Heh, "even". Like neuroscientists are peak positioned to tackle it.

Perhaps requires skilful deployment of questions as per the Socratic method, to help them find their own ignorance, rather than have their totalitarianised psyche dig their heels in double-down deeper when confronted with "facts that contradict their beliefs".

Perhaps some Mattias Desmet insights too, to keep on talking alternative perspectives despite their initial reactions to try to silence the threat of a different perspective than their "one true way". Otherwise they get worse.

As I read through that article, I can't help but think of the non-belief advocacy quip: "just as pens make poor binoculars, belief makes a poor means to determine reality".

Oh, I just got down to: "Next up, we have the contentious issue of vaccine hesitancy. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting vaccine safety and efficacy, some people become even more skeptical when presented with this information. It’s as if the facts act as a booster shot for their misbeliefs, making them even more resistant to change."

Irony.

May wanna look into that "overwhelming scientific evidence" several layers harder. It's a fun rabbit hole. Challenges many previously presumed well established foundations.

Love that irony, the piece starting that way, then proving its own point, asserting a doubled-down position.

And then "Climate change denial is another prime example. You’d think that rising sea levels and extreme weather events would be convincing enough. But for some, more evidence of global warming paradoxically reinforces their disbelief. It’s like watching someone insist the Earth is flat while orbiting it in a spaceship." Is an even more intriguing confounding mess of conflicts of interest. The various weather manipulation technologies, not the least of those confounding factors. Space weather too. And all the incentives for power-grabs, for distraction from other/real pollution. Lies so big not even their inverse are true. Those types of lies are especially effective at keeping people in the polarised tribal groupthink.

If you're certain about something (especially something there's the reverberation of "everybody" else certain about the same) there's a good sign you may be getting herded to Dunning-Kruger's peak certainty.

There's always more.

"And let’s not forget about conspiracy theories. From flat Earth believers to those convinced that lizard people rule the world, presenting contradictory evidence often only entrenches these beliefs further. It’s as if debunking these theories acts like fertilizer, helping them grow stronger and more resilient." Ding ding ding ding. There's the classic dismissive psyop phrase that means we do not have to offer considerate scrutiny, no need for a sound counter argument or refutation. Just play the "conspiracy theory" ad-hominem slur to strike terror in the minds of those who fear social exclusion for being a witch. That'll get them conforming to the one true way. LOL. And of course, be sure to throw them all in the same poisoned well, to hide them in the false equivalency fallacy, further toying with the emotions to dissuade curiosity and scrutiny. I'd love to explore their evidence against the lizard people idea. Lub me an open mind. I wonder if many struggle to see open [educated] minds [entertaining ideas without necessarily accepting nor rejecting] because if someone does not agree, they're presumed to hold the opposing belief, and any further nuanced or curious view does not enter their imagination of the possibilities. Because of course, when it's life and death, it's all limbic reflex, no time for contemplative critical and creative thinking. Not unless it serves the one true way that will save us all from the big scary wrong-think.

Okay, the author of this piece is correct. I'm going to go join the scientologists to oppose this evil neuroscience industry. ;D

JK of course.

As I continue to read through the article's next few paragraphs, the irony gift keeps giving.

Like in "First and foremost, improving critical thinking and media literacy is crucial. It’s like giving our brains a pair of X-ray glasses to see through the fog of misinformation. Teaching people how to evaluate sources, recognize logical fallacies, and understand the basics of scientific reasoning can go a long way in combating the backfire effect."

Yes. Handy to keep growing one's ability to recognize logical fallacies. ... Like it's several instances of strawman, false analogy, circular reasoning, appeal to emotion, over generalisation, false dichotomy, appeal to authority, slippery slope, hasty generalisation, appeal to popularity (srsly, the irony), red herring, reification / misplaced-correctness, loaded language, confirmation bias (the irony keeps giving), projection, anachronism, hyperbole, and, a few others I saw along the way but have forgotten (~ and some of those have perhaps as many as 10 instances therof). Not a thorough list, but more than enough to laugh at the appeal to authority, having so thoroughly lost it [/lost credibility of authority]~ unless, it's all just part of the projecting, as a cunning ploy to give the illusion of the point being proven, it all being evident in their writing. XD Ohhhh they don't cut steaks of irony that fat every day. Hehe. Good stuff.

