Arkady
President
This is an interesting story, but a very troubling one:
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/study_proves_that_politics_and_math_are_incompatible/
In a nutshell, people lose the ability to do math properly when the problem implicates their political beliefs -- and the tendency to get things wrong for political reasons is actually greater among those with better math abilities.
I've seen a few recent articles that disturb me in a similar way, because they undermine my hopes about the effectiveness of rational argument. I usually approach political controversies as being a matter for research and analysis, and then for presenting the results as clearly as I can. Embedded in that is the implicit assumption that mistaken political beliefs (my own, or other people's) are a matter of ignorance, and can be fixed with knowledge. But recent studies that suggest the way the brain just doesn't work right when certain emotions are triggered really rattle that assumption. They suggest that in some cases smarter and more knowledgeable people may actually be harder to push off of false conclusions, simply because they marshal more mental horsepower to keep themselves entrenched. If all I'm doing is getting my opponents to spin their mental wheels, they may just be digging themselves into a deeper rut.
I say I find these stories troubling, but not doubtful. They're consistent with something I've been more and more aware of the longer I try to debate issues online. Arguing from facts and figures almost never gets me anywhere. On the rare occasion where someone's mind was changed by something I said, it was almost always some sort of emotional plea, not a simple demonstration that the measurable facts were entirely at odds with their theories.
There's that old line that most people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost -- more for support than illumination. I think that's right, and it makes me skeptical about the efficacy of my preferred style of political engagement. I'd probably be much better coming up with catch phrases and charismatic emotional appeals than doing research and numerical analysis. Catch phrases change the world ("Carthago delenda est," "Lebensraum," "Government is the Problem") where rational analysis is just treated as a puzzle for opponents to solve.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/study_proves_that_politics_and_math_are_incompatible/
In a nutshell, people lose the ability to do math properly when the problem implicates their political beliefs -- and the tendency to get things wrong for political reasons is actually greater among those with better math abilities.
I've seen a few recent articles that disturb me in a similar way, because they undermine my hopes about the effectiveness of rational argument. I usually approach political controversies as being a matter for research and analysis, and then for presenting the results as clearly as I can. Embedded in that is the implicit assumption that mistaken political beliefs (my own, or other people's) are a matter of ignorance, and can be fixed with knowledge. But recent studies that suggest the way the brain just doesn't work right when certain emotions are triggered really rattle that assumption. They suggest that in some cases smarter and more knowledgeable people may actually be harder to push off of false conclusions, simply because they marshal more mental horsepower to keep themselves entrenched. If all I'm doing is getting my opponents to spin their mental wheels, they may just be digging themselves into a deeper rut.
I say I find these stories troubling, but not doubtful. They're consistent with something I've been more and more aware of the longer I try to debate issues online. Arguing from facts and figures almost never gets me anywhere. On the rare occasion where someone's mind was changed by something I said, it was almost always some sort of emotional plea, not a simple demonstration that the measurable facts were entirely at odds with their theories.
There's that old line that most people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost -- more for support than illumination. I think that's right, and it makes me skeptical about the efficacy of my preferred style of political engagement. I'd probably be much better coming up with catch phrases and charismatic emotional appeals than doing research and numerical analysis. Catch phrases change the world ("Carthago delenda est," "Lebensraum," "Government is the Problem") where rational analysis is just treated as a puzzle for opponents to solve.
