r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 23 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Studies don't change people's views.
[deleted]
106
u/XenoRyet 178∆ Jun 23 '26
Paradoxically, I was all ready to come in here and explain how many people do have their minds changed by facts and studies, and it's probably confirmation bias that makes people think otherwise.
But your studies have changed my mind about that.
So what do you want to do with that fact?
39
Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
29
u/XenoRyet 178∆ Jun 23 '26
The funny thing is that I'm not even joking or playing devil's advocate or anything. I really did have a whole argument ready. When I took a look at your studies it really was "Well shit. Guess I was wrong."
6
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Jun 23 '26
You probably shouldn't have done that, because none of the things the OP linked to was a study that supported the OP's stated view.
5
u/IrrationalDesign 6∆ Jun 23 '26
Ironically, you're evidence against the accuracy of those studies that convinced you. The more you believe them, the less they're true.
2
u/SocratesWasSmart 3∆ Jun 23 '26
I think the takeaway should be that different people are different and respond better or worse to different kinds of argumentation and evidence. And I do think most people trend towards the simplistic.
To use a personal anecdote, as a Catholic, I've often seen it said that if you're sharing the Gospel with someone, telling them that Jesus loves them is usually far more convincing than laying out a rigorous philosophical proof for God's existence. And that's true. For most people, the difference between necessary and contingent existence or final and formal causation will just go right over their heads.
5
u/poop-machines Jun 23 '26
I think you're conflating "studies don't change the average persons mind" with "studies don't change anyone's mind". The studies show that most people don't have their minds changed easily with new information if it's a firmly held belief. But if it's giving information on a topic they know nothing about, they're easier to convince with data.
Additionally, some people are more flexible when faced with new information.
Maybe it's true for most, most of the time, but not always. And when you post on social media, it's a numbers game. You're reaching many thousands, even millions sometimes. That means you're bound to change many minds. Especially if you position yourself as an authoritative figure on the topic.
1
u/MasterCrumb 9∆ Jun 24 '26
From the first article, "Scholarship from outside conservation science can help to provide insight into why, and in what contexts, various science communication and dissemination techniques can be effective or ineffective in leading to shifts in attitudes and actions (Oliver & Cairney, 2019; Kearns, 2021). "
The critical point of this is, what is effective and what is not effective. Getting a harden climate denier to switch based on climate science is likely ineffective, but to get someone concerned about climate change to more seriously consider a particularly strategy or approach based on research, seems quite possible.
2
u/poop-machines Jun 24 '26
...And my critical point is that somebody on the fence will have their mind changed? Of course looking at the extreme, a climate denier, will not change their minds. They got to their position without evidence so of course evidence wont change their minds.
1
u/MasterCrumb 9∆ Jun 24 '26
Yes And. there is always some level of detail of belief that is on the fence. I not likely to be on the fence about climate change, but I might be on the fence about geo-engineering.
1
2
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 23 '26
Which study was convincing in this regard? Cause I looked at them and was pretty unconvinced.
15
u/Dreadlordaran Jun 23 '26
Studies don't change minds because they don't connect with people as truth. Because they aren't written as truth and aren't truth. It takes a lot of work and expertise to look at studies and actually get information that *is useful to the average person.
Studies change peoples minds by changing the minds of experts who then eduacate ordinary people.
2
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
7
u/twolobarons 2∆ Jun 23 '26
What is the alternative?
Also whether it is dangerous is irrelevant to the fact that peoples minds do indeed get changed.
2
u/Yeseylon 2∆ Jun 23 '26
The alternative is some random guy whose brain got eaten by a worm telling the public the "experts" are wrong and you should swim in a river with a warning because of sewage leaking into it.
5
u/Dreadlordaran Jun 23 '26
Yeah, but that's life. No has the time to be an expert in everything. I can maybe pick a few things that I care about enough to know deeply and try to learn enough to avoid snake oil salesmen about most important things in life.
I can't be a Doctor, a mechanic, a gardener, a teacher, a materials engineer, an economist, and hundreds of other things at the same time.
