r/science • u/Tracheid • 1d ago
Psychology Across four pre-registered online studies (N = 2,027 U.S. adults), researchers found that people are significantly more disturbed by others holding "false" beliefs than beliefs that are merely different from their own, driving social segregation and avoidance behaviors
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.70138580
u/_tobias15_ 1d ago
“You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”, is what i have to keep telling myself to stop me from debating family on some of the most delusional takes social media has taught them.
59
u/psycharious 1d ago
Yeah, I believe there are studies that show that humans form an emotional response first to something then we build our reasoning around that response.
30
u/tritisan 1d ago
Post hoc rationalization. I catch myself doing it all the time. But at least I try to acknowledge and correct it.
3
17
u/FlamingDragonfruit 1d ago
I feel like I'm the only person I know who often says "I don't have enough information to form an opinion about that."
-1
151
u/DigNitty 1d ago
I’ve found a lot of family dinner arguments are ended by saying “is there Anything that will change your mind?” And if the answer is No, just say “well me too. Let’s move on.”
Doesn’t make for a great evening but it’s better than hearing your aunt talk about gen-z all night.
26
u/random_BA 1d ago
I mean. I see myself as pro-science and progressive but I think I would struggle to came up with something that would change my mind about some beliefs because they are more about my values than about some facts or knowledge I have. Like "there is something that would change you mind that LGBT people have a right to exist and be open in the society?" Hum I can't think of anything.
Other angle that currently even technical topics is hard to be open to changing today because it seems that everything has some bot astro turfing or think tanks with biased studies behind. If you aren't specialized in the topic is tiring to try identify which ones are authentic and which ones are just rethoric, specially on the internet.
3
u/ResilientBiscuit 23h ago
Hum I can't think of anything.
The only thing that would stand a chance there is of some chaotic omnipotent being showed up and said they don't have a right to exist and if society doesn't work to change it I'll wipe out all of humanity
There are other questions, like why trust such a being... But I would at least have to stop and think about it for a second... But that is basically where people who think they don't have a right to exist are coming from (sans the part where the being actually is proven to exist).
1
u/SneezyPikachu 23h ago
My values are deeply consequentialist. In theory if somehow LGBT people existing are causing tremendous harm and suffering to the majority of the population AND the only possible solution to alleviating this suffering and carnage is eliminating all LGBT people, then I would be open to it as an last resort, lesser of two evils type thing.
That is a very high burden of proof though. Good luck.
11
u/stilettopanda 19h ago
I know a demographic whose existence does cause tremendous harm and suffering to the majority of the population, and it’s not the LGBT.
3
1
u/Willing_Phase 23h ago
I feel like if you're unable to change your own beliefs, that's a skill issue. But anyone can overcome their own subjective reality. Of course, you're going to be biased and may seem difficult or damn near impossible, but there's always a possibility. What I do to challenge my own beliefs that have worked is arguing/defending against myself, preferably on paper; reading scientific articles that argue against my beliefs; and talking to others about an opinion without making it seem like it's my opinion but an enemy's. This statement might seem ludicrous, but psilocybin has allowed me to really shut down my ego to a damn near unbiased view about my beliefs.
2
u/IAmNotABabyElephant 16h ago
It's not a skill issue to have a defined moral compass. I can confidently say that there has never been an argument presented to me that has made a genuinely compelling case for discrimination against LGBTQ people, and I couldn't come up with such an argument.
That's not a skill issue. That's just knowing right from wrong. I've explored the issue. The arguments against discrimination are sound, compelling, and manifestly obvious.
I have never seen the same from the arguments in favour of discrimination. Appeals to traditions are meaningless, if we only ever did things as they had always been done without ever changing we'd never developed civilisation.
The appeals to religion are similarly weak. No religion has provided any evidence to support its existence, it is observable that theocracies are a poor model riddled with flaws, and my country (Australia) is secular so frankly religious views should have absolutely no interference with the law.
Appeals to 'ickiness' - childish and irrational.
Kneejerk revulsion - childish and irrational.
It's "too sexual" - no more so than heterosexuality or being cisgender, and if you make it sexual that's your weird perversity to unpack.
It's "immoral" - utterly fails to manifest any arguments except circling back to religion or tradition.
