New at Reason

Ron Bailey looks at a new Yale study showing that most Americans believe they're entitled to their own opinions and their own facts.

Comments

Pro Libertate | October 9, 2007, 3:30pm | #

Without reading the article, let's just say that my observation is that, for many people, opinions = facts.

Dan T. | October 9, 2007, 3:37pm | #

The problem with "facts" is that there is no magical place to go and discover what is true and what's not. Isn't that question what most political debates are all about?

Mike Laursen | October 9, 2007, 3:40pm | #

It would be interesting to see a follow-up study of acceptance of facts as a function of time. My experience is that people are stubborn: they'll accept unwelcome facts only after an initial defensive reaction and some time for the facts to soak in. Pushing them only makes it worse.

Mike Laursen | October 9, 2007, 3:47pm | #

Isn't that question what most political debates are all about?

If were talking about political debate in modern-day United States, each of the two sides cherry picks the facts they like or simply makes up facts. There's no attempt to agree on any facts.

x,y | October 9, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Dan T.,

Could you please rephrase your post? I'm not sure of the definition of the following words:

1. The

2. problem

3. with

4. "

5. facts

6. is

7. that

8. there

9. no

10. magical

11. place

12. to

13. go

14. and

15. discover

16. what

17. true

18. '

19. s

20. not

21. .

22. Isn't

23. question

24. most

25. political

26. debates

27. are

28. all

29. about

30. ?

Warren | October 9, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Well we all knew it would come to this sooner or later.
Ron Bailey is shilling for Big Truth.

Anti-Dan | October 9, 2007, 4:01pm | #

The problem is that there is no reliable defintion of truth.

atrevete | October 9, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Evidence of the senses, anyone?

Troy | October 9, 2007, 4:14pm | #

[/sarcasm] All those epistimology and logic classes were a waste of time. Learning the difference between validity and soundness.....what the point? Fuck, I didn't know that validity was a function of the sexuality of the speaker. Sheesh, I guess it really does depend on what the defintion of "is" is. [/sarcasm]

TrickyVic | October 9, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Most people don't know the difference between opinion and fact, nor do they care. Couple that with cognitive dissonance theory and you have people accepting an opinion as fact and then become either unwilling, or unable to change their opinion when they encounter new information. Pretty much describes the 24 hour cable news junkies on the left and right.

Critical thinking should be a mandatory Jr. High School class.

Asharak | October 9, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Well we all knew it would come to this sooner or later.
Ron Bailey is shilling for Big Truth.

LoL.

But honestly, this is the first thing I've read from Bailey that I've completely agreed with.

JasonL | October 9, 2007, 4:35pm | #

"the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact to values that define their cultural identities."

"Disputed" is an important word here. You hold a higher standard of evidence for propositions you aren't inclined to believe. There's no way around that. I'm fine with the standard of 'factdom' being pretty high in all cases.

atrevete | October 9, 2007, 4:39pm | #

So libertarians are individualist and egalitarian, conservatives are hierarchics and individualist, liberals are egalitarian and communitarian. Fascists are heirarchs and communitarians. I think.

JBinMO | October 9, 2007, 4:48pm | #

This is great. We cant win the war on drugs. We can't win the war on poverty. It doesn't look like we will win the war on terror. But a war on facts? We are gonna kick ass!!

M | October 9, 2007, 4:57pm | #

Ron Bailey looks at a new Yale study showing that most Americans believe they're entitled to their own opinions and their own facts.

No he didn't.

VM | October 9, 2007, 4:59pm | #

M:

that's not fact based. That's simple contradiction.

Pro Libertate | October 9, 2007, 5:04pm | #

VM,

No, it isn't.

Steven | October 9, 2007, 5:05pm | #

For facts to be correct, they must not only be scientifically correct, but also politically correct. Truth is what feels correct.

joe | October 9, 2007, 5:10pm | #

Confirmation bias and other types of biases are integral to human nature. It is not possible to free yourself of them entirely.

The best we can do is to make an effort to be aware that each of us does have our own set of biases, and to be aware of what they are so we can understand when there is a good chance that our judgement is being clouded.

