#false consensus

[littlepsych101]

Not everyone agrees with you, sorry.

As social beings with a drive for companionship, it is expected that we will hope and determine that others will agree with our thoughts, views and statements, however, this appears to rarely be the case.

in 1977 Lee Ross, a professor at Stanford University set out to study how individuals can create a ‘false consensus’ for themselves, where they believe that others will agree with them and will therefore often ascribe this to others. In order to achieve this, he conducted two studies.

Procedure (study one): 

Participants read an extract detailing a conflict that had occurred, they then were told of two different responses to the conflict and were asked: 

Which option they would choose

Which option others would choose

To describe the characteristics of the individuals who would choose one response, and then the characteristics of the individuals who would choose the other. 

What did study one show? 

No matter which response the individuals showed, the majority of participants predicted that others would agree with them, supporting that the ‘false consensus effect’ is a real phenomenon. Secondly, when asked to describe the two different groups of individuals, they often described the ‘outgroup’ (those who would likely choose the response the participant did not) with negative terms. This shows how we can sometimes create a somewhat bubble for ourselves where we can positively evaluate and appreciate those who agree with us (as we believe our worldview to be the right one) but sometimes belittle those who not to safeguard our worldview. 

Procedure (study two)

Participants were asked to walk around the campus of the university wearing a sandwich board which read ‘Eat at Joe’s’, to incentivise this they were reassured that they would learn something new during this. So here, Ross is measuring opinions on the decisions of others. 

What did study two show?

The results of study two reinforced the results of study one. Of those who agreed to do the task, roughly 62% predicted that others would do the same. Of those who chose to not do the task, 33% believed others would agree to. This shows how we are more likely to assume that others would agree with our choices. Furthermore, the pattern of positively evaluating those who agree with us and negatively evaluating those who do not, was continued.

So, the work of Lee Ross appears to show important trends in the way we view ourselves and others. I believe that the results are important in showcasing how we can sometimes create echo-chambers for ourselves and never challenge our way of thinking or making decisions, leaving ourselves in a rut and often preventing growth. Therefore, I think the main lesson that can be derived from this is to delve more into opposing thoughts and opinions, to open up to debate and criticism, because surrounding ourselves with only those who agree with us will most likely prevent us from learning. Also - not to be dramatic - but a lack of debate and challenge has been proven to be responsible for multiple atrocities in history (amongst other factors) such as The Holocaust, The Guyana tragedy and more.

Challenge: research into an opposing view on a topic you care about. Tell me how it goes!

[girl-dysregulated]

I have the opposite of whatever this is

[chochote-sijali]

Why are we often victims of false consensus and pluralistic ignorance?

My understanding of false consensus: having beliefs that you believe are rampant in society (as in the majority of people have your beliefs). Ex. You and those around you like to smoke, and you believe that everyone else smokes because that's basically all you've seen in life. So those that don't smoke, you think they're the strangest weirdos on the planet and something's wrong with them.

My understanding of pluralistic ignorance: having beliefs but thinking everybody else thinks differently, so you act in ways to be more accepted. Ex. You don't like to smoke but because you see everyone else around you smoking, you assume it's because they like to do it. So now you start smoking because it's "acceptable" behavior when most of the people around you would like to quit too. You only quit when you see someone publicly willing to break from the norm.

I understand we're social animals looking for acceptance everywhere and finding our "in-groups", but why must we do this? How can we even combat behavior like this? Are these the types of behaviors that we should even combat? Or should we let them be?

Please correct me if my understanding of both these concepts is off.

[curiositydotcom]

Visit Original Link

Curiosity Daily Podcast: A Diet That’s Good for You and the World, Milk Temperatures, and the False-Consensus Effect

Learn about why people around the world keep their milk at different temperatures; a diet that’s good for your health and for the health of the planet; and, a cognitive bias that might make you think that everyone agrees with you.

In this podcast, Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer discuss the following stories from Curiosity.com to help you get smarter and learn something new in just a few minutes:

Why Most of the World Buys Their Milk at Room Temperature — https://curiosity.im/2EGslG2

The Diet That's Good for Your Health and the World's — https://curiosity.im/2u3LQTU  

Think Most People Agree With You? You Might Be Fooling Yourself — https://curiosity.im/2EFDcA0

If you love our show and you're interested in hearing full-length interviews, then please consider supporting us on Patreon. You'll get exclusive episodes and access to our archives as soon as you become a Patron! https://www.patreon.com/curiositydotcom

Download the FREE 5-star Curiosity app for Android and iOS at https://curiosity.im/podcast-app. And Amazon smart speaker users: you can listen to our podcast as part of your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing — just click “enable” here: https://curiosity.im/podcast-flash-briefing.

Support the show.

via https://omny.fm/shows/curiosity-podcast/a-diet-that-s-good-for-you-and-the-world-milk-temp

[casuist]

You don't say. Welcome to the New Normal of the False Consensus. Welcome the Ideologists of the New Propaganda. (via Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News)

[seppoin-blog]

Dangers of Customized News and Feeds. Conspiracy Theories. Confirmation Bias. Online Echo Chambers

The following is an edited excerpt from the edX Course “Think101x The Science of Everyday Thinking”

Conversation with Stephan Lewandowsky

Q: People tend to believe some pretty weird things, from NASA faking the moon landing to pharmaceutical companies conspiring with government departments to keep people sick, and climate change obviously. Why does that happen? Why do people believe strange things like that?

