# Exposed to facts, misinformed believe lies more strongly



## Thesemindz (Jul 13, 2010)

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/exposed-to-facts-the-misinformed-believe-lies-more-strongly/



> In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 13, 2010)

Yeah, stupid people believe crazy crap.  How is this a study?


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 13, 2010)

Still trying to get opposing views classified as mental illness, I see.  Wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 13, 2010)

Ya know, the whole reason we consider them stupid is exactly because they believe stupid stuff.  I am still trying to wrap my head around how this is a study.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Ya know, the whole reason we consider them stupid is exactly because they believe stupid stuff.  I am still trying to wrap my head around how this is a study.



Yes, well, who decides what is stupid? You?
You once wrote that you are an OCD neat freak (your own words IIRC). Despite knowing that this is not really useful and some might argue detritemental for the immune system, you are still an obsessive cleaner (if I understood your words correctly).

Does this mean you are stupid too? Probably not.
And just because you act irrational in one area, does not mean I should just discard anything you say on any given topic by dismissing you as 'stupid' 
So those other people are probably not stupid either despite not acting rationally in all circumstances.

Besides, what are fact anyway? If I tell you that carbohydrates are evil, would you believe me? There is a guy on another forum who is obsessed with nutritional studies, and he makes very good points that the hunter gatherer diet is much better than the modern high carb diet, and solves a number of welfare disease. Yet despite all the good arguments (I believe him btw) there are few facts to consider. There are studies, hypotheses, and then there are also studies that counter those other studies. There are facts underneath those studies, but the interpretations and conclusions are where the personal bias plays a large role, and where you ultimately have to decide what the correct answer is.


----------



## Steve (Jul 13, 2010)

Thesemindz said:


> http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/exposed-to-facts-the-misinformed-believe-lies-more-strongly/


Basically just proves that cognitive dissonance is real, and that when people are faced with information that is in conflict with their own beliefs, they will rationalize.  

I think this applies to any jersey wearer, whether liberal or conservative.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 13, 2010)

Arguing with me about my OCD doesn't really work bud.  I freely admit I'm a nut when it comes to my foibles.  But I do accept facts and don't cling to attractive lies.  Son of a scientist ya know, I'm conditioned that way.  I completly accept that my ocd is irrational and objectivist I am its something I work on every day.

The issue here are people who when presented the truth refuse to belive it.  Like the people who still say Obama was not born in the US or that he is a Muslem.

You make good points Bruno, but there is a distinct difference in those who recognize a problem (like myself) and those who still think 1+1=11 even with a calculator in front of them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 13, 2010)

I can point to a number of net arguments that prove the OP point.  People believe what they want to believe, and no amount of facts, truth or contradiction will ever convince some they are wrong.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 13, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I can point to a number of net arguments that prove the OP point.  People believe what they want to believe, and no amount of facts, truth or contradiction will ever convince some they are wrong.


*cough* 9 11 truth *cough*


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 13, 2010)

Oh come on, why is everyone so polite??
This has such potential to blow up into a great discussion!! 
Atheist vs. Theist.
Liberal vs. Conservative.
9/11 truthers.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> But I do accept facts and *don't cling to attractive lies*.  Son of a scientist ya know, I'm conditioned that way.  I completly accept that my ocd is irrational and *objectivist I am* its something I work on every day.



So if you were presented with evidence that Ayn Rand didn't believe a word of her philosophy and was taking all of you for a ride, you would quickly accept the new facts?  Or would you defend your chosen philosophy?  It's not hard to poke holes in Objectivism, devastating philosophical critiques are easy to find.  Yet you still follow it.

It's not about being stupid.  It's about deep seated beliefs and the things that define people for who and what they are.  Those things are not given up easily.  I'm sure we could find a few "attractive lies" that you would defend.  As we could for me, or anyone else.  How about the proposition that much of success is accidental and beyond your control?  That pokes a few holes in the "deserving, hard working producer" narrative that Objectivists favor.

Dismissing the effect as confined to the "stupid" just dodges the issue.  Worse, it makes it harder to detect when you are stubbornly defending your own "attractive lies."  Anyone is vulnerable, rational thinking is hard work and takes constant effort.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 13, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Still trying to get opposing views classified as mental illness, I see.  Wash, rinse, repeat.



The effect applies to "partisans", not "conservatives."


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 13, 2010)

http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/PoliticalBrain1138113163.html



> The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.
> 
> "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."


----------



## Omar B (Jul 13, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> So if you were presented with evidence that Ayn Rand didn't believe a word of her philosophy and was taking all of you for a ride, you would quickly accept the new facts?  Or would you defend your chosen philosophy?  It's not hard to poke holes in Objectivism, devastating philosophical critiques are easy to find.  Yet you still follow it.
> It's not about being stupid.  It's about deep seated beliefs and the things that define people for who and what they are.  Those things are not given up easily.  I'm sure we could find a few "attractive lies" that you would defend.  As we could for me, or anyone else.  How about the proposition that much of success is accidental and beyond your control?  That pokes a few holes in the "deserving, hard working producer" narrative that Objectivists favor.
> Dismissing the effect as confined to the "stupid" just dodges the issue.  Worse, it makes it harder to detect when you are stubbornly defending your own "attractive lies."  Anyone is vulnerable, rational thinking is hard work and takes constant effort.



Doesn't matter at all if she was taking anyone for a ride.  I'm sure there are many who did not believe in their own work or even outright opposed it.  Doesn't change that it exists.  Einstein was against the atomic bomb but but it was his theories that led to it.  Truth is truth, you can chose to believe it or not but it does not change the fact.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

I see that not only does everyone cling to their beliefs more strongly if those beliefs are shown to be wrong, but everyone is paranoid and thinks that particular study was done to discredit their particular beliefs.

Well done all around!

I think we're all bozos on this bus.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 13, 2010)

Very true Bill.  People when confronted usually defend themselves.  Same when their ideas are confronted.  Go ahead, try and tell me the NY Giants are not the greatest team to ever play football and all other teams should give up.  Even though they didn't make it to the Superbowl last season.


----------



## Steve (Jul 13, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> So if you were presented with evidence that Ayn Rand didn't believe a word of her philosophy and was taking all of you for a ride, you would quickly accept the new facts? Or would you defend your chosen philosophy? It's not hard to poke holes in Objectivism, devastating philosophical critiques are easy to find. Yet you still follow it.


Facts and philosophy are not the same thing.


----------



## Steve (Jul 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I see that not only does everyone cling to their beliefs more strongly if those beliefs are shown to be wrong, but everyone is paranoid and thinks that particular study was done to discredit their particular beliefs.
> 
> Well done all around!
> 
> I think we're all bozos on this bus.


As I said, it really just proves that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.   

Of course, in this political climate, one needs to be careful about evolving opinions.  Regardless of why an opinion has changed, politicians on both sides of the aisle will be called anything from traitor to flip flopper if they allow facts and reason to interfere with a hardline partisan stance.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> As I said, it really just proves that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
> 
> Of course, in this political climate, one needs to be careful about evolving opinions.  Regardless of why an opinion has changed, politicians on both sides of the aisle will be called anything from traitor to flip flopper if they allow facts and reason to interfere with a hardline partisan stance.



I completely agree with you.  I watched John McCain roundly booed for his stance on immigration reform by his own party, and now I (sadly) see him having to revise his stance in a pathetic attempt to keep his job by pandering to those who refuse to accept that his belief was one of conscience and is now one of employment requirement.  As you said, it doesn't matter which party, this is just one example.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 13, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Facts and philosophy are not the same thing.



In this instance, I think they are related.  It is not specific facts, divorced of context, which makes the study subjects defensive.  It is how those facts impinge on their political philosophy and worldview.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

There are people though that whatever they tell you you can't believe them! We all know someone like that, they can tell you your own name and address but you have to check first before you agree lol!

'Flip flopper' I like it ..desciptive!


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 13, 2010)

Thesemindz said:


> http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/exposed-to-facts-the-misinformed-believe-lies-more-strongly/



I read of this when I studied USSR history. and then people who had grown up with Stalin were exposed to some of the truths about him via Khrushchev and it was a real shock. and many of them even today a lot of the Russian people still think of stalin positively.

It is easy to see how people who believe something, exposed to something else, wouldnt change their views. I dont think they're stupid. I see how it woulednt be easy for them to accept.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 13, 2010)

Funny how it's always THEM..or THOSE people who are stupid, misinformed, etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> *I read of this when I studied USSR history. and* *then people who had grown up with Stalin were exposed to some of the truths about him via Khrushchev and it was a real shock. and many of them even today a lot of the Russian people still think of stalin positively*.
> 
> It is easy to see how people who believe something, exposed to something else, wouldnt change their views. I dont think they're stupid. I see how it woulednt be easy for them to accept.


 
You can't blame them though, the Soviets made lying to the people an art form. The media was controlled by the State so any information that came out was with the permission and the views of the current regime, there was no reason to believe yet another Soviet leader. In their situation who's to know who tells the truth or what the truth even is. Even now we don't know everything that went on there during the Soviet years.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 13, 2010)

You ever notice....anyone driving faster than you is a maniac, and anyone driving slower than you is an *******?  I wonder why that is.......


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jul 13, 2010)

> Besides, what are fact anyway?



Facts are whatever has been proven by evidence and the scientific method to be true.

Facts are always verifiable or they are not facts,

I think this article and study is very important in teaching us that we need to develop our logical faculties and apply them when trying to understand truth and facts.

If not we're just talking through our asses

Anything else is just rationalization. In other words emotional thinking.
That's the difference between being rational and rationalizing.

And by US I mean ALL OF US.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Funny how it's always THEM..or THOSE people who are stupid, misinformed, etc.


 
Kind of by definition, really 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 13, 2010)

http://hanson.gmu.edu/moretrue.pdf


> Humans today have many epistemic virtues. We are clever animals who
> have discovered a vast division of labor, enabling our unprecedented and
> rapidly increasing power and understanding of science, industry, and more.
> But we also have many epistemic vices, such as using our knowledge to
> ...


 
http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/deceive.pdf


> This happens when people agree on what the answers would be in each imaginable world, but argue over which of these imaginable worlds is the real world. This theory can thus apply to disputes about facts that are specific or general, hard or easy to verify. It can cover the age of a car, the correctness of quantum mechanics, whether God created the universe, and which political candidate is more likely to induce prosperity. It can even apply to morality, when people believe there are objectively correct answers to moral questions.


 
Are we addicted to ideas?



> Video game addiction, or more broadly video game overuse, is excessive or compulsive use of computer and video games that interferes with daily life. Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from, or from other forms of, social contact and focusing almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than broader life events.


 


> Psychologists who see pornography as addictive may consider online, often Internet, pornography more addictive than ordinary pornography because of its wide availability, explicit nature, and the privacy that online viewing offers. Some claim that "addicts" regularly spend extended periods of time searching the internet for new or increasingly hardcore pornography.


 


> ...defines workaholism by signposts and characteristics, as both a substance addiction (to adrenaline and other stress hormones) and as a process addiction (to compulsively doing or avoiding work). WA further defines compulsive working as a progressive, addictive illness...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 14, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Funny how it's always THEM..or THOSE people who are stupid, misinformed, etc.



This calls for a quote from my favorite author, Terry Pratchett:



> It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things


----------

