Why People Continue to Believe Objectively False Things
Original article by Amanda Taub and Brendan Nyhan - The Upshot (NYT)
-------------------------------------
In a lens, a glimpse of the F.B.I. director, James Comey, and the N.S.A. director, Mike Rogers, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on Monday.
Eric Thayer for The New York Times
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” goes the saying — one that now seems like a relic of simpler times.
Today, President Trump is sticking with his own facts — his claim that the Obama administration wiretapped him during the election — in the face of testimony to the contrary by the F.B.I. director, James Comey.
When asked about the accusations Mr. Trump had made on Twitter, Mr. Comey told a Senate committee on Monday, “I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the F.B.I.”
Other government authorities have come to similar conclusions. But Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said after the hearing that Mr. Trump stood by his wiretap allegations despite Mr. Comey’s testimony.
Mr. Trump’s claims may appear to his opponents to have been embarrassingly debunked. But social science research suggests that Mr. Trump’s alternative version of reality may appeal to his supporters.
Partisan polarization is now so extreme in the United States that it affects the way that people consume and understand information — the facts they believe, and what events they think are important. The wiretapping allegations could well become part of a partisan narrative that is too powerful to be dispelled.
Mr. Trump, perhaps unconsciously, has grasped a core truth of modern politics: that voters tend to seek out information that fits the story they want to believe, usually one in which members of the other party are the bad guys.
Since the 1980s, Americans have been reporting increasingly negative opinions about the opposing party. Partisanship, and particularly “negative partisanship,” the rejection of the opposing party, has now become a kind of tribal identity that shapes how people define themselves and others, according to Sean Westwood, a professor at Dartmouth College who has studied partisan polarization. “It drives people to support their team at any cost, and oppose the opposing team at any cost,” he said.
This partisan polarization affects the way Americans of all political stripes consume information. People are more likely to believe stories that come from their side of the political divide, particularly if an authority figure vouches for them. And they are more likely to share news with their preferred slant as a way of showing they are good members of their political tribe.
Mr. Trump’s wiretap claim is particularly likely to appeal to that partisan dynamic. At its core, it is a story about Barack Obama being fundamentally untrustworthy, perhaps even dangerous to the country. Mr. Trump’s supporters, who are already more likely to believe that basic narrative, may be more likely to accept his wiretap claims.
Sticking to his version of events will probably strengthen Mr. Trump’s base, said John Sides, a political-science professor at George Washington University who studies political communication.
“At the end of the day, those people are going to put a floor under your approval ratings,” he said. But, he cautioned, the constant cycles of controversy are preventing him from establishing the broader appeal required to assure a successful presidency.
One might expect that facts would convince people that Mr. Trump’s claim was baseless, but other political myths have proved remarkably robust to the sort of debunking Mr. Comey provided.
For instance, Mr. Trump disavowed the “birther” myth in September 2016, conceding that Mr. Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. There was an increase afterward in the number of voters who said they believed Mr. Obama was born in the United States, but polling by Morning Consult suggests that part of that effect has already faded. In September, it found that 62 percent of registered voters said they believed Mr. Obama had been born in the United States, but in a follow-up poll early this month, that number had dropped to 57 percent.
This decline cannot be attributed simply to partisan bias; it occurred among both Democrats (who went to 77 percent from 82 percent) and Republicans (down to 36 percent from 44 percent). Over time, people may simply forget the contrary evidence they’ve heard and fall back on their old beliefs.
Even when myths are dispelled, their effects linger. The Boston College political scientist Emily Thorson conducted a series of studies showing that exposure to a news article containing a damaging allegation about a fictional political candidate caused people to rate the candidate more negatively even when the allegation was corrected and people believed it to be false.
There are ways to correct information more effectively . Adam Berinsky of M.I.T., for instance, found that a surprising co-partisan source (a Republican member of Congress) was the most effective in reducing belief in the “death panel” myth about the Affordable Care Act.
But in the wiretapping case, Republican lawmakers have neither supported Mr. Trump’s wiretap claims (which could risk their credibility) nor strenuously opposed them (which could prompt a partisan backlash). Instead, they have tried to shift attention to a different political narrative — one that suits the partisan divide by making Mr. Obama the villain of the piece. Rather than focusing on the wiretap allegation, they have sought to portray the House Intelligence Committee hearings on Russian interference in the election as an investigation into leaks of classified information.
In Monday’s hearing, for instance, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, asked Mr. Comey which Obama administration officials would have had access to the leaked information, implying that officials from the previous administration must be responsible for the leaks.
The result is that the same hearings may appear completely different to voters of different parties. Democrats may see a defeat for Mr. Trump because Mr. Comey rejected his wiretap claims and confirmed that the F.B.I. is investigating whether there was any coordination between his campaign and the Russian intelligence officials who interfered in the election.