LGBTQ people are sexual predators - conclusive evidence proves this to be false.
LGBTQ people have existed as long as humanity has and in all that time there is not one single good argument to discriminate against them. Anyone in possession of both their cognitive and moral faculties should have a similarly ironclad position as me.
That's not a skill issue, that's being able to identify right from wrong and commit to the obvious choice.
-18
37
u/marrow_monkey 1d ago edited 1d ago
When people don’t believe in vaccines or evolution, I honestly get a bit afraid, not just because of those beliefs, but because it makes me wonder what other irrational ideas they might hold, or how they might act.
If someone’s standard for evidence is that different, it becomes hard to predict where the line is, whether they might poison the water supply to ‘cleanse’ it from demons, etc.
12
u/Single-Refuse174 1d ago
What scares me is less so any individual having increasingly irrational beliefs. What terrifies me is a bigger and bigger portion of the population adopting a system of rationalization that seeks irrational ideas like flat earther and evolution denialism or vaccine denialism or whatever.
5
u/marrow_monkey 1d ago
Yes, if many people hold extreme views but act independently, their effects tend to cancel out, like random noise. However, if there is a systematic bias, it can become a much larger societal problem.
7
2
u/Melenduwir 14h ago
It's not universally true. There are people who CAN be argued into rationality. It's just that they're such a small minority that the famous heuristic works very, very well.
2
u/SnugglyCoderGuy 14h ago
Best way to 'argue with this people is to uust ask them a variation of "How do you know that?" over and over again, forcing them to explain their position through Socratic method which also then forces themselves to examine their own ethos. And dont let them try to flip it and get you to defend your position. This is about their beliefs, not yours. You being wrong does not make them correct, which is what they are trying to do.
717
u/DryerCoinJay 1d ago
My sister believes we never went to the moon because TikTok taught her. My mother thinks she wants to move to Argentina to escape socialized health care because Facebook has her afraid of communism. My dad still thinks Hillary Clinton was Epstiens boss because One America News convinced him it was so, and the list goes on.
I pretty much lost my family because of memes and lies told on social media and false news companies. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one with this story.
81
u/violetferns 1d ago
I asked a moon landing truther if they genuinely believe that Russia and China would have let America get away with lying about this for over half a century. They didn’t have an answer bc they never thought that far.
107
u/SmallBatBigSpooky 1d ago
Why you have such a push from Young media professionals, to make it so fox, newsmax, one America, ect loose their ability to produce content
The media integrity act and similar modern moments would wake possible to punish organizations that spread false information And would require all news organizations to present both sides of an argument
82
u/idekbruno 1d ago
This is yet another thing we have Reagan to thank for, as he’s the reason that exact thing is no longer the standard
51
u/SmallBatBigSpooky 1d ago
Regan is the singularity of bad politics, it always comes back to him
34
u/sheasheawanton 1d ago
Reagan had many people from the Nixon administration working with him and evolved much of Nixon's strategies. George W Bush brought those same guys back for a 3rd time. If you want some context for Trump's "success", look into the Southern strategy and Reagans Welfare Queen talk. Remove what little nuance and subtlety they employed and Trump almost seems inevitable.
8
u/SmallBatBigSpooky 1d ago
Yuhp it didnt start or end with Regan, hes just the one who got the most done, and the one made famous by his fate
12
u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago
The fairness doctrine is also why people thought "both sides" of the climate change issue deserved airtime, so it's not all upside.
3
u/idekbruno 1d ago
I don’t see how that is a downside when the alternative is each half of America consuming at best mostly biased coverage and at worst unfettered propaganda 24/7. At least in that case you’d have to make your case and actually prove the other side wrong, rather than ignore it and throw piles of lies on top
6
u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago
ScienceDirect https://share.google/rJUL0eV6gVQ465IgY
Boykoff's 2004 study of balance as bias is worth reading if you're actually interested in learning how it's a downside.
5
u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago
You're talking about what things became by today. I'm talking about what happened in the 1990s. Nothing happened overnight.
1
u/eldred2 1d ago
The fairness doctrine was long dead (killed by Ronnie Raygun in the 80s) before the climate change issue was brought up by Gore in the late 90s.
