Why do people persist in believing things that just aren't true?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/mariakonnikova/2014/05/why-do-people-persist-in-believing-things-that-just-arent-true.html

by denzil_correa • 12 years ago

26 21 12 years ago

newyorker.com

igravious2• 12 years ago

These are disturbing findings but not all that unexpected. Anyone who's really probed other people's belief systems will have come to more or less the same conclusions in an anecdotal way. More worryingly these findings relate to why people will kill and die for (in the name of) some beliefs but not others.

What might be an interesting follow on for the HN crowd is how the digital realm or the internet changes any of this.

What think ye?

kps• 12 years ago

The internet allows people who believe in fringe nonsense to find each other and reinforce each other's beliefs. In the past, this only happened with mainstream nonsense.

relampago7• 12 years ago

This is very interesting. Linking those that are suspicious of the MMR vaccine with people who used to think the world is flat, people who just stubbornly "don't want to be right," people who are dumb? Hmm, ok I'll bite.

The writer is acting like the debate has happened and is over, that the reader already knows this truth. This tone should drive suspicion of the actual goal of the writer. Or am I jumping to uneducated conclusions too?

As a reader I want to be educated but in this piece the writer doesn't tell me why the MMR vaccine is safe. I don't know if the MMR vaccine does cause autism but I'd like to at least hear evidence why it doesn't.

sopooneo• 12 years ago

I think the write is making an assumption (warranted, in my opinion) about her reader's knowledge level. She does not defend vaccines for the same reason she does not defend the spherical earth theory.

relampago7• 12 years ago

Yes, "in your opinion." I agree as well, all I have is an opinion. I'd like to hear a scientific opinion.

I thought it was awfully presumptuous to leave out science in such an important issue. I guess we'll have to settle for another opinion piece masked as scientific fact.

deciplex5• 12 years ago

It's not in scope for the piece, as sopooneo points out. And no, you don't have the luxury of insisting authors lay out, in full scientific rigor, basic facts every time they go to make point. Vaccines don't cause autism. There is precisely zero evidence that they do. So, it is not really necessary to make the case for that when you're reporting on a different scientific study which merely takes this basic fact as a given, any more than I would have to justify 500 years of physics before telling you anything about the Huygens probe.

relampago7• 12 years ago

Is one link to a study so much to ask for?

If it's "basic facts" that surround this issue then why the controversy at all? I don't know the facts, as a reader I'm here to learn. It's a weak piece due to its weak argument. I say weak argument because it has no foundation to build off of, at least not provided by the author. All that is provided is a tone that to think otherwise is nonsensical and silly. Bad science throws out "nonsensical" ideas without testing them. If the vaccine is safe you have to give me more than, "if you think otherwise you're dumb."

I share the fear over bad drugs. Alleviate fear with knowledge and facts, not name calling.

rdc12• 12 years ago

Why would it is an article on psychology and framing of a message, not about MMR vaccine.

No one could ever provide evidence that MMR vaccine isn't linked to autism, only show the absence of evidence of a link or refute the arguments of a proponent. Both of which have been done to death with little achieved, thats what the purpose of this article is I guess

omilu• 12 years ago

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair