Speaker 1: Dolcomen. Today We're going to talk about science and how
Speaker 1: I'm always right, So just remember that AJ take us away.
Speaker 2: A new study published in the Public Library of Science
Speaker 2: is shedding light on why people often stand firm in
Speaker 2: their beliefs during debates. The reason they think they have
Speaker 2: all the facts even when they don't. The study authors
Speaker 2: are calling this the illusion of information adequacy, which was
Speaker 2: demonstrated in an experiment where participants were split into two groups.
Speaker 2: Two groups were given opposite but incomplete facts about a
Speaker 2: fictional school merger, and the third group was given all
Speaker 2: the facts. So despite the incomplete information, the two groups
Speaker 2: with health the facts believed that they had enough information
Speaker 2: to make an informed decision. However, when presented with the
Speaker 2: full picture, their opinion shifted to match that of the
Speaker 2: group that had all the facts. This is good news,
Speaker 2: so that people are more open to changing their minds
Speaker 2: than expected, and the study actors say that being more
Speaker 2: curious about other people's perspectives can lead to deeper, more
Speaker 2: honest conversations about serious issues. So curiosity may have killed
Speaker 2: the cat, but perhaps it won't be what kills humans.
Speaker 2: This story is from Fortune by any Freemen on October Ninetheen,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Thanks AJ, And I have to say that you're more
Speaker 1: hopeful than I am, and I would expect that. One
Speaker 1: thing for me is I recall that my dad used
Speaker 1: to very sarcastically say, don't confuse me, but the facts
Speaker 1: my mind is made up when he was talking to
Speaker 1: people who just refuse and ignore the obvious. And it
Speaker 1: did come to mind almost the big onset of this article.
Speaker 1: And I was hopeful, like you, Aj, that it showed
Speaker 1: that people were willing to change their mind. But being
Speaker 1: a little more dubious, I feel that in a controlled
Speaker 1: environment it's one thing, but you know, tell somebody who's
Speaker 1: taking survey questions and answers. But in a real world environment,
Speaker 1: how do you think this would play out? With people
Speaker 1: talking about things where they are in their own echo chamber?
Speaker 1: What do you think you think this would be likely
Speaker 1: effective for them too.
Speaker 2: One of the study leaders and flecchers, he noted that
Speaker 2: he thinks that the most common disagreements stem from just
Speaker 2: simple misunderstandings, like you know, your partner doing the lotary wrong,
Speaker 2: or putting the toilet paper under instead of over, and
Speaker 2: he said that being able to employ curiosity during those
Speaker 2: very small conflicts will help you during bigger, more difficult conversations.
Speaker 2: And you know that this would put you in a
Speaker 2: better position to have a real discussion about substantive disagreements,
Speaker 2: which are often political in nature. So I completely agree
Speaker 2: with this. I think that being able to look at
Speaker 2: someone else's perspective before making a harsh remark or you know,
Speaker 2: thinking that they're doing something to be malicious cull solve
Speaker 2: a lot of the issues that cause unnecessary stress and
Speaker 2: anxiety for the average person and within their their close
Speaker 2: relationships and friendships. And it may seem like a small
Speaker 2: skill to master, but it's all about changing the brain
Speaker 2: that our brain reacts to things. And when we begin
Speaker 2: to react more curiously about small issues, you know, wanting
Speaker 2: to learn more, that's when we start to do the
Speaker 2: same with other issues, like even the big ones like
Speaker 2: political disagreements, religious beliefs or stances on social justice, or
Speaker 2: professional settings at work and things that are you know,
Speaker 2: a big deal and not just on a personal level.
Speaker 1: Cara, I was wondered about you do you do you
Speaker 1: think that people because there are some people who just
Speaker 1: dismiss science entirely. They will say that, you know, God
Speaker 1: created the world in six thousand years, or the Earth's flat,
Speaker 1: or you know, the shroud of torrenchs you convince all
Speaker 1: of us to go to church tomorrow. What do you
Speaker 1: think about these kinds of people? Do you think that
Speaker 1: this could be something useful to reaching out the people
Speaker 1: like them too, or how do you think about that?