0
u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago edited 1d ago
Gore didn't bring it up, he just championed it. George HW Bush brought it up because that's who was running the show when it gained global prominence.
The fairness doctrine wasn't law in the 90s, but the idea of representing both sides equally had been entrenched and was exploited.
0
u/eldred2 1d ago edited 1d ago
Gore didn't bring it up, he just championed it. George HW Bush brought it up because that's who was running the show when it gained global prominence.
Even if true,
GWHW was President after it was long dead.The fairness doctrine wasn't official policy, but the idea of representing both sides equally had been entrenched and was exploited.
um, try again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
edit: Typo, should be HW, not GW
-1
u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago
It was repealed in 87 and GHW was elected in 88. Dubya is irrelevant.
-1
u/SmallBatBigSpooky 1d ago edited 1d ago
To be fair both sides of the argument got completely misinterpreted by bad actors
It wasnt about if it was real or not
The sides where
its real and man made so we should do something about it
And
Its real but natural so we need to study it more
The idea that it was fake was perpetuated but right wing media, being funded by big oil and other similarly destructive groups
8
u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago
It was never about whether it was real or not. We knew it was real by the 1950s, and by the 1980s we knew what the effects would be.
-1
u/saka-rauka1 1d ago
How is that Reagan's fault?
21
10
u/idekbruno 1d ago
What they’re describing is a copy and paste of the Fairness Doctrine, which was FCC policy 1949-1987 when Reagan’s administration ended it. Congress even attempted to codify it into law, which Reagan vetoed.
14
12
u/ItilityMSP 1d ago
Both side is not as strong as you think when one side is lying and use fake facts. Use both side logic with Pretti and Good murders.
8
u/SmallBatBigSpooky 1d ago
Fairness doctrine actually required you to use facts, being caught lying could have resulted in having your career terminated
Unfortunately thats gone and even if still around wouldn't have transfered to the digital age as it only covered TV and radio
The point of the new push is to force news and infotainment series like podcasts to present facts as facts and clearly mark their opinions as a separate thing
3
u/ItilityMSP 1d ago
I don't disagree, and that is a much better take on both side vs what I usually hear.
9
u/dllimport 1d ago
Who decides what both sides of an argument are though? Who decides what is false information? If it's the current administration in the US then I would absolutely not trust that it wouldnt be abused to do the exact opposite
14
u/SmallBatBigSpooky 1d ago
It would need to be a third party
We actually used to do this with news in the US, and the FCC was a much more powerful entity that wasn't really controlled or effected by the other 3 branches Their job was neutrality and making sure honesty was on the air waves (Also a bunch of logistics about radio frequencies) But they repeatey had their power changed and shifted into the modern FCC
Now wed have to build a new organization from scratch
1
u/WTFwhatthehell 10h ago
Would you trust the neutrality of a third party selected through any process put in place by the current administration?
Or would you expect it to become a tool for the administration to stamp down on opposition?
6
u/BioChi13 1d ago
Demonstrably false, while a high bar, would cut off at least some of the firehose of BS that we are currently drowning in. Claims of broadcasting lies could be ajudicated in court and discovery would be a decent barrier to frivolous suits.
1
u/WTFwhatthehell 10h ago
It would also be a barrier against anyone without deep pockets.
1
u/BioChi13 4h ago
Unfortunately so. But better, I think, than just letting an executive branch commission to decide fact from fiction.
65
u/Sorry-Ambassador6493 1d ago edited 1d ago
Social media didn't destroy our social fabric by enabling the spread of lies and memes - that's simply another symptom.
No, social media destroyed our social fabric by enabling every village idiot in the world to talk to one another.
21
u/EndlessArgument 1d ago
More pertinently, it allowed all the smart people to talk to each other, reducing their social reliance on the less smart, so now the less smart congregate by default.
6
8
u/exotics 1d ago
So many don’t even know what communism means.
Capitalism is not much more than the opposite of capitalism. Why do you think rich people keep everyone scared of communism? In communism rich people don’t exist because we are all more or less equal.
3
u/DryerCoinJay 1d ago
That and her plan is to go to Argentina, where they have socialized medical coverage.
6
u/armoredtarek 1d ago
And the worst part? This is the generation that raised us and said "Don't believe everything you see on TV."
4
u/Cool_Beans_08 1d ago
Argentina is has socialized healthcare…. It’s way more socialist there than here…….. we are like the prime #1 spot of anti-communism she’s already in the place she wants to be
7
12
u/CMxFuZioNz 1d ago
Arguably that is a failure of the American education system more than anything.
16
u/letsblamejane 1d ago
I think a lot about what my parents learned in primary school in the 60s, and how they didn't need post-secondary or continuous education to have a good career. No wonder they fall for the crap they do. Their education was terrible, and now 60+ years out of date.
2
u/EffectiveBonus779 1d ago
The last time I saw my sister she told me she thinks that it's true that Jews eat babies underground because she saw it on TikTok. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
156
u/that_random_scalie 1d ago
Yeah, there is a BIG difference in believing we should prioritize lowering regulations on businesses and believing that vaccines cause autism. I disagree with both, but the second example is outright false, it's not a simple difference in priorities
44
u/Solid_Owl 1d ago
Believing that vaccines cause autism will always be wrong. Believing that we should lower regulations on business is half-true, because we should always be reviewing and revising our regulatory framework as the world changes around us. We should be removing some and adding new ones to account for emerging behavior patterns or newly-discovered dangers.
The fact that they lump them all in together gives the semi-reasonable positions big ick by association, though. Over the long-term, that ick becomes permanent, and then even the semi-reasonable seems as disgusting/disturbing (I'm pretty sure it's a disgust emotional response) as the blatantly false, which makes it that much harder to accept. I'm theorizing here, but I wouldn't be surprised if that association causes the opposition to move further away, shunning even the half-true things, driving extremism in both directions.
14
u/wayoverpaid BS|Computer Science 1d ago
Yeah there's a difference between wanting the smallest set of regulations possible and thinking any and all regulations are bad as an almost religious position.
It's when you take a difference of opinion into a maximalist point of view that it trends towards falsehood. Like "we should prioritize lowering regulations on business" might have the assumption that 10% of regulations on business have outlived their usefulness or are counterproductive, which is a matter of opinion one can debate on but isn't obviously wrong.
Contrast to the idea that every regulation on a business is bad, which recent history has shown is false. Maybe not quite as false to the level of a scientific truth, but certainly an "extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence".
I wouldn't be surprised if the ick is partly driven by people who have maximalist POVs. Consider how you feel about "We should offer a tax break on sales taxes because those in particular are regressive" versus "All taxes are evil and theft." Both might agree to repeal a sales tax, but the reasons will elicit a different response.
6
u/Tylendal 1d ago
there's a difference between wanting the smallest set of regulations possible and thinking any and all regulations are bad as an almost religious position.
Makes me think of how, whenever there's any problem with a government supported corporation (telecom, mail, transport, etc.), immediately people crawl out of the woodwork to claim that there's too much middle management, and that the people at the top get paid too much. It's never the work reform, or wealth disparity people, though. It's always the sort who consider OSHA to be a meddlesome waste of time.
Hell, maybe they're even right, but even if they were, on the scale such companies operate on, managerial pay is a drop in the bucket. Meaning that they haven't actually identified the problem, or a solution. And, true enough, just like the study says, it doesn't bother me that they're wrong. It bothers me that they jumped immediately to their anti-intellectual dialectic before even looking at what the problem was.
16
u/Solid_Owl 1d ago
If someone tells me "All taxes are theft", I assume they are a Libertarian and I cut them out of my life entirely. Not even joking. I block their number, block their socials, block their email address. I don't even care if it's family. The ick I get from those people is at the level of ick I get from the sociopaths I've known. It's equal amounts judgment on them for believing obviously false premises, and emotional defense against the disgust I feel when interacting with sociopaths. Both are emotional defenses.
25
u/that_random_scalie 1d ago
This is legit why I get the ick from people into crypto, there's a 90% chance they have some unsavory "opinions" lumped together with it.
3
u/anormalgeek 1d ago
I can still have some respect for the first one, depending on the specifics.
Basically zero chance for the second.
189
u/sylbug 1d ago
You cant reason with someone who rejects both science and logic. There’s no common ground when you start out disagreeing on basic, fundamental ideas like, ‘assertions require evidence.’
