Group items tagged

just knowing facts doesn't necessarily guarantee that one's opinions and behaviors will be consistent with them. For example, many people "know" that recycling is beneficial but still throw plastic bottles in the trash. Or they read an online article by a scientist about the necessity of vaccines, but leave comments expressing outrage that doctors are trying to further a pro-vaccine agenda. Convincing people that scientific evidence has merit and should guide behavior may be the greatest science communication challenge, particularly in our "post-truth" era. Luckily, we know a lot about human psychology - how people perceive, reason and learn about the world - and many lessons from psychology can be applied to science communication endeavors.

"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.

A piece I wrote on how psychology helps us understand fake news and information seeking. Every day we face complex situations in which the information we need, and who we trust to provide that information, has a very real impact on our lives. How do we evaluate the competing claims of politicians on climate change policy, or Brexit; navigate medical information regarding vaccinating our children; or assess the relative merits of diet versus regular foods in adopting a healthy lifestyle?

Interesting discussion of data on vote recounts and using electronic or hand counting methods (in America where they use electronic voting machines quite commonly). These numbers represent three main kinds of disputes, Foley told me. First, candidates (and their lawyers) argue over what ballots should be counted and which should be thrown out as ineligible. Then, they argue over which candidate specific ballots should count for. Finally, they argue over whether all the eligible votes were counted correctly - the actual recount. Humans are much better than machines at making decisions around the first two kinds of ambiguous disputes, Stewart said, but evidence suggests that the computers are better at counting. Michael Byrne, a psychology professor at Rice University who studies human-computer interaction, agreed. "That's kind of what they're for," he said.

This week, Hannah Devlin speaks with some of the statistical vigilantes who are scouring datasets to identify cases of fraud and poor scientific practice. These include the consultant anaesthetist John Carlisle, from Torbay Hospital in Devon, who details his role in the Fujii scandal. Hannah also speaks to a PhD student from Tilburg University in the Netherlands, Michèle Nuijten, about software she has helped develop to "spell-check" statistics found in psychology papers. And finally, we hear from the University of Cambridge's Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, David Spiegelhalter, who is also president of the Royal Statistical Society, about the dangers of statistical malpractice.

A list of non-academic readings related to different aspects of the "fake news" debate, covering the impact of advertising, its role in the US election, the growing awareness of disinformation campaigns aimed at upcoming European elections, and some of the psychological theories that help explain why our brains can be so easily fooled.

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."

Almost one in four cancers detected in men were overdiagnosed in 2012, according to our new research, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia. In the same year, we found that approximately one in five cancers in women were overdiagnosed. Overdiagnosis is when a person is diagnosed with a "harmless" cancer that either never grows or grows very slowly. These cancers are sometimes called low or ultra-low-risk cancers and wouldn't have spread or caused any problems even if left untreated. Cancer overdiagnosis can result in people having unnecessary treatments, such as surgery, radiotherapy and hormone therapy. Being diagnosed with cancer and having cancer treatments can cause physical, psychological and financial harms.

Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.

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.

If you were surprised by the result of the Brexit vote in the UK or by the Trump victory in the US, you might live in an echo chamber - a self-reinforcing world of people who share the same opinions as you. Echo chambers are a problem, and not just because it means some people make incorrect predictions about political events. They threaten our democratic conversation, splitting up the common ground of assumption and fact that is needed for diverse people to talk to each other. A few tools are mentioned in the post that help you see "the other side" of a story - you might like to play with them, e.g. http://politecho.org "is a browser extension that shows the political biases of your friends and Facebook newsfeed"

According to inoculation theory, facts are important but by themselves aren't sufficient to convince people as long as misinformation is also present. People also have to be inoculated against the misinformation, for example through an explanation of the logical fallacy underpinning the myth.

Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.

Interesting perspective on communicating evidence. With controversy about science communication, facts and alternative facts hitting the headlines recently, I've been having a number of conversations with colleagues from all over the world about why science seems to be losing in the current war on reason. This isn't in the usual fringe battle fronts like creationism or flat-Earthers. It's on topics deep behind our lines, in areas like whether climate change exists or not, how many people were present at a given time at a given place and whether one man with a questionable grasp on reality should be the only source people get their news from.

What do you take from this hypothetical headline: "Reading the Research Digest blog is associated with higher intelligence"? How about this one: "Reading this blog might increase your intelligence"? According to science writing guides like HealthNewsReview.org, taking the first correlational finding from a peer-reviewed article and reporting it for the public using the second wording, implying causation, is a sin of exaggeration, making a relationship appear more causal than the evidence suggests.