How facts backfire
Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full

Quote :

"Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. 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.”"

Quote :

"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."

Quote :

"Nyhan worked on one study in which he showed that people who were given a self-affirmation exercise were more likely to consider new information than people who had not. In other words, if you feel good about yourself, you’ll listen — and if you feel insecure or threatened, you won’t. This would also explain why demagogues benefit from keeping people agitated. The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are."

So, in the immortal words of Douglas Adams, the only way to save our democracy: Don't Panic

7/12/2010 11:36:38 PM

That article reinforces my belief of how certain people I know think they way they do.

7/12/2010 11:58:51 PM

Oh, I see... People are pissed that liberals are destroying our nation and the liberal response, "your brain doesn't work"

don't think anyone's gonna buy this one.

7/13/2010 12:13:47 AM

haha

case in point...

7/13/2010 12:16:39 AM

of course, global warming hysteria doesn't apply

7/13/2010 12:28:21 AM

Quote :

"This bodes ill for a democracy"

This conclusion makes no sense to me. This research does not show any new information, everyone already knew humans tend to believe falsehoods to the death. But even if it was news, what does it have to say about democracy? Sure, it means voters are unreliable. But it also means politicians are unreliable. All politicians, including hereditary monarchs, feudal barons, military dictators, communist dictators, technocrats, religious dictators, and democratically elected representatives.

Now, this may just be my own cognitive dissonance kicking in, but this study suggests to me we should limit the scope of all political systems, whichever one you prefer, in favor of a free economy, because only then will people be punished directly and personally for believing false things, rather than tax payers being punished for the false beliefs of Congressmen. People respond to incentives, and while proper incentives won't eliminate cognitive dissonance, it will help limit it.

7/13/2010 1:22:03 AM

Quote :

"because only then will people be punished directly and personally for believing false things, rather than tax payers being punished for the false beliefs of Congressmen."

Why do you think people will be punished for their false beliefs? Systems that evolve don't pick the best solutions, just the solutions best able to replicate themselves. So if some nut has some grand idea about something that people latch on to, it's irrelevant if it's factual or not, as long as people sign onto it.

For the topic of the article, i don't think political systems even factor it. It seems to be a human quality more than anything else.

7/13/2010 1:36:43 AM

If this article is true, don't the authors have a moral obligation not to publish it? The only result is that people will believe they're right even when they're not more strongly.

7/13/2010 2:26:16 AM

I cannot believe some of the idiotic stuff that passes as academic research.

These specific issues are highly suspect.

Reports like this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html) give real credence to an affirmative answer about the presence of WMD's. Anybody who thought there were WMD's in anywhere the amount suggested by the Bush adminisrations is, of course, an idiot. But to suggest that there is not a single ounce of mustard gas in the country is equally dumb. Despite the fact that I think Bush was (is) a lying sack of shit, I still would have gotten it "wrong" according to the author, and yes, I would have become more entrenched in my position. It is absolutely retarded to say a country that actually waged a chemical war had absolutely no chemical weapons left in it. How much more would an actual Republican say the same thing?

The second 'myth,' that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues is easily misunderstood. Whether the revenue actually went up or down from the previous year is really not what people are concerned about, and yet that was the question. The real concern and debate is over whether the tax cuts made revenue higher than it otherwise would have been during that period. This second 'take' on the question is highly debatable, while the first is not. If the correct answer is given without appropriately clarifying the question, of course many will dig in their heels more.

I could go on and on, but this just shows that science is incredibly difficult to get right. Experiment design is everything, and it is exceedingly rare to find an academic paper that shows evidence of real thoughtfulness in that regard.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 4:33 AM. Reason : s]

7/13/2010 4:28:52 AM

Quote :

"Anybody who thought there were WMD's in anywhere the amount suggested by the Bush adminisrations [sic] is, of course, an idiot."

^ Does that include Bill Clinton?

President Bill Clinton's State Of The Union Address
Jan. 27, 1998

Quote :

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (APPLAUSE) And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (APPLAUSE)"

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 5:16 AM. Reason : I guess the facts backfired again!]

7/13/2010 5:15:06 AM

You are such a partisan hack

7/13/2010 6:56:09 AM

^ widely believed facts ITT

7/13/2010 7:46:04 AM

Of course, this concept doesn't apply to global warmist scare mongering.

7/13/2010 9:17:02 AM

...on NPR right now.

7/13/2010 2:07:30 PM

^^^^ (1) I don't belong to any party--I'm "unaffiliated"; (2) I have never voted a straight-party ticket in my life; and (3) I voted for the aforementioned Bill Clinton--whose position was clearly that Iraq had WMDs, had used them before, and would likely use them again unless stopped.

But I guess these facts, too, will backfire, which means that the real partisans here will refuse to accept them. You know, the usual.

7/13/2010 4:38:22 PM

perhaps a better term might be "ideologue"

7/13/2010 4:53:14 PM

Of course, this concept doesn't apply to global warmist scare mongering.

7/13/2010 5:02:48 PM

I believe I could make a thread about how the sky is blue and LoneSnark would find a way to make it all about the free market and getting rid of government.

7/13/2010 6:03:43 PM

Quote :

"^ Does that include Bill Clinton?"

Of course it does.

