Exposed to Facts, the Misinformed Believe Lies More Strongly

[CCTelander]

Another piece of really important information. What does this mean for ANY educational effort?


Exposed to Facts, the Misinformed Believe Lies More Strongly
By: David Dayen Monday July 12, 2010 6:50 am


A truly disturbing study from researchers at my alma mater, the University of Michigan, reveals that political partisans reacted to facts that contradicted their worldview by clinging closer to their worldview.


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.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

As someone who engages in political persuasion through the use of facts, this is the kind of study that borders on making me quit the business. I do take care, and encourage others to do so as well, to not allow my beliefs to color the facts, or at least not allow some manner of surety in my beliefs challenge facts when they come about. But that doesn’t appear to be the American character. More people think with their gut than their brain, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert.

But the research on the subject shows this phenomenon as part of the human condition, the desire to order facts around a particular view of the world. Though it should be noted that the literature basically finds this to be more prevalent on the conservative side of the ledger, which if you understand the term “conservative” to be wedded to the status quo makes a fair bit of sense.


New research, published in the journal Political Behavior last month, suggests that once those facts — or “facts” — are internalized, they are very difficult to budge. In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

Interestingly, one antidote researchers have found to this is self-esteem. Respondents who felt good about themselves were consistently more willing to accept new information, whereas those who felt threatened or agitated – say, your average Rush Limbaugh listener – were not. Another way to get facts to stick is through direct appeals. Yet media consumers get their information indirectly, through filters and outlets they either trust or imagine to have a bias, and they set their perceptions accordingly.

For individuals, broadening your sources of information probably helps to find a consensus on some facts. But I wouldn’t be so sure it would work. We’re rapidly moving to a post-truth era in politics, and the data suggests that the agreed-upon set of facts has gone the way of the dinosaur.

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

Another similar study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm

[Zippyjuan]

I see this here on issues all the time. The birther issue for one.

If it disagrees with what I already think it must be either a lie or disinformation because I know the REAL TRUTH!

It kind of gives a person a feeling of superiority that they have managed to get it all figured out. It also makes it easier to filter infomation- which we are constantly bombarded with.

[golden0669]

So I'm a few years late to the game here, but this is a good post.

Thank you.

[paulitics]

I see this here on issues all the time. The birther issue for one.

If it disagrees with what I already think it must be either a lie or disinformation because I know the REAL TRUTH!

It kind of gives a person a feeling of superiority that they have managed to get it all figured out. It also makes it easier to filter infomation- which we are constantly bombarded with.

Or the opposite may hold true, but emotions may get in the way. The correct answer may be, I don't have enough information to warrant a decision either way. For instance, I think there is enough information to say Obama kind of has this mysterious past, with alot of missing information....and perhaps some name changes, etc, but this does not automatically mean he was born out of the country. I think it is one of those things that will be hard to prove either way, so I haven't spent much time on it.

[phill4paul]

So I'm a few years late to the game here, but this is a good post.

Thank you.

Welcome aboard!

[phill4paul]

To win others over to the cause of liberty you have to first find commonality with the other. You must help them reinvent their own identity through confirmation of shared commonalities. Once these commonalities have been identified and confirmed you can then use these commonalities as connections to beliefs that the other individual does not share.
A persons "identity" cannot be challenged. If it is the natural reaction is fight or flight. They will dig in their heels or they will simply walk away.

[Chieftain1776]

You know I came across this theory awhile ago but it's great to see it backed up by evidence. It's otherwise known as "rational irrationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality)". I was introduced to it in "Myth of the Rational Voter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter)" by libertarian economist Bryan Caplan. The book itself is mostly non-ideological and just covers the aspects of "Rational Irrationality".

It mostly sucks for us in the long term but one benefit is that the all out attacks and hit-jobs on Rand Paul will probably motivate the base of the GOP and the Tea Partiers to get more behind Rand Paul in Kentucky instead of the opposite reaction the liberal media is trying to influence :D

[Deborah K]

Traumatic events can and do usually jolt people out of their cognitive dissonance. Repetition will do it as well. But then again, some people just can't be bothered with the facts. Gee, how many times have I used that line just on this forum? :rolleyes:

Awesome article.

[dannno]

I see this here on issues all the time. The birther issue for one.


Oh give me a break.. the mainstream media has been saying the entire time that Obama released his real birth certificate.. the birthers and agnostics are the only ones intellectually honest enough to point out that the real birth certificate has not been released.. We don't know what hospital he was born, to what doctor, or any other pertinent information.. yet anti-birthers continue to say that the birth certificate has been released and continue to show that stupid computer generated document that is completely meaningless. They are just as bad as the birthers who are CERTAIN he was born in Kenya. Most birthers are actually agnostic on the issue, and then there are some who are agnostic on the issue claim to not be birthers because they don't like the label.

[Philhelm]

As expected, this article attempted to validate leftwing thought.


Exposed to Facts, the Misinformed Believe Lies More Strongly
By: David Dayen Monday July 12, 2010 6:50 am


A truly disturbing study from researchers at my alma mater, the University of Michigan, reveals that political partisans reacted to facts that contradicted their worldview by clinging closer to their worldview.

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.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs (Shouldn't that be our representatives?) — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
As someone who engages in political persuasion through the use of facts (So he says...), this is the kind of study that borders on making me quit the business. I do take care, and encourage others to do so as well, to not allow my beliefs to color the facts, or at least not allow some manner of surety in my beliefs challenge facts when they come about. But that doesn’t appear to be the American character. More people think with their gut than their brain, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert.

But the research on the subject shows this phenomenon as part of the human condition, the desire to order facts around a particular view of the world. Though it should be noted that the literature basically finds this to be more prevalent on the conservative side of the ledger, which if you understand the term “conservative” to be wedded to the status quo makes a fair bit of sense.

New research, published in the journal Political Behavior last month, suggests that once those facts — or “facts” — are internalized, they are very difficult to budge. In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t) (If the Hutaree had WMD's, then I can say that I have personally seen thousands of WMD's in Iraq), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.
Interestingly, one antidote researchers have found to this is self-esteem. Respondents who felt good about themselves were consistently more willing to accept new information, whereas those who felt threatened or agitated – say, your average Rush Limbaugh listener – were not. Another way to get facts to stick is through direct appeals. Yet media consumers get their information indirectly, through filters and outlets they either trust or imagine to have a bias, and they set their perceptions accordingly.

For individuals, broadening your sources of information probably helps to find a consensus on some facts. But I wouldn’t be so sure it would work. We’re rapidly moving to a post-truth era in politics (I'll agree with this one), and the data suggests that the agreed-upon set of facts has gone the way of the dinosaur.

This article was clearly biased in favor of "liberal" ideology. What's worse, is that people may use this as a form of validation. Just wait until there's a scientific test that comes out which claims that statists are more intelligent on average.

[CCTelander]

As expected, this article attempted to validate leftwing thought.



This article was clearly biased in favor of "liberal" ideology. What's worse, is that people may use this as a form of validation. Just wait until there's a scientific test that comes out which claims that statists are more intelligent on average.


And yet, the Emory University study, also linked to in the OP was NOT, and came to the same conclusions.

[coastie]

Another piece of really important information. What does this mean for ANY educational effort?



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

Another similar study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm

Wow, I've seen this firsthand a lot, especially while I was in the CG trying to teach the younger(and old) folk the constitution(after all, we did swear an oath to uphold it). 99% of the time, I got nowhere, and its because of what this article describes.

Too bad most of them are too far gone for it to make a difference anymore:(

Most of these guys wouldn't hesitate to shoot an American Citizen, because they "were ordered too".:mad:

[Philhelm]

And yet, the Emory University study, also linked to in the OP was NOT, and came to the same conclusions.

I'm not saying that the concept is false, but this particular article attempted to paint it in a particular way, which is concerning. People often use the results of scientific research, which may or may not be accurate or unbiased, as an appeal to authority.

Also, this article associated conservatism with being "wedded to the status quo." With true conservatism, such as people like Ron Paul, wanting to keep the status quo is grossly inaccurate.

I'm just wary of scientific studies which make a jab at conservatism while painting a better picture of liberalism (not true conservatism or liberalism, but the Rep/Dem brands of it). It's to be expected though, as it falls in line with the narrative that we are supposed to hear. I'm waiting for the next study which will find that Keynsian economists have a higher IQ on average than those from the Austrian school. :D

[CCTelander]

I'm not saying that the concept is false, but this particular article attempted to paint it in a particular way, which is concerning. People often use the results of scientific research, which may or may not be accurate or unbiased, as an appeal to authority.


My main point deals with the conclusions of the studies, and the ramifications those conclusions have for ANY educational effort.

I don't deny for a second that the author of this particular piece slanted his presentation. On the other hand, based upon, literally, a lifetime of experience (I was actually raised in the so-called "liberty movement," with most of that time being spent as a traditional or paleo-conservative) in "conservative" circles, the observations regarding conservatives are fairly accurate.



Also, this article associated conservatism with being "wedded to the status quo." With true conservatism, such as people like Ron Paul, wanting to keep the status quo is grossly inaccurate.


The CURRENT status quo? No, "true" consrvative are mainly interested in reinstating a PRIOR status quo. Generally speaking, from my own experience, they tend to have a strong aversion to ANYTHING that doesn't fit comfortably within their own preconceived ideas of what that should be.

The same is true for ANYONE who has strongly held preconceived beliefs.



I'm just wary of scientific studies which make a jab at conservatism while painting a better picture of liberalism (not true conservatism or liberalism, but the Rep/Dem brands of it). It's to be expected though, as it falls in line with the narrative that we are supposed to hear. I'm waiting for the next study which will find that Keynsian economists have a higher IQ on average than those from the Austrian school. :D


This is a legitimate concern, of course. But in my own experience it tends to be extended out from a concern to an out of hand dismissal of anything that doesn't comport with the "party line," whatever that may be for the particular individual.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not saying that the concept is false, but this particular article attempted to paint it in a particular way, which is concerning. People often use the results of scientific research, which may or may not be accurate or unbiased, as an appeal to authority.

Also, this article associated conservatism with being "wedded to the status quo." With true conservatism, such as people like Ron Paul, wanting to keep the status quo is grossly inaccurate.

I'm just wary of scientific studies which make a jab at conservatism while painting a better picture of liberalism (not true conservatism or liberalism, but the Rep/Dem brands of it). It's to be expected though, as it falls in line with the narrative that we are supposed to hear. I'm waiting for the next study which will find that Keynsian economists have a higher IQ on average than those from the Austrian school. :D

Good point. Many people confuse the social sciences with "hard" sciences and think that they are both equally accurate. Really, the social sciences can only "prove" certain tendencies and trends at best. This study, though interesting, isn't that valuable in terms of individuals (like most studies). Kind of interesting, though.

[Philhelm]

My main point deals with the conclusions of the studies, and the ramifications those conclusions have for ANY educational effort.


I agree with this, and that it's harder to sway people who already have conviction in their political beliefs, even when confronted with facts. I didn't mean to derail the the thread, but I'm just cautious when viewing studies such as this when they can be used to support an agenda.

In any case, it's hard enough as it is to get people to want to support liberty. It's doubly hard to even get people to care enough to discuss any political issues. I think the best method would be to appeal to their beliefs, while at the same time attempting to manipulate them. For instance, I had a discussion with a woman who had described herself as being a 100% liberal Democrat. We discussed the War on Drugs, and I told her it should be ended, but she disagreed. I then stated that while I'm more of a conservative, my opinion on that matter was more liberal than hers. Use the labels of conservative and liberal against themselves, if that makes sense.

