Why Folks Remain Clueless

[CmdrWilkens]

Probably better off here than in N&P as it relates more to psychology than the more obvious problem that Faux News uses this little bit of psychology to delude the masses. Anyway from WashPo.

Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; Page A03


The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flier to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views and labeled them either "true" or "false." Among those identified as false were statements such as "The side effects are worse than the flu" and "Only older people need flu vaccine."

When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.

Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.

The psychological insights yielded by the research, which has been confirmed in a number of peer-reviewed laboratory experiments, have broad implications for public policy. The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi. While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may in fact help keep it alive.

Similarly, many in the Arab world are convinced that the destruction of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 was not the work of Arab terrorists but was a controlled demolition; that 4,000 Jews working there had been warned to stay home that day; and that the Pentagon was struck by a missile rather than a plane.

Those notions remain widespread even though the federal government now runs Web sites in seven languages to challenge them. Karen Hughes, who runs the Bush administration's campaign to win hearts and minds in the fight against terrorism, recently painted a glowing report of the "digital outreach" teams working to counter misinformation and myths by challenging those ideas on Arabic blogs.

A report last year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, however, found that the number of Muslims worldwide who do not believe that Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks is soaring -- to 59 percent of Turks and Egyptians, 65 percent of Indonesians, 53 percent of Jordanians, 41 percent of Pakistanis and even 56 percent of British Muslims.

Research on the difficulty of debunking myths has not been specifically tested on beliefs about Sept. 11 conspiracies or the Iraq war. But because the experiments illuminate basic properties of the human mind, psychologists such as Schwarz say the same phenomenon is probably implicated in the spread and persistence of a variety of political and social myths.

The research does not absolve those who are responsible for promoting myths in the first place. What the psychological studies highlight, however, is the potential paradox in trying to fight bad information with good information.

Schwarz's study was published this year in the journal Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, but the roots of the research go back decades. As early as 1945, psychologists Floyd Allport and Milton Lepkin found that the more often people heard false wartime rumors, the more likely they were to believe them.

The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency.

The experiments also highlight the difference between asking people whether they still believe a falsehood immediately after giving them the correct information, and asking them a few days later. Long-term memories matter most in public health campaigns or political ones, and they are the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false information is true.

The experiments do not show that denials are completely useless; if that were true, everyone would believe the myths. But the mind's bias does affect many people, especially those who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts.

The research also highlights the disturbing reality that once an idea has been implanted in people's minds, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.

Indeed, repetition seems to be a key culprit. Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory, and one of the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are true.

Many easily remembered things, in fact, such as one's birthday or a pet's name, are indeed true. But someone trying to manipulate public opinion can take advantage of this aspect of brain functioning. In politics and elsewhere, this means that whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later.

Furthermore, a new experiment by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and others shows that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people -- the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not. Weaver's study was published this year in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The experiments by Weaver, Schwarz and others illustrate another basic property of the mind -- it is not good at remembering when and where a person first learned something. People are not good at keeping track of which information came from credible sources and which came from less trustworthy ones, or even remembering that some information came from the same untrustworthy source over and over again. Even if a person recognizes which sources are credible and which are not, repeated assertions and denials can have the effect of making the information more accessible in memory and thereby making it feel true, said Schwarz.

Experiments by Ruth Mayo, a cognitive social psychologist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, also found that for a substantial chunk of people, the "negation tag" of a denial falls off with time. Mayo's findings were published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2004.

"If someone says, 'I did not harass her,' I associate the idea of harassment with this person," said Mayo, explaining why people who are accused of something but are later proved innocent find their reputations remain tarnished. "Even if he is innocent, this is what is activated when I hear this person's name again.

"If you think 9/11 and Iraq, this is your association, this is what comes in your mind," she added. "Even if you say it is not true, you will eventually have this connection with Saddam Hussein and 9/11."

Mayo found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth. Rather than say, as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently did during a marathon congressional debate, that "Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States; Osama bin Laden did," Mayo said it would be better to say something like, "Osama bin Laden was the only person responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks" -- and not mention Hussein at all.

The psychologist acknowledged that such a statement might not be entirely accurate -- issuing a denial or keeping silent are sometimes the only real options.

So is silence the best way to deal with myths? Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no.

Another recent study found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true, said Peter Kim, an organizational psychologist at the University of Southern California. He published his study in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

Myth-busters, in other words, have the odds against them.

Posted without further comment.

[Darth Wong]

I've actually run into people who have constructed a pseudo-logic around their belief in oft-refuted myths: "If it wasn't true, why would people work so hard to convince you that it's false?" There's just no overcoming rank stupidity.

[Superman]

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."

Love or hate Freud, I think he was right on with that one. We like to think of ourselves as enlightened, but we've got a long way to go.

[Coyote]

Hmmm.... myths are entertaining, interesting, and seem more dynamic. They may also tend to offer "an explanation" where none actually exists, which is comforting. They stick in the mind, and ergo, "everyone knows" facts are born.