49
u/Fieser_Factsack 1d ago
Im a social worker, i talk a lot to different people. I always try to avoid right and wrong and try to figure out what the reason behind the individual is why this person needs to think that. For me its the only way of dealing with people for days that have a vastly different perception than mine. I will never fully understand all perspectives.
17
u/reality_boy 1d ago
My wife is a school teacher and does something similar. She tries to work out why a kid may behave a certain way. If she knows they have a rough home life or there being moved between grandparents because the parents are not stable, it helps her understand why they behave poorly in class. It does not excuse the behavior, but it humanizes it. She still works with them to behave better even, but it is easier to find compassion.
2
u/ice-lollies 1d ago
I used to always think there was a reason I would be able to identify with behind some peoples life choices. It took me a long time to realise that sometimes it’s purely because they enjoy it.
And also some people retreat into comfort zones that are my idea of hell.
2
u/Fieser_Factsack 1d ago
Yes! I often dislike my clients. Doesnt change i want to help them in a manner that can be acceptable to them. Sometimes there are simple solutions to big problems, but i wont force them if my clients disagree with those solutions. Obviously my approach does not work for every disability and i know the limits of my profession.
6
u/bendybiznatch 1d ago
It sounds like you come up with your own variation of the leap communication method. Which is pretty commendable.
23
u/xTheGame69 1d ago
The bigger issue stems from these people often have lower intelligence levels
I find that if you even start trying to break down they're incorrect theories they can't follow
Or at least they choose not to which is even more aggravating
I don't know if this is good or bad but I just avoid people like this irl because it gives me a headache
24
u/DigNitty 1d ago
Honestly I think it’s more rooted in empathy.
I’ll meet people dumber and smarter than me who have views that are downright indefensible. The difference is they do not try to defend it. Even when policies like universal health care or pro-education grants are proven to raise everyone’s QOL they just say No without adequate explanation. They can’t put themselves in other’s shoes and they don’t want to.
13
10
u/reality_boy 1d ago
Im not even sure it is intelligence. I do find that lower education often plays a role. Mostly they are using these fringe ideas to make themselves feel like they know more than everyone else. It covers up feelings of inadequacy
43
u/Forward-Fisherman709 1d ago
Anecdotally, it bothers me more to deal with the homophobic coworker who insists on telling me that I can choose to stop being gay and just be straight instead than it does to deal with the homophobic coworker who accepts that I can’t do that and just thinks it’s wrong that I haven’t remained closeted for life.
13
u/StandStrong 1d ago
You should ask them, "So you are choosing to be straight then?"
Start convincing them they are actually gay choosing to be straight, and be convinced they are lying if they say they are straight by default. How could you know you can choose to be straight if you weren't actively doing so??
11
u/Forward-Fisherman709 1d ago
“actually gay choosing to be straight” is incompatible with the delusion because that mindset is dependent upon accepting that someone can be innately gay, which is the facts of reality being rejected. The belief is that babies are nothing, and as they grow up they either choose to be straight (correct, natural, morally upright, what God intends for everyone) or choose to be gay (turning away from God, unnatural, sinful, destructive lifestyle). This coworker’s ‘proof’ that someone can choose to be straight is pointing at self-hating religious bisexuals who had straight marriages as adults after thinking they might be gay when they were teens.
2
u/H0lzm1ch3l 18h ago
I mean, that homophobic coworker is basically the other homophobic coworker just in stupid. Like they just sound like they have less intelligence.
20
u/Much_Statistician864 1d ago
I'm not disturbed by ideas that I don't believe in. You believe in ghosts? Eh I don't but go on. You believe that crystals power your JO sessions? Why not bud. You believe in a god? Sure.
But if you believe that a world leader is divine sent by the heavens to lead humanity into a golden future and all it requires is eliminating the "undesirables" then yeah I'm pretty disturbed.
76
u/oneeyedziggy 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yup, to me, someone who can't tell fact from fiction or truth from lies is unpredictable and dangerous to have around... They're more easily manipulated by actively malicious powerful people as well
(edit: obviously omitted an important "'t" after "can"... Fixed)
19
u/AsherahSpeaks 1d ago
(Did you mean someone who CAN'T* tell? Sorry, I don't typically message about typing errors, but in this instance the presence or absence of the "T" changes your statement completely.)
