You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Eugine_Nier comments on [LINK] Want to Sway Climate Change Skeptics? Ask About Their Personal Strengths (And Show Pictures!) - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: David_Gerard 14 September 2011 08:05PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (13)

Comments (13)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 September 2011 12:34:16AM *  6 points [-]

The use of graphs as a persuasive element seems to use the fact that graphs are visual and striking and so can overcome our cognitive defenses which prevent updating. This may connected to why graphs are such a useful mode of communication.

The impression I got from the description in the article is that without the graph subjects didn't believe that the data were accurate, with the graph they did. This, even though the existence of the graph doesn't provide any additional evidence about the accuracy of the underlying data.

If you'll indulge me some just-so-story type speculation, I suspect the reason striking visuals are more persuasive then words is that we evolved to expect others to manipulate us through language, we didn't evolve to expect to be manipulated through visuals.

Similarly, starting people off where they feel good about themselves may simply reduce the level which they feel a need to defend their beliefs as part of themselves.

Perhaps; on the other hand, this strikes me as a mild form of the infamous love-bombing technique.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 15 September 2011 12:41:57AM 3 points [-]

If you'll indulge me some just-so-story type speculation, I suspect the reason striking visuals are more persuasive then words is that we evolved to expect others to manipulate us through language, we didn't evolve to expect to be manipulated through visuals.

That's a really interesting hypothesis. I would have guessed that it is just due to humans being very visual beings. I'd be really interested in seeing a way of testing your hypothesis. Another alternative hypothesis- people are more likely to dismiss simple assertions but graphs signal that someone has spent time and effort thinking about the issue in question. Moreover, knowing how to make a graph signals minimal intelligence so people are more likely to give credence?

Perhaps; on the other hand, this strikes me as a mild form of the infamous love-bombing technique.

That seems disconnected. Love-bombing involves making a set of emotional connections to the claims or people in question. This doesn't connect the emotion to the claims that are then evaluated later.

Comment author: Pfft 16 September 2011 03:20:50AM 3 points [-]

I would have guessed that it is just due to humans being very visual beings.

The paper briefly considers whether the effect is due to graphs being easier to process, but apparently not (p.32):

These results do not appear to be driven by systematic differences how respondents processed Text or Graph – a post-treatment check of recall of a primary data source (NASA) found few significant differences between the treatments. Moreover, we observe no significant difference in the length of time respondents spent considering each treatment. These results suggest that the greater effectiveness of Graph is not simply a function of ease or depth of processing (results available upon request).

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 September 2011 01:06:05AM 3 points [-]

Another alternative hypothesis- people are more likely to dismiss simple assertions but graphs signal that someone has spent time and effort thinking about the issue in question.

This effect certainly exists, this is a special case of the reason the conjunction fallacy is frequently a good heuristic.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 September 2011 01:28:57AM *  4 points [-]

I would have guessed that it is just due to humans being very visual beings.

Well, we're also verbal beings, in fact most of our explicit rationality ability is verbal rather than visual.

I'd be really interested in seeing a way of testing your hypothesis.

I haven't thought of a good way to do this. However, one way to test your "it is just due to humans being very visual beings" is to take advantage of the fact that people differ greatly about how visual they are.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit