to accept disorder?
and why would it be wrong to view the exercise of power (one person over another) as an arbitrary act of will – isn’t it?
is there going to be an excess of the apollinian in your kids?
I’ve noticed the same effect, in those I’ve debated, and in myself. I’m pretty hard-core liberal, but every so often a conservative commentator makes a strong point and sways me rightward. Very often, the next week I’ve forgotten my insight and am sticking to the same platitudes as ever. I’ve seen this time and time again. I’ve debated libertarians to the floor and a few days later they resurrect themselves, more adamant than ever in their ideology. What’s going on here? I’m not totally sure. Are we hard-wired, perhaps genetically, for certain intellectual proclivities? Or are the opinions we form at a certain stage imprinted indelibly, or nearly indelibly?
For me it’s not so much depressing as extraordinarily disconcerting, and I think it should be to everyone.
Dr. Kleiner,
I’ll have to respond in full when I get out of class, but I want to say that I meant changing habits, not the initial process of estalishing them..although, I’d say that to the extent people do not become perfect clones of parents, teachers, etc., some aspect of personality must also be taken into consideration. We are not blank slates.
Additionally, I’m sure EVERY groups tries to inculcate moral and intellectual habits. But as has been discussed here and elsewhere, are they doing so? Is this an echo chamber? Are people here are choir of socially liberal views staunchly entrenced in the position, for example?
So, you don’t establish, even by trying to appeal to an individual or group’s CLAIMS to openness and thoughtful cultivation and sharpening of moral habits…that the group, in any given discussion, is sharpening anything but their own swords against the naysayers.
OK, to go a little more in depth.
I suppose your question is: why would an adult try to re-form himself? I suppose there might be any number of reasons. Perhaps you are unhappy. Maybe you recognize that a certain habit (drinking too much, losing your temper, whatever) is interfering with other values and goals. Maybe your heart is longing for something.
I agree with this. But someone has to have something inside saying that their values and goals are not being met. Their heart has to be longing for something.
As it turns out, people can have different values and goals, so they can have different interference of values and goals. And people’s hearts can long for different things. So, someone can seek what their heart has longed for and come to very different conclusions. BUT, and this is crucial, if their heart is satisfied and content, you will have problems trying to get someone to WANT to seek something more.
But I changed my ends as an adult. Why? Because I saw people living lives that were richer and deeper than my fairly superficial, selfish, and ultimately unprincipled and intellectually dishonest life. This gets back to the root of moral and intellectual formation – we tend to imitate role models. This is why the “culture wars” are so important.
I agree with this message here, but ultimately, I see how it can swing both ways. The same story, of “fairly superficial, selfish, an ultimately unprincipled and intellectually dishonest” can be told from within any philosophical tradition, any faith tradition, or any lack thereof. On the other hand, we can see role models from any philosophic tradition, any faith tradition, or any lack thereof, that inspire us and that we imitate. It is inconclusive.
But when I encounter people who simply have basic difference in fundamental presuppositions (I am not talking about content of belief, but presuppositions about the value of reason and truth), I think discourse is largely a waste of time.
I feel more and more that more differences are based in presuppositions, so discourse tends to be more a waste of time, even when people say it’s just different beliefs. I mean, I wouldn’t take it so far as “no truth” vs “truth”…but how would you get anywhere when someone says, “Ok, I think there’s truth, but categorically, x kind of evidence is invalid to determine it.”
In greater response to your second message, I am sure that EVERY group tries to change intellectual and moral culture. I’m sure most believe in basic tools to accomplish this, and the efficacy of those tools in their goal. But is that what actually happens? Is what is said what actually happens?
I am not sure we are in much disagreement here, Andrew S. It would be somewhat silly to go around and around arguing over whether argument is possible too.
I never suggested that persuasion is easy. In fact, I was agreeing with part of your point – that there are a lot of other factors involved and we are not operating in a vacuum. this is why arguments are invariably caught up in questions of culture. I just hold out that persuasion is possible. I think your ethos – pathos post on your blog is barking up roughly the same tree.
But I don’t have a complete account of why, when and how persuasion occurs. It is actually quite difficult to say what it is to teach or to learn. I have some idea about what sorts of moral and intellectual habits (vices) will prevent the flourishing of the intellect, and have some ideas about what virtues are necessary (though not sufficient) conditions. But there is some mystery in understanding, it is hard to quite get to the bottom of what is happening.
But it happens, people change their views in occasionally profound ways. I was drastically re-formed (in terms of many of my moral and intellectual habits, as well as the content of my beliefs). Sometimes people change so there is evidence that something happens other than people sharpening their own swords. Look at most of the people on this blog – ex-Mormons who have changed not only the content of their beliefs but in many cases their entire moral and intellectual posture. I suspect there was a whole confluence of impressions, causes, ideas, influences, and experiences that is the root of such extreme personal changes. It would be quite difficult to come up with some formulaic account of how you could mechanically repeat this on others.
So I think we should just plug along, being self-reflective and open to new ideas and striving to engage in debates in a way that is patient and charitable. Then see what comes of it. Usually nothing comes of it. Often nothing comes of it even when the dialogue partners have a lot in common in terms of these “presuppositions” (either basic beliefs or even just what counts as the intellectual rules of engagement). Sorry to keep going back to the same example, but Huenemann and I agree on the rules of engagement, what we should read and think about, and what counts as a laundry list of moral and intellectual virtues necessary for dialogue. And yet we’ve been having the same debate for 5 years now and have made no progress at all on either side. That is just part of it. But sometimes something quite profound comes of discourse. I engage because those profound things have happened to me, and I am eager for more moments of clarification and humbly hopeful that I might be the occasion of a light going on in someone else too.
Sweet Jesus, I just wrote a college paper that is 100% relevant to everything the article talks about (the article about people not changing their minds).
I did research on a social psychology theory called the theory of inoculation. There’s a biological analogy usedto describe this theory: in order to increase resistance to a particular virus, a person is given a weakened form of the virus and is given time to build resistance to it.
Inoculation in social psychology is about giving a weakened argument to a receiver, giving them time to refute it (either by themselves or with assistance), and then when a stronger argument comes by, the person can handle it.
The research done on this is extensive and highly supportive. I pulled some quotes from the article to elaborate on what’s been found, but if you want to know the subject, I suggest reading The Handbook of Persuasion by Pfau and…I forget who. Pfau is one of the leading scholars in inoculation theory, and when the book covers the subject, it is heavily riddled with supportive research via psyc studies. And while I was reading through it, the research just shouted out everything I’ve ever seen in debating Mormonism online for the past year.
I’ll cover the quotes in my next post.
Actually, I lied. I’d have to write a blog post to fit everything in…I don’t have a blog…would it be okay if I wrote a guest post, Jon? Though I have been considering whether I should start my own blog…hmm…
I’d love to have you guest post, but what’s your affiliation to USU?
That’s the only issue I see with me doing that.
I’m just a reader.
Alright, finally got around to making a blog post about how this relates to the theory of inoculation.
http://omsthought.blogspot.com/2011/01/incpetion-and-how-persuasion-works.html