NationStates Jolt Archive

They do studies on everything. Now, a series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise an influence on people's minds after it has been debunked - even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation will even increase the power of bad information.

Now, this happens to democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, but
Bullock and others have also shown that some refutations can strengthen misinformation, especially among conservatives.

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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html

One guy's take on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

So have you noticed this effect in yourself or others? NSG should be the perfect area for experimentation, shouldn't it? :tongue:

Actually, after hearing enough refutation, I usually believe the refutations. See:

My early stances on abortion, evolution, literal interpretation of teh bible,etc,etc

None of this suprises me. We all knew conservatives were irrational.

None of this suprises me. We all knew conservatives were irrational.

That goes both ways.

In fact, humans are irrational.

I'm not sure how accurate this study is. It sounds like they were only debunking conservative myths, which would mean conservatives are of course more likely to not believe the refutations. It's hard to tell what the study actually did, though; it's not too clear.

We know that ALL politicians are irrational. I don't think this is true, but it gives one some good musings and things to mull over. I see no reason why conservatives would have a "backfire effect" except that the President is a Republican, naturally, they'd want to maintain a perfect image of him. Liberals already despised him, so they automatically second guess what he says.

That goes both ways.

In fact, humans are irrational.

Yes, but see, some of us build our opinions according to evidence, not based on some narrow minded world view.


I always knew conservatives kept their same narrow stance in the face of overwhelming evidence. This study just shows I was right. In fact, it shows it was worse then I thought.

Yes, but see, some of us build our opinions according to evidence, not based on some narrow minded world view.


I always knew conservatives kept their same narrow stance in the face of overwhelming evidence. This study just shows I was right. In fact, it shows it was worse then I thought.

But some of your opinions are part of a narrow-minded world view, it's in every ideology and person.

Yes, that includes Libertarianism, Communism, Modern liberalism, Conservatism, Conseratism, omnicratism, legionairreism, etc, etc, blah blah blah.

Bullshit If that isn't a blanket statement I don't know what is. Yeah, I'm a liberal, but I give other sides a chance. I'm more of a centrist, actually. I don't like either candidate, and am ready to swing Obama. But I feel that Bob Barr'll be good for the US.

But some of your opinions are part of a narrow-minded world view, it's in every ideology and person.


But, according to this study, one world view is less likely to accept facts that contradict it than others.

According to one study. Like I said, one side tends to doubt the people they stand against blindly, the other does the opposite blindly.

But, according to this study, one world view is less likely to accept facts that contradict it than others.

Is it, though? The study sounds like one world view is less likely to accept facts that contradict its world view, while another world view is very accepting of facts that contradict the other side's world view.

I'm not sure how accurate this study is. It sounds like they were only debunking conservative myths, which would mean conservatives are of course more likely to not believe the refutations. It's hard to tell what the study actually did, though; it's not too clear.

The thing that's disturbing here isn't that conservatives were less likely to believe a refutation. It's that the refutation somehow made more conservatives convinced of the original misinformation.

We know that ALL politicians are irrational. I don't think this is true, but it gives one some good musings and things to mull over. I see no reason why conservatives would have a "backfire effect" except that the President is a Republican, naturally, they'd want to maintain a perfect image of him. Liberals already despised him, so they automatically second guess what he says.

So we would expect to see a similar "backfire" effect if we went with something those on the more liberal side agreed with, right?

For instance, in the NARAL example, a refutation of the misinformation put forth in the ad should have made more Democrats believe it. But that's not what they saw. Same thing with the alleged Koran incident at Guantanamo.

Now, if I'm reading the article correctly, these were two separate studies, so it's hard to compare them directly. But, from what information is presented, there does seem to be a difference.

Bullock and others have also shown that some refutations can strengthen misinformation, especially among conservatives.

and just recently, somebody else found that conservatives startle more, blink harder, sweat more, etc. when faced with loud noises and scary pictures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/18/scitory118.xml

Yes, but see, some of us build our opinions according to evidence, not based on some narrow minded world view.


