Agnostic.com

15 8

LINK The source attribution effect, or : Tribal thinking trumps reason

This is another study that shows the extent to which we are tribal animals.
According to the researchers, a statement provokes rejection if the wrong person expresses it according to the formula: If the wrong person says something right, then what he/she says is automatically worthless.

You present a harmless, innocuous aphorism to an atheist, telling him or her that the sentence is from the Bible, and the atheist will disagree with the aphorism. Present the same aphorism to another atheist, this time saying that it is from a Greek or Chinese philosopher , and he or she will like it.
The same procedure with theists, Democrats and Republicans ...
The result is always the same: the SOURCE is much more important than the content.
Our tribal mind only likes and accepts as true what comes from one of "us", -
Tribal thinking trumps reason.

Matias 8 Sep 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

15 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

heuristics make for great survival in the evolutionary period. they make poor sources of rational consideration.

and we all fall prey, but knowing them helps us limit their effect.

0

I don't disagree here, but honestly sources do matter. I can prove that alcohol is good or bad based on mainstream stories that are widespread. Peer reviewed journals tend to be in consensus of facts.

The point is that information from solid sources is deserving of trust until it is refuted. Weaker sources should not be seen as false but highly suspect, but warrant further investigation in order to give credence. If Trump says something, there is about a 17% chance it is at least partially true. So he is not automatically wrong, but he has earned my suspicion.

The bible for example has a story about Jacob breeding sheep to get certain traits. He breeds speckled males to all females to get more speckled offspring. He also had em get busy next to peeled branches. We know there was some truth and some falsehoods in the story, the bible is a poor source of truth, but it is not always wrong.

0

The source is more important than the content. It is a sad commentary on the human condition.

1

Twibal twinking twumps tweason. He really is an idiot.

godef Level 7 Sep 12, 2018

@Matias Wealwy? You're such a silwy wabbit!

0

Source bias is as old as language and tribes—we are inclined to accept input from those we trust, and reject information from those we distrust, even when the details are essentially the same. And tribalism has worsened in recent years, as reflected in politics, the media and college campuses, for example. However, it must be admitted that this study focused on aphorisms, which are basically adages, clichés or truisms—more opinion than statement of fact. Thus, it might be more accurate to say, 'MY tribal thinking trumps YOUR tribal thinking,' as opposed to 'reason.'

@Matias Agreed!

4

This has got to be right—Matias makes great posts.

2

well that's bullshit. sorry, but it is. i have been an atheist for half a century and a democrat longer than that (even though i was only 15 when i realized there were no gods), and i do not automatically eschew anything biblical just because it is biblical, nor do i automatically credit something from an ancient philosopher just because it is from an ancient philosopher. on what basis do you make this statement? if a republican says something correct, i may or may not doubt the motivations but not the truth of the content, and i will say so, too. maybe the people you know are like this. small samples are meaningless. for me, for the intelligent people i know, the content is more important than the source, even though we DO consider the source (that is not stupid to do). of course, you're talking about lying to people about the source, aren't you? don't you ever get caught? how do you expect to get an honest reading when the whole test is dishonest?

feh!

g

@Matias no, not only because of that. i mention it as one of many reasons. but if you're going to cherry-pick i guess nothing i say will mean anything to you. maybe you should learn not to teach aphorisms that 1. the recipient of your wisdom already knows and 2. imply that your "teaching" is a merited reproach. and you say EVEN IF you take my personal experience to be true, as if maybe i am lying. well then why the hell should i talk to you at all? i guess i won't, anymore.

g

Why do you have to disagree in such a rude way? To begin your argument by calling something bullshit is not a reasonable response as it already raises the temperature of the debate. It is quite like the knee jerk Twitter responses of your President, although I’m sure you deplore his undiplomatic language.

@Marionville MY president? it is not trump's language i deplore; he is barely articulate enough to have something called a language. it's his greed, dishonesty, racism, narcissism, admiration for dictators, desire to be a king and downright meanness i deplore. my response contains none of that.

my response to bullshit is to call it bullshit. it's not a matter of disagreeing with it; i am not disagreeing with an opinion. i am challenging something that is not factual, presented as factual while making insulting assumptions about people into the bargain.

g

@genessa Is bullshit the only word you can use as a descriptor? It is not the fact that you disagree that I asked the question of you, I specifically asked you why you disagreed in such a rude way. You have not answered my question, only reiterated your answer.

@Marionville it was the most appropriate word i could think of at the moment, and i have a rather large vocabulary, too. sometimes there is one word that really says it all. and maybe i did mean it to be a bit rude and that's why i found it appropriate. i thought the post was rude, though i admit it wasn't rude to any one person, personally. now you're likely to ask me what was rude about it, and i will be sad that you don't see it, but i won't blame you for that. let me ask you: if i had said (rather than "i disagree with that," which is inaccurate because it implies that there is an opinion with which to disagree rather than a fact to challenge) "that's wrong" or "that's not true" or "that's false," would that be less rude simply because there was no four-letter word involved? is that all it was? or was there something else?

g

@genessa Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. It isn’t the fact that you were taking issue with the statement, it was the language which I thought raised the temperature immediately. I understand there is a big difference in how Americans and we, the British use language, and bullshit is almost universally used in US as an almost involuntary response to something you don’t agree with. I realise it certainly has more impact than politely saying “I strongly disagree with that”.....invective usually does, but as we are reasonable people and people of reason here on this site, I was a little surprised by it.
.

@Marionville no, as i say, it wasn't because i disagreed with it. it's because i found it offensive (and unreasonable). nor was my choice of words involuntary. one can change what one types; it's different from uttering something, in which case you might blurt something out and then be unable to take it back. thus i sort of responded in kind (although you're right, sometimes we are a bit casual with that word -- i can't say more or less so than in the uk because i have certainly seen brits use such terms casually and prolifically on facebook. so my experience of that particular difference between how brits and americans use language is different from your experience of it.

g

@genessa I agree it is creeping in here too, but it would not be a normal response and I would be surprised if anyone responded to me by using it. I am not unaware that there is quite a large gulf between us in vernacular but am getting used to it by joining this website. I have never been able to speak directly to so many of you on the other side of the Atlantic and am enjoying the experience.

@Marionville i am glad you're enjoying it! i have loved my visits to your side of the pond. i even taught english in surrey for a month! (i was the token american; we had a token scot too.) the students were all italian teens except for two japanese girls and one turkish boy. the japanese girls barely said a word all summer but the turkish boy learned fluent italian -- not from me, i assure you!

2

There have been social experiments conducted to test out theories similar to this one. Here is one example reading Bible passages, but telling folks they were hearing passages from the Quran.

so this phenomenon exists. that doesn't mean it is widespread or generally true. it MIGHT be... but then, isn't the inherent dishonesty of the experiment a factor?

g

@genessa I agree completely. I just found the experiment interesting. I believe similar experiments were done in different countries and some of them (I want to say maybe Canadians?) recognized the passages as from the Bible or at least that they sounded like they might be close to what was in the Bible. They said they weren’t too surprised to hear it was actually from the Bible and not the Quran.

0

We, as social creatures, have a need to belong. What the 'belonging' is based on is what makes the difference to me in tribal thinking. Association differs when it is an agreement with externals instead of internally anchored bonding in non-proprietary fashion. Owning and being owned are, to me, the difference. Most human associations in our society in some measure call for abdication or surrender of our autonomy in return for identity and 'membership'. It works that way in theologies, political parties and ideologies and even marriage.

Tribal thinking, as you so well point out, trumps individual action and assertion of individually reasoned choices.

0

This is only partially true and usually as a matter of expediancy i.e. i don't have time to research this myself but i agree with the majority of positions adopted by this group so i'm prepared to take this on face value. There is also the factor of 'belonging' ... i identify with this group so i am predisposed to accept their arguements. However i still think if we come across an arguement that does not sit well with us we can still identify and challenge it without feeling our group membership is compromised.

4

I have, to some degree, overcome this prejudice. I realize that all people are partially good and partially bad, or partially right and partially wrong. Some lean more one way, and some the other, but there is good (and bad) to be had from everyone.

Even having proved to my satisfaction that the Biblical stories are primarily mythical (there is SOME accurate history in it, but it is mostly myth), I have found good passages in the Bible that I have adopted as mottoes for guiding my own life, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The problem is that we don't always have time to study a claim and prove whether it is true or false. When that is the case, if the source is known to be mostly wrong, it may be wise to apply plenty of doubt about the claim until careful analysis can be undertaken. If the source is known to be mostly right, then it can be given the benefit of the doubt until it can be thoroughly tested.

For example, I know that the U.S. President is a habitual liar. So, when he makes any claim, I immediately file it under "doubtful." If further study shows that the claim is correct, I can accept it as correct. I will follow the facts and evidence where they lead, regardless of who made the claim. On the other hand, if a brilliant scientist makes a claim, I immediately file it under "probably right." If further study proves that it is a mistaken claim, I will dismiss it as false.

3

Tribal reasoning is as old as the human species. Reason is not.

Exactly. Very astute comment.

1

Well, since it’s coming from ScienceDirect, I’ll believe it. 🙂

skado Level 9 Sep 12, 2018
3

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, I say unfortunately because it is sad that most people fall into this trap.. It seems that the message is less important than the messenger! I have noticed here on this site such tendencies when it comes to anything at all to do with either religion or politics. Not everything in every religion can be bad surely or everything in the politics of the other party either. If a Christian or Muslim does something charitable it can’t render it less an act of kindness because we don’t subscribe to their belief system. By the same token, everyone in the Republican Party cannot be an out and out rabid right wing evangelical nutcase. My advice is take everything and everyone on their individual merits instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that you disagree with them.

1

Not if you try to think critically. I understand what you are saying and see it happen all the time especially now. That is why it is most important to step back and give real thought!

I could make an argument that many believe they are thinking critically, but many, if not most of us have internalized deep bias that prevents us from being able to be objective. In effect, we are all tribal. The slightest cursory attention to the current political nonsense is a good example.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:177365
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.