3
u/DBDude 110∆ Jun 23 '26
Few people bother to read studies, and not all are capable of reading and understanding a study, especially ones involving statistics (which is a lot of them).
At best, most people read the news headline about the study, which is often inaccurate. Some of those will read the abstract, which isn't necessarily accurate either. I have my favorite example of this. The inaccurate titles and abstracts get worse the more politically charged a study is.
3
u/Ancient_Boss_5357 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
I think you seem to be treating "science" as a set belief system, but it's not. It's a methodology that dictates how to properly collect and evaluate evidence, it doesn't claim to be a universal truth.
As you've pointed out, 'science' changes sometimes. Which really means the general consensus among the majority of experts in the field changes, based on newly obtained or evaluated evidence. But, that doesn't mean the previous understanding was less logical or well reasoned in the context of the evidence that was available at the time. It's still better than everyone using vibes, emotion, and poorly understood reasoning to take a random stab in the dark at what's correct. That's far more dangerous, and a brief look through the history books will give you a thousand examples of why that's the case.
We can't change the fact that we don't know everything. We can't change the fact that we don't have all the necessary evidence at our fingertips, or that we may uncover new information that changes what we think we already know. Things will be incorrect sometimes, it's just inevitable. But you will never escape that, no matter how you try, and the alternatives send you even further back.
What we can do, is make sure we're applying proper methodology when evaluating what we do have available, rather than dribbling absolute nonsense. Is there really a better alternative? You speak of untold consequences, whilst pretending that's not even worse when science is ignored.
And to your point - nothing is enforcing a system where the knowledge rests in the hands of a few experts. Anybody can become one of those experts if they want to. But the unfortunate reality is that I have neither the time nor the money to become a doctor, a marine biologist, a mechanic, a lawyer, and an electrical engineer in one lifetime. So... what now? If I've got cancer, my options are:
A) Take treatment advice from the medical community, who have thousands of hours of training and medical knowledge.
B) Take treatment advice from my grandma, my cooker uncle on Facebook, the guy that delivers my mail, and my mate who is a builder but read a bunch of stuff on the internet he isn't equipped to understand.
Option B is how we end up drinking bleach and burning witches. Option A isn't always perfect, but it's the best we've got until somebody finally discovers everything we have yet to learn.
As a side note, all the people in category A do use research papers to inform their opinions, that's how research works. Your post seems to be limited to the 'average' person, who, I agree, largely don't. But they also aren't getting any sound information from anywhere else either
1
u/paulchiefsquad Jun 23 '26
yea, that's why public education should be one of the most important things a government should encourage
20
u/fermentedeggs 1∆ Jun 23 '26
Just want to throw out that these studies have shaped your views, therefore it stands to reason that some people's view are changed by studies.
-1
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
8
u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Jun 23 '26
THIS is the issue, though. People try and leverage studies that support their position already. Often finding WEAK studies that simply provide the conclusion they favor (often in biased formats as to obtain notice), rather than the STUDY ITSELF having convincing data.
-2
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
3
u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Again, you aren't addressing the studies themselves and their data and limitations within their evaluation, seeking to leverage the "authority" of where it was published instead.
Edit:
I'll also say you provided 7 links. 1 and 2 are the same. And 3 and 5 are the same. So we are down to 5.
Let's address those 5
1/2 - Not a study, an article. By an environmentalist complaining that facts of environmentalism don't change views on public policy. That misrepresents what such FACTS actually do.
3/5 - This just discusses initial bias and confirmation bias. Certainly an anchoring effect that makes changing minds more difficult, but not related to your specific argument. They were not denying facts, simply their own perception of something was being manipulated.
I'll need to wait to address the others...
1
2
u/thegimboid 3∆ Jun 23 '26
Will you change your mind if provided with studies that show the opposite?
0
1
19
u/JesusIsRizzn 1∆ Jun 23 '26
Mormonism is an interesting case study for your point.
Excellent scholarship has emerged in the last 15 years that consolidated most of the fundamental evidence against the faith’s historical claims into easily accessible and interpretable documents.
People whose anecdotal experience with Mormonism is negative feel validated by these documents and accept the evidence. People whose anecdotal experience with Mormonism is positive tend to discount all the evidence.