[Reason]

cognitive dissonance is by far one of the most fascinating and profound concepts of all time.

if you can't define what it is, you need to learn and you will be thankful that you did.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Education genie gets a lamp upgrade.

[lynnf]

I've found this to be especially true when trying to convince people of the truth about 9/11. their worldview is a tough nut to crack. but more and more are coming around. I hope there might be something in these studies that will help.

lynn

[Fredom101]

Of course, rational libertarians stand no chance of winning elections, because of this fact that voters are inherently irrational for the most part. People vote for candidates for a whole assortment of reasons, mostly never because they are the best candidate! This is why libertarian campaigns like Ron Paul's can only really be educational- and the goal should be to show what an utter disaster the very idea of the state is.

[Distinguished Gentleman]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/if-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives-why-are-lib

I do believe that Liberals are typically smarter than Conservatives particularly regarding skills that can be measured on I.Q. test. To put it harshly, I think some of the people we have to persuade are very dumb and don't appreciate nuance. How Liberals can be both intelligent and hilariously misinformed on certain issues is explained in the above link, from an evolutionary psychology perspective.

With regard to Libertarians, I believe we have the highest median intelligence at this point, since we're not mainstream. If we ever become mainstream, it will be because we convinced dumb people to support a small government campaign based on paranoid, xenophobic, reasons. Libertarian arguments are counter intuitive to (I'm guessing) 96 percent of the population.

Edit: More related. An excellent podcast regarding the myth of the rational voter
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/06/caplan_on_the_m.html

[Reason]

this video is a good example of the issue in this thread

Recycling Is Bullshit (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1444391672891013193&hl=en#)

[Danke]

To win others over to the cause of liberty you have to first find commonality with the other. You must help them reinvent their own identity through confirmation of shared commonalities. Once these commonalities have been identified and confirmed you can then use these commonalities as connections to beliefs that the other individual does not share.
A persons "identity" cannot be challenged. If it is the natural reaction is fight or flight. They will dig in their heels or they will simply walk away.

I agree. I have a lot of trouble with this and end up pissing people off. Something I need to work on.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree. I have a lot of trouble with this and end up pissing people off. Something I need to work on.

I have the same problem. :o We need to study "How to win friends and influence people" again, it seems.;)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I do believe that Liberals are typically smarter than Conservatives particularly regarding skills that can be measured on I.Q. test. To put it harshly, I think some of the people we have to persuade are very dumb and don't appreciate nuance. How Liberals can be both intelligent and hilariously misinformed on certain issues is explained in the above link, from an evolutionary psychology perspective.

With regard to Libertarians, I believe we have the highest median intelligence at this point, since we're not mainstream. If we ever become mainstream, it will be because we convinced dumb people to support a small government campaign based on paranoid, xenophobic, reasons. Libertarian arguments are counter intuitive to (I'm guessing) 96 percent of the population.


Astute observation.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I agree. I have a lot of trouble with this and end up pissing people off. Something I need to work on.

People are sensitive about alien fecal matter in their own crapper.

AKA:
http://hornbillunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/bullshit.jpg

[TNforPaul45]

People often times confuse an attack on their ideas as an attack on themselves personally. That is because, in modern politics, both are assaulted at the same time without thinking twice. This is the modus operandi of modern political debate in the left-right paradigm system.

That is why they cling to them the stronger once under assault. And it is this sad fact that prevents the facts from coming out, no matter the consequences.

[TNforPaul45]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/if-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives-why-are-lib

I do believe that Liberals are typically smarter than Conservatives particularly regarding skills that can be measured on I.Q. test. To put it harshly, I think some of the people we have to persuade are very dumb and don't appreciate nuance. How Liberals can be both intelligent and hilariously misinformed on certain issues is explained in the above link, from an evolutionary psychology perspective.

With regard to Libertarians, I believe we have the highest median intelligence at this point, since we're not mainstream. If we ever become mainstream, it will be because we convinced dumb people to support a small government campaign based on paranoid, xenophobic, reasons. Libertarian arguments are counter intuitive to (I'm guessing) 96 percent of the population.

Edit: More related. An excellent podcast regarding the myth of the rational voter
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/06/caplan_on_the_m.html

If we can figure out some way to mix in
1. Explosions
2. Boobs
3. Football (American)
4. Guns and tanks

. . .into the Libertarian/Constitutional message, then we will be the Majority party in 3 months.

[BlackTerrel]

Very interesting study. Thanks for posting. This is not surprising at all - rather confirms what I have observed.

My general inclination is to say "yeah that may apply to 99% of people but not me". Which is probably what 99% of say. The sad fact is it probably applies to most of us as well. It's a human condition. Case in point:


I've found this to be especially true when trying to convince people of the truth about 9/11. their worldview is a tough nut to crack. but more and more are coming around. I hope there might be something in these studies that will help.

I was immediately thinking of "truthers" when I saw this story.

[Zippyjuan]

Found one study which attempted to look at political views and intelligence:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/01/does-smart-equal-liberal.cfm

Does Smart Equal Liberal?

Friday, January 11, 2008
By Wray Herbert

(skipped a couple paragraphs)

Psychologist Ian Deary of the University of Edinburgh realized he could explore the link between IQ and values using a very large existing data base on kids who were born in 1970. These boys and girls, more than 7000 of them, had all taken IQ tests at the age of ten, so he was able to sort out the bright kids from their duller classmates. These kids had then been tracked and interviewed repeatedly for two decades, so there was a rich record of not only their education and work lives but also their basic attitudes and beliefs: on race, gender equality, the environment, the sanctity of marriage, and so forth. In short, Deary wanted to see what kind of people they turned into at age 30, as they stood on the cusp of the 21st century.

Not to put too fine a point on it: The smartest kids turned into the most broad-minded and progressive adults. For example, the most intelligent kids turned out 20 years later to be much more tolerant of other races. They were also much more supportive of working mothers, rejecting the notion that pre-school children will suffer without a stay-at-home mother. In general, the sharpest kids came to embrace much less traditional moral values and were much more apt to challenge authority. They were also much less cynical as adults, more trusting that the political system can do good.

Why would native intelligence translate into a more enlightened worldview later on? One obvious possibility is that the smarter kids end up getting a better education; they read more books and newspapers and are exposed to a richer culture of ideas. But the data, reported in the January issue of Psychological Science, don’t appear to support this explanation.

Instead, it appears to be something about the intelligent brain itself: Smart people may have a different emotional makeup, a personality that is more open to experience. Or it may be that high IQ at age ten eventually leads to more complex moral reasoning: In short, smart people alone may have the cognitive machinery that’s needed for more flexible analysis of political and moral quandaries.

And another one with the same conclusion:
http://blog.taragana.com/science/2010/02/25/higher-intelligence-linked-to-liberal-political-ideology-atheism-7163/

Higher intelligence linked to liberal political ideology, atheism



By ANIFebruary 25th, 2010

According to Time magazine, the author of this study is a libertarian. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html

In case people think that the authors may have been biased by their own political inclinations, I could not find any studies which indicated that conservatives are smarter than liberals.

There was an editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal which claimed that Conservatives were smarter on ecomomic matters. But they are no better at trying to balance a budget either. http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2010/06/are-conservatives-smarter-at-economics-than-liberals.html

[Distinguished Gentleman]

In a measure of intelligence, the most intelligent will gravitate to the most "unnatural" views. Collectivism, belief in God, distrust of people who are different, distrust of foreign trade, and local cooperation are all natural. Those things aren't inherently good or bad, they're just valuable instincts from earlier times. It takes an intelligent person to employ contrarian views that challenge the established view.
Not all intelligent people are contrarians. Most contrarians, however, will be intelligent. There is little thinking barrier to being a conservative as they trust their instincts. Liberals, however, hold more "unnatural" views than conservatives. They are contrarians, and thus intelligent, but being unnatural doesn't give them a monopoly on truth. Sometimes the truth is quite natural. It can be simple and quite indifferent to complex rationalizations against it. The statistics, however, will find that the counter intuitive views required a higher threshold of intelligence and will thus be higher.

