Are Conservatives Immune to the Truth?

[MAX]

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html)


A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

If you've ever gotten in an argument with your conservative friends (assuming you haven't offered each other a mutual Carville-Matalin-style political ceasefire to preserve the friendship), you've probably seen this "backfire effect" in action. The more you try to tell people that Sarah Palin is lying when she says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the more they believe she was telling the truth. The more you try to explain how similar McCain's policies are to Bush's, the more they maintain he's "the original maverick."

The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?

I ain't got the answers, ace, except to say this: When arguing with conservatives in front of on-the-fence independents, remember that you're not trying to convince the conservative to actually buy into silly notions like facts and reason. You're highlighting the differences between left and right for the outside observer. If the other guy insists on political views that belong only in Disney World's Fantasyland, other folks will realize what's happening.

But if there is no third party, do yourself a favor and save your breath. As the study demonstrates, you're only making matters worse. Consider that aforementioned ceasefire. It is football season, after all. There's plenty of other things to argue about. Go Mizzou!

Jeff? :D

It's interesting, reading the source article, that the lingering effect of positive/negative impressions of politicians continues for both Democrats and Republicans after hearing misinformation even if it is subsequently refuted, but Republicans are unique in being more likely to believe in misinformation after seeing it refuted.

The researchers cited "rigid" thinking as the cause, but I think it's due to the fact that Republicans are rabidly anti-intellectual. Normally, a false claim is refuted by calling upon experts: highly qualified people. But Republicans have been indoctrinated to despise experts in virtually all fields of academia (especially science, but it extends to other fields as well): their opinions are deemed worthless unless they happen to agree with the Republican's beliefs. Hearing panels of experts debunk Republican claims only hardens their "us vs them" mentality and convinces them that if all of these "elitists" say it's wrong, then it must be right.

[Smokey]

Ugh, seriously Max? You're really buying this? Just because you're a Republican or a conservative doesn't mean you're immune to or incapable of reason. Conversely, just because you're a liberal or a Democrat doesn't mean that you're always open to or capable of reason.

[Darc Requiem]

Yeah your political leanings have nothing to do with whether or not you are too stubborn to face the facts.

[virion]

all studies like this aren't 100%.. just like all stereotypes aren't correct. but when most southern conservatives look like this, it isn't too hard to believe in the findings in this study.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f199/virion9/wedding.jpg

funny thing about this article.. you're given the hypothesis. and then given the study data to back it up. and you guys totally start denying it right away. i bet you guys are voting for mccain.

[MAX]

Ugh, seriously Max? You're really buying this? Just because you're a Republican or a conservative doesn't mean you're immune to or incapable of reason. Conversely, just because you're a liberal or a Democrat doesn't mean that you're always open to or capable of reason.

Did you intend to back up the study by responding with this post? lol

Besides, nothing in that article said 'always' or 'immune' or 'incapable'. The point of the article is that conservatives are MORE LIKELY to continue believing misinformation AFTER it's been refuted. Nothing in those articles say that they can't, or don't, or won't --- did you actually read it, or did you skim it quickly so that you could give us your qualified and informed opinion on the study? Stop creating straw men.

Yeah your political leanings have nothing to do with whether or not you are too stubborn to face the facts.

It's one thing to ignore contradictory evidence; it's quite another for contradictory evidence to make you twice as likely to believe in the thing it's contradicting. Which, according to the study, Conservatives are more likely to do.

all studies like this aren't 100%.. just like all stereotypes aren't correct. but when most southern conservatives look like this, it isn't too hard to believe in the findings in this study.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f199/virion9/wedding.jpg

funny thing about this article.. you're given the hypothesis. and then given the study data to back it up. and you guys totally start denying it right away. i bet you guys are voting for mccain.

That has to be photoshopped... there's something weird going on with their feet and the grass...

[Smokey]

Did you intend to back up the study by responding with this post? lol

Besides, nothing in that article said 'always' or 'immune' or 'incapable'. The point of the article is that conservatives are MORE LIKELY to continue believing misinformation AFTER it's been refuted. Nothing in those articles say that they can't, or don't, or won't. Stop creating straw men.

