Group items tagged

In what feels like an increasingly polarised world, trying to convince the "other side" to see things differently often feels futile. Psychology has done a great job outlining some of the reasons why, including showing that, regardless of political leanings, most people are highly motivated to protect their existing views."Our results show why debates about controversial issues often seem so futile," the researchers said. "Our values can blind us to acknowledging the same logic in our opponent's arguments if the values underlying these arguments offend our own."

So I set out to get to the bottom of the evidence on how we respond to rational arguments. Does rationality lose out every time to irrational motivations? Or is there any hope to those of us who want to persuade because we have good arguments, not because we are handsome, or popular, or offer heavy clipboards.

Why do arguments change people's minds in some cases and backfire in others? Hugo Mercier explains how arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, taking into account what the audience believes, who they trust, and what they value.

Life is one long string of decisionmaking, even if none of them is major. This is certainly the impression we get from reading cognitive neuroscience journals. A great many studies these days seem to involve 'decisionmaking under uncertainty' (otherwise known as gambling). As a married couple, we have now clocked up just over 50 years of decisionmaking together. We still frequently avoid or delay decisions, but we know that this does not pay off in the long run. And, when we do make decisions, we usually make them jointly. In case this sounds too good to be true, we hasten to add that it's not always easy and often involves arguments - despite, or perhaps because, we are both cognitive neuroscientists ourselves. Actually, argument turns out to be a well-kept secret in group decisionmaking. But before we turn to the value of acrimony, let's look at some of the reasons why we believe that people can make better decisions together than they can on their own.

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters of religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's," wrote Mark Twain. Having written a book about our most common reasoning errors, I would argue that Twain was being rather uncharitable - to monkeys. Whether we are discussing Trump, Brexit, or the Tory leadership, we have all come across people who appear to have next to no understanding of world events - but who talk with the utmost confidence and conviction. And the latest psychological research can now help us to understand why.

The Supreme Court does not compute. Or at least some of its members would rather not. The justices, the most powerful jurists in the land, seem to have a reluctance - even an allergy - to taking math and statistics seriously. For decades, the court has struggled with quantitative evidence of all kinds in a wide variety of cases. Sometimes justices ignore this evidence. Sometimes they misinterpret it. And sometimes they cast it aside in order to hold on to more traditional legal arguments. (And, yes, sometimes they also listen to the numbers.) Yet the world itself is becoming more computationally driven, and some of those computations will need to be adjudicated before long. Some major artificial intelligence case will likely come across the court's desk in the next decade, for example. By voicing an unwillingness to engage with data-driven empiricism, justices - and thus the court - are at risk of making decisions without fully grappling with the evidence. This problem was on full display earlier this month, when the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a case that will determine the future of partisan gerrymandering - and the contours of American democracy along with it. As my colleague Galen Druke has reported, the case hinges on math: Is there a way to measure a map's partisan bias and to create a standard for when a gerrymandered map infringes on voters' rights?

From climate change to armed conflict, our world is struggling with urgent global issues. But disagreements about how to solve them can spiral out of control. The only way to resolve intractable conflicts is to overcome desire to talk to allies more often than opponents. Here, a social psychologist, two ecologists and a cartoonist explain the toolbox of communication we need to resolve difficult issues.

'Killer facts' are those punchy, memorable, headline-grabbing statistics that make reports special. They cut through the technicalities to fire people up about changing the world. They are picked up and repeated endlessly by the media and politicians. They are known as 'killer' facts because if they are really effective, they 'kill off' the opposition's arguments. The right killer fact can have more impact than the whole of a well-researched report.

Argument: Because deductions (the amount of income you can claim is not-taxable) will be reduced, even though the tax rate will go down, the richest will not in fact see an absolute reduction in tax paid. Counterargument - looking at the data, this is in fact not the case...

The argument is simple, and goes a bit like this. Science does not work by appeal to authority, but rather by the acquisition of experimentally verifiable evidence. Appeals to scientific bodies are appeals to authority, so should be rejected. ...If legitimate authorities are not to be consulted, presumably there is no point in having scientists around at all, as each person would need to verify any claim on their own terms and with their own resources. That would mean a speedy decline into very dark times indeed.

