Why We Believe Obvious Untruths

[elleng]

'How can so many people believe things that are demonstrably false? The question has taken on new urgency as the Trump administration propagates falsehoods about voter fraud, climate change and crime statistics that large swaths of the population have bought into. But collective delusion is not new, nor is it the sole province of the political right. Plenty of liberals believe, counter to scientific consensus, that G.M.O.s are poisonous, and that vaccines cause autism.

The situation is vexing because it seems so easy to solve. The truth is obvious if you bother to look for it, right? This line of thinking leads to explanations of the hoodwinked masses that amount to little more than name calling: “Those people are foolish” or “Those people are monsters.”

Such accounts may make us feel good about ourselves, but they are misguided and simplistic: They reflect a misunderstanding of knowledge that focuses too narrowly on what goes on between our ears. Here is the humbler truth: On their own, individuals are not well equipped to separate fact from fiction, and they never will be. Ignorance is our natural state; it is a product of the way the mind works.

What really sets human beings apart is not our individual mental capacity. The secret to our success is our ability to jointly pursue complex goals by dividing cognitive labor. Hunting, trade, agriculture, manufacturing — all of our world-altering innovations — were made possible by this ability. Chimpanzees can surpass young children on numerical and spatial reasoning tasks, but they cannot come close on tasks that require collaborating with another individual to achieve a goal. Each of us knows only a little bit, but together we can achieve remarkable feats.

Knowledge isn’t in my head or in your head. It’s shared.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/opinion/sunday/why-we-believe-obvious-untruths.html?

[Blue_Tires]

1. Ideology plays a huge role, too

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

3. And identity.

We define ourselves, in large part, by what we believe, and we seek out affirmation of our preconceived beliefs while closing our minds to any arguments or evidence that might challenge them. The question of whether or not a belief is true rarely comes up.

[JayhawkSD]

4. Democrats, of course, do not do this.

Only Republicans do.

[Bill USA]

8. UCLA Study: Conservatives more likely to believe fake news

https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/02/03/study-conservatives-more-likely-to-believe-fake-news/#.tnw_qvxKwD4g

Led by UCLA anthropology professor Daniel Fessler, researchers began their work long before fake news became a talking point during the 2016 campaign season. Results, though, show overlap with the rise of fake news sites during the campaign season and offers a glimpse into why the bulk of them catered to conservative readers.

Buzzfeed News found there simply wasn’t the same economic incentive for liberal-leaning sources, according to the creator of a 100 website network that’s raking in thousands monthly in ad revenue. “People in America prefer to read news about Trump,” said the unnamed source.

The study offers an explanation as to why: conservatives are more likely to believe perceived (yet untrue) threats than liberals.

Since many of the most popular fake news stories during the campaign season were threatening in nature — for example, “ISIS leader calls for American Muslim voters to support Hillary Clinton” — and conservatives believe threats are credible at rates significantly higher than liberals, it created the perfect storm for conservative-leaning fake news sites in 2016.

Results actually came from two studies: one in 2015 and one in 2016. Each study contained 16 statements concerning benefits — “Exercising on an empty stomach burns more calories.” — or hazards — “An intoxicated passenger could partially open the exit door to a commercial jetliner, causing the cabin to depressurize and the oxygen masks to deploy.” All but two of the 16 statements were false.
(more)

[JayhawkSD]

11. "UCLA study" Right. 'nuf said. nt

[Bill USA]

13. Yeah, one of those suspect "Liberal" institutions....LOL!!!

[Bill USA]

14. University College London study: Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

~~
~~

What It Means

There is a big unknown underlying these findings. Supposing that the size of one's amygdala really does increase the likelihood of being a conservative. Is the size of the amygdala determined at birth, or does it perhaps increase with frightening childhood experiences, such as authoritarian parenting and corporal punishment?

Similarly, one might ask whether the gray matter difference is affected by exposure to educational challenge, social diversity, or childhood cognitive enrichment.

The born versus acquired perspective on political attitudes is important to psychologists. After all, if political proclivities are fixed at birth in terms of brain anatomy, there is little hope of change. Most of us would probably like to see a world in which political attitudes were less polarized, and more changeable, but that may be a pipe dream.
(more)

[Bill USA]

15. Negativity, anxiety & fear: A neuroscientist explains conservatives fear-driven political attitudes

.. This article discusses a number of university, peer reviewed studies...


