> key from article "Here, though the subjects still pressed keys to make the instructed choices, confirmation bias disappeared, with both positive and negative outcomes weighted equally during learning."

>> arolihas said: Here, though the subjects still pressed keys to make the instructed choices, confirmation bias disappeared, with both positive and negative outcomes weighted equally during learning.

I appreciate the recommend but...I'm still coming to the same conclusion. Humans are not robots. We need to have a full conceptual framework about ideas for them to scale and through the scientific method and trial/error we've learned quiet a deal on how to mentally model the world.

My conclusion lines up with this statement.

> ""Feeling as though you are the architect of the outcomes you experience is powerful and certainly would lead you to strengthen beliefs about those contingencies much more strongly"

To also add more meat to my initial argument, read below.

>"This insight could also help explain delusional thinking, in which false beliefs remain impenetrable to contrary evidence. An outsize feeling of control may contribute to an unflagging adherence to an erroneous belief."

This is also hinting at some disgusting thought processes in the author (not of the study but of the SA author). Assuming 'contrary evidence' is rigorous enough is a very deceptive thought; as author states, delusional. Sure, the desire of someone is a very important factor but...when 'truth' can't be reduced nor conceptually described, I say it's not really truth. It's a guess without evidence, re:Feynman. This typically is not a quick process.

If I have a poor (not scalable/error prone), then it was helpful at some point, to criticize my incorrect framework, without finding the ability to quantify aspects of it (as per the study, show benefits/punishments). Then how can one deduce that Newtonian physics is incorrect? The replacement framework needs to answer more questions than the previous one and help create similar factors to the situation in this study. Too much assumption is coming from the SA author.

Trusting a 'forced' choice is how we all learn but we're also given feedback on what the decisions mean (the two choices aren't equal choices like the study has). If I use a diffeq to describe the properties of a wave, I'm closer to truth. If I use a linear equation, I'm not correct. There is no in between. To get to the 'truth' one needs to have a correct framework. Rote is how we learn until we've reached the limits of the existing framework. Rewarding incentives help provide positive feedback loops. As for 'force' being something negative, this is a terrible conclusion to what was experimented.

Therefore, I stand firmly behind my initial claims. Laziness on their parts.

P.S.
> SA author writes: when maybe something about choice or an inflated sense of control pushes people toward delusions.

It is so difficult to realize that their 'delusion' is helpful for their given individual purpose.

> would be how beliefs are updated in a person with delusions and whether this process differs when choices are forced or made freely.

Are they seriously asking this? Really. I'm dumbfounded at why people think in these terms. It's truly seeds of authoritarianism.

> The latter individuals’ sense of control, also called agency, was equally diminished in both free-choice and forced-choice situations.

Because confidence is a major factor in how humans make decisions.

> There’s this general sense that the rules don’t apply anymore, and that is really unmooring for people and can lead to unpredictable, irrational behavior, - Corlett

Umm. Y'all really need to stop watching the news. This is such a broad assumption that is surprising for a person talking about delusional thinking, to be saying.

> For example, maybe voluntary mask-wearing should be encouraged and coupled with rewards for choosing to put on a face covering and occasional punishments for not doing so.

Glimmer of hope here when people think about policy assuming the freedom of choice.

> “Even when the stakes are so high, you may think humans would behave rationally,” he says. “But that’s far from clear.”

Smh. Thanks for ending the article that confirms that even the scientist has a delusional thought process. Can we quantify rational? Seriously. I haven't seen much about this and if there is, you'd think the researcher would have some notes about it since it's critical to their framework and conclusion.