DangerMan | October 9, 2007, 5:21pm | #

I will/won't eat my hot dogs with/without hot dog buns, I love/hate mustard, and that's a fact.

You know, DoubleSpeak would clear most of this confusion up.

joe | October 9, 2007, 5:24pm | #

Well, yes and no...

gaijin | October 9, 2007, 5:33pm | #

Mike Laursen asks the most important question I think:
It would be interesting to see a follow-up study of acceptance of facts as a function of time. My experience is that people are stubborn: they'll accept unwelcome facts only after an initial defensive reaction and some time for the facts to soak in. Pushing them only makes it worse.

One study that looked specifically at this was in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Gilbert, Tafarodi and Malone. 'You can't NOT beleive everything you read'.

Basically, it found that people readily beleived that which they read first. Only when given time for introspection, did people challenge their initial impressions.

So, for those who find little time for introspection, the first thing the read about global warming or nuclear power may be the thing they still beleive...and so suffer confirmation bias--again and again--in subsequent exposures.

VM | October 9, 2007, 5:34pm | #

ProGLib - DEFINITELY NOT. That settles it.

joe - that makes me so happy and sad for you.

DangerMan: that's just plain silly.

R C Dean | October 9, 2007, 5:36pm | #

The problem with "facts" is that there is no magical place to go and discover what is true and what's not.

I thought teh intertubes were the magical place where truth is revealed.

tarran | October 9, 2007, 5:54pm | #

A moose and flying squirrel taught me that if it's on television, it must be true

Mike Laursen | October 9, 2007, 5:57pm | #

I thought teh intertubes were the magical place where truth is revealed.

No, that's "reviled". You must have misheard.

Natasha | October 9, 2007, 5:59pm | #

There is opposing opinion to that of Moose and Squirrel.

VM | October 9, 2007, 6:10pm | #

Ach ja.

JBinMO | October 9, 2007, 6:11pm | #

" if it's on television, it must be true"

Actually Garfield the cat said it too. A cat a moose and a squirl can't be wrong.

Pro Libertate | October 9, 2007, 6:15pm | #

Everything got fuzzy when Jack Webb left television.

Aresen | October 9, 2007, 7:43pm | #

Everything got fuzzy when Jack Webb Daniels left television the bottle.

Pro Libertate | October 9, 2007, 7:46pm | #

Aresen,

Jack Daniels may have left that bottle, but there's always another one out there. There's only one Jack Webb.

Aresen | October 9, 2007, 8:26pm | #

There's only one Jack Webb.

How about Jack "Dolly" Webb?

(Send in the clones, There's got to be clones.)

Pro Libertate | October 9, 2007, 8:45pm | #

Just the facts, ma'am.

Transvestite | October 9, 2007, 8:52pm | #

Ma'am, eh? Facts, eh?

Franklin Harris | October 9, 2007, 8:55pm | #

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

At Least Putatively Not Franklin Harris | October 9, 2007, 9:47pm | #

No you don't.

megs | October 10, 2007, 3:17am | #

Fascinating. But I've always thought that no one has an open mind - it's something you have to work at constantly. Also explains why I can't make up my opinion on some subjects - I change it depending on what kind of presentation of facts I got most recently. I'm much too individualist/egalitarian/at/the/same/time!

Sam-hec | October 10, 2007, 6:14am | #

"No you don't."

'That's just your opinion, man.' -T. B. Lebowski, aka The Dude

Rimfax | October 10, 2007, 12:29pm | #

They conclude that policy recommendations have a subconscious effect on acceptance of facts. I would argue that it is very conscious. Policy recommendations can reveal an agenda-driven analysis that begged its own questions.

So libertarians are individualist and egalitarian

I would argue that by the article's definition, libertarians were generally on a midpoint on the hierarchical/egalitarian scale, since hierarchism includes repellent class privilege and egalitarianism includes an element of repellent economic levelling.

What would be interesting would be the effects on opinions where the article drew no conclusions and didn't belie any agenda.