california boy Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. You are asserting something to me that I have NEVER stated. I have never claimed to have any knowledge on what happens to gays after they die. What I have stated is that we only have the opinion of two church leaders on this subject. Like many past opinions, they are not always reliable when speculating that those opinions are church doctrine any more than the speculating that the opinion of Joseph Fielding Smith's belief that man would never walk on the moon. The fact that you choose tp believe it to be doctrine is a personal decision on your part. If you are happy with that decision then good for you. And what ax do you think I have to grind?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 38 minutes ago, california boy said: You are asserting something to me that I have NEVER stated. I have never claimed to have any knowledge on what happens to gays after they die. What I have stated is that we only have the opinion of two church leaders on this subject. Like many past opinions, they are not always reliable when speculating that those opinions are church doctrine any more than the speculating that the opinion of Joseph Fielding Smith's belief that man would never walk on the moon. The fact that you choose tp believe it to be doctrine is a personal decision on your part. If you are happy with that decision then good for you. It was expressed as fact, not opinion. Quote And what ax do you think I have to grind? That should be obvious.
kiwi57 Posted January 10, 2018 Author Posted January 10, 2018 40 minutes ago, california boy said: You are asserting something to me that I have NEVER stated. I have never claimed to have any knowledge on what happens to gays after they die. What I have stated is that we only have the opinion of two church leaders on this subject. Like many past opinions, they are not always reliable when speculating that those opinions are church doctrine any more than the speculating that the opinion of Joseph Fielding Smith's belief that man would never walk on the moon. The fact that you choose tp believe it to be doctrine is a personal decision on your part. If you are happy with that decision then good for you. And what ax do you think I have to grind? This isn't a gay thread. There are, just IMHO, quite enough of them to be going on with right now.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, kiwi57 said: This isn't a gay thread. There are, just IMHO, quite enough of them to be going on with right now. Yes. Thank you. I didn't mean for it to turn into one. I was only selecting an example to illustrate a point.
Calm Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) To get this back on track, I will repeat my post. I don't believe Hope has had a chance to deal with this yet as I don't remember seeing any posts from him yet today, this repost is not to imply he is neglecting my CFR at all. I just don't want it to be missed due to the distraction of the posts that followed as I am really interested to see if those who are psychology scholars deal with the backfire effect any differently than the political scientists who first identified it if I understand the history right and who now are encouraging people to be more cautious in wide application of it as it may not be that common based on several studies. I especially want to see if the psychologists are downplaying the political scientists' work as Hope seems to have implied they should (sorry if I misread you, but you appeared to me to be somewhat dismissive of research by political scientists earlier on which was strange to me since they were the first to deal with it; if I have misread you, I look forward to being corrected): ---- 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 [instead] 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
Robert F. Smith Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) On 1/9/2018 at 8:31 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said: I have never read anyone make any such claim on this website. Do you have the post that you can link? Actually the subject has been discussed recently on this board, and with approval. In fact, we see that effect regularly on this board. Not everyone is subject to it, but some people certainly take contrary evidence very badly and double-down on their false initial claims or beliefs. No amount of evidence to the contrary has any effect on them, and they will in fact dismiss such evidence as "fake news" or "alternative facts." It is a widespread phenomenon. It was discussed on this board in December, http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69945-another-faith-crisis-letter/?page=10&tab=comments#comment-1209779684 . and in November, http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69815-an-eyewitness-account-of-joseph-smith-at-nauvoo/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-1209772371 . Edited January 11, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
Calm Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Actually the subject has been discussed recently on this board, and with approval. In fact, we see that effect regularly on this board. Not everyone is subject to it, but some people certainly take contrary evidence very badly and double-down on their false initial claims or beliefs. No amount of evidence to the contrary has any effect on them, and they will in fact dismiss such evidence as "fake news" or "alternative facts." It is a widespread phenomenon. Stubbornness and rigidity are not necessarily symptoms of the backfire effect. We have no way of knowing by just reading a few posts if someone's beliefs are actually stronger or if they are the same as before given the contradictory information. Given the further studies that show beliefs strengthening only in rare cases, that people actually do adjust their awareness of facts, but don't change their allegiance, I would be cautious about claiming the backfire effect is a widespread phenomena. (See the links and quotes I put up, there were a few additional studies I saw that were less comprehensive, but yielded the same results or so it seemed from a quick scan of abstracts). Stubbornness, otoh, I think can be said to be quite widespread, though we may have more difficulty in finding the actual motivation given human beings are quite complicated and quite good at combining numerous ideas into one justification, imo. 2
Calm Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) Quote We definitely see this in our sample's responses. People are extra happy to adopt a factual correction when they have the opportunity to contradict the other team. And that's a very reliable finding. We're not suggesting that we cast aside decades of research on motivated reasoning and people seeking out facts that are consistent with their ideological commitments. But we have definitely not found any consistent evidence of factual backfire despite months of work on thousands of subjects. By and large, folks across the political spectrum were happy to move, at least some of the way, consistently with a factual intervention... Wood: And we went to incredible lengths to find backfire. We were doing these experiments in the height of the presidential primaries and the middle of the debates. We were taking the most controversial people and the most controversial statements. We tested allusive statements, thinking that the easiest way to trigger backfire was to correct a co-ideologue for an allusion rather than a literal statement. The fact that their pattern remains the same speaks to the elusiveness of the backfire effect.... Wood: I would just say: don't place facts on too high a pedestal. This is only one component of the way that average people come to hold political preferences. For instance, we didn't see any differences on policy preferences among corrected and uncorrected groups. So there will still be voters holding weird policy preferences that are in contravention of factual circumstances. We can make the factual intervention and they'll cohere with the facts but they may still have the preferences they had beforehand. So there's still a ton of work for fact-checkers to do in improving factual awareness. But they should know that that is not the end of debate. https://www.poynter.org/news/fact-checking-doesnt-backfire-new-study-suggests Edited January 11, 2018 by Calm 1
Calm Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) From an extensive lit review by the authors of the 2010 original study on the backfire effect: Quote By contrast, studies conducted on other issues that often feature less well-known misperceptions and more one-sided information treatments have typically not observed backfire e↵ects (e.g., Weeks 2015; Nyhan and Reifler N.d.a; Wood and Porter N.d.; Hill N.d.; Kim N.d.), suggesting that highly polarized re- sponses and backfire e↵ects may be more likely for highly salient misperceptions when people receive conflicting cues. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nature-origins-misperceptions.pdf#page=17 An interesting finding is that backfire may be more prevalent on the better informed, not the less: Quote Nyhan, Reifler, and Ubel (2013) find that attempts to correct the “death panel” misperception backfire among respondents who feel very warmly towards Sarah Palin and who have high levels of political knowledge. Similarly, people with higher levels of knowledge may be better able to resist incongruent information and maintain alignment between their factual beliefs and predispositions Edited January 11, 2018 by Calm 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) On 1/9/2018 at 9:42 PM, The Nehor said: To be fair calling psychology a science has always been an undeserved honor. Same with economics. Psychology is a science Psychology studies demonstrate that religion is good for your mental health. On 1/9/2018 at 8:05 PM, Scott Lloyd said: At long last, I think I have a good, capsule definition of "backfire effect": a condition afflicting anyone who does not concede and genuflect to my impeccable reasoning in an argument. Good point. Our secular friends never question anything On 1/9/2018 at 4:08 PM, hope_for_things said: Something is junk science because a couple bloggers say it is? This link and the Slate article that he referenced aren't scholarly approaches with rigorous proof that debunks psychological studies. I don't trust the scholarly community, for them it's all about government grants Edited January 11, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite
Robert F. Smith Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 57 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: .............................................. Good point. Our secular friends never question anything Scott was expressing sarcastic humor here, Sam. 57 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I don't trust the scholarly community, for them it's all about government grants Most scholars do not receive government grants, and they constitute a very diverse community. Your distrust is deeply prejudicial and apriori. 2
Calm Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Scott was expressing sarcastic humor here, Sam. Most scholars do not receive government grants, and they constitute a very diverse community. Your distrust is deeply prejudicial and apriori. My husband, the social/organizational psychologist, has never received one that I can remember, outside of the Fulbright which had him teaching in Russia. 1
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Psychology is a science Psychology studies demonstrate that religion is good for your mental health. Something supporting what I believe is not a good reason to believe it. If it were I would support those quack Creationist scientists or even (shudder) Meldrum. 3
Guest Posted January 11, 2018 Posted January 11, 2018 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Actually the subject has been discussed recently on this board, and with approval. In fact, we see that effect regularly on this board. Not everyone is subject to it, but some people certainly take contrary evidence very badly and double-down on their false initial claims or beliefs. No amount of evidence to the contrary has any effect on them, and they will in fact dismiss such evidence as "fake news" or "alternative facts." It is a widespread phenomenon. It was discussed on this board in December, http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69945-another-faith-crisis-letter/?page=10&tab=comments#comment-1209779684 . and in November, http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69815-an-eyewitness-account-of-joseph-smith-at-nauvoo/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-1209772371 . I am usually late to most parties, such is my lot in life. I hope I have never done so. Maybe those who do, just do not believe those posting such material. Or maybe, they just do not want to believe such posts. Also, I have view so "facts" the poster truly believes are facts. There have been many times after research, I have found such posts are incorrect. However. I rarely if ever say nothing, so when I have, the poster takes it very badly. I never (maybe sometines, when I do) seek or want to offend others, It is just not in my nature to hurt or harm others with what I type. Even though despite treading lightly, it still happens. Even though I take care not to harm. Sadly some people or poster live to be offended. It is unfortunate that some wish to live this way. I did not read your links, I pray I was not the example that you gave, if so I apologize beforehand.
Stargazer Posted January 12, 2018 Posted January 12, 2018 On 1/9/2018 at 8:29 PM, Calm said: Sure, but the refusals could be for a number of reasons and there is generally no reason to assume the contradictory evidence actually strengthens belief in the first place from what I have seen. I see most evidence being presented here as not the irrefutable type...especially if the methodology of how that evidence was found is not shared. I am of the opinion it is extremely arrogant and rather close minded to see oneself in the position of presenting strong, pretty much irrefutable evidence such that the only reason people would disagree with you is the Backfire Effect. And if one starts from that position...predicts that people will react that way...it would likely impede their own ability to see evidence in a new way as they have already set up the scenario of what the discussion is going to be in their head and that raises the probability they will automatically categorize any disagreement as caused by the backfire and not by reasonable ideas, so they are less likely to both seriously consider those ideas or even pay enough attention to them to fully understand them while it becomes more likely their interpretation will be a caricature of others' positions. On 1/9/2018 at 9:54 PM, Bernard Gui said: This is an awesome sentence. I think you can see a perfect example of this on the thread started by RockHopper entitled Acts 17:8 Question. 'Ole Josh Khinder gets in there and starts slinging every Anti-Mormon thing he can sling, and never mind any cogent responses to his bullpuckey -- Robert F. Smith, Bluebell, .Bobbieaware and others tried their best but Josh was like a rock, as if repeating the same crap and lies over and over again would somehow convince someone he was right. If that isn't a case for the Backfire Effect then I don't know what is. Calm's bolded phrase above is a perfect description of old Joshie's methodology, so-called.
Calm Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Stargazer said: If that isn't a case for the Backfire Effect then I don't know what is. Calm's bolded phrase above is a perfect description of old Joshie's methodology, so-called. My bolded comment is not about the Backfire Effect, but the effect of assuming the only reason people will disagree with you is the Backfire Effect rather than a myriad of other reasons, including the possibility that your evidence is weak and shouldn't convince a fly. IF one assumes the Backfire Effect is at work even before someone opens their mouth to disagree, then they won't be able to see the much more likely reasons or be able to process decent criticisms of their evidence since they have assumed they are right and no one can rationally disagree with them. But Josh's behavior likely isn't the Backfire Effect, but merely stubbornness and close-mindedness. The Backfire Effect is when hearing evidence that contradicts your opinion about something, instead of changing or at least softening your opinion, it strengthens it. You become even more certain you are right even after seeing evidence that shows you are wrong. It is called "Backfire" because the purpose of giving the contradictory evidence is to change someone's mind, not make their (in the opinion of the person supplying the contradictory information) false opinion stronger. There is nothing to show that Josh is more certain he is right now than when he started posting. Thus you can't say his writing is a demonstration of the Backfire Effect on Josh's opinion. Nor could it be used as a description of methodology because it is not a method, but a result. Edited January 13, 2018 by Calm 1
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 11 hours ago, Calm said: My bolded comment is not about the Backfire Effect, but the effect of assuming the only reason people will disagree with you is the Backfire Effect rather than a myriad of other reasons, including the possibility that your evidence is weak and shouldn't convince a fly. IF one assumes the Backfire Effect is at work even before someone opens their mouth to disagree, then they won't be able to see the much more likely reasons or be able to process decent criticisms of their evidence since they have assumed they are right and no one can rationally disagree with them. But Josh's behavior likely isn't the Backfire Effect, but merely stubbornness and close-mindedness. The Backfire Effect is when hearing evidence that contradicts your opinion about something, instead of changing or at least softening your opinion, it strengthens it. You become even more certain you are right even after seeing evidence that shows you are wrong. It is called "Backfire" because the purpose of giving the contradictory evidence is to change someone's mind, not make their (in the opinion of the person supplying the contradictory information) false opinion stronger. There is nothing to show that Josh is more certain he is right now than when he started posting. Thus you can't say his writing is a demonstration of the Backfire Effect on Josh's opinion. Nor could it be used as a description of methodology because it is not a method, but a result. No, that which I bolded was what I saw as a description of Josh's methodology, not about the Backfire Effect. I don't know if he's merely stubborn and close-minded -- he's something, just not sure what.
Recommended Posts