Again, like Darc said, political leanings don't have anything to do with how likely they are to accept bull****.

[MAX]

I disagree, vehemently. As do people with PhD's, apparently.

[blokeymon]

Lets face it.

If you voted for Bush, you're ****ing retarded.

[bountyhunter]

Again, like Darc said, political leanings don't have anything to do with how likely they are to accept bull****.

I second max's disagreement. I think our current president has done a great deal to show how likely his supporters are to accept bull****.

[Tanooki]

Oh dear god you're taking something from the Huffington Post as a citable source for your entire post? That's one step short of the insanity of the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org.

I'll keep this short for now as I'm closing up at work right now on my computer. Check the dates of the basis of this study and what the subject is, the war, and in particular WMD denial. Back in the 2003/4 period in time the lie/bad info (depends on your view) was out there. You have a sitting Republican/conservative in power, and you have info that the public at large had question about. Without conclusive evidence until a period later than this study, no one knew if WMD existed or not at that point. Due to the partisan hatred due to the close election of 2000 it was very hugely R vs D, no love, no compromise. In an atmosphere like that of course whoever your choice of side is you're damn well going to back up and in 2003 it wouldn't appear dumb to back up the WMD argument anymore than it would be to try and squash it due to the lack of truthful hard info. As such the study is more of a political hit piece loaded with catagorically flawed information to base the fact that people who lean right live mentally on along a little river in Egypt called 'Da Nile.' I mean if you want you could easily go back to an earlier era when you had dems in charge and they were shoveling some crap, and the other side argued against them and they stuck to their guns on it. Then in that case with it 180'd of course the dems in that situation would look immune to the truth.

Well as crap as this entire argument you started is max, at least it makes sense having it in the war room because all it's doing is trying to flame up misinformation about right leaning types as being permanently in denial about the truth basing the entire argument on a narrow gap of time about an issue that had a hazy lack of reality to it.

[Smokey]

I disagree, vehemently. As do people with PhD's, apparently.

Bull****. Just because someone with a PhD says it's true doesn't make it fact. Esteemed people of higher learning can be full of ****, too. Remember Ptolemy, one of the greatest philosophers and one of the best educated of his time? He said the solar system revolved around the earth. Whoops. Turns out he was full of ****. And as for the veracity of claims made by researchers at Yale, didn't Bush graduate from Yale?:D

Lets face it.

If you voted for Bush, you're ****ing retarded.

Not necessarily. Besides, that has no bearing on whether conservatives are more likely to accept bull****.

I second max's disagreement. I think our current president has done a great deal to show how likely his supporters are to accept bull****.

Bush did a pretty good job of covering his tracks and pulling the wool over the eyes of the public in the beginning. We all know how much the public holds Bush in high esteem now, though. And while most of Bush's remaining supporters are probably Republican, I would disagree that they are conservatives. Bush has done more to change things than most presidents in the past century, both good and bad (especially bad). His supporters can hardly be called "conservatives".

[MAX]

Oh dear god you're taking something from the Huffington Post as a citable source for your entire post? That's one step short of the insanity of the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org.

Technically, the source is the Washington Post by way of Yale.

Check the dates of the basis of this study and what the subject is, the war, and in particular WMD denial. Back in the 2003/4 period in time the lie/bad info (depends on your view) was out there. You have a sitting Republican/conservative in power, and you have info that the public at large had question about. Without conclusive evidence until a period later than this study, no one knew if WMD existed or not at that point. Due to the partisan hatred due to the close election of 2000 it was very hugely R vs D, no love, no compromise. In an atmosphere like that of course whoever your choice of side is you're damn well going to back up and in 2003 it wouldn't appear dumb to back up the WMD argument anymore than it would be to try and squash it due to the lack of truthful hard info. As such the study is more of a political hit piece loaded with catagorically flawed information to base the fact that people who lean right live mentally on along a little river in Egypt called 'Da Nile.' I mean if you want you could easily go back to an earlier era when you had dems in charge and they were shoveling some crap, and the other side argued against them and they stuck to their guns on it. Then in that case with it 180'd of course the dems in that situation would look immune to the truth.