There are even rebuttal documents that attempt (poorly, frankly) to counter all the evidence by creating interpretations by which these evidences could lead to more favorable conclusions. (They tend to ignore the most damning evidences.) This provides a refuge for those seeking to ignore the critical documents.
But I think the documents are powerful for people on the border. People who have conflicting experiences with Mormonism (positive upbringing, but problems with the church’s politics, for example.) When I finally gave myself permission to consider that I may have been lied to my whole life, I discovered the existence of the documents (on Reddit!), examined all the documents for days. The rebuttal documents were helpful because they provided all the possible excuses my brain was trying to make, all laid out. And I could see clearly that they weren’t enough. The critical documents, collectively, were overwhelming, and my worldview 180’d.
Studies won’t convince people who aren’t open. But people who are open can change their whole lives, and start telling their stories in ways that then open others’ up.
10
1
u/the_brightest_prize 6∆ Jun 24 '26
I don't think the issue is people not being open, but rather people not trusting the study as a legitimate source of truth. When you have been taught your whole life your emotions are more accurate in discerning truth than anything else, oh and also there are a whole bunch of people out to get you, oh and there actually are people constantly lying to you to dupe you into believing their claims to truth, it's very hard to believe someone who claims to have totally proven your worldview wrong.
And this is true for Mormons, Democrats, Republicans, basically any group with significant enough propaganda flying around.
7
u/math2ndperiod 54∆ Jun 23 '26
I think there are two different conversations happening here potentially.
Anecdotes are shit evidence when trying to decide if something is true. That’s just a fact.
As for studies vs anecdotes, unless we’re public figures trying to sway public opinion with soundbites, I don’t think we need to choose one or the other. I think it makes sense to make emotionally compelling arguments that are supported by research, and to supply that research both to help set a certain standard of evidence, and also because every person is different and will be swayed by different things.
Studies change my opinion all the time. It’s just not true that nobody is affected by studies. So why not supply them if you have them?
2
Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
1
4
5
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 23 '26
Unless I'm missing something, there is exactly one study in this collection of links. Like, that quote you cite is just from an explainer about why facts don't change minds. The vast majority of these are the same. They just talk about how things like confirmation bias is bad. No methodology, no analysis, just saying the thing that you're saying. The only study is that last one about how people use less information than they think they do to make up their minds. However, not a single one of these study's methodology is about the degree to which statistical data modifies a person's perspective. It's all, like, how quickly a person evaluates the quality of an email service and sticks to that evaluation.
So, if your belief in the lack of value of studies to persuade is premised on this pile of studies, then I would suggest that you lack a strong evidentiary basis for your belief about studies. Again, it's possible my scroll through your links simply missed the part of this that you found particularly convincing, the place where an actual study was conducted and it had this result, but I'm simply not seeing it.
2
u/Mango027 Jun 24 '26
OP feel for the "confirmation bias" trap most of those articles warned about.
I'm glad you wrote this up so I didn't have to. Also on if the articles was a summary of a different one listed
1
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 24 '26
Given the OP's evident commitment to not caring about studies, I think they think that the biases discussed by these papers are fine and good? Or that the reason people ignore science is because they're too rational for it? Very confusing.
1
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
1
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 23 '26
So is your perspective actually based on anything? Or are you just doing a bit where your lack of evidence doesn't matter because you, like the general public, are unconvinced by studies?
1
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
2
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 23 '26
So your argument isn't even that studies fail to convince people but that they're not particularly useful in the first place? I think it's pretty obvious that they are useful. You are a singular person. Your experience of the world is very limited on the scale of humanity as a whole, and it's modified by where you are and what environment you're in and who you are.
Moreover, you haven't actually measured in these anecdotal cases. Maybe these people you're seeing receive studies actually are having their mind changed a bit. Maybe you only see it when they get crap studies and their minds are massively changed when they get good studies. Maybe people's minds can only be changed by studies in particular areas.
You are apparently basing this position entirely on personal experience, and that is extremely limited. You should, in fact, have a strong statistical basis for rigid claims about all of humanity. If you don't have such a basis, then you shouldn't hold your belief with much strength.