[Stark]

That's not the main thrust of the article though - the point is that authoritative denials become authoritative truisms as memory fades. It was in a written context, so maybe it's indicative of the lack of critical analysis. I've noticed the elderly are far more interested in facts than the correction of them, and vaguely-remembered things they read once can become for them absolutely accurate statements. It's amusing it only took a few days, even for younger people. As Superman says, people are slaves to their desires and just remember what they want to remember - often for those entertaining or interesting reasons.

If people don't value the truth, then you really can't correct them by saying 'but that's actually wrong'. Then again, I find those fliers with 'myth #1, myth #2' are some of the least useful correction things at all - I've noticed myself that after a while people quickly misremember what was 'myth' and what was 'fact', and just remember that it was published by the governement.

[Darth Wong]

Human memory retention is weird. Did you know that people are more likely to accurate recall information from text if they run a finger under the text as they read it? How bizarre is that?

[Stark]

I'd read that too - and while I never did it myself, apparently doing the highlighter thing significantly increases retention as well. I guess it's all association - if you can remember things related to what/when you were reading, you can get access to the actual text as well. Just typing handwritten notes makes retention easier.

I have quite a poor memory for 'unrelated' things (ie, I can remember complex mathematics because it's a big wibbly ball of maths and remembering any of it leads to the rest, but I forget where I put my keys) and perhaps that's how this phenomena works: when you try to recall 'myth x about the flu' you get associated to the 'government flier about the flu' but can't remember the actual text. Given that most of what many people say is complete bullshit/guesses/hearsay-spoken-as-fact, the more vague memories like this are discussed the more 'true' they seem.

Has anyone noticed that if someone says something and everyone seems to agree, that thing becomes more 'true' to the speaker? The idea of 'truth' being related to facts or measurable phenomena seems less appealing than 'truth' being related to acceptance.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I have heard of some bizarre memory tricks. The Human mind has querks. I think the finger thing perhaps has to do with kinesthetic learning. Sometimes, if you associate a movement or actively do something with information, it can click.

Maybe it also prevents wandering of the eyes or skimming when reading.

[Spyder]

Human memory retention is weird. Did you know that people are more likely to accurate recall information from text if they run a finger under the text as they read it? How bizarre is that?

Something about providing a physical action to go with the words. I had a lecturer for Systems Analysis that used to do some weird things to get us to remember long lists of processes seem significantly less arbitrary. Think of other random objects and words, draw little pictures next to each item, that sort of thing.

Seemed to work too, at least it seemed more effective them reading the systems development life cycle over and over again. It's like it was easier to remember associations rather then the actual facts.

[Starglider]

The Human mind has querks.

Not so much 'quirks' as 'vast gaping flaws resulting from being a nasty pile of hacks'. There's a whole subfield of cognitive science, 'heuristics and biases', distilled out of the most empirical and successful bits of psychology, dedicated to detailing and cataloguing all these flaws. This is closely related to probability theory in the sense that probability theory describes the normative standard of reasoning that the heuristics and biases people often use as the baseline for describing how humans systematically fail.

[sketerpot]

Something about providing a physical action to go with the words. I had a lecturer for Systems Analysis that used to do some weird things to get us to remember long lists of processes seem significantly less arbitrary. Think of other random objects and words, draw little pictures next to each item, that sort of thing.

I have an algorithms textbook that I love because it illustrates everything with hundreds of pictures, on almost every page. I forget the text, but I still remember how a lot of the algorithms work, because I can still see the pictures when I close my eyes. That's brilliant work on the author's part.

[Darth Wong]

Something about providing a physical action to go with the words. I had a lecturer for Systems Analysis that used to do some weird things to get us to remember long lists of processes seem significantly less arbitrary. Think of other random objects and words, draw little pictures next to each item, that sort of thing.

I have an algorithms textbook that I love because it illustrates everything with hundreds of pictures, on almost every page. I forget the text, but I still remember how a lot of the algorithms work, because I can still see the pictures when I close my eyes. That's brilliant work on the author's part.

On a slightly related note, I decided to rely heavily on graphical demonstrations in my new Probability pages (see pages 2 and 3) because I realized that mumbo-jumbo math just rolls off most people without affecting them, but a graphical demonstration hits home and stays there.

[Ariphaos]

Human memory retention is weird. Did you know that people are more likely to accurate recall information from text if they run a finger under the text as they read it? How bizarre is that?

Apparently, I made my mom read to me like this. I would take her finger and point at the words as I was reading when I didn't understand the sentence.

[PeZook]

On that flyer: I wonder if they did a folllow-up test where they read the material a second time to the same test group and saw if it decreased the number of errors?

It's eerie how common this is ; My brain has a nasty tendency to outright manufacture memories even in a short span of time - it's probably related to my overactive imagination, though I haven't seen a psychiatrist over that.

It's nothing crippling, but I have become more and more cautious over the years. I have a tendency to check everything I claim, because more times than not my brain has managed to play a nasty trick on me. It becomes easier to remember things with repetition, though.

[Howedar]

To my knowledge, that phenomenon is not unique to you - all people experience it. Although it sounds like you might have it happen more than normal.

[PeZook]

To my knowledge, that phenomenon is not unique to you - all people experience it. Although it sounds like you might have it happen more than normal.

It may be, but as I said I never got checked out, so I can't compare with anybody else. I think the crucial difference here is that most folks simply don't realize their own memory is not infallible, and treat manufactured memories as real ones (Heaven knows, I do so myself on occasion, though not as much as before)

People with proper training or just observant about themselves know they shouldn't try to pass vague memories as fact, and know enough to check sources if they are unsure.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Engrams often take a lot of concentration to really burn in. Procedural memory, for instance, can be improved to perfection by simply repeating a process over and over until your mind adapts and builds new pathways that "harden" the memory. You never forget how to ride a bike, as they say.

This won't be what people are doing when they read trivia on fliers. They'll browse the text and pick out the odd factoid and it won't sink in unless they've really studied it (the highlighting a line of text trick was often mentioned by my lecturers at uni too). The transient memory of that flier isn't encoded properly physically, and then you have a mind that is very good at filling in gaps sub-consciously and there goes any real data integrity.

I am often fascinated by the people who can read whole novels and recall an exact word from any page just like that. They say the average maximum amount of numerals you can recall perfectly is 7, whereas some people can recall dozens in correct order, making them human telephone books. Then you have your photographic memory.

This is why witness testimony is a lousy way to judge a court case, especially a long time after the fact, though even a night can be enough to ruin the perception of the memory if it wasn't important at the time.

None of this helps if disinformation is rampant though. You can have the memory of a cutting edge computer hard disk and it would still be useless if you'd been fed bullshit you assume was correct simply because "FACT" was at the start of each statement.

[Adrian Laguna]

It's eerie how common this is ; My brain has a nasty tendency to outright manufacture memories even in a short span of time - it's probably related to my overactive imagination, though I haven't seen a psychiatrist over that.

Heh, that's nothing. My brain can hijack my visual receptions and modify them to suit its preconceptions, in real time. It has its good parts and bad parts. For example, I slightly discriminate against fat or ugly people in that any faults in their cleanliness or organization just jumps out at me, whereas for more beautiful people I let it slide. I also am less likely to see things that I do not believe to the be there, and by the same token I can see non-existent things simply because I think they should be there.

What's the good part you ask? If I like a woman's personality, she becomes physically more beautiful to my eyes.

[PainRack]

This is why witness testimony is a lousy way to judge a court case, especially a long time after the fact, though even a night can be enough to ruin the perception of the memory if it wasn't important at the time.

None of this helps if disinformation is rampant though. You can have the memory of a cutting edge computer hard disk and it would still be useless if you'd been fed bullshit you assume was correct simply because "FACT" was at the start of each statement.

It doesn't help with misleading questions. Wasn't there an experiment done once where after being shown a video of an accident, a questionnaire asked whether a fictional blue car ran through the stop sign, and some time later, the majority of the participants swore there was a blue car at the accident? This even after being shown the video again?

And back to the OT, was the flier issued to people who already believed in the myths or those who were neutral?

[sketerpot]

On a slightly related note, I decided to rely heavily on graphical demonstrations in my new Probability pages (see pages 2 and 3) because I realized that mumbo-jumbo math just rolls off most people without affecting them, but a graphical demonstration hits home and stays there.

The demonstration with the dice is damn slick. That's the kind of thing that even a creationist should be able to understand on some basic level -- but the connection to evolution will still be hazy in their minds.

[Mayabird]

It'll still be hazy for many because they'll refuse to see the point, coming back to the original topic. Normal human memory is fallible in the best of circumstances, but when people have pre-conceived notions, they will unconsciously alter their memories to fit them. Memories aren't just storage that's pulled out when needed. I remember reading about some studies on preschoolers who were told about a myth from another culture, something that was quite unlike stories they're normally exposed to. A week later, they were asked about the story. While all of them vaguely remembered the gist of it, their recollections were all totally different from the original and the stories were changed into something more stereotypical of what they would normally hear.

I guess stuff like this is why James Randi calls believers in pseudoscience and mysticism "unsinkable rubber duckies."

[Coyote]

Memory is indeed bizarre. For example, if I have to remember to take something with me to work, or previously, to school, I'd just set any random thing in an out-of-sort way: leave a closet door open; put a random chair against a random wall; leave a book on a kitchen counter... and even though the random thing and the random place have not even a thin connection to what I'm supposed to rememeber, as soon as I see it the details almost always come back to me.

[Adrian Laguna]

Memory is indeed bizarre. For example, if I have to remember to take something with me to work, or previously, to school, I'd just set any random thing in an out-of-sort way: leave a closet door open; put a random chair against a random wall; leave a book on a kitchen counter... and even though the random thing and the random place have not even a thin connection to what I'm supposed to rememeber, as soon as I see it the details almost always come back to me.

Hey, I gotta try that trick.