YOUR POLITICAL orientation determines where you fall on important social issues, right? And it’s the strength of your partisanship that determines how easily you “correct” mis-held opinions when presented with corrective information … isn’t it? We used to think that. It turns out that facts are mostly useless in combatting misinformation and misperceptions. It’s not your political beliefs that make you more or less likely to believe/dismiss facts that don’t fit your world view – it’s your sense of self worth. So suggests current psychological research by the likes of Brendan Nyhan and Stephen Lewandowsky – with huge implications for the efforts and effectiveness of fact-checkers and the news media in general. Maria Konnikova distilled what’s known in this post for The New Yorker.
Posts Tagged ‘misinformation’
Why people persist in believing untrue things
In Facts and opinion, Interesting research, Misinformation on May 26, 2014 at 2:19 pmFacts: dead and buried?
In Facts and opinion, Interesting research, Journalism practice, Misinformation on March 10, 2014 at 5:01 pmIn April 2012, Rex Huppke of the Chicago Tribune wrote an obituary for Facts prompted by a US Republican’s claim that 81 of his fellow members of the House of Representatives were Communists. The piece was a novel way to air the thoughts of Mary Poovey (A History of the Modern Fact) about how, in the internet age, opinion is given the same – if not greater – weight as fact:
“Opinion has become the new truth,” Poovey told Huppke. “And many people who already have opinions see in the ‘news’ an affirmation of the opinion they already had, and that confirms their opinion as fact.”
Huppke’s piece is worth revisiting.
For more of Poovey expounding on the same issues, see the transcript of (or listen to) this episode of Radio National’s Future Tense program: Fact and Fiction. (Fact aficionados Brendan Nyhan, Bill Adair and Ullrich Ecker also get a look-in.)
The Diplomat’s Cocktail Party
In Journalism practice, Previously published on August 19, 2013 at 9:29 amIn Marius Foley’s Globalized Communication and Culture course (Comm 1107) last semester at RMIT we were given an exercise called The Diplomat’s Cocktail Party in which we had to tell two fellow students about an incident – preferably true – that would reveal something about ourselves. The story we chose was to be relevant to our interest in media and communications.
I recalled a stoush I had with the 911 conspiracy movement after writing a damning TV review for The Age of a program called In Plane Site (see here).
For days after the review was published I was bombarded by conspiracy theorists from around the world, including Dave vonKleist, the producer of the program I had bagged.
The emails were abusive and generally unreasoned. I was described, among many things, as corrupt, ignorant, spawn of The Devil, a resident of the Dark Side and on the pay of the CIA and all the others involved in the global media conspiracy to deceive the world about the “truth” behind September 11.
When Dave vonKleist emailed me himself I decided to engage him and his arguments. In a series of long emails we debated the issue. I tried to get him to stand back and understand that conspiracies are not based on rational, evidence-based thinking. He countered with an avalanche of unconnected “facts” that he believed proved the involvement of the US government and existence of a subsequent cover-up.
(Some of this debate – regrettably not all of it – was post on the website of Dave vonKleist’s radio program, “The Power Hour”: http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/daves_response_2.htm)
The article and my contact details had been posted on conspiracy sites around the world and readers were encouraged to contact me. My debate with vonKleist was also posted on skeptic websites whose aim was to debunk conspiracy theories and the irrational thinking that fuels them.
I was struck by how quickly news spread to the producer of the program (Dave vonKleist responded with his long email within 36 hours) and how quickly conspiracy sites from around the world picked up the issue and launched into their assault. I was also impressed that those on the other side of the debate had rallied, using the same technology, to join battle.
My “debate” with Dave vonKleist and the virulence of the response to my review sparked a continuing interest in how people form beliefs and why they find it so difficult to change those beliefs, even in the face of directly contradictory evidence. I also found the ability of the internet to rapidly spread misinformation and to connect likeminded people, whom I regarded as delusional, as a bit of a worry (if impressive).
I’m still intrigued by these issues.
Additional stuff:
> Part of the jousting with Dave vonKleist:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/daves_response_2.htm
> A follow-up column about conspiracy theories:
> The original article:
The Debunking Handbook
In Uncategorized on August 3, 2013 at 8:45 pmA useful guide to debunking misinformation from John Cook Stephan and Lewandowsky.
From the website:
“Debunking myths is problematic. Unless great care is taken, any effort to debunk misinformation can inadvertently reinforce the very myths one seeks to correct. To avoid these “backfire effects”, an effective debunking requires three major elements. First, the refutation must focus on core facts rather than the myth to avoid the misinformation becoming more familiar. Second, any mention of a myth should be preceded by explicit warnings to notify the reader that the upcoming information is false. Finally, the refutation should include an alternative explanation that accounts for important qualities in the original misinformation.”
Click the cover image to go to the download site.
[post]fact: 