Comments on: The Denier’s Dilemna http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:23:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Jonathan Graehl http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-433264 Jonathan Graehl Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:15:47 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-433264 "Dilemna" -> dilemma in title :) “Dilemna” -> dilemma in title :)

]]> By: Floccina http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415922 Floccina Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:13:31 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415922 Is it not better to teach the truth with no mention of the myth. IE flu vacinations are safe and affective at prevening flu. Is it not better to teach the truth with no mention of the myth. IE flu vacinations are safe and affective at prevening flu.

]]> By: anon http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415921 anon Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:17:06 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415921 Thanks, Stuart. That was an interesting anecdote. The funny thing about mythbusters is that people constantly contact the show saying that they made a mistake in the experiment performed and should have tried this or that. So even when people are presented with memorable evidence, some still think they know better and find ways to not change their beliefs. I'm not sure if this falls under the first thing they heard bias, or an overconfidence bias in your ability to decide what your optimal action is in a given situation, such as an incendiary bomb in your living room. I like calling it the "I know best" bias. Thanks, Stuart. That was an interesting anecdote.

The funny thing about mythbusters is that people constantly contact the show saying that they made a mistake in the experiment performed and should have tried this or that. So even when people are presented with memorable evidence, some still think they know better and find ways to not change their beliefs. I’m not sure if this falls under the first thing they heard bias, or an overconfidence bias in your ability to decide what your optimal action is in a given situation, such as an incendiary bomb in your living room. I like calling it the “I know best” bias.

]]> By: Stuart Armstrong http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415920 Stuart Armstrong Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:14:25 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415920 <i>Myth-busters, in other words, have the odds against them.</i> The actual <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html" rel="nofollow">Mythbusters</a> use a particular story format to make their message more memorable. Could this be adapted to information flyers? Presenting the lie and the truth, with some sort of memorable contest between the two? Myth-busters, in other words, have the odds against them.

The actual Mythbusters use a particular story format to make their message more memorable. Could this be adapted to information flyers? Presenting the lie and the truth, with some sort of memorable contest between the two?

]]> By: Stuart Armstrong http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415919 Stuart Armstrong Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:56:09 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415919 <i>As in most things in life, people respond to incentives.</i> You'd think, but... According to the "Guiness book of Flying Blunders" (pretty accurate in most things I've checked) in 1939, at the begging of WW2, the British government sent out a pamphlet to every household emphasising that "IF YOU THROW A BUCKET OF WATER ON BURNING INCENDIARY BOMB, IT WILL EXPLODE AND THROW BURNING FRAGMENTS IN ALL DIRECTIONS". However, by the time of the blitz (1940), most respondents when questioned said that they would deal with an incendiary bomb by, you guessed it, throwing water on it. If the threat of getting blown to tiny pieces isn't enough of an incentive to get people to remember information, I don't know what is... As in most things in life, people respond to incentives.

You’d think, but…

According to the “Guiness book of Flying Blunders” (pretty accurate in most things I’ve checked) in 1939, at the begging of WW2, the British government sent out a pamphlet to every household emphasising that “IF YOU THROW A BUCKET OF WATER ON BURNING INCENDIARY BOMB, IT WILL EXPLODE AND THROW BURNING FRAGMENTS IN ALL DIRECTIONS”. However, by the time of the blitz (1940), most respondents when questioned said that they would deal with an incendiary bomb by, you guessed it, throwing water on it.

If the threat of getting blown to tiny pieces isn’t enough of an incentive to get people to remember information, I don’t know what is…

]]> By: anon http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415918 anon Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:06:00 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415918 It seems that many people are missing the point. I think that a little more thought needs to be given to the population of interest. What are your goals, to which population are you trying to optimally communicate information. I don't believe the CDC's goal is to target only those who have large incentives to learn the information. Instead, it is more likely to be to dispel myths among the entire population. Even if you don't have incentives to learn the information, your beliefs can have an effect on others who are potentially high-risk and need accurate information. However, with that said, it would be frustrating if attempts to dispel myths among the entire population actually reinforced the myths... I agree that a very important missing piece of information is the subjects prior beliefs in the myth. The study should address the change in correct myth/fact categorizations. You would hope that the flyer would have a positive effect, but it is hard to actually determine the effect of the flyer with ONLY the post-test score. Certainly people did not perform as well as we would have liked after reading the flyer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the flyer had a negative effect. "Most troubling was that people ... now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC." This doesn't surprise me. People don't like to take responsibility and admit that their memory is imperfect; blaming the flyer is an easy and obvious scapegoat. "Where did I get my beliefs, it must have been from that CDC flyer I just read 3 days ago.... wasn't it?" Obviously, there is a limit to our memory recall, especially when an effort isn't made to transfer the information to our long-term memory. So, part of the question is what is the best medium and way to communicate information so that it is accurately recalled. It seems that many people are missing the point. I think that a little more thought needs to be given to the population of interest. What are your goals, to which population are you trying to optimally communicate information. I don’t believe the CDC’s goal is to target only those who have large incentives to learn the information. Instead, it is more likely to be to dispel myths among the entire population. Even if you don’t have incentives to learn the information, your beliefs can have an effect on others who are potentially high-risk and need accurate information.

