Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
http://flip.it/f.FaFS
You devote a chapter to the formation of belief – how our genes, traits and experiences shape our views. Does this mean genes play a role in our political views, say whether we’re a leaver or a remainer?
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best just to ignore it. Definitely don't believe the experts
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
http://flip.it/f.FaFS
You devote a chapter to the formation of belief – how our genes, traits and experiences shape our views. Does this mean genes play a role in our political views, say whether we’re a leaver or a remainer?
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too."I think you need to define ' left and right wing'. I would accept everything said if th axis of measurement was liberal and authoritarian rather than left and right wing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best just to ignore it. Definitely don't believe the experts
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
http://flip.it/f.FaFS
You devote a chapter to the formation of belief – how our genes, traits and experiences shape our views. Does this mean genes play a role in our political views, say whether we’re a leaver or a remainer?
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too.
I think you need to define ' left and right wing'. I would accept everything said if th axis of measurement was liberal and authoritarian rather than left and right wing."He used the term "leaver" and "remainer" not "left and right wing", thus creating his own paradox. See my post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best just to ignore it. Definitely don't believe the experts
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
http://flip.it/f.FaFS
You devote a chapter to the formation of belief – how our genes, traits and experiences shape our views. Does this mean genes play a role in our political views, say whether we’re a leaver or a remainer?
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too.
I think you need to define ' left and right wing'. I would accept everything said if th axis of measurement was liberal and authoritarian rather than left and right wing."It is a Guardian article so you can ride that particular perspective out. Meaning that I agree with you. Authoritarian can be either right or left. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no idea what this has to do with BREXIT unless you suppose that supporting the idea of BREXIT (change) can only come from your reluctance to accept change. You have just created your own paradox. I also think that just reading abstracts does people no favours, because the view of cognition that you have given is rather lacking in depth and nuance, which may have become more apparent if you had read and understood the entire article. Salner (1986) comes to two vital conclusions about the types of epistemic transformations that she connects with the development of systemic capabilities: (i) the structural reorganisation of epistemic assumptions, in the direction of increasing complexity that Perry’s model implies, takes place on an individual timetable as a function of confrontation with intellectual and moral challenges which must be confronted; and (ii) while these might be confronted accidentally as a person’s life unfolds, they can and should be facilitated by relevant institutions, for there is no evidence to support the idea that epistemic development occurs naturally, without confrontation. Rather, epistemic development occurs in relation to complex, integrated psychological and social development of that person. Most of the workers in the field of cognitive development agree that progression from one ‘epistemic state’ to another is rarely achieved without a combination of ‘social participation’ and sustained ‘experiential stimuli’. As Salner (1986) has argued, learners must have the opportunity to experience the epistemic tensions and dilemmas that characterise each stage ‘as his or her own personal dilemmas’. Furthermore, as she sees it, they must be ‘emotionally able to contend with the temporary stress induced by such dilemmas’ and deal with the mental blocks that are invariably, if unconsciously, erected ‘to slow the pace of cognitive change’. In process terms, epistemic development is a function of ‘mild’ but persistent pressure in the learning environment such that the kinds of confrontations that produce development and transformation cannot be avoided. ie - in order to develop a nuanced view and assess change in terms more complex than "good" or "bad", people need challenging, and that challenge does not often happen outside of structured learning. " I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort?" Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best just to ignore it. Definitely don't believe the experts
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
http://flip.it/f.FaFS
You devote a chapter to the formation of belief – how our genes, traits and experiences shape our views. Does this mean genes play a role in our political views, say whether we’re a leaver or a remainer?
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too."Hi. There is no point in becoming angry about things in life . Any report such as this is only one person's opinion. I have always ignored so called experts. Experts can write as many articles as they want. What matters to most people is their health , strength and family life . Academic research is of little help in any of the above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best just to ignore it. Definitely don't believe the experts
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
http://flip.it/f.FaFS
You devote a chapter to the formation of belief – how our genes, traits and experiences shape our views. Does this mean genes play a role in our political views, say whether we’re a leaver or a remainer?
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too. Hi. There is no point in becoming angry about things in life .
Any report such as this is only one person's opinion.
I have always ignored so called experts.
Experts can write as many articles as they want. What matters to most people is their health , strength and family life .
Academic research is of little help in any of the above. "Yeah, because the fields of health, physiology (strength) and psychology are incredibly void of academic research.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. " I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best just to ignore it. Definitely don't believe the experts
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
http://flip.it/f.FaFS
You devote a chapter to the formation of belief – how our genes, traits and experiences shape our views. Does this mean genes play a role in our political views, say whether we’re a leaver or a remainer?
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too. Hi. There is no point in becoming angry about things in life .
Any report such as this is only one person's opinion.
I have always ignored so called experts.
Experts can write as many articles as they want. What matters to most people is their health , strength and family life .
Academic research is of little help in any of the above. "You are hilarious  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did?" So you just randomly copied and pasted an article without any attempt to understand it? Nice one.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did? So you just randomly copied and pasted an article without any attempt to understand it? Nice one. "Nope. I didn't post it in the context of Brexit. You chose to interpret it in that way. What is your summary of your own post? How does it differ from mine? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did? So you just randomly copied and pasted an article without any attempt to understand it? Nice one.
Nope.
I didn't post it in the context of Brexit. You chose to interpret it in that way.
What is your summary of your own post? How does it differ from mine?"You want me to summarise my follow up post to yours, within the context of your post, like I already have within that post? Jesus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best just to ignore it. Definitely don't believe the experts
Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’
http://flip.it/f.FaFS
You devote a chapter to the formation of belief – how our genes, traits and experiences shape our views. Does this mean genes play a role in our political views, say whether we’re a leaver or a remainer?
There have definitely been studies that have looked at different brain profiles associated with ideology. People who are very conservative seem to have a much larger volume and a much more sensitive amygdala – the area of the brain that is involved in perceptions of fear. People who are more liberal seem to have a greater weighting on the region of the brain that is engaged in future planning and more collaborative partnerships. They don’t seem sensitive to immediate threats; instead, they are looking to the future. What we see in propaganda through the centuries is that if you heighten someone’s fear response using environmental manipulation, you are more likely to make them vote in a rightwing way.
So what does neuroscience tell us about how you might go about changing someone’s mind or winning an argument?
It’s very difficult. Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary. Your brain is already taking up about 20% of your energy, so changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly. And it might be quite socially costly too. Hi. There is no point in becoming angry about things in life .
Any report such as this is only one person's opinion.
I have always ignored so called experts.
Experts can write as many articles as they want. What matters to most people is their health , strength and family life .
Academic research is of little help in any of the above. "Ignorance is bliss ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did? So you just randomly copied and pasted an article without any attempt to understand it? Nice one.
Nope.
I didn't post it in the context of Brexit. You chose to interpret it in that way.
What is your summary of your own post? How does it differ from mine?
You want me to summarise my follow up post to yours, within the context of your post, like I already have within that post?
Jesus. "So, again. I didn't write about Brexit. You did. Is my summary of your additional data incorrect? What point are you actually making? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did? So you just randomly copied and pasted an article without any attempt to understand it? Nice one.
Nope.
I didn't post it in the context of Brexit. You chose to interpret it in that way.
What is your summary of your own post? How does it differ from mine?
You want me to summarise my follow up post to yours, within the context of your post, like I already have within that post?
Jesus.
So, again. I didn't write about Brexit. You did.
Is my summary of your additional data incorrect?
What point are you actually making?"BREXIT was in your first post. If it wasn't part of your point, why quote it? What data? I included references, there wasn't any data anywhere. Do you actually know what data is? If you don't agree with/have no opinion about your original post, why post it? In short, it's your thread - what's your actual point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did? So you just randomly copied and pasted an article without any attempt to understand it? Nice one.
Nope.
I didn't post it in the context of Brexit. You chose to interpret it in that way.
What is your summary of your own post? How does it differ from mine?
You want me to summarise my follow up post to yours, within the context of your post, like I already have within that post?
