Why People "Fly from Facts"

[Axulus]

“There was a scientific study that showed vaccines cause autism.”

“Actually, the researcher in that study lost his medical license, and overwhelming research since then has shown no link between vaccines and autism.”

“Well, regardless, it’s still my personal right as a parent to make decisions for my child.”

Does that exchange sound familiar: a debate that starts with testable factual statements, but then, when the truth becomes inconvenient, the person takes a flight from facts.

...

Our new research, recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, examined a slippery way by which people get away from facts that contradict their beliefs. Of course, sometimes people just dispute the validity of specific facts. But we find that people sometimes go one step further and, as in the opening example, they reframe an issue in untestable ways. This makes potential important facts and science ultimately irrelevant to the issue.

Let’s consider the issue of same-sex marriage. Facts could be relevant to whether it should be legal—for example, if data showed that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off—or just as well-off—as children raised by opposite-sex parents. But what if those facts contradict one’s views?

We presented 174 American participants who supported or opposed same-sex marriage with (supposed) scientific facts that supported or disputed their position. When the facts opposed their views, our participants—on both sides of the issue—were more likely to state that same-sex marriage isn’t actually about facts, it’s more a question of moral opinion. But, when the facts were on their side, they more often stated that their opinions were fact-based and much less about morals. In other words, we observed something beyond the denial of particular facts: We observed a denial of the relevance of facts.

In a similar study using 117 religious participants, we had some read an article critical of religion. Believers who were especially high (but not low) in religiosity were more likely to turn to more untestable “blind faith” arguments as reasons for their beliefs, than arguments based in factual evidence, compared to those who read a neutral article.

These experiments show that when people’s beliefs are threatened, they often take flight to a land where facts do not matter. In scientific terms, their beliefs become less “falsifiable” because they can no longer be tested scientifically for verification or refutation.

For instance, sometimes people dispute government policies based on the argument that they don’t work. Yet, if facts suggest that the policies do work, the same person might stay resolvedly against the argument based on principle. We can see this on both sides of the political spectrum, whether it’s conservatives and Obamacare or liberals and the Iraqi surge of 2007.

Read more: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

Does anyone else notice parallels in the topics here?

 

[Earl IV]

Just a nit-pick here, but the type of person that would make the argument presented in the OP would also use the word "irregardless".

If you're going to quote imbeciles, there's no sense cleaning up their grammar.

 

[Canard DuJour]

But we find that people sometimes go one step further and, as in the opening example, they reframe an issue in untestable ways.

Does anyone else notice parallels in the topics here?

Sometimes, but the other way round is far more common : untestable issue reframing presented as fact. The perennial example being "studies" purporting to show unemployment caused by the minimum wage, which extrapolate cherrypicked data then present actual unemployment rates as increases on hypothetical ones. Or talk about the "marginal contribution of the worker" which reframes the viscissitudes of the labour market as a characteristic of the individual via a bit of pseudoscientific jargon.

Most of what comes from the myriad rightwing thinktanks (mostly sponsored by two brothers) in the US is issue reframing presented as fact. And then, of course anyone disputing it is accused of "fact" dodging.

 

[Togo]

It's a bit of an unfortunate example, and I think it helps illustrate what's going on.

The first statement, that there existed a study, is undeniably correct.

The following statements are misleading and inaccurate. Yes, Wakefield lost his medical license, but he lost it through unethical treatment of his patients, and various other conduct-related issues, and not because of the content of the published study. And while various other studies have indicated that the link that he thought he had found isn't there, you can't technically have study that shows that there is no link of any kind. I appreciate that the substance of the statement is broadly accurate - Wakefield has been discredited and his findings are false - but it's worth considering that even well meaning people who understand an issue and are trying to communicate an accurate understanding, are prone to make misleading and inaccurate statements about it.

And the reason for that is that we're not dealing with 'facts' versus 'flight from facts'. Neither party cares much about individual facts, because that's not how opinions are arrived at. People arrive at an opinion because of multiple facts from multiple sources, and take quite a lot of time and trouble to make sure their view of the world is consistent. A single instance of contradiction doesn't lead to a change of mind because the opinion being challenged was never based on a single fact in the first place.

Instead what I think we're looking at is an instance not of a 'flight from facts', but rather social cohesion. People will happily cite facts that support their viewpoint, and label that information as important, even if those facts are largely irrelevant to why they held the opinion in the first place. The study is taking people with existing opinions and then showing them facts that have been made up - so the one thing we know for certain is that the 'facts' being shown aren't the reason why the opinion was held. Bearing this in mind, you can just as easily say that people who are presented with facts are happy to accept them as another reason to hold their opinion - even though we know that that information was not what convinced them in the first place, while those who are presented with facts that disagree with them are more likely to revert to their true reasons for holding the opinion, which are an understanding of the world that isn't immediately testable. That view may have arisen through careful consideration of a selection of facts, or it may not, but the view itself is what they carry around in their head, not a list of convincing experiences that helped them form it.

So, I don't think we're looking at a flight from facts, we're looking at a tendency to over-estimate the role of particular facts in conversation, possibly in an effort to convince the other person to share that opinion. Which makes sense - they don't share your past experiences that led you to confirm this opinion, but they can share this present one.

What we're not dealing with is some kind of strange effect that only hits people who are wrong. Take the autism example at the start of my post. Did you see that the fact presented was wrong, and immediately reconsider your own position by reviewing all the facts that you knew about the subject? Or did you just shrug and conclude that your position was correct for other reasons? Because that's your 'flight from facts' right there. In most cases it's an entirely reasonable reaction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting desperate attempt to paint liberals silly remarking about The Surge.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The dynamic I see operating is simply that vaccines have been tremendously successful. As a result of no longer being threatened, people begin to forget the threat is really there or doubt it ever was, allowing them to make stupid decisions based on erroneous observations and assumptions, or plain old ignorance.

It's no different than releasing a domesticated animal back into the wild. It doesn't know and therefore doesn't appreciate the danger. It may survive and it may not but it certainly is starting out at a disadvantage.

That's how you have to treat dumbshit vaccine deniers - try to get them back into the wild without their stupidity killing them.