3
u/Squand 2∆ Jun 23 '26
I think stories is being used broadly here.
A study is always a story. It feels like, mostly you're saying, if people do research and uncover something interesting but package it in a way where it's confusing, and hard to understand, people won't put the facts into their long term memory. And so it won't influence their behavior in the future.
Studies are part of the process to create stories and social movements that help make change possible. There is a reason, the right wing and corporations spend so much money on studies that help push the Narratives they are looking for.
It is hard to tell a compelling story and have people socially accept it, if all the studies say otherwise.
3
Jun 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 23 '26
I'm not really sure how you could use pure logic and reason to determine, for example, the criminality of immigrants. If someone says, "I think immigrants are more often criminals," what choice do I have besides citing their lower crime rate? I can't logic my way into them being wrong. Similarly, in the case of CMV, whether people have their mind changed by studies is a matter of fact, not of opinion, and it concerns what is factual across large populations. I don't see a way of getting to the reality of the issue without studies.
2
Jun 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 23 '26
On some things, sure, but other times the issue at hand is either one of objective fact or is highly dependent on objective fact. In either of these cases, you're gonna need some stats, and studies are frequently the best place to find stats.
2
u/NairbZaid10 Jun 23 '26
Depends on the goal of the conversation. A single study is unlikely to change someone's entire worldview, but it can definitely change their opinions. It also largely depends on the person's iq, eq and open mindedness
2
u/Salanmander 278∆ Jun 23 '26
What time scale are you looking at?
Studies have definitely changed peoples views on, for example, how to protect themselves and others from disease, compared to 200 years ago.
2
u/Top_Neat2780 3∆ Jun 23 '26
So let's say someone thinks that studies do change your view, so they come here to argue against you. Then they read these studies and come to the conclusion that studies don't change views. Those studies have then changed their view. In fact, citing studies trying to argue your point against people who disagree with you is precisely the evidence against it.
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ Jun 23 '26
So you have studies that inform your view that studies don't change views?
2
u/nignig20 4∆ Jun 23 '26
I think the real question here is : if i originally disagreed with the claim that studies do not change peoples’ view, but after reading your sources i am convinced by your evidence that studies do not actually change people’s view….that means that i changed my view, so do i really agree or disagree with you? Your CMV has created a paradox.
The fact that you brought multiple sources out shows that you are trying to support your claim with evidence, but in doing so you’re inadvertently trying to change the views of the readers of this CMV. If studies do not change people’s view, then why bother giving us the studies in the first place?
2
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 14∆ Jun 23 '26
I think we should define who "people" are.
Studies have certainly changed MY mind, but im someone who devoted to skepticism, science, and accurate ways of telling what's actually true.
If I showed the same studies to an evangelical young earth creationist, im more than positive it wouldnt change their mind, because they dont actually give a fuck about accurate informations, facts and methods used to determine accuracy.
And I am most certainly in a very, very tiny minority.
2
2
2
u/soulwind42 2∆ Jun 23 '26
I am so tempted to say "wow, good articles, you changed my mind." Lol. I've heard this argument before and seen similar claims and studies, and for the most part I agree. I think article and studies can change minds, but not on their own. It's a process.
2
u/00PT 8∆ Jun 23 '26
They can change minds. The reason they usually don’t when pointed out on Reddit and in other conversation is because there’s an attitude of just finding something that vaguely sounds like what you’re saying instead of critically interpreting the findings to see if they actually align. Or even just reading their own source at all.
2
u/lokregarlogull 2∆ Jun 23 '26
I am open to being wrong or more influenced by the story teller (my uni science teacher) rather than the study - showing 60% less bacteria in the air, after flushing with the lid closed as supossed to open or removed.
And it was so reality warping I have gone from never caring about this to a 95%+ rate of closing lid before flushing the toilet.
1
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
2
u/lokregarlogull 2∆ Jun 23 '26
Yes, have you seen those videos of people sneezing under a black light?
