Dogmatic people seek less information

[Still Waters]

People who are dogmatic about their views seek less information and make less accurate judgements as a result, even on simple matters unrelated to politics, according to a study led by UCL and Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics researchers.

The researchers say their findings, published in PNAS, point to differences in thinking patterns that lead people to hold rigid opinions.

Dogmatic people are characterized by a belief that their worldview reflects an absolute truth and are often resistant to change their mind, for example when it comes to partisan issues. This tendency can have societal impacts by polarizing political, scientific and religious debates. However, the cognitive drivers of dogmatism are still poorly understood.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-11-dogmatic-people-uncertain.html

[quiXilver]

It seems an unavoidable and sad truth that fools subsist in absolute certainty, while the wise are riddled with doubt.

 

Dogmatic and Fundamentalist thinking is beginning to be categorized in professional psychiatry as a form of mental deficiency, or illness.

 

 

[XenoFish]

Explains the politics section of UM. 

[papageorge1]

This is pertinent to me when  I think about my perpetual conflict with what I call the hard skeptics (pseudo-skeptics)  on paranormal subjects. I do feel they are dogmatic in their insistence for a materialist/physicalist inside-the-box explanations for all the paranormally suggestive cases. I have for decades now made sure I understand the best materialist theories for all the various paranormal subjects. I've read books cover to cover by the hardest skeptic of them all James Randi.

Hard skepticism is a dogma that says materialist science is to expose all this superstitious and gullible-driven nonsense. I really feel the hard skeptic is driven by dogmatism and seeks less information than me. They really only want to solidify their narrow view.

Edited November 21, 2020 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

This is pertinent to me when  I think about my perpetual conflict with what I call the hard skeptics (pseudo-skeptics)  on paranormal subjects. I do feel they are dogmatic in their insistence for a materialist/physicalist inside-the-box explanations for all the paranormally suggestive cases. I have for decades now made sure I understand the best materialist theories for all the various paranormal subjects. I've read books cover to cover by the hardest skeptic of them all James Randi.

Hard skepticism is a dogma that says materialist science is to expose all this superstitious and gullible-driven nonsense. I really feel the hard skeptic is driven by dogmatism and seeks less information than me. They really only want to solidify their narrow view.

Don't kid yourself. You're as dogmatic as they come. 

[moonman]

Obviously someone who wants to know the truth is going to look at something from every angle possible and not get their info from a single source.

Some people just need to hear one account of something (ridiculous as it may be) and declare it absolute truth - I'll never understand that narrow of a viewpoint.

Edited November 21, 2020 by moonman

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, moonman said:

Obviously someone who wants to know the truth is going to look at something from every angle possible and not get their info from a single source.

But, but, but the sheer quality, quantity, and consistency of those stories...... screw facts, they don't count.

[papageorge1]

Just now, XenoFish said:

Don't kid yourself. You're as dogmatic as they come. 

My point was that my beliefs are formed after more information from all sides than the hard skeptic acquaints himself with.

[moonman]

Just now, XenoFish said:

But, but, but the sheer quality, quantity, and consistency of those stories...... screw facts, they don't count.

There's a sheer quantity and quality of fairy tales out there too, but non-morons don't think of them as anything but stories.

[XenoFish]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

My point was that my beliefs are formed after more information from all sides than the hard skeptic acquaints himself with.

George, your information is extremely one sided. You want to believe so everything goes to that. You've been known to deny information that contradicts your beliefs on several accounts.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

George, your information is extremely one sided. You want to believe so everything goes to that. You've been known to deny information that contradicts your beliefs on several accounts.

So James Randi's book is one-sided information my way? You are missing what this thread is about.

[spartan max2]

Hmm, that's interesting.

 

Quote

Dogmatic individuals and moderates did not differ in their accuracy or confidence of their decisions. However, the researchers found that more dogmatic participants were more likely to decline the helpful additional information.

 

Also, I'm sure there is logic and related studies behind how they decided to do the test, but it still seems kind of odd to me 

Quote

To investigate this, the researchers asked over 700 people to perform a simple decision-making task. Participants saw two boxes with flickering dots and had to decide which box contained more of the dots. Critically, after the participants had made an initial choice, the researchers gave them the chance to view another, clearer version of the boxes. They then made a final decision.

Schulz explained: "This mirrors many real-life situations—for example, when we hear a rumor but aren't sure if it's true. Do we share it, or do we check a credible source beforehand?"

Joint first author, Dr. Max Rollwage (Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging at UCL and Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry & Ageing Research) said: "By using simple tasks, we were able to minimise motivational or social influences and pin down drivers of altered evidence processing that contribute to dogmatic beliefs."

The task was followed by a comprehensive set of questionnaires that allowed the researchers to measure participants' political orientation and levels of dogmatism.

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by spartan max2

[RAyMO]

imo this research sums up everyone I have ever disagreed with. Unfortunately, in their opinion it also sums up everyone they have ever disagreed with. 

[Bendy Demon]

In other words, if you don't blindly accept and believe unquestioningly any and all claims based merely on the regular stand-by of "Cuz' I sez so" then you are closed minded.

If you know the difference between right and wrong, up and down, left and right, yin and yang then you are narrow/closed minded. That seems to be the reality of our society these days.

[XenoFish]

38 minutes ago, Bendy Demon said:

In other words, if you don't blindly accept and believe unquestioningly any and all claims based merely on the regular stand-by of "Cuz' I sez so" then you are closed minded.

If you know the difference between right and wrong, up and down, left and right, yin and yang then you are narrow/closed minded. That seems to be the reality of our society these days.

From what I can tell it's more "I'm right and if you don't see how right I am, you're a closed minded idiot." Which skeptics get basically called all the time. 

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

 I really feel the hard skeptic is driven by dogmatism and seeks less information than me.

most if not all the data/ information you & i have to work with is nothing more than stories, therefore you do not know what you're being told in these stories actually happened..

a hard skeptic is driven by common sense

[L.A.T.1961]

It makes me wonder why the dogmatic in society have survived until today?  Surly those with a built in handicap, when it comes to logical reasoning, would have been reduced over millennia by survival of the fittest.

If you make too many wrong choices over time you die out.

Yet it does not seem to be the case, there must be an argument for using available information and acting on it rather than waiting for the next new piece of thinking on a subject, and who rates the initial information as incomplete or just plain wrong. 

Some are indecisive and are now not so sure and then there are the dogmatics.   

Edited November 21, 2020 by L.A.T.1961

[Tatetopa]

On the other hand, catmatic people are always curious.

[spartan max2]

5 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

It makes me wonder why the dogmatic in society have survived until today?  Surly those with a built in handicap, when it comes to logical reasoning, would have been reduced over millennia by survival of the fittest.

If you make too many wrong choices over time you die out.

Yet it does not seem to be the case, there must be an argument for using available information and acting on it rather than waiting for the next new piece of thinking on a subject, and who rates the initial information as incomplete or just plane wrong. 

Some are indecisive and are now not so sure and then there are the dogmatics.   

Good point.

I think it life there are often times where a quick decisive less then optimal, or even wrong, decision can get better results than indecision.

[papageorge1]

51 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

most if not all the data/ information you & i have to work with is nothing more than stories, therefore you do not know what you're being told in these stories actually happened..

a hard skeptic is driven by common sense

I am aware of that. I form an opinion on what is most reasonable to believe about a body of anecdotal cases.

Common sense is not to dismiss a body of cases but to give fair consideration.

[XenoFish]

34 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

On the other hand, catmatic people are always curious.

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am aware of that. I form an opinion on what is most reasonable to believe about a body of anecdotal cases.

Common sense is not to dismiss a body of cases but to give fair consideration.

Then give them an actual fair consideration. It's stories. You weren't there and we the skeptics have to make the best educated guess towards the how and why of these stories. You on the other hand lean very strongly dogmatically towards the paranormal. 

I'm of the camp, "cool story bro." 

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Then give them an actual fair consideration. It's stories. You weren't there and we the skeptics have to make the best educated guess towards the how and why of these stories. You on the other hand lean very strongly dogmatically towards the paranormal. 

I'm of the camp, "cool story bro." 

I'm of the camp, "most people are honest about these kind of things and are rather competent witnesses". 

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I'm of the camp, "most people are honest about these kind of things and are rather competent witnesses". 

Then you're wrong. Most people think they're honest when it comes to these stories. I think false memories have been covered quite a bit. Plus their personal reality tunnel affects what they perceive as well. These stories are a guess work based around events. You want to believe they the storyteller is being honest and a competent witness. My suggestion is to hit the "maybe, maybe not" level of things. What you've express is an absolute belief (dogmatic) in the paranormal.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Then you're wrong. Most people think they're honest when it comes to these stories. I think false memories have been covered quite a bit. Plus their personal reality tunnel affects what they perceive as well. These stories are a guess work based around events. You want to believe they the storyteller is being honest and a competent witness. My suggestion is to hit the "maybe, maybe not" level of things. What you've express is an absolute belief (dogmatic) in the paranormal.

I consider things like false memories, reality tunnels and everything else possible. I never think an individual story is absolutely true as that would be illogical. But given a huge body of cases and a judgment of human competency I form an opinion on what is most reasonable to believe. I do believe genuine so-called paranormal events do sometimes occur beyond reasonable doubt.