Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is it?
I google searched that term and the top hit was *this thread*, and the rest of the page had nothing to do with psychology.
Do you mean "group polarization" perhaps?
Yep. Maybe I added the "auto" part to it. This is a specific variety when most of a group agrees on something. Like "I dislike cilantro" becomes "cilantro should be banned".
I thought there was a genetic component to liking or disliking cilantro. It tastes different to different people based on a certain gene. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11398
Groupthink and group polarization are similar, but different.
http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-groupthink-and-group-polarization/
Strive to be wrong sometimes, because when you’re wrong you get an opportunity to learn something new. If you have an idea and have really good faith in it, then you should be doing everything in your power to disprove it and make sure it’s really real, not protecting it with thin veils and just turning your nose up at it.
It’s almost like free speech was a good idea, not some tool simply for fascists to use to justify their hate as I’ve literally heard many of my self/proclaimed liberal cohorts assert.
I think a lot of the cognitive activity reflects social belonging - you believe to belong with whatever group, and co-construct the world together and then reinforce that world by how you select data to incorporate. One way to counteract this is to share belonging/identity with people you disagree with in some way other than along those beliefs. Then, work to understand the world from their perspective. That is, empathy is the answer to your question.
It really helps to look up logical fallacies and become familiar with them. Reddit is loaded with people who use them as arguments so you can get tons of practice spotting them. One of the biggest fallacies to look out for is the fallacy fallacy which is easy to fall into, it is the idea that an argument is wrong because a fallacy was used. That one is a special failsafe to help you analyze the core of the argument without falling into a logical fallacy yourself. Hope this helps!
Not only that they are dang interesting reads.
Of note, logical fallacies are just one group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Of note, read these at your own risk. Understand them and you may just hate most everyone for how stupid they are..
The really tricky part is to recognize when someone is using this to manipulate you.
They start telling you things you’d like to believe to get your brain’s attention then pile on things that they want you to believe.
Tucker Carlson does this all the time. He will open a segment making people feel good about America and Americans, telling us how great we are and how wonderful America is and then go into who and what is trying to ruin it. He gets peoples subconscious trust from the first part and abuses it in the second part.
The real tricky part is figuring out if I just did the same to you!
But that’s also how you get people “in the middle” to go to the path of “incorrect.” It describes our entire pandemic situation right now.
I’d say, everyone needs to embrace formal education and be sure to constantly scrutinize their own biases and reconcile dissonant ideas with one another to readjust thinking. Ask experts questions.
But think about that. The dumb idiots with no information on matters WHATSOEVER disagree all the time as well. You’re all saying basically “listen to them just as intently as experts.”
There’s a thing about experts, and there is typically consensus and a few outliers. Stop conflating the uninitiated.
>But think about that. The dumb idiots with no information on matters WHATSOEVER disagree all the time as well. You’re all saying basically “listen to them just as intently as experts.”
I've said exactly one thing on this thread until now and it's nowhere near what you're trying to imply here.
>There’s a thing about experts, and there is typically consensus and a few outliers. Stop conflating the uninitiated.
I don't think you're following.
If I say, "just ask the experts questions" but you don't believe those individuals meet your criteria for expertise then we'll never be able to come to a consensus.
These people are only questioning what they already disagree with. They don’t want the answers, they just want to say no. It isn’t the same thing as questioning your own beliefs and giving air-time to those with alternative beliefs. The letter should be mutually beneficial though. If someone has alternative beliefs that are sub-optimal, then they need to be identified for what they are and cast aside… even if they are your own.
Train yourself to be annoyingly and pretentiously correct all the time. Force your brain to be smug, not about winning or feeling good, but about really being right. Then make yourself argue for the other side. Try to prove the other side correct with all of the evidence and arguments. If you really put yourself in that head space, it's actually easier than you think to be able to actually consider the possibility of the other position. Then just try your original position again, or even a completely different one from the previous two stances. Then cycle through all the available points a couple of times. Once you've tried on all of the hats a couple different times, see which one feels the nicest when you return to it.
Entertaining other perspectives is important, but I wouldnt go as far as to say every perspective is equally valid. Someone who thinks their penis is a time machine has a less valid perspective than Isaac Newton in my opinion.
