Exposed to facts, misinformed believe lies more strongly

[Thesemindz]

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]

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

 

[CoryKS]

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

 

[Omar B]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Thesemindz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.