ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 http://www.businessinsider.com/sociology-alternative-facts-2017-2 "...To study this, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler (2010) conducted a series of experiments. They had groups of participants read newspaper articles that included statements from politicians that supported some widespread piece of misinformation. Some of the participants read articles that included corrective information that immediately followed the inaccurate statement from the political figure, while others did not read articles containing corrective information at all. Afterward, they were asked a series of questions about the article and their personal opinions about the issue. Nyhan and Reifler found that how people responded to the factual corrections in the articles they read varied systematically by how ideologically committed they already were to the beliefs that such facts supported. Among those who believed the popular misinformation in the first place, more information and actual facts challenging those beliefs did not cause a change of opinion-in fact, it often had the effect of strengthening those ideologically grounded beliefs. It's a sociological issue we ought to care about a great deal right now. How are we to correct misinformation if the very act of informing some people causes them to redouble their dedication to believing things that are not true?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Libs can't handle the fact that their 1000 year Reich came to an end after 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 It's a sociological issue we ought to care about a great deal right now. How are we to correct misinformation if the very act of informing some people causes them to redouble their dedication to believing things that are not true?" It sounds like they're describing typical confirmation bias. People tend to get their news and information from what they consider to be "trusted sources", most of which are simply biased toward the reader's preconceived point of view. People generally appear to be more concerned with "being right" and being able to back it up than with actually understanding issues. Personally, I find open discussion to be a good remedy for this. This place can be pretty irritating at times, but I've learned a lot from people on both sides here, if for no other reason than having to back up a position of my own without resorting to simply regurgitating sound bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Libs can't handle the fact that their 1000 year Reich came to an end after 8 years. And most of us have to study or work hard every day, so we don't have time to dance around a maypole in a fantasy world. We spend our wasted time on sports instead, much better for humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Libs can't handle the fact that their 1000 year Reich came to an end after 8 years.that's all it is and the media will not let trump win round 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 http://www.businessinsider.com/sociology-alternative-facts-2017-2 "...To study this, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler (2010) conducted a series of experiments. They had groups of participants read newspaper articles that included statements from politicians that supported some widespread piece of misinformation. Some of the participants read articles that included corrective information that immediately followed the inaccurate statement from the political figure, while others did not read articles containing corrective information at all. Afterward, they were asked a series of questions about the article and their personal opinions about the issue. Nyhan and Reifler found that how people responded to the factual corrections in the articles they read varied systematically by how ideologically committed they already were to the beliefs that such facts supported. Among those who believed the popular misinformation in the first place, more information and actual facts challenging those beliefs did not cause a change of opinion-in fact, it often had the effect of strengthening those ideologically grounded beliefs. It's a sociological issue we ought to care about a great deal right now. How are we to correct misinformation if the very act of informing some people causes them to redouble their dedication to believing things that are not true?" People aren't geared to play along as the mad scientist demands. You could give intelligent people the scores to 15 hockey games and if they really aren't into it they won't bother to get it at all or comment afterwards. that's all it is and the media will not let trump win round 2 Reagan did it with a far worse media attack. Then they all kissed his behind when he died, it was a good lesson to absorb about never trusting these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Reagan did it with a far worse media attack. Then they all kissed his behind when he died, it was a good lesson to absorb about never trusting these people. Would you think it fair to say that the reason Reagan was able to withstand it (as opposed to the Nixon couldn't) was because of his amicable demeanor toward the press? Our current president might learn a lesson from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Would you think it fair to say that the reason Reagan was able to withstand it (as opposed to the Nixon couldn't) was because of his amicable demeanor toward the press? Our current president might learn a lesson from that. Reagan knew how to play the game. His work as governor showed the majority of voters were with him during the campus unrest hassles. Nixon cared too much about the media falling in love with him, one of his many painfully obvious quirks, too bad. Trump has been a central part of the NYC media charade for 4 decades now, washes of him like water off a duck's back. Now "serious" journalists are taking sarcastic lines out of Spy Magazine articles to use as attacks on Trump, it's beyond insanity now, nobody cares any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2017 Author Share Posted March 22, 2017 Boy, this thread sure rings true for a place like PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 People ignore facts because they don't trust the people telling them they are facts. Can I get a research grant now please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richstadiumowner Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) http://www.businessinsider.com/sociology-alternative-facts-2017-2 "...To study this, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler (2010) conducted a series of experiments. They had groups of participants read newspaper articles that included statements from politicians that supported some widespread piece of misinformation. Some of the participants read articles that included corrective information that immediately followed the inaccurate statement from the political figure, while others did not read articles containing corrective information at all. Afterward, they were asked a series of questions about the article and their personal opinions about the issue. Nyhan and Reifler found that how people responded to the factual corrections in the articles they read varied systematically by how ideologically committed they already were to the beliefs that such facts supported. Among those who believed the popular misinformation in the first place, more information and actual facts challenging those beliefs did not cause a change of opinion-in fact, it often had the effect of strengthening those ideologically grounded beliefs. It's a sociological issue we ought to care about a great deal right now. How are we to correct misinformation if the very act of informing some people causes them to redouble their dedication to believing things that are not true?" What is correct that you think others have incorrect? Edited March 23, 2017 by richstadiumowner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2017 Author Share Posted March 23, 2017 What is correct that you think others have incorrect? I really don't know. Everything is a mess, who to believe? Even the President can't be trusted anymore. Like FC said above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddo Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 People hear what they want to hear, and with the wider variety of 'news' outlets, gravitate to those who support their often twisted, world views. Sadly, the current Potus, accurately reflects that trend, by getting his stuff off of 'Fox', in preference to utilizing the various intelligence gathering agencies at his disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 The problem is the age-old Enlightenment, Modern, Postmodern (or whatever other metanarrative you choose.) The Enlightenment elites are battling the Pomos and the Post-postmoderns worldwide. I hear there's something called post-pomo but I haven't looked into it, I'm comfortable being very postmodern thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 One of the more interesting aspects of confirmation bias is how often people who understand the concept are unable to recognize it in themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 One of the more interesting aspects of confirmation bias is how often people who understand the concept are unable to recognize it in themselves. Elites in a clinical lab do not have a clue about the experience of normal human beings. Then the elites can't figure out why the normal people don't behave as the elite have "logically" reasoned they should. I figure they have decided what the study will find before they begin the 'testing' and then bend their findings to meet their initial client demand. Wheel turning, round and round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts