Why Do We Ignore Experts?

[Zauls]

https://theconversation.com/why-do-you-make-stupid-decisions-when-the-experts-tell-you-otherwise-60020

 

This is a really interesting article that explains why people ignore the advice of perceived "experts" when thinking about issues like climate change. What are your thoughts?

[Dad]

When it comes to things like climate change, and we ignore actual scientists who've been studying this for several years, with many degrees, and many sources, and many well presented arguments and facts, it comes down to one thing:

 

we're stupid.

[mido9]

(1970s issues)

 

They can't even decide on whether it's going to get colder or hotter, and 97% of their predictions were far off the mark+ have massive consequences, why would I believe them now?

[IQuitDolphin]

That's because those outlets are controlled by the media. They'll show the "experts" that support what they believe in, rather than be bipartisan and represent both issues, because that is obviously not going to rake in money.

 

And these media outlets will most likely support the consensus that is more appealing to the emotions of the general public,

 

 

-----

 

I think people ARE getting more stupid. We are living in an age where we think and believe and do whatever makes us feel good, rather than do good. It's pretty much the basis behind the introduction of political issues like climate change in elementary schools when we should be learning about what causes "climate change". Higher education is not a valid counterargument because even if higher education is increasing, that does not always imply that everyone who goes to college is capable. Things like affirmative action and student loans have caused students to go to colleges beyond their capabilities.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't think people are getting more stupid, I think the information surrounding us has started to be conveyed in a manner that kills critical thought. 

 

News is package with big headlines, unverifiable statistics and generally shitty standards. It's no longer about telling a story, it's about getting clicks, getting ad coverage. A long article gets less coverage than '5 things about GoT that no one has noticed. Number 3 will surprise you!' because of the endorphin release we get from in part refreshing pages and a few other aspects of the internet. Along with you know no longer being impartial and instead actively pushing given narratives, which are trying to dictate the way we should think and what we should accept. 

 

Because of that, because shock and awe in multiple short packages gets more coverage, and creates a bigger positive sensation within our head, so we get more and more shitty articles that cut down on our ability to think critically about stories presented to us. Additionally, because of the way the internet works we can confirm our own bias's by only reading and reviewing things that match our viewpoints. Again, not having to defends one opinion in a critical fashion reduces our ability to think and argue critically.

 

As for the expert issue; 

 

The thing is, experts can manipulate data in any fashion they want, or are convinced to. Data can be manipulated in print incredibly easily. We get this throw at us all the times 'Studies show X is great for us, or Y is bad for us'. It's a misuse of data and scientific approach that kills public faith in research and actual experts. Because anyone with a Docterate can technically be an expert in print or on the news, he never has to outline his approach, his control group or his results in a critical manner. Hell, you can take the least likely possible conclusion as the only conclusion of your study. There's so much bad science in the media that basically kills any public faith. 

 

Finally, on the specific issue of global warming - There is a f*** tonne of money going into dissuading the idea of global warming or general environmental damage. Money from both governments and industries, and a lot of it going into politicians themselves. Hell, look at this:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/may/30/australias-censorship-of-unesco-climate-report-is-like-a-shakespearean-tragedy

 

The Australian government censored the massive amount of damage to the Great Barrier Reed caused by pollution in the ocean as a result of there actions, all for the sake of the tourist industry. 

 

It's really f***ing hard to take experts seriously when you see governments ignoring them. People would assume 'Oh it's just fear mongering if the Government is ignoring it'. Well the reality is the opposite - Governments are ignoring the experts, and in fact going to great efforts to censor and discredit there findings. All for short term selfish goals. It's pretty damn sad. 

 

So to say that we are more stupid is a discredit. The issue is, we no longer live in a world that encourages critical thought and behaviour, and in fact shuns it. Which is god-damn depressing. 

[VCR_CAT]

 

Overall, it does end up being a combination of media and populations that don't quite have the education to see past misleading information. As it is with climate change, large companies hire people to make cases against as a means to get the population away from having changes made (that will most likely cost said companies money, such as Cap and Trade). These "cases against" end up being based on a lot of false or misleading information with fallacious presentations, but said presenters are also rather charismatic and can really get the people behind them.

 

And this isn't just about climate change either; companies have been doing this for quite some time to legislation from being passed that would cost them money. Did you know the FDA tried to create more (or rather, actual) regulations on supplements so that the products would have to actually do what they're advertised to do, while also being tested to be safe before they can hit store shelves in the early 90's? Mel Gibson did.

 

[Zauls]

(1970s issues)

 

They can't even decide on whether it's going to get colder or hotter, and 97% of their predictions were far off the mark+ have massive consequences, why would I believe them now?

