McParadigm wrote:Perceptual bias is a lot more impactful and complicated than that. And confirmation bias is as much a key to understanding politics as anything.
I know, i brought up the conspiracy as counterargument because of how often i'm seeing it in the last years.
I think people in charge of electoral campaigns take those concepts very seriously. When you have candidates talking about complex issues as if they were banally simple, this is exactly what they are going for. It can be really difficult sometimes to discern from someone's actual views and what they're presenting as their views when trying to get elected. It's all aimed at the electorate's reliance on some form of those biases above pragmatism.
McParadigm wrote:I'll bring up an example I used in the cops thread: research has very consistently shown that, when you are cruel towards or move to cause any kind of harm to another person, it affects your opinion of that person more than it affects your perception of yourself. If you, for example, are a cop investigating a suspect, the fact that you are investigating them at all increases your certainty of their guilt. A person asked to describe a friend's personality before and after having to testify against them in court expresses a drastically more negative opinion of that friend, even when they are ultimately found innocent of the crime in question
This makes perfect sense. Put simply it means that people tend to convince themselves when they're causing harm to someone, they deserve it - rather than questioning their behaviour.
McParadigm wrote:And there's more. Neuro-imaging of people who are shown evidence that supports their beliefs, and then shown evidence that contradicts them, reveals that the centers associated with reasoning diminish their activity when shown information conflicting with held beliefs...and that out pleasure centers activate when the evidence supports us. We are literally bombarded with these tiny rewards for only concentrating on the evidence that protects our views, and our brains reduce processing in response to opposing ideas.
I'd be surprised if it was any other way. I think it has to do with what belief confirmation vs. challenge reflects back at self esteem. It makes me think how people can be hurt when their beliefs aren't taken seriously by someone they're close to and who's opinion they respect. It's usually because they are made to feel like idiots rather then the beliefs themselves.
McParadigm wrote:In short, the mind has a very natural tendency to protect itself by defending its own behaviors against change, and this tendency alters the way we interpret people and events.
Racism, sexism, fascism, cruelty, environmental skepticism and government conspiracy panics...these are all fed by a natural, internal feedback loop that constantly reassures us that we wouldn't have believed it if it weren't true.
Obviously, but that's just part of the equation. We still change our minds. I presume it largely depends on how much we value a specific belief's veracity which i guess is proportional to the pleasure or discomfort activity when they are addressed.