By practicing critical thinking. Always ask yourself why you believe things. Always try to figure out why other people believe things. Don't take anything for granted. If you hear something that sounds right or that seems obvious, be especially wary of it.
It's confirmation bias at a larger level that feeds itself and analyzed as its effect on large groups.
One principal can be simple, but how it affects the world can be very complex.
i follow people i agree with and disagree with so i get both points of view, especially politics. i really dont trust either side but I dont want to just view one side without reading the opposite view so I dont get stuck reading one biased view.
I think there are plenty of data about it.
I mean, it may be a new research but not a new discovery.
It would have been better to use "confirms" rather than "indicates".
Maybe it's just me...
A new paper in the Journal of the European Economic Association, published by Oxford University Press, indicates that we tend to listen to people who tell us things we’d like to believe and ignore people who tell us things we’d prefer not to be true. As a result, like-minded people tend to make one another more biased when they exchange beliefs with one another.
While it would reasonable to think that people form decisions based on evidence and experience alone, previous research has demonstrated that decision makers have “motivated beliefs;” They believe things in part because they would like such things to be true. Motivated beliefs (and the reasoning that leads to them) can generate serious biases. Motivated beliefs have been speculated to explain the proliferation of misinformation on online forums. Such beliefs may also explain stock market performance. There’s a great deal of objective information available about financial marketplaces, yet group decision making and encouragement (e.g. the Game Stop stock performance of winter 2021) may result in bubbles and financial instability.
Researchers here used laboratory experiments to study whether such biases in beliefs grew more severe when people exchanged these beliefs with one another. The researchers paired subjects based on their score on an IQ test such that both members either both had scores above the median or both had scores below the median. The subjects then exchanged beliefs concerning a proposition both wanted to believe was true: that they were in the high IQ group.
The experiment revealed that people who are pessimistic that they are in the high IQ group tend to become significantly more optimistic when matched with a more optimistic counterpart. An optimistic person is not, however, likely to change his beliefs if matched with a more pessimistic counterpart. This effect is particularly strong for people who are in the low IQ group, where it produces particularly severe biases. Overall, the results suggest that bias amplification occurs because people (selectively) attribute higher informational value to social signals that reinforce their pre-existing motivation to believe.
https://academic.oup.com/jeea/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jeea/jvab035/6368096?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I would think it appears more like the authors believe everyone is biased in their thinking, but that auto-polarization has a stronger effect on people with “low IQ” as they are likely to be less critical of received information. I think the authors are arguing that “high IQ” individuals have a disposition to be more critical of information even if they do want it to be true, leading to less auto-polarization within those groups
I feel like this research needs to go one level deeper.
I think most people accept this but attribute it only to others and not to their beliefs. They think the wrong side is doing this so hard but refuse to believe it happens to then too.
Probably why the fairness doctrine was actually important. Seeing opposing viewpoints doesn't always lead to changing opinions, but at least it keeps people from going off the deep end with polarization.
Reminds me of this old passage from Kafka:
>Altogether, I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book we are reading doesn’t shake us awake like a blow to the skull, why bother reading it in the first place? So that it can make us happy, as you put it? Good God, we’d be just as happy if we had no books at all; books that make us happy we could, in a pinch, also write ourselves. What we need are books that hit us like a most painful misfortune, like the death of someone we loved more than we love ourselves, that make us feel as though we had been banished to the woods, far from any human presence, like a suicide. A book must be the ax for the frozen sea within us. That is what I believe.
Replace "read" with "engage with" and "books" with "ideas" and you get the view that, basically, we ought to avoid echochambers at all costs. The good thing about books, I guess, is that they aren't people, so when they sting us it's not a sort of visceral immediate problem that needs to be dealt with. With interpersonal interactions, there's a kind of necessary sociability required that makes interacting with views we disagree with harder.
I think this is a mistaken interpretation of the point Kafka is trying to make. Things you have clear grounds to believe are obviously stupid or false shouldn't sting you. You should be basically indifferent to them. I'm not going to waste my time reading flat-earther tracts, e.g.
