Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

How to deal with gullible believers?


Fila

Recommended Posts

 
On 17/12/2017 at 10:53 PM, Fila said:

The media does lie a lot. We discussed this at uni.

do you include the many forms of ufo media?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

Well...I am speechless... Thank u for sharing. 

I'll be honest with you, I had no idea either but one night, when my wife and son were visiting her family overseas, I was watching that first Star Trek movie again (you know, the one everyone hates.  I like it so watch it when I am on my own.)  and got to wondering what that stupid dish was on the enterprise's nose and found that site.  Ended up spending hours exploring there as they can answer ANY question you have.  Roddenberry thought that problem through a bit, though, didn't he?.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I'll be honest with you, I had no idea either but one night, when my wife and son were visiting her family overseas, I was watching that first Star Trek movie again (you know, the one everyone hates.  I like it so watch it when I am on my own.)  and got to wondering what that stupid dish was on the enterprise's nose and found that site.  Ended up spending hours exploring there as they can answer ANY question you have.  Roddenberry thought that problem through a bit, though, didn't he?.

Definitely!  Now that is attention to detail! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/12/2017 at 7:39 AM, Dejarma said:

do you include the many forms of ufo media?

Media bias? Yes, very much so. I have shown that even since being on his forum.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the OP may confuse gullibility, with inability to use discernment in analysing any form of media reporting,

They are two different issues and problems. Gullible peole have a propensity to believe, often because they have a need to believe They accept new ideas or information readily, without checking it carefully

However even if they do check and review material carefully, a gullible person will still be more likely to accept a new idea, or  argument, presented in a source,  than a non gullible or sceptical person.  

However, there are all sorts of people  including gullible and sceptical, who lack training in objective thinking, rational and logical thinking, and particularly in the very specialised skills of  first checking and verifying the nature  and authorship of sources, and then critically reading and analysing an article.   Once upon a time,when education was rigorous, and content driven, students  a t primary and secondary schools were taught these skills with slowly increasing complexity Today many universities are compelled to give courses in them to new students because they were never taught them at school.   From my experience, Australian schools are better than some as they teach how to evaluate sources and how to critically examine content with students as young a s 7 or 8 and carry this through to senior schooling to prepare students for university   After a few decades of falling standards in research  this was more rigorously introduced as the internet became more accessible and students, like all of us, started to become overwhelmed with a huge range of information.

pre computers/the internet, information was both more limited  and less accessible,  but also more accurate/reliable,  due to the limited number of news sources,  their professional nature, and the  common understanding about which of these was the most reliable and which the least, in any area. For example in my state there were two main  newspapers.  One for the working class, published in the afternoon, which was more entertainment based, with page two girls lots of sporting and racing results  etc and a broad sheet for the middle and upper classes published in the morning, which was more intellectual and factual with stock market reports and business news etc. .   You knew their biases and  propensities in reporting, and could allow for them    

I grew up reading the encyclopedia Britannica and the oxford dictionary at the town library, from the time i began school to gain  reliable information, plus a less expensive world book set of encyclopedias, at home,  and a range of newspapers and magazines for contemporary news.  (News week,  bulletin,  life magazine, national geographic etc  ) This created in me an innate scepticism about any news or information from the internet as it arrived,  and that has served me in good stead. 

Indeed i would say that the phenomena of deliberate fake news, including that produced as a hook or click bait,  contributes to a growing gullibility among young people.

it is incredibly hard to know what is true/ real news amid the huge range of news sources and when even govt sources may be producing deliberate misinformation across the globe . Those whom it does not make more gullible, it tends to make more sceptical about any news or information. 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/12/2017 at 10:41 PM, Mr Walker said:

I think the OP may confuse gullibility, with inability to use discernment in analysing any form of media reporting,

They are two different issues and problems. Gullible peole have a propensity to believe, often because they have a need to believe They accept new ideas or information readily, without checking it carefully

However even if they do check and review material carefully, a gullible person will still be more likely to accept a new idea, or  argument, presented in a source,  than a non gullible or sceptical person.  

I would assume that would still be a gullible person. I don't want to argue semantics.., just want to help people who are (Gullible:) "easily persuaded to believe something". Not specifically via mass media.., or limited to one source of information. I just want to figure out why.., and how to help. One theory is that high levels of Oxycontin may contribute to feeling "close" to someone.., thus believing them more.

