July 28, 2007
Why It's Hard to Admit to Being Wrong
From NPR:
We all have a hard time admitting that we're wrong, but according to a new book about human psychology, it's not entirely our fault. Social psychologist Elliot Aronson says our brains work hard to make us think we are doing the right thing, even in the face of sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Excerpt from the book:
Half a century ago, a young social psychologist named Leon Festinger and two associates infiltrated a group of people who believed the world would end on December 21. They wanted to know what would happen to the group when (they hoped!) the prophecy failed. The group's leader, whom the researchers called Marian Keech, promised that the faithful would be picked up by a flying saucer and elevated to safety at midnight on December 20. Many of her followers quit their jobs, gave away their homes, and dispersed their savings, waiting for the end. Who needs money in outer space? Others waited in fear or resignation in their homes. (Mrs. Keech's own husband, a nonbeliever, went to bed early and slept soundly through the night as his wife and her followers prayed in the living room.) Festinger made his own prediction: The believers who had not made a strong commitment to the prophecy—who awaited the end of the world by themselves at home, hoping they weren't going to die at midnight—would quietly lose their faith in Mrs. Keech. But those who had given away their possessions and were waiting with the others for the spaceship would increase their belief in her mystical abilities. In fact, they would now do everything they could to get others to join them.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 01:38 AM | Permalink











Comments
Delightfully interesting book!
Posted by: beajerry | Jul 28, 2007 7:14:15 AM
I find it interesting that the behavior of "Mrs. Keech's" group replicates almost exactly the behavior of the early Christians.
The chief difference, of course, is that the Christians did not put an exact date on their prediction of the end of the world. In fact, they wrote that their founder warned them not to do so. Because of this little wrinkle, they could not be scoffed at by non-believers when their prediction did not come true. And they could develop an effective proselytizing spiel: "No one knows when the end is coming, so be safe and join up with us now! No time to waste!"
The amazing thing is that they have kept the game going for over 2000 years.
Posted by: JonJ | Jul 28, 2007 9:14:16 AM
Sorry about the mistake "over 2000 years." It's actually not yet quite 2000 years since the start of the Christian movement, of course.
Posted by: JonJ | Jul 28, 2007 9:16:56 AM
Can you imagine a Cabbage For Christ admit that one of their invisible friends didn't exist?
Science has other standards, and observation and reality count--
In PLoS Computational Biology, volume 3, issue 3, doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030051:
As a result of a bug in the Perl script used to compare estimated trees with true trees, the clade confidence measures were sometimes associated with the incorrect clades. The error was detected by the sharp eye of Professor Sarah P. Otto of the University of British Columbia. She noticed a discrepancy between the example tree in Figure 1B and the results reported for the gene nuoK in Table 1, and requested that she be sent all ten nuoK Bayesian trees. She painstakingly did a manual comparison of those trees with the true trees, concluded that for that dataset there was a strong correlation between clade confidence and the probability of a clade being true, and suggested the possibility of a bug in the Perl script. Dr. Otto put in considerable effort, and we want to acknowledge the generosity of that effort.
The major conclusion of our paper, as given in its title, is therefore invalid, and the paper must be retracted. It is important to stress that the responsibility for the necessity of retracting our paper is entirely mine (Barry Hall), and that my coauthor Stephen J. Salipante bears none of the responsibility. I wrote the Perl script and failed to check its accuracy sufficiently.
We have now corrected the script and reanalyzed the trees in Tables 1–6. The results show that there are strong correlations between clade confidence and the probability that a clade is valid for Bayesian posterior probabilities and for Maximum Likelihood bootstrap percentages and weaker correlations for Maximum Likelihood aLRT values. We have prepared a new paper describing this reanalysis and the results achieved and have submitted it for publication.
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Jul 28, 2007 12:46:42 PM
Post a comment