Why do some social problems seem so intractable?

>In a series of experiments, we show that people often respond to decreases in the prevalence of a stimulus by expanding their concept of it. When blue dots became rare, participants began to see purple dots as blue; when threatening faces became rare, participants began to see neutral faces as threatening; and when unethical requests became rare, participants began to see innocuous requests as unethical. This “prevalence-induced concept change” occurred even when participants were forewarned about it and even when they were instructed and paid to resist it. Social problems may seem intractable in part because reductions in their prevalence lead people to see more of them.

Link: science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465

Attached: blue or purple.jpg (300x168, 14K)

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/are-these-dots-purple-or-blue-your-answer-might-not-be-reliable-you-think
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>abstract concepts can creep, too. For example, in 1960, Webster’s dictionary defined “aggression” as “an unprovoked attack or invasion,” but today that concept can include behaviors such as making insufficient eye contact or asking people where they are from (1). Many other concepts, such as abuse, bullying, mental disorder, trauma, addiction, and prejudice, have expanded of late as well (2). Some take these expansions as signs of political correctness and others as signs of social awakening. We take no position on whether these expansions are good or bad. Rather, we seek to understand what makes them happen. Why do concepts creep?

sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/are-these-dots-purple-or-blue-your-answer-might-not-be-reliable-you-think
>These results could explain why people tend to be pessimistic about the state of the world, the authors say. Humanity has made great strides in reducing social issues like poverty and illiteracy, but as these problems become less common, previously minor issues start to seem much more problematic.

>can include behaviors such as making insufficient eye contact or asking people where they are from
this is a reference to an article on "microaggressions"

>This phenomenon—which we call “prevalence-induced concept change”—can be a problem. When yellow bananas become less prevalent, a shopper’s concept of “ripe” should expand to include speckled ones, but when violent crimes become less prevalent, a police officer’s concept of “assault” should not expand to include jaywalking. What counts as a ripe fruit should depend on the other fruits one can see, but what counts as a felony, a field goal, or a tumor should not, and when these things are absent, police officers, referees, and radiologists should not expand their concepts and find them anyway. Modern life often requires people to use concepts that are meant to be held constant and should not be allowed to expand (9–16). Alas, research suggests that the brain computes the value of most stimuli by comparing them to other relevant stimuli (17–19); thus, holding concepts constant may be an evolutionarily recent requirement that the brain’s standard computational mechanisms are ill equipped to meet (20, 21).

looks like it has to do with how we cluster things in our mind
when we're asked to cluster data points into two predefined groups but one of them is too small, we broaden the group to make it a bit bigger

>are Italians white?
I see

>holding concepts constant may be an evolutionarily recent requirement that the brain’s standard computational mechanisms are ill equipped to meet
The future is "racist" AI

things are less abstract with fewer instances. Leopold kohr covered this phenomenon iirc

The modern left scientifically explained. How about that.