You're cherry picking the article. That was only one previous study done. There have been more recent study's done (by John Bullock (http://www.yale.edu/polisci/people/jbullock.html), who is obviously more qualified than any of us here regarding this subject) that back that up. Unless you have a PhD in this field from Yale?

Well as crap as this entire argument you started is max, at least it makes sense having it in the war room because all it's doing is trying to flame up misinformation about right leaning types as being permanently in denial about the truth basing the entire argument on a narrow gap of time about an issue that had a hazy lack of reality to it.

Conservative is pretty much synonymous with traditional, which means same as it's always been. There are a lot of people out there who need rules, and are incapable of making those rules themselves so need others to provide it for their moral compass. Religion and the notion of traditional values or morals supply that for them. Liberal or progressive though makes (supposedly) for an ever changing opinion on things as they 'progress'. Hence changing positions and changing rules that someone with a 'I need a rule' morality would simply find horrific. Its funny, because as soon as I read about this, I knew you and Smokey would be quick to jump on it. lol. Which only really reinforces the study. :D

[MAX]

Bull****. Just because someone with a PhD says it's true doesn't make it fact. Esteemed people of higher learning can be full of ****, too. Remember Ptolemy, one of the greatest philosophers and one of the best educated of his time? He said the solar system revolved around the earth. Whoops. Turns out he was full of ****. And as for the veracity of claims made by researchers at Yale, didn't Bush graduate from Yale?:D

Yay for straw men, Smokeys FAVORITEST type of men! =) Seriously, there's like 5 in that post.

Bush was hardly a PhD student, and barely graduated with a C average. Nice try though. Plus, you fail miserably and interpreting things.

Are you seriously comparing a philosopher from 165 AD, to someone with a PhD in 2008? Not saying that everyone with a PhD is ZOMG TRUE, but the fact that there have been multiple studies done, by different people, with strikingly similar results tends to speak for itself. Unless, of course, you can back up your assertion with some studies that show differently? Or are we to simply take your opinion over people who have spent years studying this?


Not necessarily. Besides, that has no bearing on whether conservatives are more likely to accept bull****.

The fact that someone voted for him a second time, or is now going to vote for Mccain, gives a strong message saying otherwise.

Bush did a pretty good job of covering his tracks and pulling the wool over the eyes of the public in the beginning. We all know how much the public holds Bush in high esteem now, though. And while most of Bush's remaining supporters are probably Republican, I would disagree that they are conservatives. Bush has done more to change things than most presidents in the past century, both good and bad (especially bad). His supporters can hardly be called "conservatives".

Do you care to back that up with anything useful? The only people who are supporting Bush right now are the conservatives. I can't think of any policy he's endorsed that didn't pander to his conservative base in some way. So you need to clarify this, instead of being vague.

[Tanooki]

I'll give you it was Yale, and that Conservative tends to = slow to change. But if you want to run off such loose terms I can safely say that from the empirical evidence you see on tv/papers/online that Liberal=Over beliver, gullible, rapid to change.

I know it's making fun of the statement, but if you check out the political leanings and associations of your traditional ufo believer, psychic buddy, believe in the loch ness monster and bigfoot types, conspiracy theories in general the majority fall left. Why? Because some are just overboard open minded, likely to believe anything in front of them or make a conspiracy theory moreso than a traditional conservative type because change comes just a little bit TOO easy.

The door really swings both ways. And come on now I was the 4th into this thing, and I'm also not so far right as I think you assume I am on stuff. I'm great with change, but I'm also a skeptic so I like facts. Rules are nice, they're helpful, but they're meant to be broken at times too.

Since this is slightly Bush bashing, and I'm in no way and haven't been for years a good supporter of the guy, he has done a goddamn nice bit of good in the world too. Check out his record on relief efforts in general, but in particular in relation to disease in Africa. Yah he's a putz when it comes to some things, but he does have some glimmering moments of good too which is why various nations of the world still hold the guy in fairly high regard. Obviously he's not perfect, that's a given, but who is?