Speaker 3: I do? I mean, I think it is important to
Speaker 3: note that on some of those points that you made,
Speaker 3: there may be people who are dug in on certain
Speaker 3: issues and they are committed to their positions on those issues,
Speaker 3: not because of any kind of information that they have
Speaker 3: received that supports those things, but because of some other motivation,
Speaker 3: such as they need to continue to believe those things
Speaker 3: in order to prop up worldview that they feel they
Speaker 3: would be endangering their soul if they did not continue
Speaker 3: to believe in, or you know, various other kinds of motivations.
Speaker 3: They don't have to be religious ones. So yes, I
Speaker 3: think there are occasions where perhaps no amount of curiosity
Speaker 3: or kind and compassionate and empathetic communication may change someone's
Speaker 3: mind right there on the spot. But I think that
Speaker 3: the nature of the interaction and does matter, And I
Speaker 3: think this article fits into the larger conversation that we've
Speaker 3: been seeing lately about this concept of the backfire effect,
Speaker 3: which is kind of a sort of popular term that
Speaker 3: we use to describe this proposed effect that may occur,
Speaker 3: which says that when people are presented with information that
Speaker 3: contradicts the belief that they currently hold, they're actually more
Speaker 3: likely to dig their heels in than to change their minds.
Speaker 3: And we kind of took that as the truth for
Speaker 3: some time, but recently we've been seeing more questions being
Speaker 3: raised about whether it may be a little bit more
Speaker 3: complicated than that, and it's not always the case that
Speaker 3: people dig their heels in when they're presented with contradictory information.
Speaker 3: People do sometimes change their mind. I know I have before,
Speaker 3: I know we probably all have. Here we can probably
Speaker 3: think of an example of a time that we changed
Speaker 3: our mind when we were presented with contradictory evidence, And
Speaker 3: in a lot of cases, I think if we consider
Speaker 3: why we changed our mind in the face of that evidence,
Speaker 3: it may have to do with factors such as how
Speaker 3: that information was delivered. Was it coming from someone that
Speaker 3: you genuinely believed was interested in you and your well
Speaker 3: being and did not have nefarious intent, Was it delivered
Speaker 3: in a way that was compassionate and empathetic, or was
Speaker 3: it delivered in a way that was rude and insulting
Speaker 3: and accusatory.
Speaker 1: These may be.
Speaker 3: Factors that are more important when deciding whether someone is
Speaker 3: going to change their mind or not. So I do
Speaker 3: agree with the gist of this article when it's suggesting
Speaker 3: that people exhibit some curiosity before they just jump in
Speaker 3: and start assuming that other people have bad intent or
Speaker 3: that we need to just dig in our heels.
Speaker 2: But it seems that it is also a case of
Speaker 2: the less someone knows, the more confident they'll feel about it,
Speaker 2: And this reminded me of the dune in Cruder effect
Speaker 2: is a concept that that was actually coined by two
Speaker 2: psychologists in the nineties, and they noticed that people with
Speaker 2: limited knowledge or skilled in a specific area who thought
Speaker 2: that they knew enough, they usually overestimated their abilities and
Speaker 2: thinking that they knew more or better than most people
Speaker 2: based on the small amount of information that they knew
Speaker 2: about a specific topic, right because they had, you know,
Speaker 2: read an article or news about a news headline, and
Speaker 2: then suddenly they thought that they knew the whole the
Speaker 2: entire situation. And on the opposite end. You also have
Speaker 2: people who are extremely skilled, for example, like a highly
Speaker 2: trained scientist or engineer, and they may believe that they
Speaker 2: don't know enough about their own field or their topic,
Speaker 2: and that their peers are more knowledgeable, so they underestimate
Speaker 2: their abilities. And the positive side of this is that
Speaker 2: when people doubt themselves or their knowledge, they're more likely
Speaker 2: to seek or their information and answers. But you know,
Speaker 2: they don't in Kruger effect. Explains that why some people
Speaker 2: are more likely to fall for things like conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2: They think that they know enough about science or history,
Speaker 2: but they have no idea. And it seems that we
Speaker 2: are all prone to being on either side of the
Speaker 2: don't in Kruger effect. But I think the solution is
Speaker 2: to be more self aware and to admit when you
Speaker 2: when you know enough or when you don't know enough,
Speaker 2: and to also realize that you're more than likely are
Speaker 2: never going to know everything and that there's always something
Speaker 2: new to learn. That's my personal model, like, I don't
Speaker 2: know shit, don't anymore.
