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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Post
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?
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizzaroni
I'm not disregarding prostate cancer, but if given a choice for myself, I would obviously choose it because I do not have a prostate.
Location: Concord, NC (which is better than SC. Period.)
Posts: 8,598
Nintendo DS Friend Codes -
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.
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.
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.
__________________
'i want to be able to stick my fist in your mouth and feel all 32.'
'give me a minute and i'll change your mind. give me a bullet and i'll change your life.'
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darc Requiem
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizzaroni
I'm not disregarding prostate cancer, but if given a choice for myself, I would obviously choose it because I do not have a prostate.
Location: Concord, NC (which is better than SC. Period.)
Posts: 8,598
Nintendo DS Friend Codes -
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAX
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****.
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.
Location: Concord, NC (which is better than SC. Period.)
Posts: 8,598
Nintendo DS Friend Codes -
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAX
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blokeymon
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****.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bountyhunter
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".
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.
Quote:
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, 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?
Quote:
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizzaroni
I'm not disregarding prostate cancer, but if given a choice for myself, I would obviously choose it because I do not have a prostate.
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?
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizzaroni
I'm not disregarding prostate cancer, but if given a choice for myself, I would obviously choose it because I do not have a prostate.
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?
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.
Space Invaders
Pin Headz
Sky Attack
Life Bouy
Moon Patrol
James Bomb
Mahjong Connect
Twelve Swap
Dick Quick's Island Adventure
Penguin Pass
Pogo Panic
Mahjong
Bugz
Eskiv
Gyroball
Magic Ball
Mission To Mars
Parachute Panic
Starship Legend
Typing Test
V:force
Mission Mars
Fishing Impossible
Asteroids
Nut Nut
Plops
Yankee Go Home
Hook Line & Sinker
Mad Shark
Mumu
Hexxagon
Crazy Closet
Mini KickUps
Starcastle
Linear Mode