I always knew conservatives kept their same narrow stance in the face of overwhelming evidence. This study just shows I was right. In fact, it shows it was worse then I thought.

I kinda see that as being the other way around when I argue with my dad. He's the quintessential moonbat who not only believes everything he reads (reading only liberal sources) but insists that MY problem is that I believe everything I read.

...which I don't.

Example:

My dad is anti-McCain... started telling me all about some story he'd heard about atrocities supposedly committed by McCain in Vietnam when leading ground troops.... He couldn't remember where he read it or what the details were, but was certain that it was true.

I refuted this by pointing out that fighter pilots do not lead ground troops.

His reaction was to make up some bullshit about how everybody knows the military rotates jobs. I explained to him this is not so.

I then went on to tell him about McCain's time as a POW and how he didn't leave early when given the chance. This, mind you, is a fact that is not contested by either side in the Presidential campaign.

My dad's response: "Well I don't believe that and you shouldn't believe everything you read."

:rolleyes:

I love my dad but... damn.

My dad is anti-McCain... started telling me all about some story he'd heard about atrocities supposedly committed by McCain in Vietnam when leading ground troops.... He couldn't remember where he read it or what the details were, but was certain that it was true.

I refuted this by pointing out that fighter pilots do not lead ground troops.

His reaction was to make up some bullshit about how everybody knows the military rotates jobs. I explained to him this is not so.

Thats actually really funny:)

I'd say that applies at most to the highly loyal members of either party, just that what I as a passionate liberal would refuse to believe is likely different from what a neo con would refuse to believe.

If you asked me what my views on trickle-down economics were, I'd tell you, and I'd give some rationales for it, but to be honest I haven't looked at a lot of the data in years, so if you pour a huge amount of factoids my way, I might balk and say I'd have to research the subject. I strongly doubt, however, that there is any amount of argumentation you could throw at me that, for instance, would make me want to become a monarchist.

To be perfectly honest, this has been discussed before about American politics. Tocqueville discussed how once a matter of dispute became a settled matter in American society, it became almost physically dangerous to question it; for instance, if anyone started questioning whether we needed to reintroduce Jim Crow laws, they'd have the half-life of a Spinal Tap drummer. Among intense partisans, you see the same thing, but on different issues. It's the rare arch-conservative who is even open to entertaining the idea that trickle-down economics aren't the best way to generate wealth for society. Similarly, it's the rare arch-liberal who would consider becoming a religious fundamentalist. What seperates the two, I think, is less that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives, but that conservatives are closed to arguments that more easily discussed in polling.

I'm not sure how accurate this study is. It sounds like they were only debunking conservative myths, which would mean conservatives are of course more likely to not believe the refutations. It's hard to tell what the study actually did, though; it's not too clear.

But why would the belief in the claim rise after being presented with the refutation?

And they also showed it happening with democrats and one Guantanamo-claim, but with less effect...

Is it, though? The study sounds like one world view is less likely to accept facts that contradict its world view, while another world view is very accepting of facts that contradict the other side's world view.

I don't know that it has much to do with contradicting one's world view. After all, not all of the conservatives originally agreed with the viewpoints and not all the Democrats originally disliked John Roberts or disapproved of Guantanamo.

And the second study showed more than an unwillingness to accept facts that contradict a conservative mantra. What it showed was that there were more people who agreed with the misinformation after being exposed to both the original claim and a refutation than who believed it simply after the misinformation. Somehow, being exposed to refuting facts actually convinced them of the opposite position.

Now, it would be more interesting if they had repeated the process with people on the more liberal end of the spectrum with misinformation propagated by someone seen as liberal along with a refutation, but it's disturbing whether it's limited to conservatives or not (in fact, more so if it's not).

The thing that's disturbing here isn't that conservatives were less likely to believe a refutation. It's that the refutation somehow made more conservatives convinced of the original misinformation.

True, but both the ad about Roberts and the information about Iraq left a lasting impression on people. Democratic disapproval of Roberts went from 56% to 80% (after the ad) and then down to 72% (after the refutation). That's still a 12% net rise, though.

