And you didn't need the Internets to see what you wanted to see, did you? I think this is a cognitive weakness of humans in general, rampant in faith-based communities, institutionalized in academia, and sped up to a perhaps unprecedentedly rapid pace in the silicon-lubricated Intertubes. But basically Same As It Ever Was.

I hope your book proposes some way to teach critical thinking and research skills to kids (and anyone new to the Googles) - because those things ARE skills, not a mystery, and really are accessible to everyone. But they can't be uploaded; they have to be practices. Ah, there's the rub.

It seems to me the study might actually show that what people are averse to is documenting that they've changed their minds. Especially after they've said they are confident in their answers.

So their research tells us that when people strongly believe something the only research they will do is the kind that tells them what they already believe. Right?

Granted I haven't read their study but do they do any controls for people searching out information in more "traditional" ways; asking other people, reading books, etc.

The fact that people can be stubborn is not an internet phenomenon. This study does not show that people are more stubborn when using the web, it just shows that stubborn people will ignore the truth, ie keep being stubborn. That's not a mark against the net, it's just not a positive.

Any why so many people make lousy scientists.

It's truly hard to change your mind once you already have formed an opinion. I can't recall where I heard it but it went something like someone is more likely to forgive you for being wrong than being right.

It's why those of us who hate your fiance, won't tell you we hate your fiance, so that when the marriage goes kablooey, they'll come to you instead of hide from you to hear the inevitable I told you so.

People hate, hate, hate being wrong.

Plus i've seen it happen here on the postings in Broadsheet, say with teen pregnancy. Some people are convinced there is more of it now than say in the 50's. Then when you point them to proof that there was actually more in the 50's than today, out comes the slew of but this, but that, that can't be right because of this and that.

So I think in this internet age, when so much information is available to support whatever your point of view, critical thinking skills would probably the most valuable skill we could ever teach our youth.

Often I'll do a search with an idea in mind, and find overwhelming evidence to the contrary from what I consider to be reliable sources. When that happens, I change my mind.

The net is the haven for the stupid, of pseudoscience, superstition, crackpot fallacies.

Or that they view information from the Internet fundamentally different than information from other sources. The point is that access to more information, or even more accurate information, doesn't change peoples' tendency to only find that which reinforces what they already think. It's the net utopians that argue that the Internet is different, that once everyone has access to all information, enlightenment will follow.

Of course, as an individual the Internet feels like enlightenment, since you can always find information to back up any belief you already have.

Why do I get one hit for this search string - "the poem is like a new world seen for the first time"

And zero hits for this search string -- "the poem is like a new"

If anything, it should be the reverse. And this is a big problem for someone who counts on being able to find all the sites which quote a specific piece of literature - or when hoping to bust a student for plagiarism.

I think these discussions are worthwhile to have, and it is something I too am interested in. This isn't really a new phenomenon however. Remember the dilemma of Sartre's student; should he join the resistance or stay and take care of his mother. Sartre posited that this student had already made up his mind in choosing whom to ask for advice--the person asking for advice will only reinforce what the student had already decided.

It's pretty remarkable: People who answered a question incorrectly before doing a Web search were more likely to still be wrong after the search than those who answered correctly.

Those who answered correctly were going to be wrong after a search?

If you are correct, the web search should confirm your opinion and you will then not have a reason to change your mind.

Of course those who answered incorrectly are more likely to still be incorrect after a search, not all of them are going to be convinced that they are wrong.

What we need to know is the percentages of both those who were correct in their opinion and those who were incorrect that changed their minds after a search.

In other words, how many went from right to wrong and how many went from wrong to right.

humans were factually challenged and predisposed to this sort of informational fixation LONG before the internet. I honestly don't believe digital technology has made a significant impact on rigidising belief over fact.

Every problem looks like a nail. And when the only platform you have is a technology blog, every issue becomes a tech issue. Which this is clearly not.

When we google, we get lists of fragments, like Bible verses, or like papyrus fragments of old Greek texts. And when we click on Google links, we get little chapters, separated from their contexts, independent of our original questions.

Every question comes back into question when we google, even questions long settled. Google lets each of us start over in the wisdom of the world. Before Google, we would have started at the top of the base of accumulated knowledge, but now every dimwit wants and needs to learn everything from scratch.

A great example is the resurgence of creationist belief, and the backlash against evolutionary science. Creationist christianists are supporting one another in famous, long-discredited fallacies. And the www acts as a dam, holding back their swampy, stinky scientific backwater.