Radio Smart Talk for Tuesday, June 21:
It's inevitable – you're discussing politics with a friend, and you're shocked – SHOCKED – to learn she disagrees with you on something so obvious, so clear, you can hardly stand it! And you think to yourself, 'well, she's just misinformed. If she only knew the facts, she'd feel differently.'
Not so, according to researchers at the University of Michigan, who in a series of studies in 2005 and 2006 found misinformed, politically partisan citizens, when corrected, rarely changed their minds. In fact, clear and unimpeachable evidence only served to make them dig in their heels and hold even more strongly to their beliefs!
Comedian Stephen Colbert defined this phenomenon as "truthiness" – a willingness to believe something that "feels true" even when it's clear it isn't.
We'll learn more when we talk with Dr. Brendan Nyhan, the outgoing Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan (this summer, he heads to Dartmouth College to teach Government).
LISTEN TO PROGRAM:
comments
Yep.
I agree.
William James
American psychologist, philosopher
"Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom." Cliff Stoll
I think a lot of the beliefs are just that: comfortable. They may not be the most accurate, they may even involve some extra steps, but they are a pattern of familiarity.
To challenge that familiarity is to ruffle their comfort zone.
Again, fear of loss of the familiar is the overriding conviction.
I had the exact situation with my mother. She had a home in Florida near Tampa. She insisted that the drive home to Central PA was shorter on Interstate 75 than on I-95. I also showed her the odometer and that the drive was about 90 minutes shorter on 95. It came down to her comfort level. She liked the scenary on I-75 better and the drive was less stressful. I usually took her home on 75 so she would be comfortable.
Frankly I listen to this radio station for a reason.
My own view is that most peoples' world view and political opinions are developed at a time when their views are malleable. For some, this is during childhood and may be largely shaped by the views of their mother, father, or another influential person in their life. For others, this is during important times such as college.
Whenever it happens, their views are largely set in place from that time on. No amount of facts, persuasion, etc. is likely to change a person's core views once the person's period of malleability has passed.
[continued]
This is not particularly new phenomenon. People have been seeking out news media that support their preconceived notions for a long time. Look at the many newspapers and periodicals that strongly espoused a particular point of view during the 100s and 1800s. Channels like Fox News and MSNBC are just the latest manifestations of this.
I'd have been curious to get Prof. Nyhan's reactions to this.
Not all American history has been told correctly to us in school, nor with all the complicating details. I am neutral on Palin. S. LaMar usually seems lightweight and only partially prepared.
I would be interested to find a historian that agreed with Sarah Palin's statement that Paul Revere warned the British that they couldn't take the Colonists' arms or that Revere rang a bell (he didn't) or fired a warning shot (he didn't). I used the Palin-Revere episode as an example of someone who made an incorrect statement and had the opportunity to correct it but didn't or wouldn't. What made the story even more relevent is Palin supporters then went on Wikipedia to change the Revere narrative so it fit Palin's statement. The point being that we live in a such a partisan environment that a political figure's supporters were willing to falsify history so their candidate (maybe a candidate) wouldn't be embarrassed or seen to be wrong.
BLOCK: And let's review Paul Revere's midnight ride, April 18, 1775. He's going to Lexington, Massachusetts. And according to Sarah Palin, he's riding his horse through town, sending warning shots and ringing those bells. True?
Prof. ALLISON: Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others. What he's doing is going from house to house, knocking on doors of members of the Committees of Safety, saying the regulars are out. That is, he knew that General Gage was sending troops out to Lexington and Concord, really Concord, to seize the weapons being stockpiled there, but also perhaps to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, leaders of the Continental Congress who were staying in the town of Lexington.
Next time the phones go out, just have the person answering the phones record the questions on a portable digital device equipped with a flash drive memory card that could be transferred to the host for replay.
There needs to be a way to state the truth in a positive manner without repeating the misinformation.
Many people just listen casually -- and so they again are reinforced with the misinformation.
The case for the correct information needs to be stated clearly.
One disclaimer cannot fix an abundance of incorrect information.
Bush's 935 lies, backed up by Fox news, cannot be easily overturned.
No one wants to be the Bad Guy. As a soldier, did I kill some innocent person based on a lie?
RSS feed for comments to this post