Also, I'm a little uncomfortable with a study that only uses political examples. More abstract scenarios would be better.

Yes, but see, some of us build our opinions according to evidence, not based on some narrow minded world view.


I always knew conservatives kept their same narrow stance in the face of overwhelming evidence. This study just shows I was right. In fact, it shows it was worse then I thought.

The thing that's disturbing here isn't that conservatives were less likely to believe a refutation. It's that the refutation somehow made more conservatives convinced of the original misinformation.



So we would expect to see a similar "backfire" effect if we went with something those on the more liberal side agreed with, right?

For instance, in the NARAL example, a refutation of the misinformation put forth in the ad should have made more Democrats believe it. But that's not what they saw. Same thing with the alleged Koran incident at Guantanamo.

Now, if I'm reading the article correctly, these were two separate studies, so it's hard to compare them directly. But, from what information is presented, there does seem to be a difference.



I'd say so. You cannot judge anything but rarely variating positions on issues with someones party or economic/social scores. I'm pretty conservative, and I don't think that Iraq's got any weapons, nor have they had them. Of course, I don't know why people are pissed b/c getting Saddam out lifted a great burden off the shoulders of the people he oppressed.

But why would the belief in the claim rise after being presented with the refutation?

And they also showed it happening with democrats and one Guantanamo-claim, but with less effect...

That really is frightening. It's possible that the conservatives read the refutations and thought they were inadequate; a weak argument can strengthen the opposing one. That doesn't explain why it didn't happen with Democrats, though.

Yes, but see, some of us build our opinions according to evidence, not based on some narrow minded world view.

I always knew conservatives kept their same narrow stance in the face of overwhelming evidence. This study just shows I was right. In fact, it shows it was worse then I thought.
That's odd...you knew what your opinion was before there was evidence...;)

*snip*

Wow.

I get that with my father-in-law, but about Obama. He's thoroughly convinced that he's a Muslim operative who plans on instituting Shariah law and siding with Al Quada if he gets into office. Also, he hates America and is going to tax my in-laws out of their retirement.

That's odd...you knew what your opinion was before there was evidence...;)

presumably he had all the evidence that i had for holding the same belief - talking to lots of conservatives. now we have some more rigorous evidence in addition to what we had before.

They needed a scientific research to discover this?

It's common sense observation. Everytime the rest of the world thinks America should do something sensible, like wait for the UN inspectors to finish before invading Iraq, or suggest Barack Obama would reboot global relationships, conversatives will inevitably react by giving the rest of the world a middle finger and do the exact opposite.

presumably he had all the evidence that i had for holding the same belief - talking to lots of conservatives. now we have some more rigorous evidence in addition to what we had before.

They needed a scientific research to discover this?

It's common sense observation. Everytime the rest of the world thinks America should do something sensible, like wait for the UN inspectors to finish before invading Iraq, or suggest Barack Obama would reboot global relationships, conversatives will inevitably react by giving the rest of the world a middle finger and do the exact opposite.

These.


/Thread.

presumably he had all the evidence that i had for holding the same belief - talking to lots of conservatives. now we have some more rigorous evidence in addition to what we had before.

I assumed as much, I just thought the juxtaposition of "I only base my opinions on evidence" with "Finally, some evidence for my opinions!" was funny.

You see, what they don't mention are myths that liberals believe in. in fact, I should write to them just for teh lolz on NSG... *Writes, hopes they'll do the study*

Now, it would be more interesting if they had repeated the process with people on the more liberal end of the spectrum with misinformation propagated by someone seen as liberal along with a refutation, but it's disturbing whether it's limited to conservatives or not (in fact, more so if it's not).
Indeed. I'd like to see that.

That really is frightening. It's possible that the conservatives read the refutations and thought they were inadequate; a weak argument can strengthen the opposing one. That doesn't explain why it didn't happen with Democrats, though.
It's possible, but it's not really probable. Not when it happened with more questions.

Dunno.