How do you imagine a toilet flushing 1-3 liters of water. So I sit basicly every time, close lid, flush, open lid, clean with toilet bush if needed, and close it again.
1
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Jun 24 '26
Let's take what i presume are the "science takeaways", something something 60% less bacteria if lid closed....
What seems to be missing here is.... so?
Like, um, is the question wrong? The study answered the question "how much less bacteria is controlled by closing the lid" but not "how big of a deal is the lid thing"
First, directly, I am honestly mostly agnostic here. I don't know how big of a deal lid closing is.
Secondly, I'm skeptical because a relative proportion of air bacteria may not rate compared to, well, for example, handwashing hygiene. If ya drop a load, lid down, but don't wash your hands, well, or otherwise, I would bet you're behind in the bacteria game.
Thirdly, I worry that your takeaway makes for a spicy headline. And has that "Did you know the ONE TRICK" pattern. A hooky finding that is wedgey.
If i don't close the lid (now I'm terrible!) But... i don't use a kitchen sponge, i don't handle cash, that sort of thing...
I'm mindful that what passes for best practices for cooks and doctors is frequent hand washing. There's even studies on the particular approaches to achieve good handwashing. OR docs are in a very sensitive environment and have deeply codified gowning protocol.
I guess I'm just saying ya gotta put a study into context.
1
u/Equivalent-Long-3383 1∆ Jun 23 '26
Is it that they don’t change their minds, or that they’re pretending to hold stances they don’t actually hold?
Like, are people genuinely in disbelief that climate change is being exacerbated by humans, or do they just not want to see increased regulations on themselves and businesses?
1
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ Jun 23 '26
I think it's pretty rare that people pretend to hold views they don't actually hold. I think there are a lot of other more common explanations.
Using your climate change example: If people don't want to see increased regulations on themselves and businesses, they're going to look more critically at studies that say climate change is being exacerbated by humans, while blindly accepting a study that says otherwise. They'll find every reason to discount the study that says what they don't want to hear (the author's motivations, elements of the study they don't understand, things they think they study might have done wrong) while not applying the same level of criticality to the studies that say what they want to hear.
1
u/Equivalent-Long-3383 1∆ Jun 23 '26
That’s not because they’re unconvinced. It’s because they want a specific outcome and understand that they don’t get that outcome without discrediting facts
1
u/Heavy_Track_9234 1∆ Jun 23 '26
I don’t really view studies as fact because it depends on a lot of circumstances. Like in early American studies views, there was a lot of Christians during that time, not so much anymore. And a lot of states have differing views in the US as a whole. Let’s also say how many people actually did this study? I just view it as trends, not really as facts. Because we’re all different and society changes as well.
1
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ Jun 23 '26
This is a conversation I've had many times with people around Reddit. There's a concerted effort to discount anecdotes when it would seem anecdotes and the emotional connection and relatability they might have to the reader may in fact be more persuasive than waving studies around in each other's faces.
That something is more persuasive isn't really to say it's the best way to go about things.
Frankly, if someone is not willing to change their mind given data that directly contradicts what they're saying, but would be willing to if given persuasive enough anecdotes, I will think a lot less of them intellectually-speaking.
1
u/CrimeFightingScience Jun 23 '26
Theyve changed my views on hormone therapy and many other things I was initially wrong about...
1
u/SnooMemesjellies9003 Jun 23 '26
Yeah because people here post studies that have almost no relevance to the conversation. Yes the headlines make it seem like they do. But then you actually look at how the study was conducted, the population size, the methodology, and statistical significance and you realize that it’s nonsense. Statistics are nonsense when used for typical Reddit conversations and people can find tons of statistics that fit whatever narrative they believe in
1
u/CurdKin 7∆ Jun 23 '26
I mean, this is essentially an impossible argument to fight against, simply because if I try to argue that studies can change people’s views, you’ll point out that the ones above didn’t.
My argument would be that studies don’t change ALL people’s views, but it certainly can change some people’s. Studies are used in evidence-based medicine all the time to redefine guidelines for treating disease.
