Weinstein 1

Jeremy Weinstein

Zach Gregory

English & Composition

20 July 2020

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

I believe the main goal of this article is not to point fingers or accuse people of spreading

misinformation; it is to educate the audience about how we come to conclusions regardless of

our political, religious, or moral views. Kolbert is hoping that we take what she wrote and reflect

on our views personally instead of processing as a whole.

The biggest clue to whom this article is targeting is the reference to the Trump

administration after illustrating the spread of baseless opinions. And, more specifically, Donald

Trump after noting the spread of misinformation regarding the vaccination of his children. The

demographic is younger liberal and moderate readers; those who would not be offended or upset

by the direct acknowledgment of the shortcomings of these conservative figures.

Another argument that could be made from the article and the several studies it contains

is the idea of blatant ignorance. When people are introduced to proven facts that contradict their

ideology or personal views, they could ignore or deny the fact simply because they don’t like it

or it does not serve them. This could be a complete disregard to the truth rather than a struggle to

grasp the “newfound truth”.

Kolbert wrote this article to introduce a new method of thinking. The media has been

severely politicized in recent years and the idea of fact and opinion has been distorted in many

ways to serve individuals. She is incredibly wise to share the several instances of myside bias

that are backed by studies held by credible universities before she shares any sort of opinion on
 Weinstein 2

matters today. This severs the tie between politics and truth. The truth is we are all humans,

equally susceptible to this kind of bias through no fault of our own. What will be our fault

though, is if we read this article, acknowledge that we do this, and do nothing about it at all to

improve this situation.

The painting by Gerard Dubois perfectly displays the blatant ignorance of the general

public. Anchors bound to this man’s head are preventing him from seeing anything right in front

of him. An important thing to note is his hands are held behind him but they are not bound. This

shows that his binds, handicaps, etc. are self-induced. He has the ability to release himself (or

pick up a newspaper and do some research on current events to form his own opinion based on

what he finds). This painting shares a goal with Kolbert; show readers that they have the ability

to curb their own ignorance.

I thoroughly enjoy this article and agree with the message of it because it is not

politicized. I have a tendency to question or doubt an article’s validity when it is overly

politicized because I know there is an ulterior agenda behind the message. This article is about

people in general and how we are all prone to becoming complacent and stubborn in our views.

After reading for a second time, I still believe that the main purpose of this article is to

offer a non-partisan view on how and why we come to conclusions and stand by them as

humans.
 Weinstein 3

The message being shared through this article applies, and ought to concern, all of us.

This is simply because we are all human and operate similarly, regardless of race, religion, social

status, or political alignment. However, I still believe the evidence and conclusions drawn within

the writing lean more toward a liberal or moderate agenda.

After reading for a second time, I noticed the development of the mob mentality. Humans

evolved and thrived because of their ability to cooperate as a group. The only way to truly

cooperate and coexist is to be willing to make compromises, or, not go against the grain and

follow the will of the whole in order to not be exiled (meaning certain death). Another factor that

played into our development was the collaboration of our collective intelligence within the tribe.

The majority of us can’t even begin to describe how our smartphones work, but we don’t need to

know because someone else developed it and made it user friendly. Being able to construct

technology and being able to use it are two very different things with a very blurred line.

Likewise when it comes to politics. We do not know the fine intricacies of healthcare, a country's

budget spending, or foreign affairs. But we don’t need to know because that is not our job to. In

order to contribute to society, all we need to know is enough base information to form an opinion

and understand how these things will affect us and people we love; then vote accordingly for

who we believe will carry out what policy will serve our interests. Unfortunately, given the

multiple news outlets and, frankly, the blatant lies and propaganda spread through TV and the

Internet, it is difficult to grasp some sort of firm understanding of the workings of government.

This is where the mob mentality really comes into play. One person may adopt an opinion based

on research and personal experience, then another will adopt that version, and another, and so on

and so forth. This turns into a game of telephone and the only thing in common they all share is

an overarching message: “Make America Great Again”, “Win the Era”, “Not me. Us.”, etc. and
 Weinstein 4

the majority has little to no concrete information as to what they are campaigning for. And

though the originator of the general opinion may have rooted their message in fact, they could

very well have spun the delivery of said facts to serve their own interests. This is dangerous and

a shame.

I stand by my first reason why Kolbert wrote this article. It is a non-partisan introduction

to a concept that essentially invalidates how we draw our own conclusions.

I still believe that the painting illustrates the idea of self-induced ignorance. The only

thing that could accentuate the message is if there were several people depicted with anchors tied

to their heads.

Although I have found multiple messages and arguments through reading this article a

couple of times, I agree with all of them. I still believe this logical shortcoming is through no

fault of our own. However, it will be our fault if we acknowledge it and do nothing about it.

In a way, I did use some of the reading strategies provided. I already knew the critic

questions being asked before I read for a second time and I had already read it (or skimmed the

passage). The majority of these strategies were not useful for this article because it was online so

I could not make markings, and there was only one header to summarize the entire passage. In

my opinion, these tools are really meant for textbook literature not a news article or an op-ed.

Prior to this week, I had the habit of analyzing the questions and headers of passages before I

began reading them.

I most often read physical paper books rather than online. In theatre, it is imperative that I

make markings and notes in a physical script rather than on a screen. Reading physical copies of

books helps me invest in what I am reading and puts less strain on my eyes.