The thing that's disturbing here isn't that conservatives were less likely to believe a refutation. It's that the refutation somehow made more conservatives convinced of the original misinformation.

its almost certainly to do with the 'tribalistic' aspect of conservativism (which is like its key defining feature, as evidenced by the way they can, as a group, completely change positions overnight without blinking should their chosen leaders proclaim the change). they saw outsiders criticizing insiders and therefore rallied behind 'their guys'.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt: The real difference between liberals and conservatives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc)

Courtesy of LaDame :eek2:

They needed a scientific research to discover this?

It's common sense observation. Everytime the rest of the world thinks America should do something sensible, like wait for the UN inspectors to finish before invading Iraq, or suggest Barack Obama would reboot global relationships, conversatives will inevitably react by giving the rest of the world a middle finger and do the exact opposite.
While it may be common sense, remember how much "common sense" has been debunked through the years.

And having this study is the first step towards understanding why it's happening.

The problem is not Conservative vs Liberals, not even Democrats or Republicans. it's about Logic vs Values.

some think that give enough logical evidence and you'll change everyone's mind as to what is 'right'. but for most people, 'right' isn't about logic but heart.

that's one mistake here on forums. because text cannot convey values. I cannot convince anyone that my values are superior to yours with text just like you cannot change someone's heart with all the reports from experts you can find.

to debate someone on a value's issue... say... same sex marriage, you can bring up all the logical, scientific findings you can, but that won't change someone's viewpoint that Same Sex Marriage is not morally wrong. same that someone who believes that Same Sex Marriage is morally wrong can convince someone that it is wrong if all their opponent does is rely on Scientific studies.

that's what makes threads about Religion, which country is better, or even Dem vs Rep so repetitious and tenous.

I suspect that it works that way on anyone with an extremist viewpoint, conservative or liberal. They need to do more studies (or not, this is really a silly way to spend grant money, you know).

It also has a lot to do with how the rebuttal was presented. That detail is completely missing. If a rebuttal is presented in an insulting manner I am sure that more would stick with their guns

They do studies on everything. Now, a series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise an influence on people's minds after it has been debunked - even among people who recognize it as misinformation.
No shit. If you want to believe something, you will.

I suspect that it works that way on anyone with an extremist viewpoint, conservative or liberal.

define 'extremist'

Maybe they just don't want to admit Iraq was a mistake. Compared to stem cell research, that war is a colossal issue and I could see a lot of its supporters feeling considerable chagrin at being manipulated and effectively lied to by the now demonstrably false evidence used to justify the invasion.

and just recently, somebody else found that conservatives startle more, blink harder, sweat more, etc. when faced with loud noises and scary pictures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/18/scitory118.xml

Side effect of their cold war Indoctrination. ". Which I believe was part of the whole "Commies are under the bed!" Feeling that was forced at them for 40+ years.

The more "Traditional (Conservatives)" Followed the ideas because it was the "Moral" way. But in turn it brainwashed them.

That's why when they pull up the threat level setting they all panic.

They still instinctivly "Duck and Cover".

Spent some time in psychology before realizing that wasn't the track I wanted to take -- not interested in working in an office with a couch if you know what I mean -- so I ended up in Law/Ethics. One of the things you learn right off the bat in Psychology 101 is that there isn't such a thing as "common sense" as it is used in American society. When people say common sense they are actually talking about what is commonly understood where they are from, in their socio-economic stratum of the culture, or whatever -- point is that it is what is readily understood from their perspective and they assume that everyone else shares this perspective. This behavior tends to lessen the more a person is exposed to education but in the end everyone has their own blind spots. The people who admit they don't know and choose not to identify with a particular belief structure are the least likely to fall into the trap -- think of it this way: if you have a belief and someone challenges that belief are only discussing that belief but if you are a member of a religious group that had a history, buildings and idiology then you are defending not just an opinion but a who structure that you and others invested in. It is harder to let go or be flexible under those circumstances. This is also why people who are forced to fight for their country are the most dangerous opponents -- because they are fighting for more than just themselves.

