So says the Boston Globe:
In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
[…]
Our brains are designed to create cognitive shortcuts — inference, intuition, and so forth — to avoid precisely that sort of discomfort while coping with the rush of information we receive on a daily basis. Without those shortcuts, few things would ever get done. Unfortunately, with them, we’re easily suckered by political falsehoods.
This is scary stuff. As one who advocates for an informed populace, to think that people don’t just cling to incorrect information but rather twist the facts to match it, flies in the face of what education is supposed to accomplish.
Let’s hope somebody comes up with a way to re-wire our brains!
h/t Taegan Goddard
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
It’s all absolutely true. I heard about it from a psychologist at William and Mary who was also studying the theory and thought it would be practically useful in politics.
It’s a large part of why campaigns focus more on identifying voters who already agree with you and not on persuading the voters who don’t agree with you that they’re wrong. It’s also why most people who think they’re good debaters are actually, you know, incompetent. They’re convinced that they can make someone else adopt their cognitive framework for understanding the world around them; actually, you can’t really start to communicate until you understand the cognitive framework of the people you’re trying to persuade.
This, in turn, is why so many blogs are so painful to read. Present company excluded, of course.
One last story: I was having lunch with a finance director, and we got to talking about communications and why there are so many non-persuadable voters. He said to me, “are you trying to say that no matter how many irrefutable facts you give a person to work with, you can’t persuade him to abandon a theory?” I said, “that’s exactly true.” He said, “I don’t believe that.” “Okay,” I said. “What if I told you that there are at least four studies from the psychology departments at major universities that support the theory?” He said, “I don’t care. I still don’t believe it.”
“Alright,” I said, “but you kind of just proved my point.”
Great story 😉
But, jeez – that’s really depressing. Because it basically says that the more and more polarized we become, the more and more polarized we will become.
You know, I don’t actually think we’re doomed to constantly talk past one another — I just think we’re going to be talking past one another as long as we believe that facts coalesce into ideas in a cognitive vacuum. Once we as a people come to acknowledge and respect the different cognitive frameworks each of us bring to try and understand the world around us, I suspect we’ll actually start to make great strides both in being able to understand complex issues and in respecting points of view which differ from our own.
I mean, look at the two of us. I’m a heterosexual white male. You’re a homosexual black female. We both have very different biographical backgrounds which cause us to interpret the world around us in different ways. On more than once, we’ve considered the same question and come to different answers. More frequently, we’ll both arrive at the same answer or similar answers, but we’ll get there taking very different routes. But when you don’t see things the way I do, I’m always quick to remember that it’s not because you’re somehow misinformed or underinformed; you’re just interpreting a similar set of facts with a different cognitive framework. And when we discuss matters on which we disagree, we usually focus as much on understanding one another’s frameworks as we do on the facts before us. Which I think is why I learn so much whenever I talk to you.
The long term solution for our society, I think, is realizing that we need to understand people at least as well as we understand the issues, and the problem-children in this equation are the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world who want to interject as much ad hominid rhetoric and personal disrespect into the process. Because no one’s going to invest the time in trying to understand someone else’s cognitive framework when his own cognitive framework is being dismissed as anti-American or fascist or some bullsh*t like that.
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I should add that when Governor Kaine accused Michael Steel of not supporting the troops, he was also Making It Worse.
Dead on. And my column in today’s paper talks exactly about this.
A psychologist friend, during a demonstration about five decades ago, told me that the way to change people’s opinions was to change their behavior … that we typically rationalize our opinions to fit our behavior. At the time I thought that was pretty absurd.
Since then I a considerable fraction of my life has been devoted to studying education and the ways that organizations learn (especially the way they learn incorrectly from experience). I now fully agree with my psychologist friend.
To the (rather limited) extent that we are rational beings, our rationality is based on a particular “box” or framework … and the framework that bounds our rationality re. a particular topic is largely constructed non-rationally. The framework itself is selected from authority (e.g., we are a republican because our parents were), emotion (e.g.,we become libertarians because of the emotional connotations of a John Wayne riding freely over the range with no government able to tell him what to do), or aesthetic reasons, etc.
When our “rational” framework is challenged with uncomfortable facts, it causes us considerable distress (cognitive dissonance is the technical term). The degree of dissonance is proportional to the importance of the framework to us … if it is something we don’t feel strongly about, we will usually consider the disconforming facts. If we feel strongly about it we will find a way to discredit the facts.
All of this is a major reason I took up writing fiction. Fiction, if well done, sort of slides past these defenses and can change us.
Having said all that, the facts are still important for those who are either confused about the issues or still in the middle in their opinions.
Good point about the facts. Perhaps there are enough people who don’t have strong opinions one way or the other to still inform.
This is why government control of the education system is so critical to government control of society.
You didn’t even read the article, did you?
Of course. Those preconceptions must be formed at some time. The government would want to control the formation of those preconceptions. Thus the push for standardized “Social Studies” curricula and tests, and for government control of the schools.
Woodrow Wilson spoke candidly abut the purpose of education: A liberal arts education that teaches people to analyze, think critically etc. must, he said, be reserved for the elite. The rest of the population must be prepared for mindless factory jobs and for unquestioning conformity.
Your inabilty to persuade doesn’t necessarily prove conviction to be close minded polarization. That said, often partisan politics falls to the level of team sports. “Your team sucks & mine is the best(I don’t care what you say)”.