[JValone]

Whether this study is scientifically respectable or not, and I'm not delving into that, the smug attitude of liberals ticks me off quite a bit. I'm no conservative but I'm also not someone who enjoys watching MSNBC's crew and a good chunk of the media show heavy bias at all times. Obviously Faux News does it too, but whatever, two wrongs do not make a right.

The Democrats are going to **** up this election because they come off as a bunch of pompous asses, and that's a fact. If you are not a hard-line liberal you are very likely to see the Democratic Party as elitist jerks with their nose high in the sky. THAT is why they have such difficulty getting support from the middle and lower class when it actually matters: voting. It's obviously not because of their positions, they are clearly favoring those people, it's because their approach is so high-and-mighty at times that normal folks tune it out as a bunch of suits that just don't understand what they want is a modest and down to earth person representing them.

Obama has those qualities in spades but his people are screwing him royally and it irritates me a great deal because I am very much in favor of him being elected as Pres. Instead of hyping up his everyman status, how he worked his way up, how he is a very likable man, how he's the guy who would talk to you at a McDonald's line and share a joke for no reason, those in the press that lean left are attacking Palin and giving her pity points. How stupid can you be? If they don't shape up in a hurry the Palin/McCain train (yes, that is the correct order) is going to roll them right over and leave the entire party wondering why they lost.

Of course they won't get it, will continue to look like know-it-all wise-asses and they'll lose AGAIN to either McCain or Palin depending on if John's fragile health makes it through four entire years. The Olbermann's and Stewart's of this world are killing their own party by galvanizing Republicans while painting their own people as arrogant thus turning moderates against them by default.

I know it's OT but I just got out of a political science class and have realized that the room is slowly turning towards McCain. If Obama loses the youth he's done. And what was the main complaint? Democratic arrogance. So I'm concerned and appalled that stuff like this is being brought up in the Washington Post to do even more damage.

[Darc Requiem]

The elitism issue always rubbed me the wrong way in politics. If I have the choice between a arrogant prick that can get the job done or the friendly f*ck up that I'd share a beer with. I would choose the prick and talk about what type of jackass he is over beer with the friendly f*ck up.

[JValone]

I completely agree, I just doubt most people are informed enough to make that distinction, unfortunately. I'm pretty pessimistic about Americans voters honestly. They haven't given me a lot of reasons to trust them to make the smart choice.

[Darc Requiem]

I agree with you wholeheartedly JV. People continually vote against their own best interest and I just can't understand it.

[HGW XX/7]

It's interesting, reading the source article, that the lingering effect of positive/negative impressions of politicians continues for both Democrats and Republicans after hearing misinformation even if it is subsequently refuted, but Republicans are unique in being more likely to believe in misinformation after seeing it refuted.

That's funny, because I don't recall it saying anything in the article about doing a similar study on liberals. Maybe I missed something?

I know from personal experience that it holds true on both sides.

[Tanooki]

JValone said: The Democrats are going to **** up this election because they come off as a bunch of pompous asses, and that's a fact. If you are not a hard-line liberal you are very likely to see the Democratic Party as elitist jerks with their nose high in the sky. THAT is why they have such difficulty getting support from the middle and lower class when it actually matters: voting. It's obviously not because of their positions, they are clearly favoring those people, it's because their approach is so high-and-mighty at times that normal folks tune it out as a bunch of suits that just don't understand what they want is a modest and down to earth person representing them.

That right there my friends is why I try every 4 years to find some glimmer of intelligence and value in the party and get so goddamn turned off to them I end up often ignoring the off presidential year elections and only partially filling in the rest on those 4 year rolls. Great, you want to help me, don't like your **** doesn't stink and throw that superiority complex around like you're better than me and everyone else who doesn't follow your narrow minded 100% crazed view of the world as it comes off as all or nothing.

