О пользе дискуссий.
Aug. 6th, 2006 11:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mikevОтрывок отсюда. Русский перевод столь плох, что цитировать лучше по оригиналу.
Lord et al. (1979) first selected subjects who either supported capital punishment and believed it to be an effective deterrent (proponents) or opposed capital punishment and believed it not to be a deterrent (opponents). The subjects were presented, in a counterbalanced design, with two purportedly authentic empirical studies. One seemingly provided empirical support for their position; the other seemingly opposed that position. At strategic points in the reading of these two studies, the two groups completed ratings dealing both with their evaluations of the two studies and with their own changes in attitudes and beliefs. These ratings dramatically revealed the capacity of theory-holders to interpret new evidence in a manner that strengthens and sustains their theories. First, both proponents and opponents of capital punishment consistently rated the study that supported their beliefs as "more convincing" and "better conducted" than the study that opposed those beliefs. Second, and in contrast to any normative strategy imaginable for incorporating new evidence relevant to one's beliefs, the net effect of reading the two studies was to polarize further the beliefs of the death penalty opponents and proponents. The manner in which this polarization occurred was particularly illuminating (see Figure 3). Upon reading a brief statement of a result that supported their own viewpoint, subjects' beliefs became considerably more extreme; these changes were maintained or enhanced when the subjects considered details about the procedure and data. By contrast, upon reading a brief result statement that opposed their own viewpoint, subjects became only slightly less extreme; and upon reading the relevant details concerning procedures and data the subjects tended to revert to the beliefs they had held before ever learning of the study's existence. In fact, many individual subjects who had read both the results summary and the procedural details of a study that opposed their belief ultimately became more convinced of the correctness of that belief! No such effects occurred when the same results and procedures were read by subjects whose initial views were supported.
Lord et al. (1979) first selected subjects who either supported capital punishment and believed it to be an effective deterrent (proponents) or opposed capital punishment and believed it not to be a deterrent (opponents). The subjects were presented, in a counterbalanced design, with two purportedly authentic empirical studies. One seemingly provided empirical support for their position; the other seemingly opposed that position. At strategic points in the reading of these two studies, the two groups completed ratings dealing both with their evaluations of the two studies and with their own changes in attitudes and beliefs. These ratings dramatically revealed the capacity of theory-holders to interpret new evidence in a manner that strengthens and sustains their theories. First, both proponents and opponents of capital punishment consistently rated the study that supported their beliefs as "more convincing" and "better conducted" than the study that opposed those beliefs. Second, and in contrast to any normative strategy imaginable for incorporating new evidence relevant to one's beliefs, the net effect of reading the two studies was to polarize further the beliefs of the death penalty opponents and proponents. The manner in which this polarization occurred was particularly illuminating (see Figure 3). Upon reading a brief statement of a result that supported their own viewpoint, subjects' beliefs became considerably more extreme; these changes were maintained or enhanced when the subjects considered details about the procedure and data. By contrast, upon reading a brief result statement that opposed their own viewpoint, subjects became only slightly less extreme; and upon reading the relevant details concerning procedures and data the subjects tended to revert to the beliefs they had held before ever learning of the study's existence. In fact, many individual subjects who had read both the results summary and the procedural details of a study that opposed their belief ultimately became more convinced of the correctness of that belief! No such effects occurred when the same results and procedures were read by subjects whose initial views were supported.
