# data[].attributes.headline
An evolutionary perspective on why it is so hard for us to change our minds about something even when we are presented opposing facts

# data[].attributes.subject
An evolutionary perspective on why it is so hard for us to change our minds about something even when we are presented opposing facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Among the many, many issues our forebears didn't worry about were the deterrent effects of capital punishment and the ideal attributes of a firefighter. Nor did they have to contend with fabricated studies, or fake news, or Twitter. It's no wonder, then, that today reason often seems to fail us. As Mercier and Sperber write, "This is one of many cases in which the environment changed too quickly for natural selection to catch up."

Steven Sloman, a professor at Brown, and Philip Fernbach, a professor at the University of Colorado, are also cognitive scientists. They, too, believe sociability is the key to how the human mind functions or, perhaps more pertinently, malfunctions. They begin their book, "The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone" (Riverhead), with a look at toilets.

Virtually everyone in the United States, and indeed throughout the developed world, is familiar with toilets. A typical flush toilet has a ceramic bowl filled with water. When the handle is depressed, or the button pushed, the water-and everything that's been deposited in it-gets sucked into a pipe and from there into the sewage system. But how does this actually happen?

In a study conducted at Yale, graduate students were asked to rate their understanding of everyday devices, including toilets, zippers, and cylinder locks. They were then asked to write detailed, step-by-step explanations of how the devices work, and to rate their understanding again. Apparently, the effort revealed to the students their own ignorance, because their self-assessments dropped. (Toilets, it turns out, are more complicated than they appear.)

Sloman and Fernbach see this effect, which they call the "illusion of explanatory depth," just about everywhere. People believe that they know way more than they actually do. What allows us to persist in this belief is other people. In the case of my toilet, someone else designed it so that I can operate it easily. This is something humans are very good at. We've been relying on one another's expertise ever since we figured out how to hunt together, which was probably a key development in our evolutionary history. So well do we collaborate, Sloman and Fernbach argue, that we can hardly tell where our own understanding ends and others' begins.

"One implication of the naturalness with which we divide cognitive labor," they write, is that there's "no sharp boundary between one person's ideas and knowledge" and "those of other members" of the group.

This borderlessness, or, if you prefer, confusion, is also crucial to what we consider progress. As people invented new tools for new ways of living, they simultaneously created new realms of ignorance; if everyone had insisted on, say, mastering the principles of metalworking before picking up a knife, the Bronze Age wouldn't have amounted to much. When it comes to new technologies, incomplete understanding is empowering.

Where it gets us into trouble, according to Sloman and Fernbach, is in the political domain. It's one thing for me to flush a toilet without knowing how it operates, and another for me to favor (or oppose) an immigration ban without knowing what I'm talking about. Sloman and Fernbach cite a survey conducted in 2014, not long after Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Respondents were asked how they thought the U.S. should react, and also whether they could identify Ukraine on a map. The farther off base they were about the geography, the more likely they were to favor military intervention. (Respondents were so unsure of Ukraine's location that the median guess was wrong by eighteen hundred miles, roughly the distance from Kiev to Madrid.)

Surveys on many other issues have yielded similarly dismaying results. "As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding," Sloman and Fernbach write. And here our dependence on other minds reinforces the problem. If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views. If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

"This is how a community of knowledge can become dangerous," Sloman and Fernbach observe. The two have performed their own version of the toilet experiment, substituting public policy for household gadgets. In a study conducted in 2012, they asked people for their stance on questions like: Should there be a single-payer health-care system? Or merit-based pay for teachers? Participants were asked to rate their positions depending on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposals. Next, they were instructed to explain, in as much detail as they could, the impacts of implementing each one. Most people at this point ran into trouble. Asked once again to rate their views, they ratcheted down the intensity, so that they either agreed or disagreed less vehemently.

Sloman and Fernbach see in this result a little candle for a dark world. If we-or our friends or the pundits on CNN-spent less time pontificating and more trying to work through the implications of policy proposals, we'd realize how clueless we are and moderate our views. This, they write, "may be the only form of thinking that will shatter the illusion of explanatory depth and change people's attitudes."