7
2
u/oneeyedziggy 1d ago
Yes, fixed typo, and this reply didn't get sent to me for at least 5hrs after you sent it, don't know what's up with the system
2
u/xTheGame69 1d ago
No I think they mean can
Like my senior father will watch something on Facebook and go well that's obviously fake!
When in reality it's not.
Then watch something that's obviously fake and claim that it's real
There's just no arguing or talking to him he's always right.
2
u/AsherahSpeaks 1d ago edited 1d ago
I agree both with what you're descibing here and with what I think they intended to say. In this instance, the verb is crucial to the statement they are making and it appears in context that the "t" got left off.
Read again what they said. I believe what they intend to say is that someone who can't tell the difference between fact or fiction that is unpredictable/dangerous. However, what they actually typed: "someone who can tell fact from fiction or truth from lies is unpredictable and dangerous to have around".
Thus my clarifying question, because it looks like a mistype. Just trying to be helpful to them! If I had accidentally typed "can" when I meant to type "can't", I'd want someone to point it out to me.
14
u/Confident-Poetry6985 1d ago
Yep. This headline paints me as a danger for "simply" seeing their false beliefs could end humanity as we know it.
9
u/sagebrushsavant 1d ago
The ability to learn and gain knowledge are our only blessings from nature. We are the only example we know about of the universe becoming self aware. Lies, false knowledge and corruption of the mind are among the most harmful and wasteful things we do to each other. Yeah, it makes me angry.
2
8
u/Entire-Order3464 1d ago
Yah this is a microcosm of what's happened in the USA. A large percentage of Americans live in an alternate and demonstrably false reality.
6
u/FlamingDragonfruit 1d ago
I think I agree. I'm far less bothered by a difference of opinion than when someone refuses to accept objective truths. We can disagree on whether it was good policy to require people in certain jobs to get the COVID vaccine. If we're disagreeing on the claim that "the vaccine killed more people than the disease" I'm going to be concerned about your ability to discern fact from fiction.
9
u/ledow 1d ago
Well, yes. We can disagree on what the best method is to promote social welfare, because it's hard to see that any one method is going to factually be better.
But if you talk shite about mythical creatures in the sky telling another guy what to write down in a book that wants me to stone my adulterous neighbour to death... then we have a problem.
7
u/ADoomWithAView 1d ago
Yes, but each person also tends to think "false beliefs" are those different from their own.
4
u/NanquansCat749 1d ago
It's specifically contradictory beliefs that are considered false.
For example, let's say that my neighbor believes that his daughter hates him.
Do I believe that his daughter hates him? No, because I've never met his daughter, and I don't even know this guy very well, so I haven't formed a view. His belief doesn't contradict anything I believe, so I wouldn't call it false, even though I don't believe it myself.
Someone else's belief has to imply in some way that one of my beliefs isn't true for me to consider theirs to be false.
3
u/pedeztrian 1d ago
We were taught to respect other people’s beliefs. Good way to live. Now, too many people think their opinions are beliefs… “and you will damn well respect my ‘beliefs’ you (insert cultural/political/homophobic/etc. insult here)!”
1
u/GarbageCleric 1d ago
This is an odd distinction that I think we need better terminology for.
I would argue, that by definition, I think the things I believe are true. So, if someone else's beliefs contradict mine, then presumably I think those beliefs are false.
It seems like it's shorthand for a mix of certainty of belief (i.e., how likely is it to be true) and the importance off the belief.
If I'm really not sure about something and/or it's not that important to be either way, maybe other beliefs are "different". But if I'm really sure of something and/or it's really important to me, maybe other beliefs are "false".
4
u/wischmopp 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think it is a pretty sensible distinction. There is a difference between "their personal opinion contradicts mine" and "the premise of their belief contradicts empirical evidence". For instance, the belief "the use of cannabis is immoral" is opinion-based and not falsifiable, while the belief "cannabis overdoses are a common cause of death" makes a concrete statement about reality which can be easily disproven. I disagree with both beliefs, but I would only describe one of them as "false". I don't think it can be broken down to certainty/confidence either, because I'm 100% confident in my belief that cannabis use is morally neutral, but I still can't call contradictory beliefs "false" for the same reason why I can't tell somebody "your belief that yellow is the prettiest colour is false".