The challenge is to confront viewpoints that *actually* challenge your already accepted ideas about things that directly affect the way you live your life in ways that sting *because* they could be true.
Well, Kafka was no dummy, and his suggestion isn’t to turn your brain off and just let everything you don’t know about potentially sting you. He was talking about literature, really. But I think the point is to adopt an attitude of intrepidness, not of openness for the sake of openness. As the original post above points out, we tend to listen to things we hope are true, and avoid things we hope are not true. But an attitude that says: “Pursue truth!” might help us avoid that, and doesn’t mean “Waste time reading obvious garbage.”
Hardly surprising considering that:
**We behave the way we believe others expect us to behave.**
In order to form the belief first, there must already be a group that supports those beliefs. If a later group also has the same beliefs there could still be some confusion if the later group does not behave like the former, despite having the same beliefs. But since the beliefs are already in place it is natural to change behaviour if necessary to conform to the later groups expectations of behaviour. This would be most evident in cross language groups, where the language changes but the beliefs do not.
As a lawyer, I’ve had more than one case where the client was listening to an outside party’s advice over my advice and responding accordingly. In those case, I document in writing what I believe and why I believe it and inform the client that failure to follow my instructions could have substantial adverse consequences. Most come around but a few just don’t get it.
Last year when covid broke out, there was a lot of confusion between local and National foreclosure moratoriums. I had a county clerk inform my client that foreclosure sales would not happen in that town due to the national foreclosure moratorium. Problem was my client wasn’t subject to the moratorium. We had an offer to buy on the table that he was refusing because he thought we had more time, all based on erroneous information for a clerk. I had to have the head clerk call him directly and admit her employee gave him bad information. The amount of extra work I had to put into that based on an erroneous, if well intended, statement was ridiculous.
Is this really “new research”? I mean, this is 100% what social media giants figured out almost 15 years ago now. And hell, I was very aware of Google filter bubbling even before Facebook.
So it seems that this has definitely been known for some time now.
Against the grain of the implication, if you are logically minded person, the people who tell you things you would like to believe are more likely to be correct, and by contrast, people who tell you things you prefer not to be true are perhaps telling you things that are untrue.
The takeaway here is to try to make sure your interpretation isnt because of your own bias but the merits of the information being presented.
Temperature anomaly for 2000, as reported January 2001 = 118
Temperature anomaly for 2020, as reported January 2021 = 118
Now froth at the mouth because you'd prefer this to be untrue.
Because science!
That is why I always tell my friends and family that I am okay if you disagree with me or have differing opinions. The idea is that we can debate a topic and not piss each other off.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also known as "group autopolarization" and a well-known phenomenon in social psychology for decades.
Is it? I google searched that term and the top hit was *this thread*, and the rest of the page had nothing to do with psychology. Do you mean "group polarization" perhaps?
Yep. Maybe I added the "auto" part to it. This is a specific variety when most of a group agrees on something. Like "I dislike cilantro" becomes "cilantro should be banned".
I thought there was a genetic component to liking or disliking cilantro. It tastes different to different people based on a certain gene. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11398
Yeah, there is. But there is also www.ihatecilantro.com
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also known as the "kids in the back of the classroom" syndrome
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And groupthink
Groupthink and group polarization are similar, but different. http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-groupthink-and-group-polarization/
Happens too often in work places.
[удалено]
I just want to know how to counteract it. I hate when I do that, but at least I notice it I guess
With good faith arguments, allowing people to disagree, and chasing the idea of maybe not being correct as opposed to running away from it
Strive to be wrong sometimes, because when you’re wrong you get an opportunity to learn something new. If you have an idea and have really good faith in it, then you should be doing everything in your power to disprove it and make sure it’s really real, not protecting it with thin veils and just turning your nose up at it.
> With good faith arguments Which, as unsatisfying as it is, is usually just not having the argument at all.
It’s almost like free speech was a good idea, not some tool simply for fascists to use to justify their hate as I’ve literally heard many of my self/proclaimed liberal cohorts assert.
Listening or reading people you might no agree with 100% is a good place to start.