You're right about MSNBC and the rest of the left media, they're so rude, pompous, arrogant, vindictive, hateful, and close minded. They created the world that allowed Fox News to exist and get like 3x the ratings of the next cable news networks under them. Outside of their opinion shows they don't drop cheap shots, arrogance and the general list of bad moves I already said above and it works. The latest poll (and not done by fox but they're touting in ads now) 39% Rep viewership, 34% Dem, and the rest are misc or no affiliation. I think that says a lot when the cut between parties is a 5% margin because like JV said they're so pissed at the behavior because they're moderate Dems or middle of the road they walk to Fox to get some counterbalance and that's just sad. I miss the days of Cronkie, Rather(before he went douchebag), and the rest when it was totally opinion free objective tell it as it is news and not cherry pick and carpet bomb tactics. Ultimately you're right, the douchebag Olbermanns, Stewarts, Gibsons, Rathers(modern), etc of the modern media are acting like such smug brats they're damning their own side under a blanket of arrogant, condescension, and outright rudeness. Why deal with issues in the actual nightly news when you can pick what you want and smear in the most childish ways possible? We know that helps build credibility.

And McCain's health is not fragile.

[JValone]

I'm not actually a Democrat, more Libertarian, but Obama is better than McCain between the two choices that can actually win this election. So it isn't "my" party really. Despite being a true conservative (i.e. someone who actually wants to follow the Constitution) it sucks that I cannot vote for someone who believes in liberal views on personal freedom, free market economics, and a truly conservative foreign policy that isn't based on shoving the American dream down muslim throats. I've had a few HS friends and acquaintances come home in bags from Iraq, as my parent's home town is a very small place where many young men go to the military after completing school, and I'm basically voting on the guy who will get us the hell out because I'm tired of bad news. Obama fulfills 2/3 of my criteria, leave Iraq and liberal interpretation of personal freedom. McCain did as well as he seemed to have a more liberal view of personal freedom (then most of the GOP anyway) along with belief in the free market, but the Palin selection ruined things for me.

I would disagree about McCain. He has already outlived both his father and grandfather. He has a variety of ailments due to his advancing age, as all people do, it isn't his problem alone. I am seriously concerned about his ability to be alive through 2012. I wouldn't guarantee his passing or anything, but it's not out of the question and is at least worth discussing. Palin would be an awful commander in chief in the event of his death, she is a woman of very strong convictions obviously but I feel she would put those over the best interest of our nation. I have no interest in "conservatives" who do not fit that description in their treatment of foreign policy or the handling of personal freedom. I would have been a Reagan supporter had I been an adult in the 80s but a lot of his approach, despite the GOP's reverence for him, seems to have been cast aside. Obviously you might disagree, but that's just how I see things at the moment.

Sorry for the OT stuff MAX.

[Sean-AMN]

yeah on top of that the "open minded" folks I know in Cali are only open minded till you disagree with them...

[Lucas]

I pretty much agree with Josh on everything there, so I'll just leave it at that. It's so sad yet fitting though that the people of America who would most benefit from an Obama presidency would vote against him because the "good ole' boy" on the other side is somebody they would like to have a beer with.

Poetic justice I suppose.

[Rensa]

Max, do you know what the results were for non-conservatives? The article doesn't supply them, instead only saying that they 'did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.' I find that slightly disconcerting, especially when the article authors (and possibly the experimenters themselves) are working with a slight conflict of interest.

The best thing about this study, though, is that you can peg anyone who disagrees with it without backing it up as a Conservative :P

[Lizzaroni]

The problem is that "conservative" and "liberal" and "republican" and "democrat" are relative (liberal here is not liberal in Europe) and are not static ("democrat" today is not the "democrat" of the Civil Rights Era.) The study is essentially "Stubborn people are stubborn."

[MR EPIC]

Yeah your political leanings have nothing to do with whether or not you are too stubborn to face the facts.

I disagree. While I acknowledge that this doesn't have to be the case, 9 times out of 10 it is. It's part of the nature of politics.

[Lucas]

Oh dear god you're taking something from the Huffington Post as a citable source for your entire post? That's one step short of the insanity of....

.....posting something from Fox News? We've each got our own brand of bullsh*t. :)

[Smokey]

Are you seriously comparing a philosopher from 165 AD, to someone with a PhD in 2008? Not saying that everyone with a PhD is ZOMG TRUE, but the fact that there have been multiple studies done, by different people, with strikingly similar results tends to speak for itself. Unless, of course, you can back up your assertion with some studies that show differently? Or are we to simply take your opinion over people who have spent years studying this?