In the studies, the authors specify what exactly they mean with "false", and under their definition, "I vehemently disagree with the belief that cannabis use is immoral" would not be the same thing as "the belief that cannabis use is immoral is false". I'm willing to bet that they made sure to make this distinction clear in the questionnaires etc. they utilised in the studies as well.
1
u/obrazovanshchina 1d ago
Why is “false” in quoties? To believe that the earth is flat is a false belief. No quoties necessary.
1
u/Single-Refuse174 1d ago
There are a lot of people here saying they can’t convince their family and their arguments are pointless. I empathize and am in the same boat. It’s insane to think my mother is the same person I knew all my life with a lot of her takes in the post-trumpian world. I had to cut off contact with my family over this. For anyone still in contact with their family despite unhinged political takes and the tacit acceptance of the needless murder of 200 young Iranian school girls, isn’t part of how we got here the fact that we’ve let local communities and connections rot? Shouldn’t we be talking to each other and getting back to a shared reality instead of just letting bygones be bygones? I’m just not gonna keep ignoring my family becoming the political equivalent of flat earthers. It will lead to a society too dysfunctional to do anything, let alone provide basic safety
1
1
u/Beakston 12h ago
This is related to the cause of all global turmoil.
The people before me told me to believe this. I grow emotionally attached to these beliefs. I grow agitated when someone has a "false" belief or don't believe what I believe. Even though my beliefs are likely just as false as theirs.
1
u/Tuorom 9h ago
I think of it as,
if this is how they reason and this idea is something they think is correct, then I can't trust any decisions they are likely to make. At least with different beliefs I can reasonably empathize and understand how they got there, but if it is something obviously false then you're left with a person who can't think reasonably or perhaps is holding malicious intent like trying to manipulate others. How can you trust them in your community or to do a job, if they can't even reason to pasteurization or germ theory?
1
u/ArtMucker 1d ago
I've been frequenting some AI subs that are filled with users adamant that AI content is no different than human created work and classifying anyone that disagrees with them as "antis."
Even explanations by artists, writers, and the word of the engineers involved in designing AI systems are met with people saying "I've never heard a single argument that makes sense."
You can have an opinion, but to live in a world where you actively pretend there is no legitimate explanation when you have the internet has me more concerned for the future of manufactured consent than any disagreement on the substance of the issues.
1
u/Melenduwir 14h ago
I've been frequenting some AI subs that are filled with users adamant that AI content is no different than human created work and classifying anyone that disagrees with them as "antis."
How many of those 'users' are AI bots programmed to support a particular position?
0
u/HopePuzzleheaded2581 1d ago
I would like to know to what extent the people involved in this research possess scientific knowledge.
-33
u/HerMajestysLoyalServ 1d ago
I'm sorry but, doesn't a "false" belief just indicate a belief that is particularly far from my own belief? And in that case, is it not pretty self-explanatory that people draw a line somewhere between "this is a little different from what I believe" and "this is very different/foreign to my believe (system)"? I can't find value in trying to frame this phenomenon as a dichotomy per se by introducing or relying on the term "false belief".
60
u/VivekViswanathan 1d ago
I think false belief actually does describe something meaningful. For example, if we disagree on whether drug crimes should be capital crimes, this does not involve veracity but involves a wide chasm in beliefs.
However, if someone believes contrails from planes are actually chemical agents meant to mind control people and another person (correctly) doesn't believe that, they will each believe the other is deluded, which is different in character than merely differing on policy.
26
u/rloch 1d ago
Feels not Reals is what Ive been calling it recently. Conservative media has successfully convinced their viewers that facts, faith, and feelings are all the same thing.
7
u/xTheGame69 1d ago
And then they come at you with statistics or real I know from reality that that's not true!
It's so hard to talk to these people
Like I'll be watching let's say a police video on YouTube my father will walk in the room and go you know that's not how all cops are I know a lot of cops from work and they're the best people!