But Republican voters may see confirmation that the leaks of classified information were criminal, and that former Obama administration officials had means, motive and opportunity to carry out the act. A Breitbart News report, for example, breezed past Mr. Comey’s debunking of the wiretap as “already known,” then focused on leaks to the press.
The question of whether Mr. Obama wiretapped Mr. Trump has now been answered clearly and strongly in the negative. But the myth, and its effects, seem likely to continue unless Republicans denounce it more forcefully.
-----------------------------------
RED RULES apply:
- Be polite .
No insults whatsoever.
No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ...
None!
- Be smart and stay on-topic .
Contribute substantive thought.
Facts and/or reasoning.
One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic and will be deleted.
-----------------------------------
Tags
Who is online
118 visitors
RED RULES apply:
- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart and stay on topic. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic, and will be deleted.
What happens if evidence is found, and shows that Trump is indeed guilty of colluding with a foreign power to interfere in our election process? I mean that is criminal is it not? As the article point out, many people would not believe it, even if the truth was staring them in the face.
Aren't you putting the horse before the cart? I would like to see proof of Russian meddling first. Note that hacking the DNC and RNC and exposing truths is not the kind of "meddling" either of us are talking about (at least I hope not) All we really know is the DNC and RNC were hacked and that TRUTHS from those hacks were leaked. That does not conclude any further "meddling" and although Russia and Trump have both asked for proof, it seems everyone is too busy trying to find out if Trump talked to them or not to look for ACTUAL PROOF OF "RUSSIAN MEDDLING". No meddling=no foul even if he DID talk to them.
There is no law against talking with Russians or anyone else that lives outside the USA for that matter. If he DID talk to them and the worst that happened is they released truths about Hillary do you think jail is appropriate? On what grounds?
Since the 1980s, Americans have been reporting increasingly negative opinions about the opposing party. Partisanship, and particularly “negative partisanship,” the rejection of the opposing party, has now become a kind of tribal identity that shapes how people define themselves and others, according to Sean Westwood, a professor at Dartmouth College who has studied partisan polarization. “It drives people to support their team at any cost, and oppose the opposing team at any cost,” he said.
I would say this is certainly true of politics on NT, these days... Daily, we are faced with an onslaught of outrageous lies and innuendo. Frankly, I'm tired of all this. NT is a community-- there is no need to be quite so nasty to one another.
I would say this is certainly true of politics on NT, these days... Daily, we are faced with an onslaught of outrageous lies and innuendo.
That raises an interesting question. One that I have been pondering for some time actually. Do sites like Newsvine attract mainly people who are basically very unhappy, angry..and not too intelligent?
OR:
Do normal people start participating in sites like this, but over time for some reason start acting less intelligent..and nasty?
Excellent question!
I think there are two fundamental approaches to lots of things in life: "us" and "me". At a deep level this is the difference between left and right.
On online forums, we see some participants who want to share, and others who... ... do not...
I wish I knew, Krish...
I think some people see an online forum like this as an opportunity to recruit followers, while others are sad, lonely people who just want social interaction and will put up with the crap to get it. You could probably place me in the second category, especially as I've become more home-bound... And yet, others come here for validation of their ideas, which much of society wouldn't countenance.
I think for the most part, people are looking for a group of like-minded individuals, who have the same likes and dislikes, the same loves and hates that others do. Yet others enjoy the battle, and come emboldened with a sword of 'justice' to enforce their will on others.
Whatever, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
AUTHORIATARIAN government is characterized by two broad elements …
… a "Big Brother"-type head (as in Orwell's "1984"), and a following consisting mainly of low-information individuals who nee a "strongman" figure, one about whom, they will, almost under no circumstances, accept any negative information.
They are susceptible to all propaganda that "validates" their need to simplistically believe in their Big Brother/Authoritarian and will repudiate any/all purveyors of countervailing information.
Cult of personality (1984, George Orwell)
A spontaneous ritual of devotion to Big Brother ("BB") is illustrated at the end of the " Two Minutes Hate ": {Consider the "Lock her up" chants at Trump rallies … even currently, and all the chants and slogans repeated by his crowds}
Until now,
"It is the vigilance of the citizens that has prevented Big Brother from starting his reign in the free world. This vigilance, Orwell would say today, may not relent if freedom is to be saved."
And to this day, Obama-haters continue to make Obama their straw man, an "internal enemy" from whom, "Trumpism" will save them.
_________________________________________________________
Watch for the ad-hominem, shoot the messenger responses in place of specific rebuttal.
You're certainly right that these phenomena are related. It's kinda "chicken or egg", I think.
As you underscore, if we are more interested in advancing our own agenda than in preserving democratic institutions, then those institutions are doomed.
Or, to express it differently, "America died at Sandy Hook."