Unless there's a study that covers both sides equally, I'm going to be rather skeptical as to the veracity of these claims.

The fact that someone voted for him a second time, or is now going to vote for Mccain, gives a strong message saying otherwise.

In the case of the former, not particularly. Look who he was going up against on the second go-round. I find it hard to swallow that Kerry would have done any better than Bush has. I'd be a little more inclined to agree about McCain, but I'm fairly certain that there will be a sizable number of liberals falling for McCain's "Maverick" image and the breath of fresh air that is supposedly Sarah Palin.

Do you care to back that up with anything useful? The only people who are supporting Bush right now are the conservatives. I can't think of any policy he's endorsed that didn't pander to his conservative base in some way. So you need to clarify this, instead of being vague.

No, the only people that are supporting Bush right now are the religious nutjobs and the impaired. And as for policy, here's a big one: No Child Left Behind. That's hardly a policy that would appease a conservative. A liberal, however, who would generally favor more government services, would eat this up. Such individuals would be eating crow now.

[Tanooki]

Oh please Lucas Fox and the Huffington Post are on two entirely different levels. FNC gets it's dishonest rap from the commentator side of things, not from the straight news which they do excellent coverage of as does their more moderate counterpart, CNN. The HP is hardly legit, it's more of a smear site with some well crafted news, but I suppose you could do worse and start quoting the bull**** from the daily kos as that place is made of awful.

[Lucas]

Oh please Lucas Fox and the Huffington Post are on two entirely different levels. FNC gets it's dishonest rap from the commentator side of things, not from the straight news which they do excellent coverage of as does their more moderate counterpart, CNN. The HP is hardly legit, it's more of a smear site with some well crafted news, but I suppose you could do worse and start quoting the bull**** from the daily kos as that place is made of awful.

LOL, it was bait. Fox is a garbage news network, but at least they pretend to be legit. HuffPost is basically a Democratic smear site. I just wanted to see if you'd pounce. ;)

[Darc Requiem]

Lucas has got you there Jeff. Fox is atrocious. Its only equal is MSNBC. I used to like Keith Olbermann on Sportscenter but he's now just a liberal version of Bill O'Reilly.

[Smokey]

LOL, it was bait. Fox is a garbage news network, but at least they pretend to be legit. HuffPost is basically a Democratic smear site. I just wanted to see if you'd pounce. ;)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/P3Shinobi/1192392913251.jpg

:P

[Tanooki]

Yah right bait. I know how far lefties think and sites like that are legit. But of course you wouldn't realize that as you're so far to the left anything that says fox on it instantly = false and that's what's really sad. MSNBC and Fox are on different levels as when it comes to straight news, fox is honest, but when it comes to commentary shows they are equal polar opposites.

[Darc Requiem]

Jeff on more the one occasion, Fox News has labeled a Republican politician either embroiled in a scandal or opposed to their agenda a Democrat.

Scandal
http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/08/fox_foley_label.jpg
Dissenter
http://bp2.blogger.com/_LyItvxxzwuw/RqaaMwE_UII/AAAAAAAAADc/DlHFblp-b0k/s400/specter-democrat-hume.jpg

The commentary thing comes off as a cop out to me. All 24 hour news networks are heavy on commentary.

EDIT: The Foley one was especially atrocious because they made that mistake several times.

[MAX]

I think people are missing the point of the article. There is definitely a tendency from all sides to ignore scientists and engineers when they don't say what you want to hear (see nuclear power, 9/11 conspiracies, moon landing hoax, global warming, the failure of abstinence-only sex education, etc). However, US Republicans are unusual in the sense that they have an active hostility toward intellectuals; it seems they are more likely to believe something if they know the intellectuals are lining up against it.

Republican: "Hmmm, I'm not so sure I believe in that."
Fact-checker: "Did you know that every major science organization in the world has come out in favour of it?"
Republican: "Makes you wonder what they're trying to hide, doesn't it?"

It's about ideological blinders and an inherent hostility to expertise. Hello, Creationists act EXACTLY like this, and guess which party they tend to belong to.

[Lizzaroni]

They have an active hostility towards intellectuals because academia and its ilk tend to be vocally liberal. Kind of like economic liberals and the accusations towards economists as being on some sort of "ivory tower."

[Tanooki]

Well said Liz as that's basically the reason. One side plays off the other long enough and they get sick of their crap and of course won't take truth so easily at face value anymore. It's all back to that story about the little boy who cried wolf too much. Both sides do the bs so it's pretty lame to have a study out there to cherry pick reasons to target one side over the other, and considering the vast majority of academia (christian colleges aside) lean left it of course would make a more right leaning person be somewhat skeptical to motivation.

[MAX]

So we agree that the article's observations are valid. That wasn't so hard now was it.

[Tanooki]

Nope, not quite. Unless you're agreeing that both sides equally plan that kind of stupidity.

[MAX]

*cough*

There is definitely a tendency from all sides to ignore scientists and engineers when they don't say what you want to hear (see nuclear power, 9/11 conspiracies, moon landing hoax, global warming, the failure of abstinence-only sex education, etc). However, US Republicans are unusual in the sense that they have an active hostility toward intellectuals; it seems they are more likely to believe something if they know the intellectuals are lining up against it.

[Lizzaroni]

It would also be helpful to test additional corrections of liberal misperceptions. Currently, all of our backfire results come from conservatives – a finding that may provide support for the hypothesis that conservatives are especially dogmatic (Greenberg and Jonas 2003; Jost et al 2003a, 2003b). However, without conducting more studies, it is impossible to determine if the results we observe are systematic or the result of the specific misperceptions tested.

In addition, it would be valuable to replicate these findings with non-college students or a representative sample of the general population. Testing the effectiveness of corrections using a within-subjects design would also be worthwhile, though achieving meaningful results may be difficult for reasons described above. In either case, researchers must be wary of changing political conditions. Unlike other research topics, contemporary misperceptions about politics are a moving target that can change quickly (as the difference between the Iraq WMD experiments in Study 1 and Study 2 suggests).
I think the observation that there is a backfire effect and that, according to this study, it was more prevalent among conservatives is valid; it also lends itself to the claim that conservatives are more "dogmatic." I disagree, however, with the assertion that conservatives are immune to the truth and liberals are outright immune to this backfire phenomenon (which the conclusion (http://www.duke.edu/~bjn3/nyhan-reifler.pdf) takes into consideration.) More importantly, as I mentioned earlier (and is echoed in the conclusion), to state absolutely that this is true is folly simply because political parties and ideology are not absolute.

[Lucas]

Yah right bait. I know how far lefties think and sites like that are legit. But of course you wouldn't realize that as you're so far to the left anything that says fox on it instantly = false and that's what's really sad.

Ha-ha! Now you're calling me brainwashed and that I trust Huffington Post as a legit news site? Jesus. Talk about a desperate comeback.

Sometimes Fox can shut off the partisan switch and do some really good coverage. I've been forced to watch it at restaurants enough to know that (I don't voluntarily watch Cable news at all anymore). The problem is you never really know when they are going to sneak a good jab in there to lead the viewers to believe the network agenda. MSNBC is WAY more blatant about their lefty bias, which is why their ratings blow.

Point is: they all suck and I don't need to get my news from bias commentators mascaraing as newscasters. Fox, MSNBC, O'Riley, Olbermann, it's all the same damn thing. Different people spewing a different brand of venom.

[MAX]

I feel like there are 2 completely separate discussions going on here.

I agree with you liz, good point.

[Tanooki]

That's because for a time there was Max, and I agree with her as well in that she said: "the assertion that conservatives are immune to the truth and liberals are outright immune to this backfire phenomenon (which the conclusion takes into consideration.)"

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Rachel Maddow is my hero.

[Idol Australian]

Can we all just get back to Megan Fox now?

[Tanooki]

That woman would be a damn 10 if it wasn't for all the disgusting tattoos. On someone like that it's a crime, much like taking a spray can to a DaVinci. :D

[Idol Australian]

I don't mind the tattoos, her face is a bit of a turn off, some of the time.