Jesus.
So, again. I didn't write about Brexit. You did.
Is my summary of your additional data incorrect?
What point are you actually making?
BREXIT was in your first post. If it wasn't part of your point, why quote it?
What data?
I included references, there wasn't any data anywhere.
Do you actually know what data is?
If you don't agree with/have no opinion about your original post, why post it?
In short, it's your thread - what's your actual point?"This was the title of the piece which you apparently read very carefully. "Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’" I can only restate this in soany ways. The fact that the reporter tried to work Brexit into the article is completely marginal. The point is the hypothesis that those with particular views may be pedisposed to them and therefore find it difficult to see the world a different way. That relates directly to much of what is written in this forum. The "reference" that you copied appeared to concur with this point of view. If you want to say that my using the word data instead of information makes any meaningful difference to the point under discussion then go ahead and take the micro-victory, but it does make you seem rather like Centaur. So, again, what are you actually taking exception to? That I posted something I didn't understand? That I tried to link this article to Brexit? That I misunderstood what your reference meant? That I don't understand what the word "data" means? Do you disagree with what the researcher actually said in the article? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did? So you just randomly copied and pasted an article without any attempt to understand it? Nice one.
Nope.
I didn't post it in the context of Brexit. You chose to interpret it in that way.
What is your summary of your own post? How does it differ from mine?
You want me to summarise my follow up post to yours, within the context of your post, like I already have within that post?
Jesus.
So, again. I didn't write about Brexit. You did.
Is my summary of your additional data incorrect?
What point are you actually making?
BREXIT was in your first post. If it wasn't part of your point, why quote it?
What data?
I included references, there wasn't any data anywhere.
Do you actually know what data is?
If you don't agree with/have no opinion about your original post, why post it?
In short, it's your thread - what's your actual point?
This was the title of the piece which you apparently read very carefully.
"Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’"
I can only restate this in soany ways. The fact that the reporter tried to work Brexit into the article is completely marginal.
The point is the hypothesis that those with particular views may be pedisposed to them and therefore find it difficult to see the world a different way.
That relates directly to much of what is written in this forum.
The "reference" that you copied appeared to concur with this point of view.
If you want to say that my using the word data instead of information makes any meaningful difference to the point under discussion then go ahead and take the micro-victory, but it does make you seem rather like Centaur.
So, again, what are you actually taking exception to?
That I posted something I didn't understand? That I tried to link this article to Brexit? That I misunderstood what your reference meant? That I don't understand what the word "data" means?
Do you disagree with what the researcher actually said in the article?"You mean that I'm actually capable of reading all those words you quoted?
You haven't shown any understanding of what you posted so far, or, apparently what your actual point was.
It's not a micro-victory that you use the word data without any clue what the word means, it just makes it seem more and more like you've posted an article that you neither understand nor, apparently have an opinion about.
I literally addressed the content of your post in my response to it, my analysis remains the same.
And so, I return to the question: your OP- what's your point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I didn't mention Brexit. Neither did the researcher. The reporter just tried to work it in. It's not particularly relevant unless someone chooses that it should be. "Good" and "bad" aren't really involved either. I'm not sure what point you are making with the extra content though. Is it that change is difficult and takes some effort? Really? So the terms "leaver" and remainer" that you used don't have anything to do with BREXIT? Which "leavers" and "remainers" do you mean then? If it's not particularly relevant, why mention it? The extra content is insight into cognition, which your article is about. Perhaps read it and try to tie it in. Changes in schema always arrive from the discomfort of intellectual struggle. I didn't use either term in this context did I? The Guardian journalist used them and the researcher ignored his attempt to colour the conversation. As did I. You have not. I read what you posted. Did I summarise it incorrectly? What's yours if I did? So you just randomly copied and pasted an article without any attempt to understand it? Nice one.
Nope.
I didn't post it in the context of Brexit. You chose to interpret it in that way.
What is your summary of your own post? How does it differ from mine?
You want me to summarise my follow up post to yours, within the context of your post, like I already have within that post?
Jesus.
So, again. I didn't write about Brexit. You did.
Is my summary of your additional data incorrect?
What point are you actually making?
BREXIT was in your first post. If it wasn't part of your point, why quote it?
What data?
I included references, there wasn't any data anywhere.
Do you actually know what data is?
If you don't agree with/have no opinion about your original post, why post it?
In short, it's your thread - what's your actual point?
This was the title of the piece which you apparently read very carefully.
"Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow: ‘Changing the way that you think is cognitively costly’"
I can only restate this in soany ways. The fact that the reporter tried to work Brexit into the article is completely marginal.
The point is the hypothesis that those with particular views may be pedisposed to them and therefore find it difficult to see the world a different way.
That relates directly to much of what is written in this forum.
The "reference" that you copied appeared to concur with this point of view.
If you want to say that my using the word data instead of information makes any meaningful difference to the point under discussion then go ahead and take the micro-victory, but it does make you seem rather like Centaur.
So, again, what are you actually taking exception to?
That I posted something I didn't understand? That I tried to link this article to Brexit? That I misunderstood what your reference meant? That I don't understand what the word "data" means?
Do you disagree with what the researcher actually said in the article?
You mean that I'm actually capable of reading all those words you quoted?
You haven't shown any understanding of what you posted so far, or, apparently what your actual point was.
It's not a micro-victory that you use the word data without any clue what the word means, it just makes it seem more and more like you've posted an article that you neither understand nor, apparently have an opinion about.
I literally addressed the content of your post in my response to it, my analysis remains the same.
And so, I return to the question: your OP- what's your point?""The point is the hypothesis that those with particular views may be predisposed to them and therefore find it difficult to see the world a different way. That relates directly to much of what is written in this forum." Do you disagree with that? If so say how. That might allow my little pea brain to understand something new. Again, I understood your reference to mean that "change is difficult and takes some effort". If that is incorrect please explain why I was wrong in drawing this conclusion. If you don't want to explain anything to me then all that you are doing is calling me stupid. Perhaps that is all that you want to do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy, you're opening line is on ignoring experts. That makes the thread feel like it is about Brexit. The underlying paper doesnt imply causation. Just correlation. It also just relates to young adults. Be interesting to know if this even extends to older adults. Also your quote implies a bit more of a connection between the question on politics and the question on changing minds. Given there were a lot more questions I'd say it was a wider point. At the very least it says we are all biased towards not changing our minds. Leavers, remainders, Conservatives and liberals. " You are, perhaps, correct about it seeming like I was making reference to Brexit in some way. I think that is more to do with how nobody seems able to discuss anything,even the most fundamental ideas about how we think, without trying to relate it to this topic. Ironically the researcher avoids the connection and a Fab poster explicitly stated that academic research has no value and experts should be ignored. This is the same one who claims to get his views from "specialist" magazines which he won't name, presumably written by people with no knowledge of what they write. The direct link from the article does only relate to young adults. As you start to read more widely the topic grows to encompass how opinions do and do not change with age and how some beliefs are generational rather than directly agree related. For instance views on homosexuality or racism tend to depend on the prevailing social attitudes when you were growing up although can be trumped by specific personal experience. You don't largely change your attitude with age. The overall theory is that you have a natural predisposition to a certain attitude and you have to actively be open to making yourself persuadable and not see it as a weakness in yourself or others. In the past, attempts to encourage people to argue the opposite case to there own have been quite unsuccessful to the extent that people would respond in completely the opposite way and defend their own position even more strongly! So yes, the bias does exist in everybody as you suggest. However, if your natural bias is to be open to new ideas it's less of a handicap to changing your mind. However, it has also been pointed out that those who claim to be liberal can be very intolerant of those who disagree with them. This is perhaps where liberal and conservative are unhelpful descriptions. It's actually open and closed minded. I'd contend that it is not the specific thing that they believe in but the manner in which they do that is important. I've posted this before on a similar topic: Julia Galef: Why you think you're right -- even if you're wrong https://go.ted.com/Cymf | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