Speaker 1: Well, I was going to ask you about the Dunny
Speaker 1: Kruger effect, but I think you cave a pretty good
Speaker 1: explanation of that, And look, I get it. I know
Speaker 1: that all you other people are wrong sometimes, you know,
Speaker 1: but seriously, I hate being wrong. I will do not deny.
Speaker 1: I absolutely hate it. But I hated enough because it's
Speaker 1: one thing I hate more. I hate staying wrong even more.
Speaker 1: And so I think that with that in mind, you
Speaker 1: mentioned all of us changing our minds. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: as a former Believer who work for a former clansman
Speaker 1: who is a delegate to a party that shall not
Speaker 1: be named a long time ago, decades ago. Yeah, I've
Speaker 1: changed a few of my views on a few things.
Speaker 1: So I think it serves as a good reminder for
Speaker 1: all of us to be reminded that we've been wrong
Speaker 1: about things too. It's just sometimes it seems so hard
Speaker 1: thinking that the other people because once again, that's our
Speaker 1: otherness mentality that we like to portray, and it's good
Speaker 1: to be reminded that we fit in that category too,
Speaker 1: to make sure that we don't fall prey, because sometimes
Speaker 1: we are, but as being aware of it and having
Speaker 1: that self awareness, it's so important. So, Cara, I was
Speaker 1: going to switch over to you, how did you think?
Speaker 1: What do you think about I want to kind of
Speaker 1: carry off on the dunning Kruger effect. Do you think
Speaker 1: that that's something you see on a regular basis? Is
Speaker 1: that something that you see and do you have a
Speaker 1: particular methodology on dealing with it? Oh?
Speaker 3: Sure, Yeah, I do see that quite often, you know,
Speaker 3: and we sometimes say I even catch myself doing it
Speaker 3: sometimes and saying, oh, you know, I probably know just
Speaker 3: enough about this to be dangerous. And that's kind of
Speaker 3: what that is. And you know, to the point that
Speaker 3: was made earlier, Yeah, we never have all the facts.
Speaker 3: Our information is always incomplete, and we do have to
Speaker 3: still go about our lives and make decisions constantly throughout
Speaker 3: the day, many many times a day in the face
Speaker 3: of incomplete and inadequate information. So yeah, we probably are
Speaker 3: kind of primed to do that. If we couldn't ever
Speaker 3: make a decision or come to a conclusion in the
Speaker 3: absence of all of the facts, we'd all be paralyzed
Speaker 3: with indecision for probably all of our lives. So, you know,
Speaker 3: I think it's okay to give people a little bit
Speaker 3: of a past sometimes. But it's exactly that attitude that
Speaker 3: was mentioned earlier, of assuming not just that you know
Speaker 3: enough to have an opinion or come to a conclusion,
Speaker 3: but assuming that you are in possession of all of
Speaker 3: the facts and there's nothing more to be learned. That's
Speaker 3: when you know, Okay, that's that's not accurate. That's never
Speaker 3: going to be accurate. You're never in possession of all
Speaker 3: of the facts. It always pays to find out more.
Speaker 3: It may be challenging. It may lead to you having
Speaker 3: to reconsider a belief that you kind of didn't want
Speaker 3: to have to reconsider, and it may lead to you know,
Speaker 3: for some people, dealing with nuance or gray areas is
Speaker 3: unsettling and difficult, and it may lead you to a
Speaker 3: place where you realize, hmm, I don't know enough information
Speaker 3: about this topic to actually have a solid opinion. It
Speaker 3: could be this on the one hand, it could be
Speaker 3: that on the other hand, and we don't really have
Speaker 3: a good way to make a decision sometimes, and I
Speaker 3: think that can be very uncomfortable for people, But sometimes
Speaker 3: that's just the reality, and it helps to just be
Speaker 3: a little bit more comfortable with nuance if you can,
Speaker 3: and be ready to acknowledge that we don't have to
Speaker 3: have all of the answers all the time. Like we say,
Speaker 3: quite often, it's perfectly okay to say I don't know,
Speaker 3: and I think we should do that more often. I
Speaker 3: know I should do that more often, and I'm the
Speaker 3: person who goes around saying that all the time. I
Speaker 3: should put that into practice more so, Yeah, I think
Speaker 3: that is basically my opinion on that I don't know
Speaker 3: for sure.
Speaker 1: I have to say that I don't know as probably
Speaker 1: consistently the most honest answer you'll get from somebody, because
Speaker 1: rarely does anyone say I don't know when they really
Speaker 1: think they know the answer, unless they think it's a trap.
Speaker 1: So excluding that, now one thing, AJ, I know this
Speaker 1: articles about science, but you know me, so eventually it's
Speaker 1: going to also end up about politics. Do you think
Speaker 1: that there's an actual move to make science more dismissed?
Speaker 1: Is that something that we see in leadership in some places,
Speaker 1: wanting science to be something that people don't learn much
Speaker 1: of so that they can be taken advantage of and
Speaker 1: being fed an easy story.
Speaker 2: You can absolutely see this both in politics and in religion.
Speaker 2: I have to say that equally because we saw it
Speaker 2: in you know, twenty sixteen. I was actually involved in
Speaker 2: the March for Science, which was because of all the
Speaker 2: anti science moves that were being made by unnamed politicians
Speaker 2: at the time, and so we wanted to help educate
Speaker 2: people on topics, you know, medical science and the issues
Speaker 2: of the environment. And when it comes to the other
Speaker 2: side to religion, then you have all of these incredibly
Speaker 2: inaccurate things being talked to children from from the Bible.
Speaker 2: So they learn all these different facts that are equally
Speaker 2: scientific and anti scientific, and they value them at the
Speaker 2: same level, like I don't know, like you need water
Speaker 2: to survive and then Jesus welcome water. Right, So kids
Speaker 2: grow up learning that type of science and thinking, oh,
Speaker 2: it's all true. And so I think that yeah, ultimately
Speaker 2: we need we need to do better at teaching everybody,
Speaker 2: uh how how to understand science.
Speaker 1: I think that that's part of what we see when
Speaker 1: we see this move to get the Bible in the classrooms,
Speaker 1: and they say every classroom they want to mix up
Speaker 1: that science belief with you know, Jesus, magic water and
Speaker 1: the wine or whatever else. And then it creates a
Speaker 1: god ability factor that I do think is dangerous and
Speaker 1: goes definitely to the heart of making it easy for
Speaker 1: people to believe they know all the facts. A CARO,
Speaker 1: I just wonder, is there anything you wanted to close
Speaker 1: out with.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't think so because I don't want
Speaker 3: to have the final word on this matter, because I
Speaker 3: want to stay open and stay curious, and I don't
Speaker 3: think I have all the facts yet. But I was
Speaker 3: enjoying the conversation and I hope that we get to
Speaker 3: have more.
Speaker 1: Well that's good because I don't really want you to
Speaker 1: have it anyway, So a j you.
Speaker 2: And I will have the last word. I would say
Speaker 2: that speaking of curiosity, yeah, curiosity, epistemology, critical thinkingskepticism, these
Speaker 2: are all factors and skills that we need to learn
Speaker 2: and that can lead us to having more honest and
Speaker 2: unbiased conversations that results in less misunderstandings disagreements, and that
Speaker 2: we can help to further our society.
Speaker 1: I have to say that I'm hopeful that Lucifer here
Speaker 1: gave us good advice. But you know, after all, should
Speaker 1: we take Lucifer's word? I think so. I don't know
Speaker 1: about you, but what I do know is that you
Speaker 1: are absolutely