It'd be less funny if it were not so insistent on what to do about it, while not doing it.

Lots of times throughout reading this, but especially this passage, "But let’s not forget the importance of empathy and open-mindedness. It’s easy to dismiss those who hold different beliefs as stubborn or irrational. However, approaching disagreements with understanding and respect can create an environment where people feel safe to reconsider their views. It’s like creating a warm, inviting space where ideas can be exchanged freely, rather than a battleground where beliefs are defended at all costs." have made me really thankful for INTP personality types, and various niches of neurodiversity, where peeps of such temperament find it harder to be stubborn, unempathetic, closed-minded, irrational, where they're eager for the variety of perspectives. Though, that may be a bit of a double empathy problem, where incredulity is an invite for more, not an attack to defend.

" Using narrative techniques, focusing on shared values, and framing information in a way that doesn’t threaten someone’s identity can all help in reducing the backfire effect." That may work as part of a belief-changing strategy, in the short term, but its still affirming the idea-identity paradigm, leaving them vulnerable. Perhaps a few more doses of hormesis from bluntly delivered ideas contrary to their identified world view, that eventually present cognitive-dissonant conundrums, may help more longer term, weakening the naive realism. Any way, so glad I got out of advertising, refusing to manipulate people's minds like that ever again. Yet to some, short term results are all that matter. Gotta get them out of wrong-think, and provide evidence our technique works. Gee, what does that sound like? I hear goose-step marching...

"Creating environments that encourage intellectual humility is another powerful strategy." Methinks is good though. Something I aspire to improving, in my still woefully inadequate skill at the Socratic method. The way Socrates would thank people for their answer, seemed to me to show how often it must not have gone so well for him, and not getting real honest curious answers in sufficient humility.

"This means fostering a culture where it’s okay to say “I don’t know” or “I might be wrong.” It’s about celebrating the pursuit of truth over the need to be right. Imagine a world where changing your mind in light of new evidence is seen as a strength, not a weakness." Many corners of academia would do well to do more of that. Too easy to slip into presumption of doing that, in a "but we're scientists" identification cart-before-horse sort of way.

"The backfire effect is just one piece of the puzzle in understanding how our minds work and how we can work with, rather than against, our cognitive tendencies." Perhaps the most true thing said through the whole article.

"The role of the backfire effect in perpetuating societal divisions cannot be overstated. In an era of increasing polarization, this phenomenon can act like a wedge, driving people further apart instead of bringing them together." The irony, so thick and juicy, one could choke on it. Also, this reminds me of the Zoltan Shield quest in the FTL game... (I hope I've enough space to lay it out ... this is a long reply already... ) They test you... First you have to hear their message of peace... Then they send you elsewhere to test you further... When they say "I can't imagine there's anything you could say that will save you. The rebellion must destroy those that are still loyal to the obsolete Federation." Do you attack? You failed the test. Do you attempt to communicate? "Our ideals are too different to be so easily reconciled. You think this could end any way but war?" They insist. "Perhaps there could be a reconciliation of our ideals without war?" <is the wise answer. Not the arrogant judgemental "Your Rebellion is causing millions of deaths. Your beliefs are dividing the galaxy. Unity is the only option!". They insist on war still. And if you say "True progress can only be achieved without bloodshed." not "The galaxy is huge, you can find a place for your ideals elsewhere without causing this destruction" nor the worse verbal abuse, then you're bestowed with the shield that protects you from all the initial attacks, even ones that would pierce regular shields. Good analogy for the calm humility of an educated mind, able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it.