Either way.., I think fact checking each other is a great start.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fila said:

I would assume that would still be a gullible person. I don't want to argue semantics.., just want to help people who are (Gullible:) "easily persuaded to believe something". Not specifically via mass media.., or limited to one source of information. I just want to figure out why.., and how to help. One theory is that high levels of Oxycontin may contribute to feeling "close" to someone.., thus believing them more.

Either way.., I think fact checking each other is a great start.

People construct beliefs to meet physical and psychological needs. This includes the need for the mind to have certainty and predictability,   because unpredictability is more dangerous. Thus, where we do not know, we construct beliefs which serve the same purpose a s knowledge in allowing us to act and move forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2018 at 10:49 AM, Mr Walker said:

People construct beliefs to meet physical and psychological needs. This includes the need for the mind to have certainty and predictability,   because unpredictability is more dangerous. Thus, where we do not know, we construct beliefs which serve the same purpose a s knowledge in allowing us to act and move forward. 

Yea, religious people do this often. People can make assumptions based on.., what we think we know. People make decisions based on how we feel. I guess its easy to see emotional decisions compared to logical decisions. If someone is only looking at one side of the argument.., then I would suggest their decision is biased, and based on a lack of research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Fila said:

Yea, religious people do this often. People can make assumptions based on.., what we think we know. People make decisions based on how we feel. I guess its easy to see emotional decisions compared to logical decisions. If someone is only looking at one side of the argument.., then I would suggest their decision is biased, and based on a lack of research.

Religion is really only a small part of this.

We construct beliefs about all sorts of things we do not know and often cannot know, so that we can operate in a life of unknowns.

Does my wife love  me? Best i believe that she does, because then i can continue to function effectively.  Am i going to wake up tomorrow ?  Best i believe i will so i can get a good night's sleep :)  Am i going to get hit by lightning? Best i believe I am not, so I am not too afraid to venture outside. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2018 at 6:43 PM, Mr Walker said:

Religion is really only a small part of this.

We construct beliefs about all sorts of things we do not know and often cannot know, so that we can operate in a life of unknowns.

Does my wife love  me? Best i believe that she does, because then i can continue to function effectively.  Am i going to wake up tomorrow ?  Best i believe i will so i can get a good night's sleep :)  Am i going to get hit by lightning? Best i believe I am not, so I am not too afraid to venture outside. 

Hey Kit.., you might like this short video about the phaneron.

 

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fila said:

Hey Kit.., you might like this short video about the phaneron.

 

Phaneron is a very interesting concept and, in large part, how I understand the human cogntve process.

But i would add one thing  The phaneron of the mind is how a human mind perceives realty. It does not alter, shape, or create the solid reality which exists outside of a human mind. It is simply our effort to interpret, codify,   categorise etc. all that we sense and  perceive.It is the reality we construct within our mind. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 15/12/2017 at 6:58 PM, Fila said:

I  really like to understand why most people here seem to be getting REALLY annoyed at me for my threads. I don't understand how my interest can offend so many people. But I am willing to make it a priority to sort this out.

I did a quick re-check. I do not believe I am "spamming" but I accept anything Admin does with respect.

My stance is neutral. I just want to know what the (yet to be identified) UFOs are.. I believe that there are reputable people who say they have seen something as strange as they described.., and I believe its only right to look into the matter fairly on behalf of the witness.., not as someone who just wants to prove them wrong (for some reason) I am genuinely interested.

Even if it turns out to be some form of mental disorder that makes army personnel, police, politicians, scientists, astronomers, (and more) infrequently hallucinate alien ships.., I think this is a HUGE problem we should be looking into. I do not want to board a flight to visit beautiful America.., only to have some pilot hallucinate a mothership approaching at high speed.., so he takes evasive action and MH-370's the plane into the ocean.

Or have a police officer suddenly hallucinate aliens attacking, so he draws his weapon and starts shooting at civilians. They should be stood down from their roles.

Basically. I don't care what it takes. or what the outcome is. I want to find out.

I’ve been busy! 

My bold: It’s just because of the way you titled your posts (sensational news type headlines  which seek to illicit an emotional response), and the contrast between the multiple simultaneous topics you posted without really giving an insight as to what your motive is. To me the threads seemed insincere and that set the tone for the replies you received. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/01/2018 at 10:06 AM, Timonthy said:

I’ve been busy! 

