|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence based smear campaigns | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I found this article in the Guardian by Ben Goldacre (The Guardian, Saturday 1 May 2010) that essentially says that right wing people will strengthen their views as a result counter evidence to their position.
A new experiment published this month in the journal Political Behaviour sets out to examine the impact of corrections, and what they found was far more disturbing than they expected: far from changing peoples’ minds, if you are deeply entrenched in your views, a correction will only reinforce them. Evidence based smear campaigns – Bad Science This means that right wingers have very little chance of changing their minds; especially when provided with evidence to the contrary to their beliefs. Is it then pointless arguing with right wing people because any evidence that is presented that is counter to their beliefs will actually strengthen them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13036 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread copied here from the Evidence based smear campaigns thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2437 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey Larni.
Crazy, just plain crazy. And sad, too. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Is it then pointless arguing with right wing people because any evidence that is presented that is counter to their beliefs will actually strengthen them? Yes, I think, up to a point. Like the study says, it depends upon where an individual lies on the scale of conservativity, regardless of intelligence, it seems. I'd assume, if given two people of the same level of conservatism but differing levels of education and/or intelligence, the more highly educated individual would be found to reject prior convictions versus his counterpart. In general, at least. As I'm sure we've all seen (in this forum as well as in real life), rationality and reason seems to fall by the wayside in this, ah, subset of society. Pity. Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
To stir the pot:
Try reasoning with the left wing fringe and they try to get you jailed (that hate speech nonsense). If they don't riot and start breaking things (e.g., Santa Cruz, just a couple of days ago). Dons flame suit. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Trying to equate the effects of cognitive dissonance with "right wing" is incredibly dishonest; this behavior is common to all of humanity.
Observe for instance the reviews of the "Global Warming" studies used by the UN. The left wing reacted similarly by strengthening their support of the positions they had already taken, as opposed to examining the controversy around the studies and possibly revising their conclusions. It doesn't matter what your political leanings, we are all subject to this behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I don't see how this shows the phenomenon applies only to right-wing people ...
I mean, this is what happened with the example of WMD in Iraq, which was obliously biased against more conservative people. But it does not show that doing the same thing with a reverse example aimed more at liberal and left people would not show the exact same thing. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2437 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey Slevesque.
But it does not show that doing the same thing with a reverse example aimed more at liberal and left people would not show the exact same thing. I'd agree that it may be that the more moderate (neither right nor left) a person is, the more likely she'll consider amending a position if that position was shown to be untenable. Seems like a fine assumption, anyway. So, think of the most liberal friend you have. Can you illustrate a scenario in which this friend would exhibit the same characteristics as the "study" in question portrays for conservatism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I don't see how this shows the phenomenon applies only to right-wing people If we accept the results, then it shows that the phenomenon is significantly more pronounced with those of the right wing. The full paper can be read here.
But it does not show that doing the same thing with a reverse example aimed more at liberal and left people would not show the exact same thing. The paper refers to a misconception among the left wing about stem cell politics:
quote: After doing their statistical stuff to it the result,
quote: In standard English: In the right wing, seeing a correction to a position they held as true there is a tendency to agree with that position more strongly when asked about it. In the left wing seeing a correction has very little effect either way. That is - their bias prevents them from changing their views, but it doesn't cause them to say they agree with their view more strongly than before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Observe for instance the reviews of the "Global Warming" studies used by the UN. The left wing reacted similarly by strengthening their support of the positions they had already taken, as opposed to examining the controversy around the studies and possibly revising their conclusions. It doesn't matter what your political leanings, we are all subject to this behavior. This isn't like getting defensive. This is something different. So it goes that if you present a left wing person with a counter piece of evidence for Global Warming and then ask them how strongly they agree that Global Warming is occurring and humans are a cause you will find the same results if you didn't start with the counterevidence. The counterevidence has no effect on reported strength of agreement. For example. In the right wing, seeing counter evidence to a position you hold increases the magnitude of your reported agreement with it! This is not cognitive dissonance. This, if the results are to be followed, suggests that there appears to a psychologically different reaction to people of different political viewpoints when presented with corrections. As the paper concludes:
quote: The paper is consistent with that conclusion, but can't say that it is certain: only that corrections can cause 'backfire' reactions among the political extremes which helps explain the misconceptions that the public have. Edited by Modulous, : added the paper's conclusion to clear up what might well be a liberal misconception about the paper's content
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It's not really cognitive dissonance.
What it means is that once a right winger makes up his their mind they will not change it: even when they are corrected they cleave to their original conclusions; evidence be damned. Sticking to ones initial conclusions is indeed common to all people as selectively ignoring contradictory evidence but the interesting thing here is that right winger's belief in their erroneous conclusions are strengthened by contradictory evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Hi,
The situations taken are hardly comparable. The Iraq was a natonwide discussion for easily over 2 years in the entire US, everyone had an opinion on it and everybody was ''brainwashed'' into their position depending on which news source they went to. There is huge background into this when the study is being made. The stem cell research, and if Bush had banned it or not at the time, is hardly anything like that. At the most, it is a peripheral belief that can be easily discarded by anybody. A reverse situation that would maybe be on the same scale would be the global warming issue, and the 'extra-added' information would have to be an official article contradicting the usual ALGore line of thinking of the left. PS i'm not that knowledgeable on US politics, so I may be wrong. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member
|
Larni writes: Sticking to ones initial conclusions is indeed common to all people as selectively ignoring contradictory evidence but the interesting thing here is that right winger's belief in their erroneous conclusions are strengthened by contradictory evidence. What I am pointing out is that it dishonest of you to suggest such behavior is unique to "right wingers". You appear to be letting your prejudice get the better of you, and simply insulting an entire political ideology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Well, for my part I can't imagine my conservative friends to have such a behavior. Maybe it's an american thing
You don't expect this behavior from anybody, this is what makes it surprising. ANd the fact that we didn't expect it from conservatives but it is there, suggests that you cannot come to the conclusion that liberals would not exhibit it also when placed in a similar situation (which I think no similar situation to the WMD-Iraq is present in the research) Edited by slevesque, : Irak - -) Iraq thanks Dr.A
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thanks for the clarification, Mod.
Modulous writes: In the right wing, seeing a correction to a position they held as true there is a tendency to agree with that position more strongly when asked about it. In the left wing seeing a correction has very little effect either way. That is - their bias prevents them from changing their views, but it doesn't cause them to say they agree with their view more strongly than before. The thing seen from both camps (bias preventing a change in view) is simply explained by a fear of being wrong.Fear of Being Wrong exists in almost all people. Generally, it's backed by some very real fears (losing a job, livelihood, ability to support family...). However, that same Fear of Being Wrong when dealing with big fears seems to carry over and be just as imposing even when the fears are minimal (being "wrong on the internet"). So, if a Fear of Being Wrong imposes a bias to keep one's position. What is it that makes some people strengthen their position upon being shown a correction as opposed to simply continuing to hold that position? I think Right Wing vs Left Wing is more of a correlation then a cause. But what would be the cause? My guess is that some folks learn that when they're loud... people listen, at least, they seem to while in front of the loud person. An outsider will see the loud-person as being a fool. However, from the perspective of the loud-person, if others cease their rebuttles... then they see it as a "win" and gain confidence in their position. Too many episodes like that in too many face-to-face situations while growing up... and the cycle can become ingrained. The cycle turns into... if someone has an arguement against my position... get louder... then success. I'm not sure if any of that made sense... just some ramblings.
Larni writes: Is it then pointless arguing with right wing people because any evidence that is presented that is counter to their beliefs will actually strengthen them? Regardless of why it may happen. It still happens, so to answer the question: Yes. Arguing with someone like that would be pointless if your goal is to persuade that single person. But no, in general, the goal is to persuade "others" or "as many as possible". In which case, arguing with such a "loud-mouth" will only bring others in to view what's going on... and outside observers tend to see things a bit more objectively and will tend to see the loud-mouth as the fool he's being.So, no, it is not pointless. And, in fact, I think it's advantageous... as their loud demands will attact even more "potential converts" to the corrected position. You can even see such things on this board. Like when someone comes to the board screaming about a PRATT. The PRATTs seem to attract more and more "newcomers" who get to see the PRATTs and judge them for themselves. Most judge such objectively and see the PRATTs for what they are... refuted idiocy. The original PRATT screamer may not have changed their position, but they have rang an alarm that brought many others... with most of them now understanding that the PRATT is refuted idiocy. As the saying goes "The Bible is the largest weapon that exists for creating atheists"... or something like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The situations taken are hardly comparable. They are comparable. Not equal. But as I said up above - the paper isn't really concentrating on left vs right stuff and is only consistent with that conclusion.
A reverse situation that would maybe be on the same scale would be the global warming issue, and the 'extra-added' information would have to be an official article contradicting the usual ALGore line of thinking of the left. Yeah - they only asked a few questions because of time constraints (they basically performed one study per question) and they put in a call for more liberal issue related questions to discover what backfire issues they might have (perhaps fishing for a grant a little there ).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024