Negativity, anxiety and fear: A neuroscientist explains conservatives’ fear-driven political attitudes

Let’s see what the peer-reviewed research has to say about the conservative brain.

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative

In a 2012 study published in the prestigious journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of both negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer. This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. Essentially, to many conservatives the world looks like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in irrational fears—like fear of the president, immigrants, Muslims, vaccinations, etc.

2. Conservatives are more anxious

A study found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views? One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It only makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.

3. Conservatives fear new experiences

A 2008 study catalogued items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies. This tells us that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they are so resistant to change and progressive policies.

4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. They knew if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times that it wouldn’t matter whether they really existed or not.

(more)

[Bill USA]

9. Multiple studies suggest social conservatives are more attuned to threats even when they r not real

[font size="3"]... let's not forget, when it comes to susceptibility to 'fake' news, there is a difference between Liberals and Conservatives....[/font]


https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/why-fake-news-targeted-trump-supporters/515433/

One of the few comforts liberals had in the aftermath of the election was the anecdotal reporting that fake-news purveyors found it easier to get conservatives to believe their baloney.

[font size="3"]As one such fake-news entrepreneur, responsible for articles with headlines like, “FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide,” told NPR: "We’ve tried to do [fake news with] liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."[/font]

No doubt this served as a signal, to some, that if fake news works better on Trump supporters, it must be because liberals are smarter than conservatives. “I can safely binge-drink the next four years away,” some liberals might have thought, “since I have all these extra brain cells to burn.”

Well, not quite. According to a study slated to be published in the journal Psychological Science, it might be true that conservatives are more likely to fall for false, threatening-seeming information, but it’s not because they’re dumb. It’s because they’re hyper-attuned to hazards in their world. If they spot a sign of danger, they figure trusting it is better than ignoring it.
(more)

The Biggest FAKE news story of this decade is that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, handled classified information recklessly and in violation of relevant regulations and laws. In fact she did not violate any laws or regulations. Nonetheless, GOP Suckers still think Hillary Clinton treated classified information recklessly - even though Colin Powell's use of a personal email account with a commercial emails service provider was completely unsecure).

Very few people even know that Comey, when questioned by Rep. Matt Cartwright, had to admit that NOT ONE of the emails purported to have classified information in them, - NOT ONE HAD A CLASSIFIED HEADER ON IT. Very few people know that Colin Powell had classified emails in his personal email account with a commercial email service provider. M$M hasn't bothered to inform people that commercial email service providers have large numbers of cyber-security personnel, whose job it is to protect their systems (e.g. servers) from unauthorized intrusions (hacking and computer viruses). And that to do their jobs they must be able to access ANY EMAILS AND ATTACHMENTS THERETO ON THEIR Servers. Also, let it be noted that these people do NOT have Government security clearances. THus, nobody can guarantee that classified information in emails residing on commercial email service providers servers (as with Colin Powell's emails) - has NOT BEEN COMPROMISED. Thus, Colin Powell's arrangement was totally unsecure, making it far less secure than Hillary Clinton's Government personnel operated server.

[font size="+1"]Rep. Matt Cartwright questions FBI director James Comey about classified headers[/font]

[paulkienitz]

2. most GMOs *are* poisonous, openly.

Because domething like 90% of GMOs are engineered for the specific purpose of either making them poisonous internally, or making them tolerant of poisons applied externally. There is no dispute that the result is poisonous.

The open question is to what degree the result is poisonous to humans. As with any pesticide, claims that the toxicity is large for pests but zero for humans are noncredible. The toxicity may be much lower for most humans, but it isn't zero.

[diva77]

5. Important point. Don't know how they let GMO issue slip by so easily in article! plus...

Colorectal Cancer Rates Are Rising Sharply Among Young Americans
And doctors don’t know why.
By Anna Almendrala
3/1/17


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/colorectal-cancer-rates-rising-young-adults_us_58b622c9e4b0a8a9b78716a2

snip...Millennials have double the risk of colon cancer and quadruple the risk of rectal cancer compared with baby boomers, raising serious questions about whether differences in lifestyle or some yet unidentified factor could explain what researchers called a “curious” increase....snip

---------------------

just a guess - millenials have been fed GMO foods since infancy when lower doses are more toxic, versus baby boomers who were all ready adults before most GMO foods were on the market

[Archae]

6. A lot of plants are poisonous to certain degrees, to animals.

Chocolate is poisonous to dogs.