A: People tend to focus selectively on what they consider to be “the evidence”. They may focus on one data point in the case of climate change, one thermometer somewhere that has been showing cooling for the last ten years. it is only one of about a billion different measurements that tell us that the climate is changing. Yet by focusing on just this one convenient piece of evidence that is protecting people’s worldview, they can be absolutely convinced that they’re right: “Look here, there is this one thermometer. It’s cooling,” and they’re ignoring absolutely everything else. It is difficult to get people to go beyond that one piece of evidence because doing so would imply that they have to change their opinion, and that’s a very difficult thing for people to do.

Q: One of the major drivers in the maintenance of people’s beliefs and the formation of their beliefs is the role of the media. The media clearly plays a large role. You encountered that yourself?

A: There’s an abundance of evidence to suggest that certain segments of the media have done a very poor job informing the public about a number of issues, from the mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to climate change. The media are culpable to some extent. That is a serious problem, especially now that we have the ability to choose their own media by focusing on certain sources on the Internet. People have become more immersed in their own bubble of information they like, and that is what they are consuming to the exclusion of everything else. 

Continue to read at http://wp.me/pmMJ0-qa

[archive4eternalbeliever12]

False consensus effect

False consensus is interesting, this is related to social issues as it does have a negative effect on minority groups.

For example, when one is giving advice to someone they may not take into account the other persons differences and will most likely end up giving them the wrong advice. They may think the other person is like them or should at least think like them because "its the norm" or "its the right way."

http://secularethics.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/false-consensus-effect/

Definition

The false-consensus effect is a cognitive bias that leads people to overestimate the extent to which others agree with them.

Function

The false-consensus effect’s primary function is to normalize and create the perception of support for (“if so many people believe it, it must be true” or “if these people believe it, it must be true”) one’s beliefs.

Examples

1.)  John objects to gay marriage because he is disgusted by homosexuality.  Unable to see how anyone else could support it despite that disgust or even not be disgusted at all, he concludes that most others share his belief.

2.)  Jane, a fundamentalist Christian, believes that people like her represent a “silent and moral majority.”  However, she has only anecdotal evidence (her family and closest friends share her beliefs) to support her belief.

Additional Thoughts

The false-consensus effect is closely related to projection (attributing one’s own characteristics to others), so it should not be a surprise that it applies not only to beliefs, but also to desires, feelings, and abilities.  In the first example, John imagines that most people believe as he does because he imagines that most people feel as he does.  In either case, when someone who is affected by this bias is confronted with a challenge to his belief, he typically tries to find something wrong with the challenger in order to maintain his belief.  Consider a few examples:

1.) Jason believes that people “know in their hearts” that God exists.  When confronted by an atheist, Jason claims that the atheist chooses to deny what he knows in order to live a hedonistic lifestyle.

2.) Because of her strong work ethic and incredible typing speed, Jenna is the most productive employee at her office.  However, since she does not think that her work ethic or typing speed are particularly impressive, she believes that her co-workers are lazy and unskilled and grows to resent them.

3.) Jeremy is always trying to climb the corporate ladder and has no shortage of sexual partners.  In contrast, Justin, his subordinate at work, makes no effort to reach a higher position and is happy in his monogamous marriage to his high school sweetheart.  Justin claims that he is quite happy as he is, but Jeremy insists that he is a “beta male” who has buried his real desires because he is too afraid to pursue them.

Jason, Jenna, and Jeremy project their beliefs, abilities, and desires (respectively) upon others.  When others do not live up to those standards, the three conclude that something is wrong with them:  the atheist is dishonest and hedonistic, Jenna’s co-workers are slackers, and Justin is secretly unhappy with his life.  To instead acknowledge that others’ characteristics can vary and still be normal would be to acknowledge that their own worldviews are stunted.  In this way, the maintenance of the false-consensus effect requires confirmation bias, through which people see what confirms their beliefs and find a way to deny what challenges them.  Both biases promote the status quo of the individual’s mind.

This bias is particularly important to the application of desirism.  Since the only way to convince people to change is to appeal to their actual desires and beliefs, any bias that interferes with an accurate identification of those desires and beliefs also interferes with our ability to promote change.  The false-consensus effect and related biases interfere precisely with this task by defining those desires and beliefs beforehand according to one’s own, without regard for what others have to say about themselves.  Such an approach is certain to fail and, more often than not, simply strengthens the differences and builds opposition.

If you are into social issues or part of a minority group I recommend looking into this stuff. I'm talking from my experience only but I know for a fact that false consensus has made my life more difficult. Which is why I tend to lash out when other people hold unreasonable expectations/beliefs of me or when they try to tell my what to do and how to think.

[the-dextertorres]

Yan ang hirap sa atin e. Palibhasa nangyari sa atin, iniisip din natin na ganun din ang mangyayari sa ibang tao kapag naipit sila sa parehong sitwasyon. Palibhasa ito ang gusto natin, ito na rin ang gugustuhin natin para sa iba. Ito na rin ang sa tingin nating gusto ng iba. False consensus. Iba-iba kaya ang mga tao. Kaya nga may individual differences e.