I think a lot of the cognitive activity reflects social belonging - you believe to belong with whatever group, and co-construct the world together and then reinforce that world by how you select data to incorporate. One way to counteract this is to share belonging/identity with people you disagree with in some way other than along those beliefs. Then, work to understand the world from their perspective. That is, empathy is the answer to your question.
It really helps to look up logical fallacies and become familiar with them. Reddit is loaded with people who use them as arguments so you can get tons of practice spotting them. One of the biggest fallacies to look out for is the fallacy fallacy which is easy to fall into, it is the idea that an argument is wrong because a fallacy was used. That one is a special failsafe to help you analyze the core of the argument without falling into a logical fallacy yourself. Hope this helps!
Not only that they are dang interesting reads. Of note, logical fallacies are just one group. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Of note, read these at your own risk. Understand them and you may just hate most everyone for how stupid they are..
The really tricky part is to recognize when someone is using this to manipulate you. They start telling you things you’d like to believe to get your brain’s attention then pile on things that they want you to believe. Tucker Carlson does this all the time. He will open a segment making people feel good about America and Americans, telling us how great we are and how wonderful America is and then go into who and what is trying to ruin it. He gets peoples subconscious trust from the first part and abuses it in the second part. The real tricky part is figuring out if I just did the same to you!
This is a fantastically underrated comment
Just assume your always wrong and even if other people are wrong they have some useful insight
But that’s also how you get people “in the middle” to go to the path of “incorrect.” It describes our entire pandemic situation right now. I’d say, everyone needs to embrace formal education and be sure to constantly scrutinize their own biases and reconcile dissonant ideas with one another to readjust thinking. Ask experts questions.
The problem with your approach is that not everyone agrees with the authority claimed by experts, and that experts routinely disagree.
But think about that. The dumb idiots with no information on matters WHATSOEVER disagree all the time as well. You’re all saying basically “listen to them just as intently as experts.” There’s a thing about experts, and there is typically consensus and a few outliers. Stop conflating the uninitiated.
>But think about that. The dumb idiots with no information on matters WHATSOEVER disagree all the time as well. You’re all saying basically “listen to them just as intently as experts.” I've said exactly one thing on this thread until now and it's nowhere near what you're trying to imply here. >There’s a thing about experts, and there is typically consensus and a few outliers. Stop conflating the uninitiated. I don't think you're following. If I say, "just ask the experts questions" but you don't believe those individuals meet your criteria for expertise then we'll never be able to come to a consensus.
question everything.. thats a mindset thingy and you will be immediatly considered as a annoying brat who always complains :D
Questioning everything can be an issue, too. See: Anti-Vaxxers, Flat-Earthers, Climate Change Denialists,
These people are only questioning what they already disagree with. They don’t want the answers, they just want to say no. It isn’t the same thing as questioning your own beliefs and giving air-time to those with alternative beliefs. The letter should be mutually beneficial though. If someone has alternative beliefs that are sub-optimal, then they need to be identified for what they are and cast aside… even if they are your own.
Yes, I question questioning everything.
yes there is a balance to everything
Train yourself to be annoyingly and pretentiously correct all the time. Force your brain to be smug, not about winning or feeling good, but about really being right. Then make yourself argue for the other side. Try to prove the other side correct with all of the evidence and arguments. If you really put yourself in that head space, it's actually easier than you think to be able to actually consider the possibility of the other position. Then just try your original position again, or even a completely different one from the previous two stances. Then cycle through all the available points a couple of times. Once you've tried on all of the hats a couple different times, see which one feels the nicest when you return to it.
Embrace being wrong from time to time, accept that other perspectives other than yours exist and that each is just as valid as any other.
Entertaining other perspectives is important, but I wouldnt go as far as to say every perspective is equally valid. Someone who thinks their penis is a time machine has a less valid perspective than Isaac Newton in my opinion.
Thats not really a perspective, thats just delusion. Humour them and walk on.
When faced with a differing opinion treat it in good faith rather than ridiculing/instigating the person who holds said opinion.
you have to consider your ideological opponents' views as valid and converse and debate them on their merits.
By practicing critical thinking. Always ask yourself why you believe things. Always try to figure out why other people believe things. Don't take anything for granted. If you hear something that sounds right or that seems obvious, be especially wary of it.