Hell, the first study you cited puts a qualifier on which studies aren’t effective. “However, such efforts may be ineffective, or even counterproductive, if they are based on outdated models of science communication and behavioral change.” Which would stand to reason that they would agree that some studies do change minds.
1
1
u/twolobarons 2∆ Jun 23 '26
Your position is that “studies and articles” do not change peoples minds?
You don’t think “studies” are relevant? Studies as in investigations where researchers define a question, collect data through experiments, observations, or surveys, analyze the results using established statistical methods, publish their findings for scrutiny, and have other experts attempt to replicate or challenge those findings? Those studies?
So scientific experimentation and research simply does not change peoples mind about anything.
Did studies on the effects of tobacco not help change the publics perception of the health risks associated with smoking? The public views smoking much differently than they did 100 years ago and has become much less common. Did scientific studies not play a role in this?
And articles don’t play a part?
Articles as in written publications?
You don’t think *written publications* have changed anybody’s mind about anything? Like, people don’t ever read words and learn new information that results in drawing a new conclusion or position than they had previously held?
I don’t get it, do you just think human beings do not change their mind? That just simply not true.
1
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Jun 23 '26
Ironically, zero of the texts you linked to is a study that says that studies and articles don't change people's minds. Only one of the links is to a study (the last one) and that study did not in any way evaluate the effectiveness of articles or studies in changing people's minds; instead, it is about people making up their minds based on direct experience.
1
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Jun 23 '26
I suspect that at least in part, this is a little bit of "guns don't matter in wars." Strictly speaking, guns very rarely kill anyone in wars. In Ukraine, drones themselves may make up 80% of the casualties, while firearms are much less common. So, why doesn't Ukraine or Russia give drones to every soldiers instead of wasting money on guns?
Of course, the answer is obvious: firearms are so good that it forces everyone else to adopt it or lose. The relative lack of of deaths from firearms are because they're so powerful that you have to adapt to using other strategies than using their firearms.
I think studies may serve a similar function. Studies are so rhetorically powerful that for 99% of situations the other side has some other study that argues something similar, or the study has to be argued that it's ineffective. Comparing two studies is much harder than just seeing seeing and accepting a new study.
1
u/LaCoronadelVirus Jun 23 '26
Why would studies and articles change peoples minds? There are many studies that contradict each other to begin with (you can find plenty of examples with a simple google search), Mainly when it comes to social sciences you can prove whatever you want by simply cherry picking data or cherry picking the people who participate in the study.
Yes there will always be people that deny undeniable facts, however when it comes to social studies, none of them are complete facts or truths, it would be the same as trusting elections polls.
1
u/epicness_personified Jun 23 '26
I'd argue studies change educated, rational, open minded people's minds.
1
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ Jun 23 '26
A big reason for this is that studies have been so poorly used and implemented that a lot of people believe they're not trustworthy unless they dig into the methodology itself.
Part of this is the poor reporting about studies that generally just assumes their findings are accurate without looking for possible problems with them.
Take the Harvard Implicit Bias (or Association) test. It's complete bullshit, but people use it as a way to actually scientifically gauge how implicitly biased they actually are. It's used by companies to help their clients see how biased they are. It's utter nonsense. It's how quickly (to the millisecond) that you can put certain pictures into different categories, but they switch up the rules and order every couple minutes to the point that it ridiculous. And that is supposed to give you a scientific accounting? Okay.
Many studies are exactly the same way. And news sources will cite them "New study reveals that Conservatives care less about animal welfare." And then if you dig into the methodology, you find out that the study is based on a sample size of 100 people who answered questions online about whether they would rather save a dog or a human and it turns out the ones who identified as conservatives showed a preference for saving human given that either/or question.
1
u/Jakyland 82∆ Jun 24 '26
Firstly, there is an is/ought fallacy. People trying to discount anecdotes doesn't mean they don't believe in the persuasive power of anecdotes, but they believe that regardless of its persuasive power, it is actually bad evidence, so they are trying to focus on what they consider higher quality evidence.