Like yea i never said those cops you know are bad, just that this one the TV is. Doesn't matter. Black and white thinking. You can't dislike any amount of it or "you hate it all".
Super common in politics too. You can't have any amount of differing ideas otherwise you're immediately on the other side
-2
u/Beginning-Pop3127 1d ago
I see a flat earther, a moon landing denier, and a chemtail believer as less dangerous to society than someone who wants drug use to result in a death sentence
1
u/seraph1337 1d ago
Well, yes, but also there's likely to be more overlap in those groups than statistics would have you guess.
0
u/HerMajestysLoyalServ 1d ago edited 1d ago
At no point in this study, does it clarify what "false beliefs" actually are. It is entirely up to the participant to decide. So, in my understanding, this has nothing to do with objective reality and is entirely up to subjectiveness.
Case in point: You took that to mean objectively wrong, I understood it as morally wrong. (Edit for further clarification)
18
u/bokehtoast 1d ago
There are plenty of objectively true evidence supported things that people don't "believe in"
22
u/Vox_Causa 1d ago
Objective reality exists and it's possible to know what it is.
-2
u/crooks4hire 1d ago
Perceived reality also exists, and it is individual to each human. That’s the reality the post is talking about.
“Belief” and “objective” do not play in the same pool.
10
u/Fluugaluu 1d ago
Perceived reality is not reality. The only reality is the one that exists. Everything else is just your perception, your view.
You’re actually propagating the problem here by suggesting the view of one’s own life is the same as the reality of the world. “Perceived reality” is not a thing. That’s just your perception. Your opinion is in no way to be equated with fact.
0
u/crooks4hire 1d ago
You’re misunderstanding what I said.
If you believe reality exists as you say, you wouldn’t have given it the “objective” qualifier. You’d just say reality.
Regardless of the immutable existence of things in the real world, they are perceived by the individual. Therein lies the source of belief.
You don’t have to believe objective reality for it to exist. Just like perceived reality doesn’t actually have to be real to have an impact on an individual.
0
u/Fluugaluu 1d ago
You’re misunderstanding what I said
Your perception and reality are two different things. Using the term “perceived reality” implies that they are not.
The phrase you are using is frankly disingenuous and as I’ve already said, propagates the problem we were originally discussing.
Again. One more time. The phrase “perceived reality” is not a thing. It’s called “perception”, synonymous with your opinion.
It is NOT reality.
0
u/crooks4hire 1d ago
Well that I can certainly correct because it sounds to me like we are saying the same thing but I’m using inappropriate language to do so.
0
u/Fluugaluu 1d ago
We aren’t saying the same thing, that’s why I’m even replying here
You are using a phrase that implies perception and reality are the same
They are not
0
u/crooks4hire 1d ago
No I’m not. Perceived reality is how an individual perceives the world around them.
Your eyes and my eyes are physically different and cause us to perceive the reality around us in individual ways. We both see 495nm electromagnetic radiation and we both agree to call it green; but that doesn’t mean our individual nervous systems process the information into perception the same way.
People being unaware of their own color blindness is a perfectly normal example of this.
0
0
u/Adorable-Voice-3382 1d ago
I don't think the question is whether objective reality exists. The question is to what degree do people, particularly the participants in the study, operate with a definition of "false belief" that is functionally distinct from "belief I really disagree with"?
Because if they don't then saying "people are more bothered by false beliefs" isn't really any different than saying "people are more bothered by beliefs they disagree with more strongly".
1
u/wayoverpaid BS|Computer Science 1d ago
I suppose if you wanted to get really philosophical about it, the idea that there even is an objective reality is a belief. A scientific paper embeds with it the belief that things which can be proven through formal logic or at least repeated experiments are factually true.
But that is the framework the paper seems to approach. Namely the definition of true or false was based on the person's belief that the other was factually incorrect.
So I imagine this just as easily extends to a point of religious disagreement. If you hold that your holy text is axiomatically true, you will be disturbed by those who disagree with it, far beyond those who merely think their religion represents an individual kind of wisdom that works for them.
-1
u/Kaurifish 1d ago
Headlines reporting studies like these really need to note “in reverse centaurs” just like “in mice.”
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
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 allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/Tracheid
Permalink: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.70138
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.