However, with that said, it would be frustrating if attempts to dispel myths among the entire population actually reinforced the myths… I agree that a very important missing piece of information is the subjects prior beliefs in the myth. The study should address the change in correct myth/fact categorizations. You would hope that the flyer would have a positive effect, but it is hard to actually determine the effect of the flyer with ONLY the post-test score. Certainly people did not perform as well as we would have liked after reading the flyer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the flyer had a negative effect.

“Most troubling was that people … now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.”

This doesn’t surprise me. People don’t like to take responsibility and admit that their memory is imperfect; blaming the flyer is an easy and obvious scapegoat. “Where did I get my beliefs, it must have been from that CDC flyer I just read 3 days ago…. wasn’t it?”

Obviously, there is a limit to our memory recall, especially when an effort isn’t made to transfer the information to our long-term memory. So, part of the question is what is the best medium and way to communicate information so that it is accurately recalled.

]]> By: JMG3Y http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415917 JMG3Y Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:03:45 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415917 An important distinction may be the state of mind of the information consumer. Are they actively seeking the information ("need to know") or are they an innocent bystander who happens to be splashed by an information stream? In the first case, if they are seeking to solve or prevent a problem of current concern to them they are more likely a critical consumer and connect the better pieces into a stronger memory context. In the second case, their reconstructive recall may get all tangled up because the pieces weren't linked strongly to a concern. In the first case it is sort of "pulled information", which is a strength of the internet, and in the second case it is sort of "pushed information", typically provided by a mass media entity on their rather than the consumer's schedule. So, a reasonable hypothesis would seem to be that the results from surveying people who sought the information off the CDC website would be better than those from volunteers. Otherwise, pushed info fades into the noise. An important distinction may be the state of mind of the information consumer. Are they actively seeking the information (“need to know”) or are they an innocent bystander who happens to be splashed by an information stream? In the first case, if they are seeking to solve or prevent a problem of current concern to them they are more likely a critical consumer and connect the better pieces into a stronger memory context. In the second case, their reconstructive recall may get all tangled up because the pieces weren’t linked strongly to a concern. In the first case it is sort of “pulled information”, which is a strength of the internet, and in the second case it is sort of “pushed information”, typically provided by a mass media entity on their rather than the consumer’s schedule. So, a reasonable hypothesis would seem to be that the results from surveying people who sought the information off the CDC website would be better than those from volunteers. Otherwise, pushed info fades into the noise.

]]> By: Brian Moore http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415916 Brian Moore Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:59:25 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415916 It seems like a better method would be to engage the social mechanisms of mockery and ostracism first, and provide detailed data-based denials later on in the pamphlet. I would imagine that wanting to avoid social stigma is more motivational than whatever weak motivation is not uh, motivating, people to remember the true phrasing of the myths mentioned. Therefore our pamphlet should read "Only Stupid Morons Believe That X Isn't True" and then dissect opposing theories to X (the myths) in the fine print, for the nit-pickers. I'm not sure how tongue-in-cheek this post is. :) It seems like a better method would be to engage the social mechanisms of mockery and ostracism first, and provide detailed data-based denials later on in the pamphlet. I would imagine that wanting to avoid social stigma is more motivational than whatever weak motivation is not uh, motivating, people to remember the true phrasing of the myths mentioned.

Therefore our pamphlet should read “Only Stupid Morons Believe That X Isn’t True” and then dissect opposing theories to X (the myths) in the fine print, for the nit-pickers.

I’m not sure how tongue-in-cheek this post is. :)

]]> By: jeff gray http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415915 jeff gray Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:52:16 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415915 Hopefully- Christianity is a precise example of your 'straussian' phenomenon: The New Testament is tacked onto the 'optimized myth/narrative' structure of the Hebrew scriptures. Hopefully-
Christianity is a precise example of your ‘straussian’ phenomenon: The New Testament is tacked onto the ‘optimized myth/narrative’ structure of the Hebrew scriptures.

]]> By: Henry V http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-deniers-con.html#comment-415914 Henry V Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:46:38 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/09/the-deniers-dilemna.html#comment-415914 "people's information about whether they're high risk must also come from somewhere, and their process of acquiring that information is also likely to be flawed." --conchis Very good point. There are certain risks/activities/products that we don't know that we should know more about. Therefore our incentive to acquire information may be wrong from the start. Inefficient. There are other sorts of information that I think people are very good at knowing whether they need to acquire; so called "workaday affairs." As a non-pilot, I think it's unimportant for me to know much about the differing risks associated with different types of single engine planes. If I were in a psychological study, I would have little incentive to study any flyer with information about single engine planes. Whereas, I might read with great interest a flyer about "myths" about airbags and young children (my wife won't put them in the front seat, but I let my oldest ride in the front). But, yes, point taken. “people’s information about whether they’re high risk must also come from somewhere, and their process of acquiring that information is also likely to be flawed.” –conchis

Very good point. There are certain risks/activities/products that we don’t know that we should know more about. Therefore our incentive to acquire information may be wrong from the start. Inefficient.

There are other sorts of information that I think people are very good at knowing whether they need to acquire; so called “workaday affairs.”

As a non-pilot, I think it’s unimportant for me to know much about the differing risks associated with different types of single engine planes. If I were in a psychological study, I would have little incentive to study any flyer with information about single engine planes. Whereas, I might read with great interest a flyer about “myths” about airbags and young children (my wife won’t put them in the front seat, but I let my oldest ride in the front).

But, yes, point taken.

]]>