John Oliver explores America's wage gap between men and women and proposes a possible solution. Note: Solution proposed is 100% sarcastic. Think about the arguments being made and how they shift - e.g. the claim that 4% is "basically no wage gap" as a way to indicate a gap isn't in fact a problem. Using comedy/performance to make a point about statistics regarding a social issue

Climate deniers have been peddling the myth 'no warming since [insert date]' for over a decade. It's a popular myth among those who benefit from maintaining the status quo because if the problem doesn't exist, obviously there's no need for action to solve it. And it's an incredibly easy argument that can be made at any time, using the telltale technique of climate denial known as cherry picking.

A good example of poor reporting of a medical study, the Daily Mail claimed that "Diets laden with butter, cream and cheese 'can help combat surge in type 2 diabetes' - but the evidence does not support that argument - looking at the evidence, it's clear there is a small quantifiable difference between the two groups analysed, and that the study focuses on a short period of time.

During the 2016 EU referendum campaign, both sides used statistics pretty freely to back their arguments. Understandably, UK broadcasters felt compelled to balance competing perspectives, giving audiences the opportunity to hear the relative merits of leaving or remaining in the EU. In doing so, however, the truth of these statistical claims was not always properly tested. This might help explain some of the public's misconceptions about EU membership. So, for example, although independent sources repeatedly challenged the Leave campaign's claim that the UK government spent £350m per week on EU membership, an IPSOS MORI survey found that almost half of respondents believed this was true just days before the election. Of the 6,916 news items examined in our research, more than 20% featured a statistic. Most of these statistical references were fairly vague, with little or limited context or explanation. Overall, only a third provided some context or made use of comparative data. Statistics featured mostly in stories about business, the economy, politics and health. So, for example, three-quarters of all economics items featured at least one statistic, compared to almost half of news about business. But there were some areas - where statistics might play a useful role in communicating trends or levels of risk - that statistics were rarely used.

Excellent discussion of absolute and relative risk in the context of alcohol safety. "But claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention. There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving."

What is the basis for the argument that poor Americans will be healthier if they are required to pay substantially more for health care? It appears that proponents like Ms. Verma have looked at research and concluded that having Medicaid is often no better than being uninsured - and thus that any private insurance, even with enormous deductibles, must be better. But our examination of research in this field suggests this kind of thinking is based on a classic misunderstanding: confusing correlation for causation.

Interesting discussion of a contentious issue related to the idea of a 'basic income' (but here, in a development context). Martin Ravallion (former Chief Economist of the World Bank, now at CGD) published a useful paper this week asking exactly this question. As he says, there's no simple answer - which is why the question is so interesting. Both 'the right to work' and 'the right to income' aim to secure a more fundamental right: freedom from poverty. Workfare has a long history, notably in India, where the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) guarantees (in theory) up to 100 days work per year, paid at a minimum wage, to anyone who requests it. Cash transfers (often with conditions) have expanded enormously in recent years, while the hot topic of Universal Basic Income (UBI) has advocates across the political spectrum. Which of these approaches is most cost-effective? Ravallion sets out the arguments clearly.

The proposal to drug test welfare recipients keeps on bouncing back. The most recent attempt, announced last week, is now the third proposal since 2017. But the tenacity with which the government is pursuing this agenda reflects, not necessarily a fixed policy position, but rather a moral stance. And this moral stance conflicts with that of the proposals' critics. Are we doomed to countless repeats of the same policy proposal? Or, as the Australian Social Policy Conference heard in Sydney this week, can we use philosophical arguments to help break the deadlock?

How do we know what we don't know? How do some people use ignorance, or claim ignorance, to mislead (e.g., by claiming that we are ignorant of the causes of climate change)? How do we navigate claims when two sides are in direct opposition? Radio national discuss the study of ignorance, and how it relates to evidence and arguments

An excellent resource that links to the 'debunking handbook' - outlining ways to combat misinformation and misconceptions.