The backfire effect and apologetics

[_Uther]

While browsing the Wiki, I came across the description of "The Backfire Effect", and I experienced a feeling that can best be described in Brother Josephs own words:

"Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed to understand the reasoning of apologetics, I did; for how to act in regards to my apologetic family I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the apologists of the LDS church understood the same piece of evidence so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to reason."
(History of the Church, Volume 1, Chapters 1, "modified version" of verse 12)

The Backfire Effect:
"Individuals challenged with evidence contradictory to their beliefs tend to reject the evidence and instead become an even firmer supporter of the initial belief".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

"The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, beliefs get stronger. Hence, most refutations are useless".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

"What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

And hence a theory behind the gradual development/degrading of the online personalities of Peterson, Schryver, Hamblin et al:

"If you're feeling especially mischievous, you can use the backfire effect to trap someone into a bad position and pound them repeatedly to get what you want. Martin Luther King specifically targeted the short-tempered sheriff Jim Clark to raise awareness for American civil rights. However, King wasn't trying to convince his opponent so much as trick him B'rer Rabbit-style into making himself look like a total moron."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

I believe many famous internet apologists have recieved a fair share of pounding, and have become something they didn't start out as, or intend to become.

[_DrW]

Excellent post, Uther.

Nice to have a set of referenced explanations for part of what goes on here. Pretty sure that most folks who have posted here for a while understand this dynamic. The Mopologists continue to take a beating. The Evangelicals continue to evangelize. And the rationalists continue to rule. It would seem that few, if any, of the folks in these various actively participating groups are converted or persuaded to embrace the beliefs of another.

Then there are the curious, the lurkers, the doubters and possibly even the occasional investigator, who come to boards like this, often without actively participating, to find out more regarding issues that make them uncertain or uncomfortable about Mormonism. On these boards, folks who are curious or doubting can find factual information (or references to factual information) about the LDS Church that is not provided by the Church and is often contrary to what is taught by the Church.

Information on these boards reflects a prescribed belief system that is riddled with contradiction and internal-inconsistencies typical of a make-it-up-as-you-go-along religion. The current thread on the many disconnects between information provided by lds.org and the LDS newsroom, as well as contradictions between statements from the LDS newsroom and LDS scripture, is but one example.

Boards like these provide easy, and sometimes entertaining, access to information folks need to confirm their well founded doubts about Mormonism and to formulate logical fact based counter-arguments (even if only for themselves) to the blatantly false teachings of the LDS Church.

When people say that they found information on the internet that caused them to doubt and eventually leave the Church, their search often started on boards like this. I have been surprised lately at how often a Mormon related search term, especially a multiword search term or phrase, returns hits from threads on this board.

(Them bots ain't here fer nuttin'.)

[_Mormon Think]

What is it that causes members to deepen their confirmation bias in spite of the facts?

Is it trust of their leaders?
Is it a feeling of wanting to hold onto what they have (fear of change)?
Is it just plain arrogance?

[_Always Changing]

Investment cost. Behavioral as well as money.

[_Uther]

When people say that they found information on the internet that caused them to doubt and eventually leave the Church, their search often started on boards like this. I have been surprised lately at how often a Mormon related search term, especially a multiword search term or phrase, returns hits from threads on this board.

(Them bots ain't here for nuttin'.)

I found this board many years ago when I first started looking behind the scenery, and have been lurking here ever since.
At one time I searched for and read every site I could find, but nowadays I only keep track of a few, as many don't pass the filter.

The thing I cherish with this board is that here you can find a few posters that appear to know what they are actually talking about, and can do so in an intelligent and communicable way.
I also support the principle of allowing anyone to state their relativly unmoderated opinion.

[_Res Ipsa]

What is it that causes members to deepen their confirmation bias in spite of the facts?

Is it trust of their leaders?
Is it a feeling of wanting to hold onto what they have (fear of change)?
Is it just plain arrogance?

I'd say human nature.

[_Fence Sitter]

The thing I cherish with this board is that here you can find a few posters that appear to know what they are actually talking about, and can do so in an intelligent and communicable way.
I also support the principle of allowing anyone to state their relatively unmoderated opinion.

This.

[_Uther]

What is it that causes members to deepen their confirmation bias in spite of the facts?

Is it trust of their leaders?
Is it a feeling of wanting to hold onto what they have (fear of change)?
Is it just plain arrogance?

I think confirmation bias is a natural part of any humans reasoning. And I do believe the LDS church as well as other fundamentalist churches uses this as a tool to enhance retention.
I can list three factors I believe contribute to the strong inherent flux of confirmation bias in active LDS members:

1. Demands for sacrifice in order to be "qualified, and in good standing".
".. a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.. ..When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do His will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering and that he has not sought nor will he seek His face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life."
(Joseph Smith, Lectures on faith, 6,7)

"Sacrifices asked of members today may be more subtle, but no less demanding than those of the early pioneers"
(Elder M. Russell Ballard, http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/22512/Sacrifice-is-a-demonstration-of-pure-love.html)

2. Spiritual war mentality/black and white thinking.
"You too live in a time of war, the spiritual war that will never end. War itself now dominates the affairs of mankind. Your world at war has lost its innocence. There is nothing, however crude or unworthy, that is not deemed acceptable for movies or plays or music or conversation. The world seems to be turned upside down."
(Boyd K. Packer, http://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/08/finding-ourselves-in-lehis-dream

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture."
(Gordon B. Hinkley, http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/interviews/hinckley.html)

3. Hostages of probability.
"Families can be together forever".
And the core of the hostage situation lies in the word "CAN". Many who doubt, cling on, resting on the probability that it MIGHT be true, and the implications if it was.


On a side note.. I found this gem while researching the above articles:

"The great question for us, therefore, is: How do we today go about getting that individual assurance and actual knowledge that we are pursuing a course of life that is acceptable to the will of God? The answer is that we have to do the same things that were required in earlier dispensations. The gospel has not changed. Faith is the same, the requirements are the same, and the rewards are the same. There are no special sales, no bargain days."
(Robert J. Matthews, http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/lectures-faith-historical-perspective/discussion-lecture-6-great-faith-obtained-only-though)

I wonder how this line of reasoning is matched with Polygamy and Polyandry..

[Guest]

-

[_Tim the Enchanter]

What is it that causes members to deepen their confirmation bias in spite of the facts?

Is it trust of their leaders?
Is it a feeling of wanting to hold onto what they have (fear of change)?
Is it just plain arrogance?

I also think the avoidance of pain plays into it. For the committed member, there is little, if any, separation between their identity and their testimony. Anything that challenges their testimony is received as an attack on their identity. An identity crisis (or faith crisis, whatever you want to call it) is extraordinarily taxing emotionally and mentally. It's painful. And so the slightest thing that would challenge their testimony is ignored or put on the shelf because to examine it would be painful. Instead, to counter-balance the attack on their testimony, they increase their belief.

Maybe I'm off base, but this makes sense to me.