|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence based smear campaigns | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I don't see how this shows the phenomenon applies only to right-wing people If we accept the results, then it shows that the phenomenon is significantly more pronounced with those of the right wing. The full paper can be read here.
But it does not show that doing the same thing with a reverse example aimed more at liberal and left people would not show the exact same thing. The paper refers to a misconception among the left wing about stem cell politics:
quote: After doing their statistical stuff to it the result,
quote: In standard English: In the right wing, seeing a correction to a position they held as true there is a tendency to agree with that position more strongly when asked about it. In the left wing seeing a correction has very little effect either way. That is - their bias prevents them from changing their views, but it doesn't cause them to say they agree with their view more strongly than before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Observe for instance the reviews of the "Global Warming" studies used by the UN. The left wing reacted similarly by strengthening their support of the positions they had already taken, as opposed to examining the controversy around the studies and possibly revising their conclusions. It doesn't matter what your political leanings, we are all subject to this behavior. This isn't like getting defensive. This is something different. So it goes that if you present a left wing person with a counter piece of evidence for Global Warming and then ask them how strongly they agree that Global Warming is occurring and humans are a cause you will find the same results if you didn't start with the counterevidence. The counterevidence has no effect on reported strength of agreement. For example. In the right wing, seeing counter evidence to a position you hold increases the magnitude of your reported agreement with it! This is not cognitive dissonance. This, if the results are to be followed, suggests that there appears to a psychologically different reaction to people of different political viewpoints when presented with corrections. As the paper concludes:
quote: The paper is consistent with that conclusion, but can't say that it is certain: only that corrections can cause 'backfire' reactions among the political extremes which helps explain the misconceptions that the public have. Edited by Modulous, : added the paper's conclusion to clear up what might well be a liberal misconception about the paper's content
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The situations taken are hardly comparable. They are comparable. Not equal. But as I said up above - the paper isn't really concentrating on left vs right stuff and is only consistent with that conclusion.
A reverse situation that would maybe be on the same scale would be the global warming issue, and the 'extra-added' information would have to be an official article contradicting the usual ALGore line of thinking of the left. Yeah - they only asked a few questions because of time constraints (they basically performed one study per question) and they put in a call for more liberal issue related questions to discover what backfire issues they might have (perhaps fishing for a grant a little there ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But the article does say that this effect does function more or less with right wingers. The backfire effect functioned on Conservatives more in the question regarding WMD possession. A stubbornness from the left did occur in a question about Stem Cell bans but not backfire. However the article's conclusion, and the paper's conclusion both indicate this is not necessarily a left vs right phenomenon. It's just that smears work well because people either ignore corrections or corrections serve to entrench them even further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If the 'correction' only appeared with the FoxNews label mightn't it be that liberals are more likely to just ignore FoxNews?
quote:If the 'correction' only appeared with the FoxNews label mightn't it be that liberals are more likely to just ignore FoxNews? Again the paper mentions this effect:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
What tickles me is that the back fire effect only seems to work for right wingers Funny, the study does not indicate that. You appear to just be pulling it out of your ass.
Seems it does say that.
The 'supporting' quote comes from the blog article, and does not support the claim that this ONLY works for right wingers. The actual study explitly states:
quote: Unless you are just being deliberately funny and deliberately digging in when you received a correction. Because that would be exceptionally well played. But if you are just backfiring, then perhaps you should actually read the actual paper. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes, absolutely. I know people who refuse to believe that Obama has contributed more to the national debt than any U.S. president in history (even more than the bloated whore, Bush, and that's after adjusting for inflation), even when clear evidence proves it. Seems to me that whether or not your claim is true and whether it is something that reflects poorly on Obama is a matter of what you are actually measuring. Do you have any interesting links to threads on the net where someone has raised this issue and people have refused to believe that so we can see if it looks like it is bias that is at work rather than a disagreement over 'real' terms, % of GDP, or if they are bickering as to who is to blame for that occurring? The thing we won't be able to do is to see if the people you are talking about 'backfire' regarding the position or whether or not they simply disregard the correction since it is that phenomenon which the study is is addressing: and it is not something that can be detected without a great deal of care. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Which should then lead the question what the purpose of the experiment was to begin with if not a smear. The full paper is available online. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The question was raised from a personal perspective. I don't know how the average "leftist" would respond. Do you mean personal in the fleshy vocal communication thing? You haven't seen the phenomenon online?
I agree, which leads me to question 1. What the political persuasion of the experimenters is and 2. What the purpose of the experiment is. We cross posted, I addressed this in Message 41. You can hear one of the people involved talk about the study as a podcast on his blog. He says in that interview that 'this is a human problem' and 'We are not targeting conservatives'. I am not sure what the political persuasion of the authors is. It is a politically neutral study so I don't know why that would matter. Their names are Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, I suppose you could google them, read their stuff and try and come to a conclusion on that.
I personally have seen much cognitive dissonance coming from the Right to include the most ridiculous instances of protective Bush (which really is them trying to save face for backing him). That is not in question. The question is why this wouldn't apply to the other foot. It may well do. The paper does not imply that this is ruled out, and cites several other papers that do indicate some political effect in liberals. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024