One way to look at science is as a system that corrects for people's natural inclinations. In a well-run laboratory, there's no room for myside bias; the results have to be reproducible in other laboratories, by researchers who have no motive to confirm them. And this, it could be argued, is why the system has proved so successful. At any given moment, a field may be dominated by squabbles, but, in the end, the methodology prevails. Science moves forward, even as we remain stuck in place.

In "Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us" (Oxford), Jack Gorman, a psychiatrist, and his daughter, Sara Gorman, a public-health specialist, probe the gap between what science tells us and what we tell ourselves. Their concern is with those persistent beliefs which are not just demonstrably false but also potentially deadly, like the conviction that vaccines are hazardous. Of course, what's hazardous is not being vaccinated; that's why vaccines were created in the first place. "Immunization is one of the triumphs of modern medicine," the Gormans note. But no matter how many scientific studies conclude that vaccines are safe, and that there's no link between immunizations and autism, anti-vaxxers remain unmoved. (They can now count on their side-sort of-Donald Trump, who has said that, although he and his wife had their son, Barron, vaccinated, they refused to do so on the timetable recommended by pediatricians.)

The Gormans, too, argue that ways of thinking that now seem self-destructive must at some point have been adaptive. And they, too, dedicate many pages to confirmation bias, which, they claim, has a physiological component. They cite research suggesting that people experience genuine pleasure-a rush of dopamine-when processing information that supports their beliefs. "It feels good to 'stick to our guns' even if we are wrong," they observe.

The Gormans don't just want to catalogue the ways we go wrong; they want to correct for them. There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. (Another widespread but statistically insupportable belief they'd like to discredit is that owning a gun makes you safer.) But here they encounter the very problems they have enumerated. Providing people with accurate information doesn't seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science. "The challenge that remains," they write toward the end of their book, "is to figure out how to address the tendencies that lead to false scientific belief."

"The Enigma of Reason," "The Knowledge Illusion," and "Denying to the Grave" were all written before the November election. And yet they anticipate Kellyanne Conway and the rise of "alternative facts." These days, it can feel as if the entire country has been given over to a vast psychological experiment being run either by no one or by Steve Bannon. Rational agents would be able to think their way to a solution. But, on this matter, the literature is not reassuring. ♦

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why did the Cartoonist draw this cartoon? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why did the Cartoonist draw this cartoon? 

# data[].attributes.body
Drawn by Chris Britt, Illinois Times (US Newspaper)
Get your MAMO into high gear and analyse this cartoon.

To see more political cartoons on Trump's Travel ban
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/cartoonists-reacted-donald-trumps-controversial-travel-ban/

# data[].attributes.headline
The History of Immigration Ban in the US

# data[].attributes.subject
The History of Immigration Ban in the US

# data[].attributes.body
A historical analysis into the past can give us a greater insight into the current situations we find ourselves in.
What were some lessons we should have already learnt?
Why haven't we learnt them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Semany Gashaw & Lauren Ellis Understanding Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dark History Of Immigration Bans In The U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trump's Attack On Sanctuary Cities Explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OXz3tuxFZg Subscribe! http://bitly.com/1iLOHml President Trump's immigration ban has brought to light the U.S.' history of restricting refugees. What's the history behind this policy?

# data[].attributes.body
John Green,
"I think it is a mistake to imagine a diverse group of a hundred million people to be some terrifying and singular other. It only encourages others to imagine us that way. It is hard to imagine people complexly, especially when you were being told to fear them".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Primarily Muslim Countries Students Protest Immigration Executive Order Why Social Justice Warriors Lost The Election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Trump's Executive Order on Immigration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In which John talks about Trump's Executive Order on Immigration in detail, what it means short term for refugees and permanent residents, and what we are still unsure about.

