https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Assuming you can understand this. It's not too deep but it's not like changing a tire either.

I would say if your views have not evolved over time you are really guilty of this.

Don't think it explains NSR at all. Don't think the article is particularly useful either. It puts people in a box that often times doesn't exist.

Let's look at this passage -

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 article, therefor, states in essence that people are being fools for wanting guns because they don't make you safer. That assumes that people want guns for the sole purpose of making themselves safer. I highly doubt that is the case. I would imagine that most people intuitively understand that guns don't make you safer. Probably understand that cars or booze don't make them safer too. There are a host of reasons for owning cars, guns and for boozing it up. The problem with these types of articles is that they place a person into a category that isn't realistic and excoriate the person for not behaving as if they were in that category. So when gun owners don't give a damn about whether or not owning a gun makes them safer or not, it doesn't at all  reflect on confirmation bias or the like. Likewise, when I think Trump is doing a good job, it has nothing to do with me ignoring facts, science or anything else.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Articulate, but I think you missed the point.

The author would probably thinks so, due to confirmation bias.

What was your take on what the point was?

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

We all have two conflicting modes of thinking; group think and reasoning from facts (data, experience, whatever). One is for hanging with the group for survival, the second is for going against the group as needed for survival (a group that does not meet the needs of that individual). The former is rewarded by release of dopamine. The latter has a chance of being accurate.

I believe you merit my attempt at an answer; something that usually is a waste of time. Consider yourself special.

The point?

Good for the aged for thinking Trump is doing a heckuva job, it's kind of subjective?  But the aged are idiots for denying human caused climate change and believing in trickle down economics.   

Next time Crankit or FK or OBX makes that argument you will refute them?

It is a common argument; the most common that we have seen on this board.

The article isn't assuming that all people that want guns make that argument but a lot do and the point stands regarding those people.

 

-------------------------
...

Beliefs are tribe based. I posted a fun little cartoon about this in the forum a while back. It's very difficult to get people to change their minds but there are subtle ways to do so, very difficult