how sheep reinforce their political beliefs
I found an interesting article this morning about campaigns spreading misinformation, and how people receive this misinformation. One study came up with some interesting results:
"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."
"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."
This study helps us understand why people are eating up the McCain/Palin campaign lies, and gives some insight into the thought process of gay Republicans. See also: cognitive dissonance.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: how sheep reinforce their political beliefs.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.kr8tiv.com/blogit2/mt-tb.cgi/405
Doesn't it happen on both sides though? I fail to believe that rank and file democrats are somehow immune to the same effects. Looking at Hillary supporters or the enthusiasm of many gays, you'd think that Obama was for gay marriage and went out of his way to pledge support for all our issues. In truth people see what they expect to see, and only the cynical see both parties as merely pandering as they both expect business as usual should they win.
I've never understood the absolute credulity of conservatives and their complete abandonment of critical thinking skills. I suppose it has to do with their propensity for blind faith.
A couple weekends ago, we had a relief veterinarian working who started in with McCain campaign bullshit. She's obviously an intelligent person to have gotten where she is, but it was clear that she was just parroting back the party lines rather than using her own capacity for reason. Especially when she started in on the whole "Obama is a muslim" thing. Needless to say she got shut down pretty quickly, but I doubt she'll take anything away from it.
I'm still looking for a valid definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction".
Because we know for a fact that Saddam had chem weapons that he used during the Iran/Iraq war and that he used on the kurds in northern Iraq, a nuclear reactor in '81 and was more then willing to grow bacteria in the fridge like everyone else.
I would like some clear concise terms before the finger pointing starts.
I think it's from all the church going. It's all that "so what if there's no proof, that just means you must believe all the harder" bullshit.
Those Gay Republicans keep confusing it with 'Weapons of Ass Destruction," which they are all for.
I think they may want to test the "Backfire Effect" etc, on the Global Warming issue. Talk about Blind Faith!
Liberals do tend to have a loose relationship with facts. Instead of being for something, liberals tend to be against something. As in "If Bush is for it, I'm against it". Believes based more on emotions the factual conclusions.
Jimbo: Whether one is "conservative" or "liberal", both need to recognize both sides negate or distort facts. Realistically, at this point, the issue of "weapons of mass destruction" is truly irrelevant!
Fact is, plans to reduce our troops in Iraq are finally in place.
Obama has claimed to have proposed a plan to deal with the mortgage problems, when in fact, no such plan exists! I also understand that sub-prime loans were ordered by the gov't in the interest of helping poor minorities. If this is the case, can Congress be at least partially implicated in this. For the record, I am no huge fan of either McCain or Obama!