As far as much of the other jackass behavior in our and other cultures just look up the term "cognitive dissonance" -- it's at the root of much of our misery. Hurray, it's fun to be human (as long as you can chuckle at yourself, that is). Personally, I think we would all be better off if we took Psy101, Developmental Psy, and Social Psy -- call it a shop manual for the human condition. :)

and just recently, somebody else found that conservatives startle more, blink harder, sweat more, etc. when faced with loud noises and scary pictures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/18/scitory118.xml


You bought that quick. I lean to the right on most things and there isn't a picture taken that could startle me, loud noises don't bug me much either...Shit all my friends are conservatives and don't even blink when you play a loud noise.


I also love how everybody here bought this "study" without even trying to think it out logically. I believe liberals will buy into anything as long as it goes in tune with their own bias, this proved that. Come on, you got lefties who still believe 9/11 was done by Bush no matter what you say otherwise. Look at Afghanistan after Russia invaded it, some really believe they just did it to help them and give them freedoms and the like, only got mad when faced with evidence against it. I have seen liberals believe anything Obama says no matter what, without crosschecking. Come on, did anybody even try to study this thing and see if there is a merit to it or just crap? The same could be said about Liberals who refuse to change their stance no matter what is said, why else would some believe McCain is a racist who hates immigrants? Most of you bought into this study rather fast, too fast to believe any of you really took pause and thought about it or even read the whole thing.


I could give more examples I have faced over the years, anybody can. I can remember a poster over at TV.com who thought I was a registered Republican, I told I was not and was a registered independent...Only made his belief I was a Republican and I even stated Left Wing stances I held...He still believed I was a republican..I told I voted for Gore in 2000, he called me a Liar and said I voted for Bush and claimed I was a Republican. Hell, I could state stances my sisters who are Gay Liberals that are wrong or their girlfriends who had incorrect stances and evidence going against them was always wrong. I remember my sisters ex who believe the Aztec empire extended into the US South West all the way to Canada...I told her she was wrong and the Aztec Empire never got out of Mexico...She didn't believe it.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/aztec-empire-map.jpg


The point? This study is not in depth enough to prove anything and its findings go inline with anybody with extreme views. I have even seen conservatives more open-minded then Liberals, which makes me wonder how many people even know what a conservative is. Don't buy into anything blindly, you get fooled rather easy that way.

Well with the very name conservative (which means holding on to the traditional), one should expect they'd be relectant to change.
Otherwise they'd be known as progressives.
Now the word "radical" became almost synonymous with the word "progressive" in the 60s and 70s but radical means "back to the roots". So while it is correct for people to be known as "radical fundamentalists" (though it's somewhat of a tautology) noone would argue that they were progressive.

Well with the very name conservative (which means holding on to the traditional), one should expect they'd be relectant to change.
Otherwise they'd be known as progressives.
Now the word "radical" became almost synonymous with the word "progressive" in the 60s and 70s but radical means "back to the roots". So while it is correct for people to be known as "radical fundamentalists" (though it's somewhat of a tautology) noone would argue that they were progressive.


Do you know what the differences between Cultural conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Libertarian conservatism, Social conservatism, National conservatism, Neoconservatism and Paleoconservatism are?

Yes, but see, some of us build our opinions according to evidence, not based on some narrow minded world view..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

We all build our world views based on our narrow minds and what we find compatible with our current world view.

Telling someone his or her ideology is somehow in some level wrong is one good way of strengthening that ideology...just look at the Believers and the amount of good ole scientific refutation thrown at them.

Same goes for global warming, evolution, is pluto a planet, are people equal, intelligent worth more, etc.. well, infact everything that's remotely controversial and not immediately disprovable.

The difference between an open mind and, erm, a conservative is in how far the borderline of disbelief is, not in the (non)existence of the barrier between compatible worldview and revolutionary idea.

A good example of this sticking to what you believe would be: What would it take for you personally to change your mind about global warming one way or another....For example, could the lack of sunspots we're experiencing now concievably drive the Earth towards a cooler period instead of continued global warming? Or alternatively, could the Chinese & Russian economic growth create a situation of irreversible global warming eg. by melting the Siberian permafrost?

Maybe they just don't want to admit Iraq was a mistake. Compared to stem cell research, that war is a colossal issue and I could see a lot of its supporters feeling considerable chagrin at being manipulated and effectively lied to by the now demonstrably false evidence used to justify the invasion.
I'd say this is more of it. To a lot of people Bush pretty much is the tax cuts and War on Terror, and so attacking them is attacking him and would likely cause Conservatives to circle the wagons, or some other sort of metaphor. On the other hand, the most that the Democrats being polled had at stake, as it were, was the possibility that a Koran went down the toilet.

This thread =

Conservatives: Nu-uh this isnt true!!!!111!1
Liberals- Ya-huh it is true!1!1111!
Moderates- U r both crazy i r teh only rational one!!!!111!1



And Im not denying being a part of it, for the record.

This thread =

Conservatives: Nu-uh this isnt true!!!!111!1
Liberals- Ya-huh it is true!1!1111!
Moderates- U r both crazy i r teh only rational one!!!!111!1



And Im not denying being a part of it, for the record.


And it took you how long to figure that out? I could have told you that. Did you really think conservatives would buy it and Liberals wouldn't?

And it took you how long to figure that out? I could have told you that. Did you really think conservatives would buy it and Liberals wouldn't?
Heh, and try changing their opinion about it...

Oh wait... :tongue:

Do you know what the differences between Cultural conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Libertarian conservatism, Social conservatism, National conservatism, Neoconservatism and Paleoconservatism are?

Well let's see:
Cultural conservatism would be holding on to cutural traditions ("gimme some of that old time religion", not shagging on the first date etc)
Liberal conservatism might be like your good old Democrat-voting Uncle and Auntie with 3 kids in the 'burbs who still know the words to all the 1960s protest songs and view economic rationalists with suspicion while still holding a (decidely less healthy share portfolio)
Now Libertarian conservatism is big in the States (less so in Australia) where people who are basically conservative in a whole lot of beliefs still belief in the right of the individuals to make choices for themselves. Ross Perot being an example
Social Conservatism sometimes cuts across the party divide. Social issues like marriage, birth control, patriotism are upheld regardless of party affiliation.
Neo-conservatism is in many ways a fundamentalist ideology of extremely socially conservative (even reactionary views) married to a blend of right-wing nationalism and "free-market" (when it suits them) economic ideology.
Paleoconservativism - should have died out with the dinosaurs but they cloned one and turned it into Bill O'Reilly;)

Heh, and try changing their opinion about it...

Oh wait... :tongue:



Eh, the best this did was make Liberals hate conservatives more and let them harrass them for no good reason. Personally I think both ends have good and bad things about them.

Eh, the best this did was make Liberals hate conservatives more and let them harrass them for no good reason. Personally I think both ends have good and bad things about them.

I was just implying that this is yet another opinion that's hard to change because of the narrow mindedness of the reader...

I was throwing muck towards liburals, newtrals and konservatives alike...we're all the same really. ;)

I was just implying that this is yet another opinion that's hard to change because of the narrow mindedness of the reader...

I was throwing muck towards liburals, newtrals and konservatives alike...we're all the same really. ;)


Yep, all 3 hate McCain and would have sex with Palin but not want her in the White House.

Yep, all 3 hate McCain and would have sex with Palin but not want her in the White House.

If they all agree on hating McCain then who supports Johnny Boy?

Oh wait, Busheviks.

If they all agree on hating McCain then who supports Johnny Boy?

Oh wait, Busheviks.


It was a joke. :rolleyes: And I support McCain but not Bush.

Old people, thats who! Damn old people! :)

My favorite is when conservatives tell me I'm a liberal -- like that is an argument rather than a judgment, something I thought was a no-no where they come from -- you know, under that scummy rock behind Cheney's house?

:D

Personally, I think you all should join my new group -- gun-toting, motorcycle riding independents. Trust me, not many are willing to call you a wussy liberal when they find out you have a conceal and carry permit and wear road armor. You really want to mess with a conservative? Tell them you clean your guns while playing D&D...they have no response for that shit!

:p

But, according to this study, one world view is less likely to accept facts that contradict it than others.

Yes this one study, and now KOL you only want to believe this because it fits with your narrow minded view, if the study said differently I am sure you would be singing a different tune.

No shit. If you want to believe something, you will.

Apparently so... You illustrate that well.

You bought that quick. I lean to the right on most things and there isn't a picture taken that could startle me, loud noises don't bug me much either...Shit all my friends are conservatives and don't even blink when you play a loud noise.

...and we all know the plural of anecdote is data

learn2science

That goes both ways.

In fact, humans are irrational.

More like, the most irrational humans tend to be Conservatives.

The Moral here is people will believe anything to the extent they'll walk around with their fingers in their ears to keep it that way.

Young Earth creationism comes to mind

More like, the most irrational humans tend to be Conservatives.

And more Conservative bashing, just for the sake of Conservative bashing. Everyone is irrational, and the extent to which they are has nothing to do with ideology.

However, Conservatism is rather popular, therefore, they get a lot of time in the media.

And usually, it's the irrational idiots who get all the press coverage. Therefore, the stereotype that Conservatives are backwards, irrational fools is prevalent in the minds of many.

Or maybe I'm being irrational...:p

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt: The real difference between liberals and conservatives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc)

Courtesy of LaDame :eek2:
I read about this idea before in an article by Steven Pinker; I didn't realize Jonathan Haidt came up with it. It's fascinating, and seems to be a truly objective, scientific study of psychological differences between liberals and conservatives.
Does anyone know where Haidt teaches? He mentioned being 60 miles north of Lynchburg, which would put him near my town.

And usually, it's the irrational idiots who get all the press coverage. Therefore, the stereotype that Conservatives are backwards, irrational fools is prevalent in the minds of many.

Or maybe I'm being irrational...:p

In the same way that terrorists like members of Al'Qaeda get all the press coverage and therefore the stereotype that all Muslims are backwards, irrational and homocidal terrorists are prevalent in the minds of many Americans.

Except Conservatives don't object to that stereotype loudly.

In the same way that terrorists like members of Al'Qaeda get all the press coverage and therefore the stereotype that all Muslims are backwards, irrational and homocidal terrorists are prevalent in the minds of many Americans.

Except Conservatives don't object to that stereotype loudly.

That's pretty much irrelevant, though, isn't it?

In the same way that terrorists like members of Al'Qaeda get all the press coverage and therefore the stereotype that all Muslims are backwards, irrational and homocidal terrorists are prevalent in the minds of many Americans.

Except Conservatives don't object to that stereotype loudly.

Exactly.

In the same way that terrorists like members of Al'Qaeda get all the press coverage and therefore the stereotype that all Muslims are backwards, irrational and homocidal terrorists are prevalent in the minds of many Americans.

Except Conservatives don't object to that stereotype loudly.

Exactly.

In other words, Conservatives don't mind painting all Muslims as terrorists but throw a persecution complex fit when someone paints them as Phelps-grade Evangelicals and Busheviks.

:tongue:

That's pretty much irrelevant, though, isn't it?

Actually it points out how mob mentality is very much a trait of Conservatives in this study. Not only are they more likely to cling on to beliefs under logical attack, they're also more likely to share beliefs that can be attacked logically.

Actually it points out how mob mentality is very much a trait of humans in this study. Not only are they more likely to cling on to beliefs under logical attack, they're also more likely to share beliefs that can be attacked logically.
Fixed for you. Darn typos, always slipping in.

Actually it points out how mob mentality is very much a trait of Conservatives in this study. Not only are they more likely to cling on to beliefs under logical attack, they're also more likely to share beliefs that can be attacked logically.
But even though you agreed that conservatives aren't all the shotgun-wielding morons they are often depicted as, you are making a blanket statement when you say all conservatives are okay with the depiction of Muslims.
That being said, you're probably right. I'm sure if you polled a sample of conservatives they would be much more upset about how they are depicted in the media than the way Muslims are. They may even agree with the Muslim-depiction. But we don't have that poll data, we haven't done that study, and so it's wrong to say it is true.

Everyone is irrational, and the extent to which they are has nothing to do with ideology.

this sounds suspiciously like an empirical claim. what is your evidence for it?

this sounds suspiciously like an empirical claim. what is your evidence for it?

There's an entire book (http://www.predictablyirrational.com/).

EDIT: Although that doesn't prove ideology is not connected to irrationality. It's still possible conservatives are more irrational than liberals, or vice versa.

Actually it points out how mob mentality is very much a trait of Conservatives in this study. Not only are they more likely to cling on to beliefs under logical attack, they're also more likely to share beliefs that can be attacked logically.
Or it points out how people are more likely to resist when you attack central figures.
As I've already said, Democrats had from little to nothing at stake when their "beliefs" were refuted (you mean a Koran didn't go down the toilet? Oh deary me), but they still held to them in the face of refutations.
this sounds suspiciously like an empirical claim. what is your evidence for it?
Aren't you a Humean, or Hume-onaut, or whatever the Hell it is I'm trying to say?

Personally, I think you all should join my new group -- gun-toting, motorcycle riding independents. Trust me, not many are willing to call you a wussy liberal when they find out you have a conceal and carry permit and wear road armor. You really want to mess with a conservative? Tell them you clean your guns while playing D&D...they have no response for that shit!

:p
I am willing to subscribe to your newsletter.

Or it points out how people are more likely to resist when you attack central figures.
As I've already said, Democrats had from little to nothing at stake when their "beliefs" were refuted (you mean a Koran didn't go down the toilet? Oh deary me), but they still held to them in the face of refutations.

Aren't you a Humean, or Hume-onaut, or whatever the Hell it is I'm trying to say?

The study also seem biased to one side in that gave misinformation and refutations about things liberals disliked. As it turned out Justice Roberts and the Bush Administration were not as evil as the misinformation made them seem. Perhaps if they instead found a claim made by Barack Obama or Bill Clinton that turned out to be false and refuted that, the study would have been more balanced.

There's another aspect involved here, and that is power struggle. Social conservatives in the US see themselves currently in a position closer to long-lasting power than they perhaps have ever been in US history. In the contest over which world-view will prevail/be promoted, the stakes are very high for those who want to increase a social/political advantage. Because of that, the urge to "present a united front," regardless of facts or reality, is very strong. What I'm trying to say is, maybe one reason conservatives will cling harder to notions after they are debunked is that they have a lot to gain by sticking together, following their leaders, maintaining a position of clear opposition to the other side, and not giving even the slightest ground to those opponents over anything.

If McCain wins in November, the rest of the world will be saying "Ameica is a very conservative country; after two terms of Bush, they elected another old, white Republican". The rest of the world that is.... In the US they will be saying,"What did we do? What did we do?"

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt: The real difference between liberals and conservatives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc)

Courtesy of LaDame :eek2:

How do you measure "openness to experience"? I'm well-educated, I love Kurosawa and Leone films, very left-of-center, and I hate the trendy coffee shops, and I can eat the same dinner night after night for months at a time. How does this even out to explain my overall liberalism?

If McCain wins in November, the rest of the world will be saying "Ameica is a very conservative country; after two terms of Bush, they elected another old, white Republican". The rest of the world that is.... In the US they will be saying,"What did we do? What did we do?"

No, they'll be claiming "Victory of Traditional Values," "The Liberals are finished" and a bunch of other partisan, jingoistic crap before the downward spiral towards the ground reaches terminal velocity.

How do you measure "openness to experience"?
A measuring stick?

hahaha.

I always knew Conservatives were dumbasses, This is brilliant.

Imagine that! Conservatives, whose political ideals usually involve maintaining the status quo, are less likely to change their opinions!
Shock! Gasp! Amazement!

Imagine that! Conservatives, whose political ideals usually involve maintaining the status quo, are less likely to change their opinions!
Shock! Gasp! Amazement!

This.:hail:

Imagine that! Conservatives, whose political ideals usually involve maintaining the status quo, are less likely to change their opinions!
Shock! Gasp! Amazement!

...you forgot about the important bits. Maybe you'll read the article some day...