This article or book review, was very intriguing for me. I found it fascinating because it touches on a very interesting topic that has raised much controversy in today’s society. That is, the reason why it is almost impossible to change the mind of someone that is already set in his or her way of thinking. The author, Elizabeth Kolbert, analyzes three books with different authors that nevertheless have much in common. Each author presents very valid views, for example, Mercier and Sperber mention the behavior they have labeled as “Confirmation bias.” They explain it as the tendency to follow and defend information that agrees with the way we think and to reject all that information that is against our convictions. Personally, I can say that I am guilty of following this behavior. Usually, I read complete articles that support my points of view or I watch entire videos with the same characteristics, however, I simply skim through or fast forward content that I disagree with. It is just recently that I am trying to be mindful of the information that doesn’t agree with my beliefs. I am trying to be objective, however, it is so hard not to judge with the millions of delusional people out there.

The article That’s What You Think  by Elizabeth Kolbert was boring at first because of how it started with the whole experiment and how the results came about. As I continued to read and take notes as you said I was beginning to understand the purpose of all the other experiments that the researchers conducted.  The main idea of reason and evidence not ultimately changing people minds really made me think about the truth that this article points out.

I really liked this article “Thats what you think”, because it can be used to relate to our everyday lives and our current issues. One of 2 lines that I really enjoyed was on the second page (left side), the author defines “confirmation bias” as “the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them”. A very well known idea is that bad people generally don’t think that they are bad, which questions whether anyone would know if they are doing the right or bad thing. With this years riots and protest, this quote really gives us a good idea of what is going on.

I mainly agreed with the reading from “That’s What You Think” by Elizabeth  Kolbert about perception and how we can sometimes assume that we know all of a particular topic. It is human nature that we tend to believe we have a full understanding without properly investigating all details and facts . Humans tend to speak from their emotions rather than full details.

“That’s what you think” is about human study about their point of view. Many of the studies are giving different sets of situation to people at the begin and let them having basic idea first. After that, they may have the other documents that support the opposite site, to see how things are very change people mind. They may having stronger believe after it or just simply change their mind. In reality ,many of simple cases you know how to do it and take advantage of something that are made by someone else, but the time you have yo told description, people may get too deep on it .

Dear god this was the most annoying reading I have ever read. Never have I ever read something so useless to me. It angered me so much because it made me question why I make the certain choices and why I believe certain things. The only thing I do agree with is that you should not blindly follow something without questioning it. I am a feminist but I did my research and did what I had to in order to earn that title. I understood the issues and comprehended what was presented in all angles. Unlike the Trump supporters, I refuse to be blind to the world. So from this article, it only grounds my thoughts on questioning everything. Whatever it is you believe in whether it be politics, religion or how you like eggs in the morning, just know that the explanation of “jut because” should not suffice. Moving forward the idea of having a group of people agree with you only makes you want to believe in what you are believing more. Yeah, not in my book. You like apples and I’ll like oranges.

In the article, “That’s What You Think,” Mercier, who works at a French research institute in Lyon, and Sperber, now based at the Central European University, in Budapest, point out that, “Reason is an evolved trait, “It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context.” I got to understand from Mercier and Sperber that living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, our ancestors were primarily concerned with their social standing, and with making sure that they were not the ones risking their lives on the hunt while others loafed around in the cave. I got to understand from this article that at any given moment, a field may be dominated by squabbles, but in the end, methodology prevails. Science moves forward, even as we remain stuck in place.

I found the article to be interesting as to giving some understanding the some people think and why they like it when you go against their way of thinking. Many people and including myself falling into following a way of thinking into a subject.

Well to be honest I wasn’t too much into the reading I know the reading was about researchers inviting students for a study but the rest wasn’t to interesting to me. I’m surprised I even read pass the first page without sleeping at this point. I tried skimming through the paper but it didn’t work what so ever.  My experience with the article is summarized with the picture in the second page, yes I’m talking about the sock puppet. That is my expression on this entire article.

As I read through the article I felt that the studies and argument that were put in front of me validated most of the assumption and views that I expereicne in my own life. Such as the idea that the confirmation bias and the reflection of how it is easy to poke hole in an argument when it is presented to you rather than when you are presented one. As most times it is easier to attack someone else positions than it is to defend one position unless you live in the age of non-facts or as we call them alternative facts.