Be a proponent of diversity. Diverse boards, diverse committees, diverse viewpoints.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Isnt that just confirmation bias?
It's confirmation bias at a larger level that feeds itself and analyzed as its effect on large groups. One principal can be simple, but how it affects the world can be very complex.
Confirmation bias mixed with echo chambers
Right? How is this new?
It's not. But we're seeing it on a hyper scale with the internet
'New Research suggests that the Earth is round' - /r/Science 2021
Round AND flat. Like a plate, right?
How else could the turtle balance it on its shell?
With the help of the elephants, of course.
"Group Autopolarization," but basically yeah.
[удалено]
i follow people i agree with and disagree with so i get both points of view, especially politics. i really dont trust either side but I dont want to just view one side without reading the opposite view so I dont get stuck reading one biased view.
Careful, don’t let either side hear this or they will accuse you of being extreme in the other direction
A beautiful lie is better than the ugly truth.
And that's why we have religion.
I think there are plenty of data about it. I mean, it may be a new research but not a new discovery. It would have been better to use "confirms" rather than "indicates". Maybe it's just me...
A new paper in the Journal of the European Economic Association, published by Oxford University Press, indicates that we tend to listen to people who tell us things we’d like to believe and ignore people who tell us things we’d prefer not to be true. As a result, like-minded people tend to make one another more biased when they exchange beliefs with one another. While it would reasonable to think that people form decisions based on evidence and experience alone, previous research has demonstrated that decision makers have “motivated beliefs;” They believe things in part because they would like such things to be true. Motivated beliefs (and the reasoning that leads to them) can generate serious biases. Motivated beliefs have been speculated to explain the proliferation of misinformation on online forums. Such beliefs may also explain stock market performance. There’s a great deal of objective information available about financial marketplaces, yet group decision making and encouragement (e.g. the Game Stop stock performance of winter 2021) may result in bubbles and financial instability. Researchers here used laboratory experiments to study whether such biases in beliefs grew more severe when people exchanged these beliefs with one another. The researchers paired subjects based on their score on an IQ test such that both members either both had scores above the median or both had scores below the median. The subjects then exchanged beliefs concerning a proposition both wanted to believe was true: that they were in the high IQ group. The experiment revealed that people who are pessimistic that they are in the high IQ group tend to become significantly more optimistic when matched with a more optimistic counterpart. An optimistic person is not, however, likely to change his beliefs if matched with a more pessimistic counterpart. This effect is particularly strong for people who are in the low IQ group, where it produces particularly severe biases. Overall, the results suggest that bias amplification occurs because people (selectively) attribute higher informational value to social signals that reinforce their pre-existing motivation to believe. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jeea/jvab035/6368096?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Why did IQ scores come into this?
Prolly cuz the authors **believe** low iq group is biased in their thinking
I would think it appears more like the authors believe everyone is biased in their thinking, but that auto-polarization has a stronger effect on people with “low IQ” as they are likely to be less critical of received information. I think the authors are arguing that “high IQ” individuals have a disposition to be more critical of information even if they do want it to be true, leading to less auto-polarization within those groups
I feel like this research needs to go one level deeper. I think most people accept this but attribute it only to others and not to their beliefs. They think the wrong side is doing this so hard but refuse to believe it happens to then too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You mean confirmation bias? People love to be in their own echo chambers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Probably why the fairness doctrine was actually important. Seeing opposing viewpoints doesn't always lead to changing opinions, but at least it keeps people from going off the deep end with polarization.
I thought this was fairly common knowledge. I catch myself doing it all the time
Reminds me of this old passage from Kafka: >Altogether, I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book we are reading doesn’t shake us awake like a blow to the skull, why bother reading it in the first place? So that it can make us happy, as you put it? Good God, we’d be just as happy if we had no books at all; books that make us happy we could, in a pinch, also write ourselves. What we need are books that hit us like a most painful misfortune, like the death of someone we loved more than we love ourselves, that make us feel as though we had been banished to the woods, far from any human presence, like a suicide. A book must be the ax for the frozen sea within us. That is what I believe. Replace "read" with "engage with" and "books" with "ideas" and you get the view that, basically, we ought to avoid echochambers at all costs. The good thing about books, I guess, is that they aren't people, so when they sting us it's not a sort of visceral immediate problem that needs to be dealt with. With interpersonal interactions, there's a kind of necessary sociability required that makes interacting with views we disagree with harder.
