Post by Optimus on Jul 6, 2017 17:08:25 GMT -5
A study just got posted a few days ago on a popular open-access journal's website, and I haven't read it all yet, but based on Nyhan's (the lead author) past work, it should be interesting.
The Atlantic did a write up about it and it's worth a look:
Bolding mine. I think that's a pretty interesting finding and it lines up with what how I've viewed much of the increasing left/right divide into polar extremism. Based on my reading of the research, I've always felt that the closed-minded, bigoted lunacy of the alt-right and Trumpers (and the delusional, equally-bigoted mouthfrothing of the ctrl-left SJWs and Regressives) has much more to do with tribalism than it does intelligence or ability to comprehend facts. It's always seemed to me that, for many people, denial of facts is an intentional, conscious act motivated mostly by tribal membership and/or hyper-identification with the person/group whom they feel best represents their values (whatever those may be).
In fact, partisan bias (when it comes to accepting/accessing factual beliefs) can be miraculously overcome when people are paid to answer political questions honestly (i.e., correct factually).
I agree with this conclusion. Many (but certainly not all) hyper-partisans would rather willingly deny reality just so that they can stick with their perceived "tribe," than admit that their tribe is garbage. And, for many of them the process is totally superficial, because deep down they know the truth. There are various psychological reasons for this, but I don't want this post to become a dissertation.
I'm hoping that the recent and growing hyper-partisanship on both sides will help the major parties of the left and right eventually get back on the right tracks (to sanity). As the far-right and far-left become more crazy and start to eat their own, it'll be a wake-up call to those who are at least slightly more sane that it's time to start acting like level-headed, logical adults again. I kind of envision it as a political version of heating something up until you can burn away and filter out the impurities.
Might just be wishful thinking on my part, though.
The Atlantic did a write up about it and it's worth a look:
Here’s the good news: Trump voters do not, in fact, seem impervious to truth. Present them with a falsehood from their man and they’ll acknowledge he was wrong. But that doesn’t have much effect on their support for Trump. As the authors put it, “Individuals may be willing to change their minds about the facts, but we do not observe changes in the candidate whom they support.” They know he’s wrong, and they don’t care (that much).
....
The quartet looked at a pair of claims that Trump made while he was the GOP nominee for president in 2016. In one case, during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, he claimed that crime was up sharply, which was false. In another, during the first presidential debate, he insisted that Ohio and Michigan were hemorrhaging jobs, when in fact both states had unemployment levels below the national average.
Previous research from Nyhan and Riefler has found that corrections can sometimes actually have a “backfire effect”: When confronted with contrary information, ideologically motivated respondents sometimes simply dig in further on the initial, incorrect view of a fact. One might assume, then, that Trump supporters who were faced with Trump’s untruths would reject the correction. But that’s not what happened. They conceded the factual discrepancy, but continued to support Trump anyway.
....
The quartet looked at a pair of claims that Trump made while he was the GOP nominee for president in 2016. In one case, during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, he claimed that crime was up sharply, which was false. In another, during the first presidential debate, he insisted that Ohio and Michigan were hemorrhaging jobs, when in fact both states had unemployment levels below the national average.
Previous research from Nyhan and Riefler has found that corrections can sometimes actually have a “backfire effect”: When confronted with contrary information, ideologically motivated respondents sometimes simply dig in further on the initial, incorrect view of a fact. One might assume, then, that Trump supporters who were faced with Trump’s untruths would reject the correction. But that’s not what happened. They conceded the factual discrepancy, but continued to support Trump anyway.
Bolding mine. I think that's a pretty interesting finding and it lines up with what how I've viewed much of the increasing left/right divide into polar extremism. Based on my reading of the research, I've always felt that the closed-minded, bigoted lunacy of the alt-right and Trumpers (and the delusional, equally-bigoted mouthfrothing of the ctrl-left SJWs and Regressives) has much more to do with tribalism than it does intelligence or ability to comprehend facts. It's always seemed to me that, for many people, denial of facts is an intentional, conscious act motivated mostly by tribal membership and/or hyper-identification with the person/group whom they feel best represents their values (whatever those may be).
In fact, partisan bias (when it comes to accepting/accessing factual beliefs) can be miraculously overcome when people are paid to answer political questions honestly (i.e., correct factually).
As the authors note, the study is limited in scope, but it’s still a useful aid to thinking about Trump and his dissembling. The fact that he is able to “get away” with such frequent dishonesty has perplexed many observers. (“Getting away” is in the eye of the beholder; Trump’s presidency has encountered a variety of self-constructed obstacles.) Some uncharitable observers have attributed this to naive unsophistication among Trump voters brainwashed by media outlets and incapable of telling fact from fiction; other, more complex interpretations have situated Trump as an improbable apotheosis of the post-modern critique of empirical fact.
If this study is right, though, neither of those views is accurate. Trump supporters can assess the evidence, and they haven’t thrown out truth. It’s just not the operative factor in their choice.
If this study is right, though, neither of those views is accurate. Trump supporters can assess the evidence, and they haven’t thrown out truth. It’s just not the operative factor in their choice.
I agree with this conclusion. Many (but certainly not all) hyper-partisans would rather willingly deny reality just so that they can stick with their perceived "tribe," than admit that their tribe is garbage. And, for many of them the process is totally superficial, because deep down they know the truth. There are various psychological reasons for this, but I don't want this post to become a dissertation.
I'm hoping that the recent and growing hyper-partisanship on both sides will help the major parties of the left and right eventually get back on the right tracks (to sanity). As the far-right and far-left become more crazy and start to eat their own, it'll be a wake-up call to those who are at least slightly more sane that it's time to start acting like level-headed, logical adults again. I kind of envision it as a political version of heating something up until you can burn away and filter out the impurities.
Might just be wishful thinking on my part, though.
