Group items tagged

Why do People Disagree? The author of this blog explains the causes of disagreement through psychological studies. He says that people disagree due to different desires, mentalities, and backgrounds. People who were raised differently might have conflicting morals with another individual who was brought up in a different setting with different guidelines to live by, therefore affecting their assumptions leading to difference in opinion, or a disagreement. People who care more about a certain issue may value their issue over another individual's issue; for example, let's say that Brayden thinks that pens are the best writing utensils while I argue that pencils are better. If Brayden's personal belief that pens are better than pencils is one that he feels very strongly about, it is going to be difficult to get him to side with me and say that pencils are better. It is all about being open to new suggestions in order to either learn new facts about certain issues, or agree to disagree respectively.

Aumann [Aumann R., 1976. Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statisitics 4, 1236-1239] derives his famous we cannot agree to disagree result under the assumption that people are expected utility (=EU) decision makers. Motivated by empirical evidence against EU theory, we study the possibility of agreeing to disagree within the framework of Choquet expected utility (=CEU) theory which generalizes EU theory by allowing for ambiguous beliefs. As our first main contribution, we show that people may well agree to disagree if their Bayesian updating of ambiguous beliefs is psychologically biased in our sense. Remarkably, this finding holds regardless of whether people with identical priors apply the same psychologically biased Bayesian update rule or not. As our second main contribution, we develop a formal model of Bayesian learning under ambiguity. As a key feature of our approach the posterior subjective beliefs do, in general, not converge to "true" probabilities which is in line with psychological evidence against converging learning behavior. This finding thus formally establishes that CEU decision makers may even agree to disagree in the long-run despite the fact that they always received the same information.

Reactions are stimulated by external stimuli which cause our brain to fire immediately. Often we see things that make us cringe and fill us full of anger.

Dr. Goeke

talks about how the origin of disagreement basically stems from the humans ability to make their own decisions. Since we can make our own decisions then that means there will be other people who chose a different path leading to disagreement. He then goes on to explain how disagreement also stems from the someones own perception, meaning what they think might be different than what someone else thinks. "If you saw a fruit which was half way between an apple and a pear, you would look for features typical of either apples or pears - perhaps shape, or taste - and try to make a categorization judgement based on these different aspects". Futhermore Chauncy furthers with the aspect of context of a situation. Chauncy states that a situation and what is taken from a certain situation plays an important factor in finding the root behind why people disagree.

Why Do People Disagree? Explaining and Endorsing the Possibility of Partiality in Judgments The current study examines developing changes in children's intuitions about why disagreements about decisions might occur, focusing on what children understand about partiality and how it may vary depending on the context. Eighty children ages 6 to 13 years old and 20 adults were presented with stories in which there was a disagreement with the judge about who the winner of a contest should be. Participants were asked to generate their own explanations for why the disagreement may have occurred and to evaluate the plausibility of different explanations provided by the experimenter. Even 6-year-olds generated and endorsed partiality as a possible explanation for disagreement, although they did so at a lower rate than older children. A richer understanding of how context influences both the reasons for disagreement and the likelihood of partiality seems to develop over childhood.

The current study examines developing changes in children's intuitions about why disagreements about decisions might occur, focusing on what children understand about partiality and how it may vary depending on the context. Eighty children ages 6 to 13 years old and 20 adults were presented with stories in which there was a disagreement with the judge about who the winner of a contest should be. Participants were asked to generate their own explanations for why the disagreement may have occurred and to evaluate the plausibility of different explanations provided by the experimenter. Even 6-year-olds generated and endorsed partiality as a possible explanation for disagreement, although they did so at a lower rate than older children. A richer understanding of how context influences both the reasons for disagreement and the likelihood of partiality seems to develop over childhood

Psychologists are led to believe that children under 6-years old are unable to recognize the difference between objective and subjective examination. This lack of awareness leads to the idea that "People are always telling the truth without bias.

This study examines how children's opinions change about disagreement and what makes them come to the conclusions that they do. It discusses the reasons for disagreement and how children may become partial over time.

Discusses whether violent video games can be connected to real-world violence. Cites many sources and studies that are contradictory but manages to come to a conclusion that violence in video games cannot be directly blamed for real-world violence.

Abstract The current study examines developing changes in children's intuitions about why disagreements about decisions might occur, focusing on what children understand about partiality and how it may vary depending on the context. Eighty children ages 6 to 13 years old and 20 adults were presented with stories in which there was a disagreement with the judge about who the winner of a contest should be. Participants were asked to generate their own explanations for why the disagreement may have occurred and to evaluate the plausibility of different explanations provided by the experimenter. Even 6-year-olds generated and endorsed partiality as a possible explanation for disagreement, although they did so at a lower rate than older children. A richer understanding of how context influences both the reasons for disagreement and the likelihood of partiality seems to develop over childhood.

This article states why it is that some people will always disagree with others no matter what the subject is. This article lists some personal reasons why people disagree with others. Emotion and education are key factors.

The four main reasons people disagree are: Objective, Method, Communication, and Emotion

The four main reasons people disagree include: Objective -What one person wants to accomplish is different than what the other person wants. Method- They may agree on the objective, but they have differing opinions on the best way to achieve the objective. Communication- They may agree on both the objective and the method, but they don't realize it. They keep arguing, and because of miscommunication they each get the impression that the other person disagrees. Emotion- They may agree on the objective and the method, and they may even understand that they agree on these things. But they choose to disagree anyway (or at least one of them does). There are a lot of possible emotional reasons: everything from distrust, dislike and hate, to embarrassment, fear, peer pressure, face-saving or just a steadfast commitment to a prior position.

Carly Amos

Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statisitics 4, 1236-1239] derives his famous we cannot agree to disagree result under the assumption that people are expected utility () decision makers. Motivated by empirical evidence against EU theory, we study the possibility of agreeing to disagree within the framework of Choquet expected utility () theory which generalizes EU theory by allowing for ambiguous beliefs. As our first main contribution, we show that people may well agree to disagree if their Bayesian updating of ambiguous beliefs is psychologically biased in our sense. Remarkably, this finding holds regardless of whether people with identical priors apply the same psychologically biased Bayesian update rule or not. As our second main contribution, we develop a formal model of Bayesian learning under ambiguity. As a key feature of our approach the posterior subjective beliefs do, in general, not converge to "true" probabilities which is in line with psychological evidence against converging learning behavior. This finding thus formally establishes that CEU decision makers may even agree to disagree in the long-run despite the fact that they always received the same information.