hope_for_things Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Calm said: You probably didn't find anything since you were searching under the wrong name. From the interview .I linked to earlier: "The authors of the original study shared your findings even if they didn't align with theirs. To what extent were they involved in the design of the study and how did they react? Porter: Nyhan and Reifler have been great. We read nightmare stories of senior scholars rejecting critiques or challenges made by junior scholars. They have been nothing but models of what you'd want a senior scholar to do when their prior work is challenged. They have been great. They weren't involved at all in the design of the paper though — we sent it to them after we'd completed the study. Wood: The headline is: They've been amazing. As soon as the paper was submitted at (the American Political Science Association), to the panel that Nyhan was chairing, it was accepted. He gave us fantastic notes, he's been incredibly supportive of the work. As you said, his 19,000 Twitter followers have been shown this paper. He has been a model of academic openness on this question." I think you're confusing two different papers here Calm. The Flynn, Nyhan and Reifler paper titled "The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs about Politics" is what that first quote is referring to. This is a different paper than the one Kiwi posted a link to that addresses the backfire effect. I'm not sure if the second quote from Wood you posted is referring to the paper on the backfire effect or not. Maybe you can post the link for these quotes, I couldn't find them in your other link when I did key word searches.
Calm Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 Quote Part of the power of this new study is that it uses the same materials and participants as the 2010 paper reporting backfire effects – statements about US politics and US citizens. Although the numbers mean the new study in convincing, it doesn’t show the backfire effect will neveroccur, especially for different attitudes in different contexts or nations. My bold https://mindhacks.com/2018/01/03/the-backfire-effect-is-elusive/ 1
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I think there is some merit to what you say if there is a formally trained Mormon scholar, and an outsider that really has very little exposure to Mormonism, it would be hard for that outsider to engage at a thoughtful level with those who have trained experience in Mormon studies. The difference that I'm critiquing is that those who aren't educated about psychology or economics would have a hard time engaging with the materials because of their lack of understanding, and in that case their criticisms may be completely irrelevant. Also, there are a variety of different perspectives already within the insider communities on psychology or economics all across the political spectrum. Question for you, do you think published professors in economics should consider any criticism you make about economic studies just because you began your studies on that subject. Do you think your limited studies (I'm assuming its limited based on your post) qualifies you to critique scholarly peer reviewed studies on economic topics? No, they shouldn't but I am still going to complain about it and I'm still right. I do think my limited studies qualifies me to know that the whole concept has a little merit but as a science it is an utter failure. For science to work it has to make predictions and have them be verified. Economists spend most of their time coming up with more involved explanations as to why they were wrong before. They have a slight leg up over astrologists as they try to explain why the model still works to predict even when it never does and just insists they did not have enough information. Astrologists just keep making more predictions that are always wrong. At least I hope so. Here is my horoscope for the week: "You’re not usually the kind of person who cries at weddings, but this one’s of a former lover, you’re at a strange place in your life, and soot gets in your eyes when the whole church burns down with everyone inside." Psychology is also not really a science. Its predictive value is incredibly limited in the same way. And in general I do not have that much respect for academia. There are honorable exceptions (I know a few) but it is a messed up world with messed up values and messed up goals. The search for truth and fact is often shrouded by the desire for notoriety. I do trust the hard sciences more in academia. It is harder to come up with nutzoid theories but some still succeed (see String Theory). When you get into softer sciences like psychology and economics you have so many conflicting models it is basically a free-for-all. One important caveat here: I do trust hard science academia far more than I trust amateur crackpots with game-changing theories. When it comes to Meldrum's science quackery against established physics and geology I will take the side of the latter every time. Edited January 10, 2018 by The Nehor
Calm Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think you're confusing two different papers here Calm. The Flynn, Nyhan and Reifler paper titled "The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs about Politics" is what that first quote is referring to. This is a different paper than the one Kiwi posted a link to that addresses the backfire effect. I'm not sure if the second quote from Wood you posted is referring to the paper on the backfire effect or not. Maybe you can post the link for these quotes, I couldn't find them in your other link when I did key word searches. Kiwi's link you quoted when discussing Flynn goes to the Wood Porter paper. That is the one I am referring to. I gave the link in the edited post as well as a later one for those who missed the edit. I don't know why you are dismissing Flynn. It appears it is just because he posted the paper that suggested the original 2010 research was overly optimistic about finding the effect and in fact the effect is rare. Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm 1
hope_for_things Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Btw, I substituted a different link for the image since kiwi had posted the same link and now the abstract, mine is link to an interview the authors (not Flynn, but Porter and Wood) had and that is what I have been quoting. Posting the link again since it appears this is a "hot" topic so some may have missed the edit: https://www.poynter.org/news/fact-checking-doesnt-backfire-new-study-suggests Given the original scholar was chairing the panel discussing the presentation, it appears the conference is a notable one in the field of Political Science and the paper is being taken as important to the ongoing discussion by the scholars most expert in the area. Looks like the original one is a scholar in the same field of Political Science. also, Flynn may be hosting the article on his site because the proceedings have not been published yet...these can at times be years behind schedule if the conferences my husband has been involved in are any clue. Ok, thanks for this article. I wonder if this may be a case of what I suspected earlier. I will have to review some of these links more, but if these discussions claiming the backfire effect isn't a real thing are all taking place in the realm of political science, I wonder if they are engaging with the scholars in psychology who have published studies on this effect. I'm not sure whether scholars in political science have much interaction with scholars in psychology or not, and I would be concerned if they are critiquing the findings in a rigorous way that would meet proper muster at the level of a psychology scholarly journal.
Calm Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No, they shouldn't but I am still going to complain about it and I'm still right. I do think my limited studies qualifies me to know that the whole concept has a little merit but as a science it is an utter failure. For science to work it has to make predictions and have them be verified. Economists spend most of their time coming up with more involved explanations as to why they were wrong before. They have a slight leg up over astrologists as they try to explain why the model still works to predict even when it never does and just insists they did not have enough information. Astrologists just keep making more predictions that are always wrong. At least I hope so. Here is my horoscope for the week: "You’re not usually the kind of person who cries at weddings, but this one’s of a former lover, you’re at a strange place in your life, and soot gets in your eyes when the whole church burns down with everyone inside." Psychology is also not really a science. Its predictive value is incredibly limited in the same way. And in general I do not have that much respect for academia. There are honorable exceptions (I know a few) but it is a messed up world with messed up values and messed up goals. The search for truth and fact is often shrouded by the desire for notoriety. I do trust the hard sciences more in academia. It is harder to come up with nutzoid theories but some still succeed (see String Theory). When you get into softer sciences like psychology and economics you have so many conflicting models it is basically a free-for-all. One important caveat here: I do trust hard science academia far more than I trust amateur crackpots with game-changing theories. When it comes to Meldrum's science quackery against established physics and geology I will take the side of the latter every time. The last course I took in Psychology was one that went deep into the origins and philosophy of all the historical and current psych theories. The professor demonstrated there was no real scientific grounding for the theories (as opposed to the effects the theories tried to explain) and the philosophy wasn't consistent or particularly logical. This may have changed in the past few decades, I lost my interest in theories at that point and became a pragmatic psychologist...just show me what works with empirical data, otherwise I am going to wait until Psychology becomes a harder science before going into debating the theories. I understand cognitive has much more solid empirical data backing it these days, but haven't taken the serious time to explore the theoretical underpinnings to see if those hold up. One of the authors was my prof, this appears to summarize one of the issues he talked about: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287579056_The_affiliation_of_methodology_with_ontology_in_a_scientific_psychology Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ok, thanks for this article. I wonder if this may be a case of what I suspected earlier. I will have to review some of these links more, but if these discussions claiming the backfire effect isn't a real thing are all taking place in the realm of political science, I wonder if they are engaging with the scholars in psychology who have published studies on this effect. I'm not sure whether scholars in political science have much interaction with scholars in psychology or not, and I would be concerned if they are critiquing the findings in a rigorous way that would meet proper muster at the level of a psychology scholarly journal. Brendan Nyhan is a political scientist, so is Jason Reifler. They were the ones who "coined" the term "backfire effect", https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Nyhan http://jasonreifler.com/ Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) The three articles referred to in this thread, I believe...please correct if wrong... 2010 original study coining the term "backfire effect" by Nyhan and Reifler, two political scientists: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf The 2016 unpublished manuscript of Thomas Woods and Ethan Porter's American Political Association presentation, hosted by Flynn and apparently forthcoming publication: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2819073 http://djflynn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/elusive-backfire-effect-wood-porter.pdf The Flynn, Nyhan, Reifler paper that includes the Wood and Porter paper in its references: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nature-origins-misperceptions.pdf Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) Hopeforthings, perhaps you could post some articles that back up an extensive presence of the backfire effect rather than the rare occurrence found by Porter and Wood and now this scholar, Kathryn Haglyn from Texas A&M, also a political scientist http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053168017716547 Iow, studies that don't just assume the existence of the Backfire Effect and use Nyhan and Reifler's work to support the claim, but study whether or not it exists themselves. CFR please, as it is hard to discuss these psychologists and studies without specifics on who and what they are. Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 oops, same term, different definition (effect of inadmissible evidence on jurors) ignore for now
california boy Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know that I have see the phenomenon cinepro sought to illustrate with his hypothetical, wherein one appears or pretends at first to be nonchalant in his position and then seems to become more dogmatic when refuted. What I see happening more often is that a good argument is ignored and the same assertion is made later as though the rebuttal had never been given. For example, I've seen folks repeatedly claim the Church or its spokesmen have never said that homosexuality will cease to continue after death. Each time, I have provided documentation that such statements have indeed been made. Then, I later see the claim repeated as though it had never been rebutted. With one individual in particular I refuted his claim three or four times before I could get him to acknowledge that I had done so. Your post is an excellent example of people seeing what they want to see. I don't recall any claim that the Church or its spokesmen have never said that homosexuality will continue after death. What I do recall is some, including me, saying that the church has no official doctrine on what happens to homosexuals after death. You quote an apostle as support that indeed the church does have a clear idea of what happens to someone who is gay. And in your mind, that constitutes doctrine and is a doctrinal answer to the question. You readily accept the statement of a single spokesman as being proof of a doctrinal position, especially when it supports your belief. So you feel like you have made irrefutable proof of church doctrine. Yet, when there are statements by a few church leaders that are not supported over time (such as evolution or man walking on the moon, then it becomes just a personal opinion by a lone apostle. So yeah, people don't always take your quoting a single apostle as being doctrine. And they are still waiting for official doctrine from church leaders. Even your own position of a single statement by a church spokesman as being doctrine changes depending on your own personal belief. This is not an example of the Backfire Effect. This is an example of a disagreement of what is official doctrine. You have a much more liberal belief of what is official doctrine than just about anyone on this board.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 52 minutes ago, california boy said: Your post is an excellent example of people seeing what they want to see. I don't recall any claim that the Church or its spokesmen have never said that homosexuality will continue after death. What I do recall is some, including me, saying that the church has no official doctrine on what happens to homosexuals after death. You quote an apostle as support that indeed the church does have a clear idea of what happens to someone who is gay. And in your mind, that constitutes doctrine and is a doctrinal answer to the question. You readily accept the statement of a single spokesman as being proof of a doctrinal position, especially when it supports your belief. So you feel like you have made irrefutable proof of church doctrine. Yet, when there are statements by a few church leaders that are not supported over time (such as evolution or man walking on the moon, then it becomes just a personal opinion by a lone apostle. So yeah, people don't always take your quoting a single apostle as being doctrine. And they are still waiting for official doctrine from church leaders. Even your own position of a single statement by a church spokesman as being doctrine changes depending on your own personal belief. This is not an example of the Backfire Effect. This is an example of a disagreement of what is official doctrine. You have a much more liberal belief of what is official doctrine than just about anyone on this board. That statement is in an official venue (LDS.org). And it is significant that the only time the matter has ever been addressed authoritatively is in giving the assurance that no one will be beset with the condition after mortality. Never the contrary.
