The Backfire Effect

[Mister Mister]

I'm sure many of you have heard of this, as Stef has mentioned it several times.  My question is, what would be the evolutionary benefit of a psychological trend like this?

[Will Torbald]

Thinking that every single behavior can be traced to an evolutionary advantage is a bit of a mistake. It is not that all our behaviors exist because they allowed some advantage in an evolutionary arms race against other species or peers, and we can effectively deduce why they exist or the advantage that they give. In reality many psychological behaviors are too specific, stemming from broad biological origins, or they are social-cultural-nurtured without genetic roots. Evolutionary behaviors are determined at the root of the tree in very broad general activities, while the question you're asking is about the end leaves at the top of the branch.

[shirgall]

I'm sure many of you have heard of this, as Stef has mentioned it several times.  My question is, what would be the evolutionary benefit of a psychological trend like this?

 

The backfire effect is in response to testimony not first-hand empirical evidence. Our "bullshit detectors" for want of another term have evolved in response to more and more complicated bullshit being tried upon us. What we learned in our childhood from successful parents and close friends is defended by this process.

[Mister Mister]

The backfire effect is in response to testimony not first-hand empirical evidence. Our "bullshit detectors" for want of another term have evolved in response to more and more complicated bullshit being tried upon us. What we learned in our childhood from successful parents and close friends is defended by this process.

Yes that makes sense.  But the test for that would be when you bring them to sources which they would have agreed are "credible", such as government websites for Statists, but still people double down.

[AccuTron]

The backfire effect is in response to testimony not first-hand empirical evidence. Our "bullshit detectors" for want of another term have evolved in response to more and more complicated bullshit being tried upon us. What we learned in our childhood from successful parents and close friends is defended by this process.

That makes sense, yet a given effect depends upon some pre-existing wiring to show itself.  What is that wiring?  

 

I agree that our civilized world has become an enormous cesspool of lies.  DO NOT TRUST -- AND VERIFY has become my mantra.  (Any graphic artist want to run with that?)  As I ponder the source quote of my semi-pun, I'm reminded of another famous quote, by a possum, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

 

 

However, going back say 20-30,000 years, what was true then?  Was it the same human devilish stuff, just vastly less of it, and only paleo-tech?  Was it more difficult to fabricate lies back then, since most of life was based upon the natural world?  Did con artists evoke spirits to evoke responses in victims?

 

I'm trying to figure out what to paleo-humans would be someone else's data.  Trying to con someone requires a type of data even if fabricated, about food or land or such.  But everyone local at small tribal levels would share the same data.  For a person to be subjected to an argument of new data would defy natural reality as known.  Therefore it might be a ruse (perhaps to distract and steal food).  So it became an advantage to distrust new data if not confirmed first hand.

 

The next obvious point is about how many people refuse to simply confirm at that point.  Maybe instead of confirmed, I should say discovered.   A paleo discovery implies data ownership and thus status.  Somebody else discovers, no status.

[shirgall]

I'm trying to figure out what to paleo-humans would be someone else's data.

 

Oog almost catch fish today, it dis big. Oog gladly pay Grogsday for fishburger today.

[A4E]

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

 

-Mark Twain

 

Perhaps my favorite quote. Most people's knowledge will continue to be in disarray as long as brainwashed people spread their lies to young people.

[dsayers]

When I first learned of the backfire effect, I was surprised. However, I think it logically follows. If somebody tries to change your mind and fail, then you feel as if your conclusion isn't just something your daddy told you, but also something that could survive scrutiny, therefore it must be correct. Standing up to be tested further affirming something's truth value is quite rational.

 

The problem is that the reason why somebody might feel their position was unassailed was for irrational reasons. Some people reject taxation is theft not because it's actually voluntary, but because that would mean they're a victim of induced mass hysteria and everybody around them doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. They NEED for taxation to not be theft to be comfortable around other people, which is fundamental to survival.

 

This is why I waited a good six months chewing on such anti-narrative ideas before I began speaking on them. I didn't want to misrepresent them and effect the opposite of progress. It's also why it's so important to understand WHY somebody believes something they do before trying to dismantle it. Something I fail at myself more often than not For more on this, I think the Bomb in the Brain series does a good job of explaining the science behind this biological process.

[Wuzzums]

People always have an ulterior motive for what seems to be irrational behavior. If they don't get any advantage by holding some false belief they will easily shed it in the face of contradictory evidence.

When an animal is attacked it will raise its defenses so it might be that when faced with hard contradictory evidence, in order to protect the hidden benefits, some people will raise their mental defenses higher.

 

Like Santa Claus for instance. A child will be devastated when they find out he's not real not because they're suffering the loss of a person but because they're suffering the loss of presents. Imagine how easy it would be to convince people to give up faith if your argument is "there is no God BUT you'll still go to heaven after you die".

 

It's the mental version of the sunk cost fallacy. You invested so much in a false belief that turning back now is just ludicrous.

[A4E]

People always have an ulterior motive for what seems to be irrational behavior. If they don't get any advantage by holding some false belief they will easily shed it in the face of contradictory evidence.

While this might be true, I have almost never seen someone easily shedding a belief. I myself had to do extensive research before I let go of some beliefs, even though I did not benefit anything else than perhaps a trust in world history being correct.

 

Between strangers or acquaintances, I'd say shedding of beliefs almost never happen. However among friends, what you describe has much more merit.