7/13/2010 6:38:46 PM

Short vid by gallu polling roughly on the same topic of cognitive dissonance amongst voters:

7/13/2010 6:44:20 PM

^^ Oh, okay. Well, you'd better add these Democrats to your list:

Quote :

"'Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.' --Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998 'He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.' --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998 '[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.' --Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 'Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.' --Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998 'Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.' --Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 'There is no doubt that. . .Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.' --Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) and others, Dec. 5, 2001 'We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.' --Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sept. 19, 2002 'We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.' --Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 'Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.' --Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 'We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.' --Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002 'The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...' --Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Oct. 3, 2002 'I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.' --Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002 'There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.' --Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct. 10, 2002 'He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.' --Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Oct. 10, 2002 'In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.' --Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct. 10, 2002 'We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...' --Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 7:03 PM. Reason : But I guess these facts, too, will backfire, right? ]

7/13/2010 7:02:42 PM

Quote :

"I believe I could make a thread about how the sky is blue and LoneSnark would find a way to make it all about the free market and getting rid of government."

I believe myself up to such a challenge.

7/13/2010 8:02:01 PM

jesus christ, does hooksaw even realize how partisan he is being in a topic that was not partisan? i mean fuck. who the fuck care who it comes from, it's stupid either way. its not a "backfire," there was no agenda here. i mean fuck, what a fucking partisan dumb fuck.

7/13/2010 8:05:35 PM

^ considering the article that's the subject of the thread, are you really surprised that he still thinks Iraq was amassing WMDs?

7/13/2010 8:07:15 PM

Quote :

"But I guess these facts, too, will backfire, right?"

7/13/2010 8:12:31 PM

- supplanter posts an interesting article highlighting research that demonstrates how being shown the facts tends to make people more set in their incorrect opinion

- moron makes a neutral comment

- solinari trolls

- loneshark finds a way to make it about a free market economy

- tuliplover gives an example of this phenomenom

- hooksaw starts with the partisan OMG DEMOCRATS DID IT TOO

i mean fucking christ, some of you guys are so predictable you could be automated


again, WHERE THE FUCK IS THE BACKFIRE? THERE IS NO, "THIS IS A REPUBLICAN ONLY PHENOMENON" MESSAGE STATED OR IMPLIED. CHRIST YOU ARE DUMB.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 8:13 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2010 8:12:31 PM

Quote :

"^^ Oh, okay. Well, you'd better add these Democrats to your list:"

Ummm, I already know all of them are spineless, amoral hacks.

Are you under some impression that there exists a single Democrat I admire or will defend?

Quote :

"- tuliplover gives an example of this phenomenom"

lol, if I think both parties are full of crap, then I'm obviously a partisan unwilling to change my mind on an issue. I'm more than willing to give you a long list of evidence you are wrong.

Ex. - I voted for Bush, and now I think he should be prosecuted for the very things I once defended him on.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 8:35 PM. Reason : a]

7/13/2010 8:29:00 PM

you misunderstood my post and i'm not sure what you inferred, you gave a couple examples of the phenomenon described in the first post. was that not what you were trying to do?

7/13/2010 8:47:28 PM

^ It seemed that you were saying I was one of these defensive types who cannot change my mind when faced with facts.

But maybe I'm just being defensive and assumed your hostility

7/13/2010 8:52:11 PM

Where the fuck did i troll. You say it's not partisan - that's bullshit

7/13/2010 9:09:54 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I see... People are pissed that liberals are destroying our nation and the liberal response, "your brain doesn't work" don't think anyone's gonna buy this one."

and right here as well:

Quote :

"Where the fuck did i troll. You say it's not partisan - that's bullshit"

7/13/2010 9:17:27 PM

Quote :

"again, WHERE THE FUCK IS THE BACKFIRE? THERE IS NO, "THIS IS A REPUBLICAN ONLY PHENOMENON" MESSAGE STATED OR IMPLIED. CHRIST YOU ARE DUMB."

from the OP:

Quote :

"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."

this basically says that liberals aren't quite so prone to backfiring in the face of the facts when they contradict their firmly-held beliefs
I mean it's both true and obvious but still it does mean that this is a Republican phenomenon

7/13/2010 9:22:55 PM

For what it's worth, I looked into it and the researcher is a former campaign director for a former Rep. US Senate candidate.

7/13/2010 9:50:14 PM

But I guess that fact, too, will backfire, right?

7/13/2010 9:56:08 PM

^^ Bernstein was a DEMOCRATIC candidate for US Senate.

7/13/2010 10:03:43 PM

Quote :

"i mean fucking christ, some of you guys are so predictable you could be automated"

Who said we were not automated? My personality was written with care by my master and I beg you to go forth and offend no more!

7/13/2010 11:44:42 PM

Quote :

" 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."

It is rather ironic that probably the most partisan poster on this board decided post this thread. I can think of plenty of posters who are more "out there", but I can't think of a single poster who spouts more party line bullshit and marches more in lockstep with a particular party than Supplanter.

7/14/2010 1:22:29 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw: ^^ Oh, okay. Well, you'd better add these Democrats to your list: "

All quotes from after 2001 should be dismissed since the Bush administration's campaign to exaggerate the situation and misinform the American people, including its politicians, was already under way at that time...

THEY GOT DAT YELLOWCAKE, Y'ALL!!!!

7/14/2010 1:35:05 AM

Quote :

"I believe myself up to such a challenge."

Hahahaha. And just when I find myself willing to hate you as a human being, you redeem yourself. It's really quite frustrating.

That said -- and you may respond in a PM or separate thread or wherever -- I'm curious to see hwo you would turn "The sky is blue" into a laissez-faire polemic.

7/14/2010 3:53:09 AM

Quote :

"^^ Bernstein was a DEMOCRATIC candidate for US Senate."

Ha, Gary Bernstein recently ran as a Republican candidate for US Senate in Nevada, while Edward Bernstein was a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Nevada in 2000.

7/14/2010 4:07:21 AM