Bernard Gui Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Often I believe they are more rigorous and reasonable because they have developed the necessary skills and have practiced intellectual thought. Are they more moral or more intuitive or more kind or any other number of descriptors, I would say no. How does one become an intellectual? Are there specific courses of study or disciplines that are more prone to achieve intellectual status than others? Do they all arrive at a point of enlightened consensus by using those skills and practicing their thoughts? I've heard of some smart Mormons who are referred to as intellectuals as if it were some badge of honor that puts them in a better position to know the truth. Is this because they don't buy into all that religious hocus pocus? Edited January 10, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I challenge you to diagram it. I'll take that challenge! Mrs. Aiello drilled that into us in the sixth grade at Central Elementary School in Los Alamos. I'll get back with the results.
Calm Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: This is an awesome sentence. I missed this before. This is why I try and remember to proof what I write and cut it into short sentences. My thoughts have few periods in them. 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Calm said: I missed this before. This is why I try and remember to proof what I write and cut it into short sentences. My thoughts have few periods in them. Don't be shy! It's awesome! 1
Guest Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: In case you haven't already figured it out, it is hope_for_things who has been making an issue of "the backfire effect." In fact, it has become a mantra with him. As I recall, he responded to one of my posts with only two words: "Backfire effect," as though he expected I would know immediately what he meant. At the time, I didn't. Thank you, I guess I missed it, or glossed over it. Because it is not in my nature to do something like this, or I have I have not done so.
Calm Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) To BG, Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm 1
Guest Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 10 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Papa, I'm pretty sure it was me. I can't remember the thread I commented on, but I remember predicting that the backfire effect would prove itself out in the thread, and I was proven correct, as future posters demonstrated that my prediction was accurate. I guess my being correct really must have bothered Kiwi or something, enough that he wanted to bring this up again. Funny how that works. I can see how saying such things can lead to self fulfilling prophecies. It is just a behavior that is just not in me, or I hope I didn't ever do something like this. I can be passionate about strongly held beliefs, but always try to be respectful, despite my copious failures.
california boy Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That statement is in an official venue (LDS.org). And it is significant that the only time the matter has ever been addressed authoritatively is in giving the assurance that no one will be beset with the condition after mortality. Never the contrary. Like I said, your definition of what is doctrine is not universally recognized as doctrine. You are certainly entitled to your belief.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: How does one become an intellectual? Are there specific courses of study or disciplines that are more prone to achieve intellectual status than others? Do they all arrive at a point of enlightened consensus by using those skills and practicing their thoughts? I've heard of some smart Mormons who are referred to as intellectuals as if it were some badge of honor that puts them in a better position to know the truth. Is this because they don't buy into all that religious hocus pocus? Academic dissidents would be a clearer, more accurate term in some instances. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, california boy said: Like I said, your definition of what is doctrine is not universally recognized as doctrine. You are certainly entitled to your belief. Doctrinal truth is not contingent upon popularity or trends. This reminds of a statement I saw today from Ben Shapiro. Oprah Winfrey had been going on about “my truth.” Shapiro said in response to her quoted statement, “There is no such thing as ‘my truth.’ There is only THE truth and opinion.” Edited January 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: How does one become an intellectual? Are there specific courses of study or disciplines that are more prone to achieve intellectual status than others? There's clearly something else going on here. I completed a BA summa cum laude, an MA with distinction, and a PhD with unanimity from my examiners that my work needed no revision. I was also supported by competitive scholarships in all three instances. But I'm clearly no 'intellectual' as hope_for_things apparently intends the title. Quote Is this because they don't buy into all that religious hocus pocus? This sounds about right... 2
california boy Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Doctrinal truth is not contingent upon popularity or trends. This reminds of a statement I saw today from Ben Shapiro. Oprah Winfrey had been going on about “my truth.” Shapiro said in response to her quoted statement, “There is no such thing as ‘my truth.’ There is only THE truth and opinion.” Never said it did. Do you accept every statement a single apostle makes as doctrine? Or just the ones you like.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, california boy said: Never said it did. Do you accept every statement a single apostle makes as doctrine? Or just the ones you like. So in determining the position of the Church on this question, I have before me a choice, on the one hand, between a public statement that for several years continuously has been on the official Church website in a section (Newsroom) directed toward news media representatives who are invited go there to ascertain the official position of the Church on various topics, and, on the other hand, the naysaying of a stranger on an Internet message board who goes by the screen name "california boy" and who obviously has an ax to grind. It's no contest as to which one I'm going to pick. Quote ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?” Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence. The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course. ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. Edited January 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts