Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8144 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2014 3:57 AM
73 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NinaSabrina1999
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,362 Year: 24,203/28,606 Month: 1,504/1,786 Week: 366/423 Day: 7/119 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Emails Restored


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Evidence based smear campaigns
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6440
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 31 of 49 (559004)
05-06-2010 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Larni
05-06-2010 4:13 AM


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:
misperceptions. Currently, all of our backfire results come from conservatives—a finding that may provide support for the hypothesis that conservatives are especially dogmatic (Greenberg and Jonas 2003; Jost et al. 2003a, b). However, there is a great deal of evidence that liberals (e.g. the stem cell experiment above) and Democrats (e.g., Bartels 2002, pp. 133–137; Bullock 2007; Gerber and Huber 2010) also interpret factual information in ways that are consistent with their political predispositions. Without conducting more studies, it is impossible to determine if liberals and conservatives react to corrections differently

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Larni, posted 05-06-2010 4:13 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Larni, posted 05-06-2010 4:44 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3756
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 32 of 49 (559005)
05-06-2010 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
05-06-2010 4:39 AM


Ya got me.

I'll apologise to Phage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2010 4:39 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3756
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 33 of 49 (559006)
05-06-2010 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Phage0070
05-05-2010 5:50 PM


My apologies, Phage.

I was pulling your chain a bit too much, I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Phage0070, posted 05-05-2010 5:50 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Stile, posted 05-06-2010 7:32 AM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Phage0070, posted 05-06-2010 1:28 PM Larni has responded

    
caffeine
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 872
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 34 of 49 (559017)
05-06-2010 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Larni
05-05-2010 3:36 PM


Lefties won't change their conclusions and liberals are very evidence based in their thinking.

Not sure if this bit's a joke, but it you're gonna present such a controversial claim so at odds with day to day experience, you need to provide some sort of evidence for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 05-05-2010 3:36 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2396
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 35 of 49 (559018)
05-06-2010 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Larni
05-06-2010 4:45 AM


Larni writes:

I was pulling your chain a bit too much, I think.

Heh.. Mod beat me to it, I was about to ask if you were running your own experiment in this thread...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Larni, posted 05-06-2010 4:45 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 635 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 36 of 49 (559039)
05-06-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
05-05-2010 6:45 AM


Flawed premise
This means that right wingers have very little chance of changing their minds; especially when provided with evidence to the contrary to their beliefs.

Is it then pointless arguing with right wing people because any evidence that is presented that is counter to their beliefs will actually strengthen them?

Couldn't the same thing be said of left-wingers too? Isn't this painting with an awfully big brush, as if you have pro-right tendencies that you will forever be locked in a right-wing box?

One could even point out that the flaw in this social experiment is that it's self-refuting, in that it demonizes a certain political spectrum by hypocritically doing the very thing they allege the other side is doing.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 05-05-2010 6:45 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 635 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 37 of 49 (559043)
05-06-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Apothecus
05-05-2010 2:57 PM


Blinded by bias
So, think of the most liberal friend you have. Can you illustrate a scenario in which this friend would exhibit the same characteristics as the "study" in question portrays for conservatism?

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.

Some people don't like to admit they're wrong when they've invested so much time on a person or a position they've committed themselves to, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I see this as being a human problem, not something consigned soley to "right-wingers." That's absurd and self-refuting concept. This whole social "experiment" is suspect of the very thing it claims against others -- blinded by bias.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Apothecus, posted 05-05-2010 2:57 PM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by caffeine, posted 05-06-2010 10:42 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2010 10:55 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 47 by Apothecus, posted 05-06-2010 2:40 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
caffeine
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 872
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 38 of 49 (559054)
05-06-2010 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2010 10:03 AM


Re: Blinded by bias
I see this as being a human problem, not something consigned soley to "right-wingers." That's absurd and self-refuting concept. This whole social "experiment" is suspect of the very thing it claims against others -- blinded by bias.

That's more a problem of the way the experiment is reported than the experiment itself. If you read the quotes Modulous posted, the experimenters were quite explicit that no definitive conclusions can be drawn about whether this effect is different across the political spectrum.

Whenever we talk about differences between 'conservatives and liberals' or 'left and right', I think it's important to remember that the package of ideas lumped under these headings are not in any sense universal. To take some examples that spring to mind that are usually considered right/left issues in the US, it was the right-wing conservative government here in the Czech Republic that made this the first country in the old Eastern bloc to legalise gay marriage, and it was the left-wing Sandinista administration in Nicaragua that outlawed abortion, to the cheers of their supporters.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 10:03 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 11:08 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6440
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 39 of 49 (559056)
05-06-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2010 10:03 AM


Re: Blinded by bias
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 10:03 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 11:20 AM Modulous has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 635 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 40 of 49 (559059)
05-06-2010 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by caffeine
05-06-2010 10:42 AM


Re: Blinded by bias
That's more a problem of the way the experiment is reported than the experiment itself. If you read the quotes Modulous posted, the experimenters were quite explicit that no definitive conclusions can be drawn about whether this effect is different across the political spectrum.

Which should then lead the question what the purpose of the experiment was to begin with if not a smear.

Whenever we talk about differences between 'conservatives and liberals' or 'left and right', I think it's important to remember that the package of ideas lumped under these headings are not in any sense universal. To take some examples that spring to mind that are usually considered right/left issues in the US, it was the right-wing conservative government here in the Czech Republic that made this the first country in the old Eastern bloc to legalise gay marriage, and it was the left-wing Sandinista administration in Nicaragua that outlawed abortion, to the cheers of their supporters.

You're right, Left/Right terms are often muddled, especially internationally. I think then we have to look at it in terms of what most Western nations identify it as being.

Since I take both left and right positions, generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I don't consider myself as either Right or Left on the political spectrum. I view myself as a Constitutional Moderate or a Libertarian. But my country is deeply divided politically and I feel these kind of experiements only further lead to disunity.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by caffeine, posted 05-06-2010 10:42 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2010 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6440
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 41 of 49 (559061)
05-06-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2010 11:08 AM


The purpose of the study
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:
An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 11:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 635 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 42 of 49 (559062)
05-06-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Modulous
05-06-2010 10:55 AM


Re: Blinded by bias
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.

My statement is directly in context with the question posed to the audience in regard to personal experience.

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 question was raised from a personal perspective. I don't know how the average "leftist" would respond.

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.

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.

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.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2010 10:55 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2010 11:32 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6440
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 43 of 49 (559065)
05-06-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2010 11:20 AM


Re: Blinded by bias
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 12:26 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 635 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 44 of 49 (559072)
05-06-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
05-06-2010 11:32 AM


Re: Blinded by bias
The paper does not imply that this is ruled out, and cites several other papers that do indicate some political effect in liberals.

I've read through a bit of the paper and have to say that it is well-written and took a lot in to consideration. So in those regards I am impressed. I also found one of the answers to my question:

quote:
For very liberal subjects, the correction worked as expected, making them more likely to disagree with the statement that Iraq had WMD compared with controls. The correction did not have a statistically significant effect on individuals who described themselves as liberal, somewhat left of center, or centrist. But most importantly, the effect of the correction for individuals who placed themselves to the right of center ideologically is statistically significant and positive. In other words, the correction backfired—conservatives who received a correction telling them that Iraq did not have WMD were more likely to believe that Iraq had WMD than those in the control condition.21 (The interpretation of other variables does not change in Model 2.)

What are we to make of this finding? One possible interpretation, which draws on the persuasion literature, would point to source credibility as a possible explanation—conservatives are presumably likely to put more trust in President Bush and less trust in the media than other subjects in the sample (though we do not have data to support this conjecture). However, it is not clear that such an interpretation can explain the observed data in a straightforward way. Subjects in the no-correction and correction conditions both read the same statement from President Bush. Thus the backfire effect must be the result of the experimentally manipulated correction. If subjects simply distrusted the media, they should simply ignore the corrective information. Instead, however, conservatives were found to have moved in the “wrong” direction—a reaction that is hard to attribute to simple distrust. We believe the result is consistent with our theoretical account of goal-directed information processing.



"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2010 11:32 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 45 of 49 (559077)
05-06-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Larni
05-06-2010 4:45 AM


Larni writes:

My apologies, Phage.
I was pulling your chain a bit too much, I think.

Apology accepted. It isn't the first time that I have fallen prey to the difficulty conveying satire online.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Larni, posted 05-06-2010 4:45 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 05-06-2010 2:24 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014