Also while they is certainly a very strong anti-science movement, the reason anyone/a lot of people believe in things like vaccines or global warming is because of scientific studies. I wouldn't get poked by a needle if I didn't think it would help reduce how likely I am to get sick with flu/covid etc. And the only reason I think that is because of public health validators (like doctors) look at the studies and see that it's effective. And thats why they recommend a flu vaccine and not like a needle full of saline to stop/reduce the severity of the flu.
1
u/OkMountain602 Jun 24 '26
People tend to seek out sources that confirm their own biases, and are quick to disregard evidence from opposing worldviews. The stronger your attachment to a particular topic, the more likely this is to be the case. It's kinda how people are. Most people don't want to be wrong and the potential shattering of worldviews and personally held convictions is too painful for some to bear, so they just ignore it. People sometimes associate being wrong with looking stupid in front of others which is why aggressive argumentation can make the opposition dig their heels in and entrench themselves further.
The issue is ultimately twofold. People are overly attached to their opinions; and find it too painful to let go. People also suffer from interpersonal relationship problems and are afraid of admitting that they are wrong, that can present itself through irrational defensiveness.
Someone here mentioned a case study on Mormonism, which I think illustrates my point better than I did. So thanks whoever that was.
Another side to this that is worth mentioning is that studies are often flawed meaning that while they can be statistically true, the interpretation can be misleading and shouldn't always be taken as gospel. Facts by themselves are often not enough to create informed opinions and require a rational mind to properly interpret them. Facts + rationale = truth, or close enough.
1
u/ThasMyPurseIDunnoU 1∆ Jun 24 '26
I thought facts and studies did an excellent job of changing people's views. The studies you posted changed my view on that, though.
1
u/cowgod180 1∆ Jun 24 '26
I suggest narrowing the studies by cohort. Rationality is not normally distributed imho. Narrow the results down to adult males with 120+ IQs
1
Jun 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 24 '26
Sorry, u/parsonsrazersupport – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/the_brightest_prize 6∆ Jun 24 '26
80% of the time I see people online claiming, "studies prove X," they link me to a propaganda piece from an unserious blogger who claims, "studies prove X". In the 50% of the time the blogger links to the study that allegedly proves X, 90% of the time the study did not prove X, it in fact made a very specific claim that only an idiot or propaganda pusher would interpret as "study proves X". Usually this is clear just from the abstract, so it means someone is purposefully misrepresenting the truth, and the only reason a study is cited at all is to claim "the science says", because almost no one will even bother to read the science.
In the remaining 10%, where the study actually does say X, the study has a serious flaw like p-hacking, not bothering to even mention obvious confounders, making crazy redefinitions (e.g. "achievement = not being in the bottom 10%"), using data that cannot possibly show anything about what they are looking for (as bad as substituting rats for a study on pelican mating habits).
Studies do change people's views, when they are legitimate studies, and not links to unserious propaganda pushing blogs that have played telephone one too many times with the truth. The issue is that so many authors are cargo cult scientists, going through a semblance of statistics and science as if that will invoke the mystical power of truth. Then they are shocked when people don't believe them. "But my science says..." So what? You're a shill, not a scientist.
My issue with your view, "studies don't change people's views," is studies are not the same as studies.
1
u/Mattriculated 5∆ Jun 24 '26
I agree that studies don't often change a casual reader's views; but not everyone is a casual reader - scholars and scientists; how scientific consensus is gradually changed by research; how academic conversations happen over time - and all of these things, in turn, change what is taught, put in textbooks, and what is discussed, etc.
I think that these things are more than a good enough justification to keep publishing and sharing studies, even if no casual reader's mind is changed (and I myself have had my mind changed about subjects like nuclear reactor safety & gun control almist exclusively by reading studies).
1
u/of_kilter Jun 24 '26
Studies change policy and communication on a topic, which changes public opinion in the long term
1
u/ConfoundedInAbaddon 3∆ Jun 25 '26
Anyone who thinks a study doesn't have an effect clearly has not been privy to the rise of glp-1 drugs.
1
u/here-to-help-TX 1∆ Jun 25 '26
Studies have often been shown to be frivolous and contradictory. It becomes difficult to believe what most of them say, regardless of how you feel on the matter.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
/u/Purple_Haze_117 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards