Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter

Comment

Comment by Michael Ellner on July 22, 2010 at 12:34pm

Defending Healthy Skepticism - HypnoThoughts.com
http://hypnosis.ning.com/forum/topics/defending-healthy-skepticism?...

Comment by Michael Ellner on July 22, 2010 at 4:01am

Michael,

You just don't get it -- I will deal with this elsewhere.

Michael E.

Michael H. wrote;
However the “politics” of the story are not important me. The value of the story is in the ideas that I hear being discussed:

Comment by Ron Franks on July 22, 2010 at 2:06am

Thanks Michael, for...

expounding on and explaining what you meant by your rhetorical question.

I agree that the value of this discussion rest in the ideas you listed and perhaps because I agree with those ideas I probably would have presented them without use of that article but that's just me. Personally, I did not even read the article so it is of no matter to me. (My comments all go to my experience with the ideas you are raising and it is in that sense that I made my comment that my experience confirms those ideas).

I do understand and appreciate your intention to bring to light the ideas you listed and it is my opinion that doing so could serve those who have an interests in opening themselves up to new insights. In this regard I hope that any polical agenda that might exist in that dialogue does not inhibit viewers' consideration of the ideas you are pointing them to and of coarse comments from them will demonstrate whether or not that occurs anf for whom.

Comment by Michael Haifleigh on July 22, 2010 at 1:16am

Ron,

Raised hair on the back of the neck is a reference to the sign of aggression and or fear, most commonly seen in canines - it is also something that humans experience/exhibit in varying degrees.

So the rhetorical question is meant to continue to look at how we “listen” and what we do with what we “hear”. Broadly speaking (mentioning the two ends of the spectrum), is a principle/idea easier to detect when it’s embedded in a held/cherished belief or one that elicits the experience of anger and/or fear from the various “aspects” of one’s “mind”.

The radio piece referenced above contains ideas that, in this case, are being applied to politics (usually a potentially “explosive” topic). However the “politics” of the story are not important me. The value of the story is in the ideas that I hear being discussed:

- How beliefs are shaped.
- People stating something as a “fact” when it may or may not be.
- The fundamental “need” of humans to experience success in apprehending the world, AKA being “right”.
- Mechanism of developing a belief.
- Implications to the “sense of self” when a belief is challenged.
- The idea that people tend to seek out reinforcement for their held beliefs as opposed to seeking out “accurate facts”.
- Challenges people face in trusting a “fact” presented by someone else.
- The challenges people face in presenting a “fact” to others.
- Maintaining “context” when communicating with one or more people.
- And the challenges of communication in general, with a client and in discussions on hypnothoughts.

Michael

Comment by Ron Franks on July 21, 2010 at 4:30am

I wonder Michael H, what...

your phrase "or one that raises the hair on the back of the neck?" means; as that is vague to me and your expounding on that further could be useful to me in understanding what you are asking in your postscript.

Comment by Michael Haifleigh on July 20, 2010 at 4:34pm

Michael,

You probably do not to need to read further than the next sentence, we are speaking/writing for different “audiences”. I’m writing for hypnosis practitioners in general not exclusively for the “well-trained” or “professionals”.


1) What do I think the worthy ideas to meditate/trance on are?

“Beliefs” are “shaped” by many influences, over time, not necessarily by what I will call a conscious “choice”.

People do sometime speak with “authority” and “influence” but from a lack of knowledge, or from fear and an “agenda” that may or may not be “honest” and “responsible”.

As human beings we do want to believe we are correct. And it can be argued that we have a need, to create accurate/true “beliefs” and act on those “beliefs”. Eventually we come across the need to think about/question why we “believed those things in the first place”. That can be very challenging and invoke this phenomenon described in the piece as “backfire”, a defense mechanism. So what are we defending? The “self”, and the ability of the self to maintain or preserve a sense of capability to successfully function in the world.

The folks in the piece used the term cognitive dissonance and said they think people try, in some cases, to resolve that by buttressing the belief they initially held. That could be said in other words: people will use facts out of context to support their belief. Note, it isn’t necessarily done with conscious intent but the result is the same.

We all hold some beliefs that aren’t “true” at some point or another.

Mr. Nyhan’s comment: …”this isn't just a matter of how you interpret information. It's the information you seek out in the first place.” is well put. We don’t usually have to confront “facts” that challenge our “beliefs” we probably have a “tendency” to look for and hang with people who agree with us. Seek out more information (facts) that lends support to our beliefs. It would seem that “anger” or an “angry” tone (audible or in writing) would indicate that a belief (some form of one’s identity) is at stake in some way.

Another point worth thinking on: people “filter” information - in my words, through their knowledge/belief base. That includes a vast array of experience covering many contexts.