 

The trend is that Earth is getting warmer, that's not disputable:

 

 

You can see that around the 1970s there was a tiny dip, which may have been what misguided scientists focused on at the time. It's also worth pointing out that just because average global temperatures rise, that doesn't mean the average temperature will rise in all areas. For example, it's predicted that the UK will see a fall in average temperature due to the interruption of the gulf stream.

 

Its undeniable that the climate is changing, but how much of it is caused by human activity is debatable, though most evidence does point to human activity having a significant impact on climate change.

 

 

Anyway, that's massively off-topic; this isn't a climate change thread, so I'll come in with my two cents on the actual topic. I basically agree with Aerion on this; that confirmation bias is the problem. People form opinions then try and find evidence to back it up, while paying less attention to evidence that goes against their opinion. People don't want to feel uncomfortable. Everyone is guilty of it, especially in the social media age where we have significant power to pick and choose the source of our information. For example, I wouldn't "like" a pro-fracking group on Facebook because I disagree with fracking, but I will read articles about fracking written by people with a similar opinion to me. This is just human nature enhanced by the format of social media. It's not because I'm stupid.

[mido9]

Anyway, that's massively off-topic; this isn't a climate change thread, so I'll come in with my two cents on the actual topic. I basically agree with Aerion on this; that confirmation bias is the problem. People form opinions then try and find evidence to back it up, while paying less attention to evidence that goes against their opinion. People don't want to feel uncomfortable. Everyone is guilty of it, especially in the social media age where we have significant power to pick and choose the source of our information. For example, I wouldn't "like" a pro-fracking group on Facebook because I disagree with fracking, but I will read articles about fracking written by people with a similar opinion to me. This is just human nature enhanced by the format of social media. It's not because I'm stupid.

Also to add to that, there was a study made by the Dartmouth Group called "When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions" that shows a 'backfire effect' where if you show someone information that contradicts their view they actually are likely to believe those beliefs more, not less:

 

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

 

I personally don't exactly understand why and the study is long, but hey.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm not sure if people are getting dumber or if it's just dumb people are getting louder.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Cause people are greedy and selfish? Who cares if Maimi is under 10 feet of water, I get to make millions off Fracking and Coal

 

 

People ignore what's not convenient to their line of thinking. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Whilst this technically doesn't add much to what I said earlier, I just want to say if you see an article with some kind of survey, or talking about an experiment, think about this:

 

Say you take make a study, asking people 'Do you think that we should strangle puppies?' (Ignore the absurdity of the question for a second). You ask 10 men within an area with a history of strangling puppies, and say 9/10 of them agreed with this poll. And a newspaper decides to run with the story '9/10 Men agree to Strangling Puppies!'. Is this actually representative of the general population? Of course not, it's a tiny sample size that's taken no efforts to be reflective of the population as a whole. 

 

Now say you take a sample of 1000 men across the country instead, and a decent representation of the population at that. And say that your result. has an error of +/- 10 (No idea if that's accurate, I'm used to laboratory science, but I assume a 1% margin of error is typical). Imagine this time, your result came out to be 501/1000 men agreed with strangling puppies. So a newspaper runs the story 'Majority of US men want to strangle puppies!'. Is this a safe conclusion to draw from the study? No, your conclusion lies within the margin of error, and you have no other studies to support your findings. Which means again you've drawn a very simplistic conclusion. 

 

And that's assuming that the study even has data that actually exists. There is a very large issue with science nowadays where people are inventing data to match there hypothesis because there's too much money involved to risk an experiment not giving you what you want. It's a really big issue. 

 

Essentially - Unless an article you are reading gives a reference to the actual study or experiment taken, and a lot of important information that would determine it's credibility (Even just the institution that undertook it helps a lot in determining the scientific merit of your results), I would generally not trust that study or studies. Because data without a massive amount of context is useless. It's just numbers, it doesn't actually show anything till you start manipulating it. It can be interesting, but it's probably useless because the context gives it almost all it's value. 

 

And because people don't understand that, you get people who just get fooled by so much shitty science that they stop believing any of it has any merit, and thus don't believe 'experts' or the evidence of 'experts' whether they should or shouldn't. It's really irritating. 

[Zauls]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

 

This video looking at the risk of brain tumours from mobile phone use exemplifies the issue of statistical misrepresentation very well:

 

 

So maybe a more intelligent person may not be so quick to believe "experts" because they understand they could have vested interests that would cause them to skew their data a certain way? Or maybe we understand better now that statistics can be very misleading? Personally, I've actually grown to believe certain statements less if they're prefixed with "studies show that...", which is kind of sad in a way because my trust in scientists and researchers wouldn't have got to be that low in a better world.