
Fact-checking can’t do much for people driven by values instead of knowledge - kawera
https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/05/fact-checking-cant-do-much-when-peoples-dueling-facts-are-driven-by-values-instead-of-knowledge/
======
Carpetsmoker
One solution for this may be – at least in part – in becoming more aware of
these kind of cognitive biases. I'm hardly free from them, but a realisation
of how they work does, at least occasionally, catch them.

The compassion vs. rugged individualism in racism/oppression debates is
something I've noticed in the last few years as well. It's good to see my
observations proven by some data :-) I'm pretty firmly on the "compassion"
side myself, and realising this is a good way to ensure I don't jump to
conclusions too fast, or at least not too often.

It's also useful when having discussions. Instead of arguing about whether or
not something is or isn't racism you can talk about underlying views on
racism/life/society, which is in my experience a better way to understand each
other (which is the real value of any debate).

------
rpiguy
There is an underlying assumption that facts are evident and we should be
guided to the same conclusion by them, which is false. The authors are acting
like it is a new discovery that people can have widely different views in the
light of the same facts, that people have different realities. They authors
even quote Goethe who figured this out a couple hundred years ago, so it is
sort of laughable.

The article doesn't even touch the issue of the "fact-checkers" having bias
themselves (who checks the checkers, as it were).

Even more silly is the list of things on which people disagree. Climate change
and vaccination are the only issues with a overwhelming scientific consensus.
The other issues, like the economy, minimum wage increases, etc. all have
substantial bodies of research supporting both sides of the argument.

This book feels like a cash-grab, or maybe attention-grab.

