The Chatter Box Community Group
A place where anything and everything is discussed. You can discuss your views, or post any topic you would like. Meet new friends or bring news friends, get support if your having a bad day or you would like to celebrate. So grab your coffee tea, beer or wine ,grab a chair and put your feet up and get ready to chat. Bashing and name calling are not allowed so leave your...
I just recently rebrowsed a book i bought years ago titled "How We Know What Isn't So" by Thomas Gilovich published by Free Press (c) 1991. What is unique about this book is that it exposes how people often see what they want to see for a lot of different reasons and often this tendency acts subliminally and we are unconscious that we are choosing to see what we want to. I really think everyone should read this book and put what Gilovich has to say to use.
you can read some of it at http://books.google.com/books?id=LURGkHCPAJEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=thomas+gilovich&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Z97T5PkLZG4twetsuzGCA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=thomas%20gilovich&f=false
Chapter two talks about how people often see patterns they want to see when none exists. I won't get into detail with his examples, but this tendency shows up on politics, of course, when people are surrounded by too many people who share their viewpont (whether liberal or conservative). They will tend to think more people believe their point of view than actually do in the general population. My mother is fond of saying that soooo many hollywood movie stars are getting divorced and to her the divorce rate appears so high, but it's probably not any higher than the general population. It only appears high because those divorces are publicized more widely.
Of course this tendency plays its part in marriage as well - as I should know. If you subconsciously only want to see your mates faults, then they will multiply like rabbits because that is only what you want to see. and then you're divorced and after the b.s. is gone, you find that he or she is not so bad after all.
Chapter four contains a very good discussion of a study on why some gamblers continue gambling. When gamblers asked why they lost, they were likely to attribute their loses to other causes like a "fluke" happening. But when they won, they tended to believe their wins were to be expected or their should have been more wins. in essence, they downplayed their losses and exhalted their wins and, as Gilovich says, their loses were more like "near wins." Thus they find reasons to continue gambling.
you can see this tendency in politics as well particularly where the actions of some people or countries are attributed to causes rather than the people themselves regardless of whether there is evidence to support that idea. had it not been for those causes, the people would behave when in fact they may not have.
One you become aware of what is in this book, you find examples all over. I guess the gist of the book is to seek evidence for stuff when possible and watch out for faulty thinking.
you can read some of it at http://books.google.com/books?id=LURGkHCPAJEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=thomas+gilovich&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Z97T5PkLZG4twetsuzGCA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=thomas%20gilovich&f=false
Chapter two talks about how people often see patterns they want to see when none exists. I won't get into detail with his examples, but this tendency shows up on politics, of course, when people are surrounded by too many people who share their viewpont (whether liberal or conservative). They will tend to think more people believe their point of view than actually do in the general population. My mother is fond of saying that soooo many hollywood movie stars are getting divorced and to her the divorce rate appears so high, but it's probably not any higher than the general population. It only appears high because those divorces are publicized more widely.
Of course this tendency plays its part in marriage as well - as I should know. If you subconsciously only want to see your mates faults, then they will multiply like rabbits because that is only what you want to see. and then you're divorced and after the b.s. is gone, you find that he or she is not so bad after all.
Chapter four contains a very good discussion of a study on why some gamblers continue gambling. When gamblers asked why they lost, they were likely to attribute their loses to other causes like a "fluke" happening. But when they won, they tended to believe their wins were to be expected or their should have been more wins. in essence, they downplayed their losses and exhalted their wins and, as Gilovich says, their loses were more like "near wins." Thus they find reasons to continue gambling.
you can see this tendency in politics as well particularly where the actions of some people or countries are attributed to causes rather than the people themselves regardless of whether there is evidence to support that idea. had it not been for those causes, the people would behave when in fact they may not have.
One you become aware of what is in this book, you find examples all over. I guess the gist of the book is to seek evidence for stuff when possible and watch out for faulty thinking.
As for patterns, I don't know about that particular book, but a lot of what good science is about is figuring out what's related to what. Which is often much harder than it seems.
For example ulcers. For decades conventional medicine thought it was all Stress. Then it was discovered H pylori is a bacteria that causes ulcers. But then it was found that H pylori is just about everywhere, and who gets Sick with it.....is often affected by Stress. (Just about Every hospitalized patient gets a PPI...Proton Pump Inhibitor....anti-acid medicine....that greatly reduces the risk of a new ulcer even in people who've never had one before).
SO......ulcers.....can be strictly from getting a big exposure to the bacteria, OR from stress lowering your resistance......
And it's probably more complicated than that. But just about everything is muddy.
If I was to bet, the Stress from money and media exposure, AND perhaps the type of person that wants to be an actor....really would make divorces in Hollywood higher. BUT maybe fewer get married, so that might make them lower. (Some politicians may be lower for appearances sake....)
Some interesting research is linking violence to childhood stress. It could be that the reason that there's increased rates of violence in poorer neighborhoods is directly related to the stress factor. it all get VERY complicated, and the studies have to be VERY clever......and repeatable.
No matter what the media says.....one scienentific study.....means next to nothing. Two or three may mean nothing too (because the very prejudice you talk about can effect results), but 10 or 20 mean A LOT.