Mr. Nyhan goes on to say …”the conclusion that my co-author and I came to is that this is really a human problem.” In other words, it’s universal to the species.

Ms. Shepard mentions that in her experience …” it's the context that they selectively hear. And it's just phenomenal to me how I can have people call about the same story and, yet have heard it so differently…”

Mr. Nyhan refers to misperceptions, but let’s just use a neutral the term perceptions or perceptual evaluations, as being important. This is a good point - they are part of the basis for beliefs in the first place, and one of the “keys” to changing one’s beliefs (presumably so one has more latitude for self-expression and greater coherence in the “world” they live in).

Much can be read into the Mark Twain quote: “get your facts first and then you can distort them as you please.”

No one’s presentation of a “fact” is beyond question.

A “fact” and/or a “context” is not necessarily an easy thing to work, or stay, with in the course of a conversation.

How a “fact” is presented may be the more significant factor in its ability to “change” someone’s mind regarding some “issue”. That may lead one to wondering why people present the “facts” the way they do in discussions on hypnothoughts…


2) Do I think it is wise to trust NPR more than let's say, Fox News?
I don’t think it’s wise to trust any particular news organization or report, NPR, FOX, etc.

3) Did I notice any anti-democratic implications when listening to this programming?
I did not (doesn’t mean they weren’t there). And if you’re willing to share it/them I’d be interested.


Stay curious my friends,

Michael

PS
Another question that comes to mind: is a principle/idea easier to detect when it’s embedded in a held/cherished belief or one that raises the hair on the back of the neck?

Comment by Ron Franks on July 20, 2010 at 10:49am

I now see that...

that my initial comment in this discussion was much too broad and might easily be misunderstood and I wish to avoid that possibility now by specifying more clearly what I intended to convey. To wit, I meant to say that in my experience, as suggested by the rearch, I have found "that misinformed people rarely change their minds
when presented with the facts -- and often become even more attached to their beliefs...". I would now also add that my experience with "informed" people is the same. In fact that was largely my motivation in turning to professionally practicing hypnosis. In my practice of metaphysics I was encountering countless individuals who had conflicts between between their conscious desires and their unconscious belief systems.

So what my experience really is that MOST individuals (informed, misinformed, whatever), so strongly identify with their current beliefs and viewpoints that any suggestion of any other possible reality/truth/experience can even set them off, with guns ablazing, in defense of their position. Not to say that such displays are not amuzing, entertaining and just flat out a whole bunch of fun because they are. And one needs to be awake (conscious) to see that and how many of us are in that state.

Comment by Michael Ellner on July 20, 2010 at 9:32am

I think the only thing worth meditating on at this point, is what you were thinking when you posted this anti-democratic fluff piece -- Michael

Beyond that, I would expect any and every well-trained hypnosis/NLP practitioner to already know and understand that people filter information that is contrary to their world views. Doh!

A) Why would any one consider this "new" research news worthy? It's old news: "The Receive-Accept-Sample" models of public opinion published in the late 1960s, clearly demonstrated the refusal of people to accept considerations that run against their predispositions/preconceptions. And researchers Ross and Lepper described the "belief perseverance paradigm" when they confirmed that people in their study became more confident in their false beliefs when given factual information in conflict with their beliefs in 1980.

B) The interviewer and researcher failed to mention that there were several earlier studies that reached different conclusions. People did change their opinions when given factual information (Kuklinski et al. 2000 [study 2], Gilens 2001, Bullock 2007 and Howell and West 2009.

In order to make an informed decision about the propaganda in this interview, listeners would have to know about the conflicting results because it means that more research is necessary before drawing conclusions.

C) Without follow up the researchers and we have no idea if the people in their study processed and accepted the new information over time...

D) College students may not a dependable predictor of the behavior of the general voting public.

E) There was one pice of information uncovered by this research that could benefit hypnosis professionals and help them become more effective, but the authors of the study buried it and did not mentioned in the interview because it conflicted with their anti-demoncratic agenda.

Again-- tell us what you think the worthy ideas to meditate/trance on are?

Michael E.

Comment by Michael Haifleigh on July 20, 2010 at 6:59am

Michael,

Is that to say that you did not find any worthy ideas in this piece for hypnosis practitioners to meditate/trance on?


Michael E. said:

Hey Michael H.,

I am curious -

1. What do you think the worthy ideas to meditate/trance on are?

Comment by Michael Ellner on July 19, 2010 at 4:07pm

That's the catch - Kelley-

If you don't agree with this anti-democratic fluff piece posing as "News," you must be resisting factual information...

I was taught that thinking people check "facts" before acting on them...

Thanks for speaking up!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page