I suspect a sample of the RonPaulForums, conspiracy nuts included, would have a very high average intelligence compared to liberals. My bias would say we have a monopoly on truth, but in actuality, we have just taken the least amount of views that can be thoughtlessly inherited from society.

For example, Vegetarians, unnatural as they are, have been found to be more intelligent.

[Xenophage]

To win others over to the cause of liberty you have to first find commonality with the other. You must help them reinvent their own identity through confirmation of shared commonalities. Once these commonalities have been identified and confirmed you can then use these commonalities as connections to beliefs that the other individual does not share.
A persons "identity" cannot be challenged. If it is the natural reaction is fight or flight. They will dig in their heels or they will simply walk away.

This is important wisdom. It took me many years to come to the same conclusion.

[CCTelander]

bump

[Working Poor]

To win others over to the cause of liberty you have to first find commonality with the other. You must help them reinvent their own identity through confirmation of shared commonalities. Once these commonalities have been identified and confirmed you can then use these commonalities as connections to beliefs that the other individual does not share.
A persons "identity" cannot be challenged. If it is the natural reaction is fight or flight. They will dig in their heels or they will simply walk away.

I write at a liberal site and it one of my goals to bring people together on ideas but it is a very difficult thing because people are so programed. Here is an article I posted at a liberal site I hope you will take note of the comments underneath the article and join in if you don't mind registering first

http://lisafrequency.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/13/4667232-compare-libertarians-and-liberals

[ninepointfive]

Of course, rational libertarians stand no chance of winning elections, because of this fact that voters are inherently irrational for the most part.

I agree with this, but I think the real reason libertarian candidates won't win is because they don't really seek the offices they run for.

Most libertarians I've met are complainers and bitchers and bloggers. They will feel great to complain and nag all day long, meanwhile very few will commit in a real effort to win.
One Libertarian I know who ran and almost won office, said he was scared to actually be so close to winning.

Then it comes down to who actually puts the rubber to the road. In my experience, the Libertarians drop off the face of the earth in a real political campaign.

I wish it weren't true.

[Fredom101]

I agree with this, but I think the real reason libertarian candidates won't win is because they don't really seek the offices they run for.

Most libertarians I've met are complainers and bitchers and bloggers. They will feel great to complain and nag all day long, meanwhile very few will commit in a real effort to win.
One Libertarian I know who ran and almost won office, said he was scared to actually be so close to winning.

Then it comes down to who actually puts the rubber to the road. In my experience, the Libertarians drop off the face of the earth in a real political campaign.

I wish it weren't true.

True, and the reason for this is that a libertarian running for office is a contradiction.

People who gravitate to politics want to control other people's lives.
Most people who vote are voting to GET something.

Libertarians do not want to tell people how to run their lives, nor do they want government to give them anything.

Therefore, libertarianism as a political philosophy fails.

This is why we need to look at other tactics- like mass civil disobedience- in order to change things. Politics may work as an educational tool (i.e. running for the big offices like president), but we'll never see libertarians running government.

[John Taylor]

I write at a liberal site and it one of my goals to bring people together on ideas but it is a very difficult thing because people are so programed. Here is an article I posted at a liberal site I hope you will take note of the comments underneath the article and join in if you don't mind registering first

http://lisafrequency.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/13/4667232-compare-libertarians-and-liberals

Which is problematic if, as you are, you are attempting to use reason with people whose entire basis for political reasoning is emotion.

[heavenlyboy34]

True, and the reason for this is that a libertarian running for office is a contradiction.

People who gravitate to politics want to control other people's lives.
Most people who vote are voting to GET something.

Libertarians do not want to tell people how to run their lives, nor do they want government to give them anything.

Therefore, libertarianism as a political philosophy fails.

This is why we need to look at other tactics- like mass civil disobedience- in order to change things. Politics may work as an educational tool (i.e. running for the big offices like president), but we'll never see libertarians running government.

More accurately, libertarianism as a political philosophy that wins elections usually fails. You make the same mistake that most modern writers do-that winning elections makes one "right". Elections are merely glorified popularity contests-they have nothing to do with real political philosophy.

[Fredom101]

More accurately, libertarianism as a political philosophy that wins elections usually fails. You make the same mistake that most modern writers do-that winning elections makes one "right". Elections are merely glorified popularity contests-they have nothing to do with real political philosophy.

Good point, thanks for the correction. :)

Having a libertarian win an election wouldn't even be success.
Imagine if RP won in 08? By now, with the economy in collapse mode, the press would be screaming about how libertarianism failed!

[Travlyr]

Another piece of really important information. What does this mean for ANY educational effort?

Great thread, CCTelander.

This means that fundamentals are missing... oftentimes the meaning of words. It is common for people to define words or redefine words to fit the agenda. The power elite successfully redefines words intentionally to cause chaos and division.

For example, if I define a republic as: "state in which supreme power rests in the people,"
And you define a republic as: "a government designed by the elite to control people,"
Maybe I misunderstand, or maybe you misunderstand, but the truth is that given the misunderstanding, you and I fail to properly communicate.

For the educational effort... truth is not subjective. What is true for me is true for the the tree.
People should update their understanding of the knowledge of truth when exposed to it, yet we rarely do.

[heavenlyboy34]

Good point, thanks for the correction. :)

Having a libertarian win an election wouldn't even be success.
Imagine if RP won in 08? By now, with the economy in collapse mode, the press would be screaming about how libertarianism failed!

n/p. I like Chodorov's famous quote- "Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." ;):D lolz

[erowe1]

The title is wrong. Instead of saying, "Exposed to Facts, the Misinformed Believe Lies More Strongly," it should say, "Exposed to Some Self-Important Liberal Academic They've Never Met Before Telling Them They're Wrong, People (Especially Conservatives) Believe What That Believe (Whether That Be True or False) More Strongly."

Because this experiment didn't actually expose people to bare facts. And it's a testament to Nyhan's pomposity that he believes that whenever he tells someone something they believe is false, that's the same thing as exposing them to a fact.

[Stary Hickory]

I see this here on issues all the time. The birther issue for one.

If it disagrees with what I already think it must be either a lie or disinformation because I know the REAL TRUTH!

It kind of gives a person a feeling of superiority that they have managed to get it all figured out. It also makes it easier to filter infomation- which we are constantly bombarded with.

Um in what way for the "Birther" issue? You toss this out here yet no one can say who Obama is because he has refused to come forward with a simple piece of paper. Until such time there is no way to be sure of anything.

I love when people try to slide in BS under the guise of a legit phenomena.

[Theocrat]

Another piece of really important information. What does this mean for ANY educational effort?



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

Another similar study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm

Thanks for posting that, CC. It really confirms what I've been preaching on these forums for a long time. Facts are different from persuasion that the facts are true. The article rightly points out that it is worldviews which are the key factor in any debate or discussion about matters in society.

We have to start looking at each other's worldviews and critique them based on some absolute foundation of reasoning and truth. And in the world, just as it is on the forums, our worldviews clash all the time.

Determining whether a person is educated or not is simply a reflection of the person's outlook of life in what they take for granted as being true, beautiful, good, etc. And, not all worldviews are equal.

When the article says "the misinformed believe lies more strongly," I wonder if that person has considered he could be accused of that same thing...