Some people swear with vehemence for their beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence that contradicts their point of view.
It is a phenomenon that has given rise to movements such as the "Flat Earthers" and the climate change deniers, among many others in recent times.
While it may seem disconcerting, new research suggests that it may have something to do with how we value comments compared to solid evidence.
In a new study, the researchers found that the positive and negative reactions that arise in response to people's opinions tend to outweigh the logic or scientific data.
Some people swear with vehemence for their beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence that contradicts their point of view. It is a phenomenon that has given rise to movements such as the "Flat Earthers" and the climate change deniers, among many others in recent times. Artist's impression
This feedback, which can be developed in personal exchanges or in social networks, can reinforce a person's certainty in their own beliefs.
"If you think you know a lot about something, even if you do not, you're less likely to be curious enough to explore the subject more thoroughly, and you will not learn the little you know," said the study's lead author, Louis Marti. , Ph.D. student in psychology at UC Berkeley.
In the study, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley recruited more than 500 adults for an online assignment on the Amason Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform.
The experiment asked the participants to observe the different combinations of shapes and identify what type of qualified object is called "Daxxy".
Participants were not given information about the characteristics of this form, but received feedback on whether their guesses were correct or incorrect as they played.
The study was designed to investigate what influences a person's certainty during the learning process, the researchers explain.
"If you use a crazy theory to make a correct prediction a couple of times, you can stay stuck in that belief and not be so interested in gathering more information," said the study's lead author, Celeste Kidd, an assistant professor of psychology at the University. Of California. Berkeley
Each participant was asked to report on their accuracy after each conjecture.
In a new study, the researchers found that the positive and negative reactions that arise in response to people's opinions tend to outweigh the logic or scientific data. This feedback can reinforce beliefs despite contradictory evidence. Stock Photo
BELIEVE IN THEORY OF CONSPIRACY? YOU ARE PROBABLY A NARCISIS, THE INVESTIGATORS SAY
People who doubt moon landings are more likely to be selfish and seek attention, according to a recent study.
In the course of three online studies, researchers at the University of Kent showed strong links between belief in conspiracy theories and negative psychological traits.
Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, the team explained: "Previous research linked the backing of conspiracy theories to low self-esteem."
In the first study, a total of 202 participants completed questionnaires about conspiracy beliefs, and asked how much they agreed with the specific statements, as if governments carried out acts of terrorism in their own territory.
Along with this, they were asked to complete a narcissistic scale and an assessment of self-esteem.
The results showed that people who scored high on the narcissistic scale and had low self-esteem were more likely to be conspiracy believers.
And, the researchers found that they only considered recent comments, as opposed to the accumulated information.
According to the researchers, the participants always based their certainty on how they did it in the last four or five conjectures.
"What we found interesting was that they could get the first 19 consecutive guesses wrong, but if they got the last five correct, they felt very confident," said Marti.
"It's not that they were not paying attention, they were learning what a Daxxy was, but they were not using most of what they learned to inform their accuracy."
"If your goal is to get to the truth, the strategy of using your most recent comments, instead of all the data you have accumulated, is not a great tactic," Marti said.