Also kinda goes to, “My country, right or wrong”.
So as long as we are successfully isolated into groups, we have that opportunity to be pitted as rivals against other groups and competitive egos will stoke the fires. We may even develop a deep seated hatred for a particular group that becomes almost religion. That’s a lot of power just waiting for some vulture to come along and exploit it.
You also have the role that misinformation fed with fraudulent intent plays. When you witness the length to which some will go, every picture becomes a photoshop and every quote is fabricated or taken out of context. It takes a lot to counter a cynical state of mind.
I have a differing opinion as to the assertion that facts only matter to the undecided and middle of the road. How many religious people have been struck by tragedy and lost faith? How many atheiests had some sort of religious experience and found God? Not an everyday thing, but we do see this on occasion.
If your “cognitive framework” revolves around the truth, and you accept that you are less than perfect, you can be persuaded with enough evidence. Some of us are capable of admitting we were wrong about something. Even if that admission is begrudgingly given.
I’m just not that pessimistic enough to think we will only become more and more polarized. During my short lifetime and additionally hearing stories from my parents/grandparents, great changes have happend and people come together. The impossible has happened on more than one occasion. Additionally, you’ll see and remember noble acts if you care to pay attention. Whether it be on global, national, local, or personal scale, hold on to those glimpses of humanity’s greatness. It will give you strength as you witness the ugliness and encourage you to soldier on to TRY to make a difference.
I’m not exactly a huge fan of Bill Clinton, but I seriously love one of his quotes:
“There is nothing wrong in America that can’t be fixed with what is right in America”
Actually, your comments prove the article’s point. In the face of the facts, your are clinging to what you believe to be true.
And the increasing polarization is real. Can’t put my hands on the stats right now but the last 40 years, the number of people who identify themselves as independent has shrunken, while the number of self-described Rs and Ds has risen.
Last 40 years?
1)What about recent years, where the Libertarian Party has grown quite a bit in numbers? (Takes numbers from self-identified independents and indicates what? Change of position).
2) I thought the premise was not who are self-identified independents, but that people are unwilling to change in spite of facts. Gee, I’m thinking if there is a decrease or increase in self-identified independents, that constitutes CHANGE either way, which is a fact that indicates a willingness to alter position if given enough evidence.
3)What about recent years where there has been great disgust felt for both major parties? Surely there’s some increase in independents, or party swapping. Change.
4)http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/forum-1/blogs/bill-hart-rise-of-the-independents-will-it-matter
(Rise in independent voters in evil Arizona rises to near par with the major parties)Hmmm…….
5)http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/3/1/9/p83192_index.html
This study cites an increase in independents, but lables them as uneducated, apathetic, seldom voting pond scum that need to be educated by the “elite” (their word). Still goes to a cited study trying to indicate a FACT of a recent independent increase.
6)Many polls are indicating that independents are favoring Republicans at this point in time. Surprising? No. Anything to do with size of independents? NO.
Showing CHANGE in preference and refuting the premise of the rhetorical tool you’re using, yes!
7)Bush approval 1st term, very high. It got him a 2nd term. Bush’s rating in 2nd term – horrible.
Goes to show voters will desert you when you go from a leader after a crisis (9-11) & start good economic measures to a second term filled with nation building and economic suicide. Obama’s election, a vote for change and maybe racial harmony, is a fact. A desire for change.
8)Obama’s approval numbers – once huge now in the tank. This is another indication of people willing to change based on evidence.
Enough of recent history. What about the past history? Again going to the original premise and not independent voter size.
Women’s sufferage. A polarizing issue at one point. Things changed.
The Civil Rights era. I think Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. may have changed a few minds and even got them to stand on their feet and demand change.
Out of country, but Israel and Egyt and fall of the Berlin wall.
I can cite a myriad of evidence to support my informed position. I am not evidence of opinion based on fad or association.
Lastly, your artical uses a rhetorical tool. The more I disagree with you, the more you can say I prove your point. Much like proving a negative. There are other tools like,”Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Perhaps I could say that due to the set-up of the premise, you are being intellectually dishonest. When you go to say otherwise I reply, “Oh, there you go again, being intellectually dishonest by denying you are using a tool to trap others with.”
One could also suggest that the premise of this article is a dialectic trap (similar to a logic trap), specifically The “Inevitable Antagonism Trap” Feel free to google that specific trap. I would post everything here, but I already have a problem with the “more is better trap”. Just ask Henry Ryto.
Seems to me that Vivian and Britt are talking past each other. To paraphrase:
1) Vivan cited a study that indicates that “facts” are not very effective in changing strongly held opinions. I might add that this is not the first such study and that this phenomena is well known to phycologists and those who design political adds.
2) Britt is pointing out that people do in reality change their opinions and often quite radically.
IMO, these two points are not in opposition.
My summary of both positions is that people change their strongly held opinions, but those changes are rarely based on new “facts” but rather on other kinds of experiences.
As Britt pointed out, these changes in opinion are going on all the time. Vivian’s point, I think, is important for those who write blogs with the intent of influencing opinion.
Vivian,
Thank you. This is a website I am happy I stumbled upon.
I enjoy your information on how we defend our position in the face of contradictory information.
I think arousing emotion in the hearer is a part of this situation. That the emotions are harder to subdue with rational thinking…or some such.
In this lies the power of the spin masters.
Thanks again.
Bobby D