Easter Lilies are poisonous to cats.

And so on...

GMO's are not poisonous to humans, contrary what the hysterics like "March Against Monsanto" say.

[paulkienitz]

7. At best we can say they're mostly not poisonous.

Pesticides in general, regardless of the source, are not health food. I have no problem eating GMOs whose modifications are nonpesticidal.

[Bill USA]

16. here is an excerpt of concerns about Genetically Engineered crops

Note that opposition to GMos is based on the contention that not enough research has been done to answer crucial questions of GMO safety to the environment - long term and human health - long term. There is also concerns about committing to a new technology based solely on the word of the suppliers of this technology - without enough research into GMO's effects on the environment (including humans) by non-affilitated researchers.

GMO's harbor substances which have never been seen in nature before.

"This relatively new science allows DNA (genetic material) from one species to be transferred into another species, creating transgenic organisms with combinations of genes from plants, animals, bacteria, and even viral gene pools. Mixing genes from different species that have never shared genes in the past makes GMOs and GE crops unique. It is impossible to create such organisms through traditional crossbreeding methods."

European countries are proceeding with much more caution than we are here in the U.S. Dismissing those concerned that the long-term effects of GMOs have not been adequately studied, as "hysterics" is simply proclaiming yourself to be uninformed and ignorant.


Concerns about GMOs

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES (see article)

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS(see article)

POSSIBLE HEALTH CONCERNS

• Organ failure (rats): A study analyzing the effects of GE foods on mammalian health linked three GE corn varieties to organ failure in rats. The researchers led by Gilles-Eric Séralini of CRIIGEN and the University of Caen in France found new side effects linked with GE corn consumption that were sex- and often dose-dependent. These effects mostly occurred with the kidney and liver, while other effects were noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. The researchers concluded that these data highlight signs of hepato-renal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GE corn.

• Glyphosate and birth defects: Research published Aug. 9, 2010 , confirms that glyphosate-based herbicides cause malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses significantly lower than those used in agricultural spraying and well below maximum residue levels in products currently approved in the European Union. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Publishing the research were researchers led by Professor Andrés Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and member of Argentina’s National Council of Scientific and Technical Research. “The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” Carrasco reported at a press conference during the 6th European Conference of GMO Free Regions. He explained that most of the safety data on glyphosate herbicides and GE soy were provided by industry and are not independent. Carrasco began researching the embryonic effects of glyphosate after seeing reports of high rates of birth defects in rural areas of Argentina where GE Roundup Ready soybeans are grown in large monocultures sprayed regularly from airplanes.

• Impacts on animal health. Researchers from Greece reported that animal toxicology studies of GE foods indicate they can have toxic hepatic, pancreatic, renal and reproductive effects. Also, the use of recombinant growth hormones or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.

• Serious human health risks. [font size="+1"]The American Academy of Environmental Medicine[/font], in a 2009 Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper , called for a moratorium on GE foods and warned that “GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.” This position paper cites animal studies that indicate such health risks associated with GM food consumption as infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. “Because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for genetically modified foods to cause adverse health effects in humans,” the report notes, listing citations for numerous peer-reviewed studies as backup.

• Bt toxin in human blood. Most recently, a study accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology conducted by scientists at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada reports the presence of Bt toxin, widely used in GE crops, in human blood. Although scientists and multinational corporations promoting GE crops have maintained that Bt toxin poses no danger to human health as the protein, Cry1Ab, breaks down in the human gut, the findings from this study show this does not happen. Instead, it was found circulating in the blood of pregnant and non-pregnant women. The study also detected the toxin in fetal blood. Cry1Ab toxin was detected in 93 percent and 80 percent of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively, and in 69 percent of tested blood samples from non-pregnant women.

[Bill USA]

10. there is also the question, which Monsanto says is all cleared up, as to whether these substances

never seen in nature before - could have genetic effects. What I'd like to know is, assuming they've researched this, how many generations (of fruit flies or whatever) have they studied? ALSO, how many generations IS ENOUGH --- DO THEY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE? -- I can tell you -- NO, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW MANY GENERATIONS IS ENOUGH TO KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THE EFFECT MIGHT BE.

Also, in Europe GMO's are under far more restrictions than in the U.S.

My point is that saying there is no rational basis for not being fully convinced GMO's are safe is an irrational argument. THEre is a basis for questioning whether GMO's have been fully studied or not.

[Orrex]

12. .