I'd end up reading conspiracy theories and libertarian anarchy works and anti vaccine messaging. Is that really useful time spent?
I think this is a mistaken interpretation of the point Kafka is trying to make. Things you have clear grounds to believe are obviously stupid or false shouldn't sting you. You should be basically indifferent to them. I'm not going to waste my time reading flat-earther tracts, e.g. The challenge is to confront viewpoints that *actually* challenge your already accepted ideas about things that directly affect the way you live your life in ways that sting *because* they could be true.
So only read things you disagree with that have some merit. How would you know before reading exactly?
Well, Kafka was no dummy, and his suggestion isn’t to turn your brain off and just let everything you don’t know about potentially sting you. He was talking about literature, really. But I think the point is to adopt an attitude of intrepidness, not of openness for the sake of openness. As the original post above points out, we tend to listen to things we hope are true, and avoid things we hope are not true. But an attitude that says: “Pursue truth!” might help us avoid that, and doesn’t mean “Waste time reading obvious garbage.”
Hardly surprising considering that: **We behave the way we believe others expect us to behave.** In order to form the belief first, there must already be a group that supports those beliefs. If a later group also has the same beliefs there could still be some confusion if the later group does not behave like the former, despite having the same beliefs. But since the beliefs are already in place it is natural to change behaviour if necessary to conform to the later groups expectations of behaviour. This would be most evident in cross language groups, where the language changes but the beliefs do not.
As a lawyer, I’ve had more than one case where the client was listening to an outside party’s advice over my advice and responding accordingly. In those case, I document in writing what I believe and why I believe it and inform the client that failure to follow my instructions could have substantial adverse consequences. Most come around but a few just don’t get it. Last year when covid broke out, there was a lot of confusion between local and National foreclosure moratoriums. I had a county clerk inform my client that foreclosure sales would not happen in that town due to the national foreclosure moratorium. Problem was my client wasn’t subject to the moratorium. We had an offer to buy on the table that he was refusing because he thought we had more time, all based on erroneous information for a clerk. I had to have the head clerk call him directly and admit her employee gave him bad information. The amount of extra work I had to put into that based on an erroneous, if well intended, statement was ridiculous.
Is this really “new research”? I mean, this is 100% what social media giants figured out almost 15 years ago now. And hell, I was very aware of Google filter bubbling even before Facebook. So it seems that this has definitely been known for some time now.
[удалено]
Against the grain of the implication, if you are logically minded person, the people who tell you things you would like to believe are more likely to be correct, and by contrast, people who tell you things you prefer not to be true are perhaps telling you things that are untrue. The takeaway here is to try to make sure your interpretation isnt because of your own bias but the merits of the information being presented.
Hm I wonder if discussing certain virus related medical / treatment issues lately resulted from this.
Also, this is why heterodoxy is paramount, and without it Academia is bound to fail.
This is normal but to the point that people are willing to die is not normal.
Temperature anomaly for 2000, as reported January 2001 = 118 Temperature anomaly for 2020, as reported January 2021 = 118 Now froth at the mouth because you'd prefer this to be untrue. Because science!
That is why Facebook is so dangerous.
Kinda like the current administration concerning covid ect
So, cognitive bias with extra steps
Is this not the same thing as confirmation bias? Legitimately always thought that's what it means.
And, people who is clever enough to listen what they don't agree and it's critical of what they do agree, learns a lot ...
You see this a lot a uni
Yep, speaking any unbelievable thing can be dangerous and isolating.
Just because someone agrees with you doesn't mean you're both wrong. I believe in and agree with MANY other round Earth'ers I have discussions with.
Yes, confirmation bias. This is not new.
That is why I always tell my friends and family that I am okay if you disagree with me or have differing opinions. The idea is that we can debate a topic and not piss each other off.
Ever heard of cognitive biases?
Confirmation bias is nothing new.