My bold: It’s just because of the way you titled your posts (sensational news type headlines  which seek to illicit an emotional response), and the contrast between the multiple simultaneous topics you posted without really giving an insight as to what your motive is. To me the threads seemed insincere and that set the tone for the replies you received. 

Ok, thank you.

I guess my motive is to sort out the UFO problem. My main thread of interest is 'How to solve the UFO mystery"..,,which discusses ways we can potentially work together to find new ways of looking at the problem.

I can see how that thread title is misleading and ambiguous. I apologise and will make future threads more precise.

Hope you have a great weekend! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts.” ~Bertrand Russell

Bias: a tendency to favor or disfavor that prevents neutral consideration.
Prejudice: a preconceived opinion, prejudgment, or attitude that negatively impacts one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions about a group or individual.
Discrimination: unfair, inappropriate, unjustifiable, and negative behavior toward a group or its members.
Anchoring: the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered when making decisions.
Confirmation bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
Groupthink: the psychological phenomenon for alignment that occurs within a group of people because of the desire for, and/or pressure to, have harmony or conformity.
Halo effect: the tendency for someone’s overall impression of a person, either good or bad, to be influenced by how they feel and think about the other person’s character.
Overconfidence effect:  the tendency for someone to believe subjectively that his or her judgement is better or more reliable than it objectively is.

 

One of the tricks our mind plays is to highlight evidence which confirms what we already believe. If we hear gossip about a rival we tend to think "I knew he was a nasty piece of work"; if we hear the same about our best friend we're more likely to say "that's just a rumour". If you don't trust the government then a change of policy is evidence of their weakness; if you do trust them the same change of policy can be evidence of their inherent reasonableness.


Having a bias didn’t make you a bad person. We’re all biased. Our brains facilitate it. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls it “System 1” thinking, an “effortless, often unconscious process that infers and invents causes and intentions, neglects ambiguity, suppresses doubt, and uses similarity rather than probability.”  Author Malcolm Gladwell calls it “the power of thinking without thinking.”

 

 

The first theory of confirmation bias is the most common. It's the one you can detect in expressions like "You just believe what you want to believe", or "He would say that, wouldn't he?" or when the someone is accused of seeing things a particular way because of who they are, what their job is or which friends they have. Let's call this the motivational theory of confirmation bias. It has a clear prescription for correcting the bias: change people's motivations and they'll stop being biased.

Charles Lord and colleagues published a classic experiment which used a persuasion experiment which previously had shown a kind of confirmation bias they called 'biased assimilation'. Here, participants were recruited who had strong pro- or anti-death penalty views and were presented with evidence that seemed to support the continuation or abolition of the death penalty. Their original finding showed that the nature of the evidence didn't matter as much as what people started out believing. Confirmatory evidence strengthened people's views, as you'd expect, but so did disconfirmatory evidence. A clear example of biased reasoning.

 

Take the recent case of JC Penney, which hired and abruptly fired its CEO, Ron Johnson, after the major changes he instituted took the company from bad to worse. Johnson’s critics have explicitly accused the former Apple superstar of having suffered from no less than three cognitive disorders during his tenure, including:

Overconfidence (for failing to test his risky pricing strategy),

representativeness (for trying to force the Apple retail model onto JC Penney), and

anchoring (for having ignored pricing-related, cognitive biases amongst JC Penney’s customers).

 

Yet, the workforce that Johnson inherited at JC Penney seemed no less guilty of having their own mental hang-ups, including:

Defense-attribution bias (for failing to recognize that JC Penney was a sinking ship long before Johnson arrived),

Dunning-Kruger effect (for failing to see their roles in making that ship sink),

Status-quo bias (for refusing to acknowledge that change was needed).

Moreover, in a stunning display of large-scale, bounded rationality, more than 4600 of JC Penney’s head office staff used nearly 35% of the company’s broadband for streaming Youtube during office hours in 2012. In other words, a significant portion of the JC Penney workforce failed to see any connection between their loafing activities and the company’s poor performance.

 

References:

https://hbr.org/2013/10/how-to-manage-biased-people
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170131-why-wont-some-people-listen-to-reason
https://leadchangegroup.com/7-ways-for-leaders-to-deal-with-bias/

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.