# data[].attributes.body
The planet has gone through fifth mass extinctions, we are currently in the sixth.
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe" - John Muir

# data[].attributes.body
Scienc-y and Fascinating!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the food you eat affects your brain - Mia Nacamulli

# data[].attributes.body
A beautiful poem about the impermanence of our memories.

Forgetfulness
"The name of the author is the first to go

followed obediently by the title, the plot,

the heartbreaking conclusion, the entire novel

which suddenly becomes one you have never read, never even heard of,

as if, one by one, the memories you used to harbor

decided to retire to the southern hemisphere of the brain,

to a little fishing village where there are no phones.

Long ago you kissed the names of the nine muses goodbye

and watched the quadratic equation pack its bag,

and even now as you memorize the order of the planets,

something else is slipping away, a state flower perhaps,

the address of an uncle, the capital of Paraguay.

Whatever it is you are struggling to remember,

it is not poised on the tip of your tongue

or even lurking in some obscure corner of your spleen.

It has floated away down a dark mythological river

whose name begins with an L as far as you can recall

well on your own way to oblivion where you will join those

who have even forgotten how to swim and how to ride a bicycle.

No wonder you rise in the middle of the night

to look up the date of a famous battle in a book on war.

No wonder the moon in the window seems to have drifted

out of a love poem that you used to know by heart." - Billy Collins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Forgetfulness - Billy Collins Animated Poetry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View poetry in an entirely new and innovative way. Billy Collins, former US Poet Laureate and one of America's best-selling poets, reads his poem "Forgetfulness" with animation by Julian Grey of Headgear. Noted for their intelligent humor, accessibility and observations on daily life, Collins' popular poems come alive further in a series of animated poems produced by JWT-NY.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it OK to discriminate? Do you do it? Is it always wrong or are there cases where it can be acceptable? This video talks through several tricky cases and different philosophical perspectives on this issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discrimination: Crash Course Philosophy #41

# data[].attributes.headline
Poetry: To my Favourite 17 Year Old Girl

# data[].attributes.subject
Poetry: To my Favourite 17 Year Old Girl

# data[].attributes.body
One of my favourite poems by Billy Collins.
Humorous and witty!

To My Favorite 17-Year-Old High School Girl

“Do you realize that if you had started building the Parthenon
on the day you were born,
you would be all done in only one more year?
Of course, you couldn’t have done that all alone.
So never mind; you’re fine just being yourself.
You’re loved for just being you.
But did you know that at your age
Judy Garland was pulling down 150,000 dollars a picture,
Joan of Arc was leading the French army to victory
and Blaise Pascal had cleaned up his room
— no wait, I mean he had invented the calculator?
Of course, there will be time for all that later in your life,
after you come out of your room and begin to blossom,
or at least pick up all your socks.
For some reason I keep remembering that
Lady Jane Grey was queen of England when she was only 15.
But then she was beheaded,
so never mind her as a role model.
A few centuries later, when he was your age,
Franz Schubert was doing the dishes for his family,
but that did not keep him from composing two symphonies, four operas and two complete masses as a youngster.
But of course, that was in Austria at the height of Romantic lyricism,
not here in the suburbs of Cleveland.
Frankly, who cares if Annie Oakley was a crack shot at 15
or if Maria Callas debuted as Tosca at 17?
We think you’re special just being you —
playing with your food and staring into space.
By the way, I lied about Schubert doing the dishes,
but that doesn’t mean he never helped out around the house.”

—Billy Collins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"To my favourite 17 year old High-school girl" - Billy Collins

# data[].attributes.body
One of my favourite poems about our gendered expectations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Feminine Beauty as a Social Construct? (Simone De Beauvoir)

# data[].attributes.subject
Feminine Beauty as a Social Construct? (Simone De Beauvoir)

# data[].attributes.body
Ideas from French Philosopher Simone De Beauvoir

# data[].attributes.body
The world we live in is vastly different from the societies of the past.
Why do you think this is so?

Watch this video to understand how life would be like for a teenager in Ancient Rome.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A glimpse of teenage life in ancient Rome - Ray Laurence