Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach / WaPo

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933.html?wpisrc=newsletter


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





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.
...What the psychological studies highlight, however, is the potential paradox in trying to fight bad information with good information...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....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.

[presspeal]

1. Does any one have some information...

on the wages and educational background of a few of the major spin doctors? I know it's a side point, but it might prove interesting.

[rodeodance]

2. He is Advising to do what Bush/WH does: They make Assertions/declarations.

[TrogL]

6. What he's advising is...make shit up

Just like they do.

[Olney Blue]

3. Very interesting article.

[annabanana]

4. You can bet that the Rover Boys have committed this little quirk

to memory. Rovistas nationwide have used it as their base of operations for years.

[Zenlitened]

5. This is why it's so important to use the "L" word, and to do so immediately.

Call a lie a lie!

Do it every time a repuke delivers a twisted version of events, a distorted description of policy, a slander or a slimy insinuation: "That's a lie."

"That's a lie. Here's the truth."

Because the "L" word sticks in people's minds, too, you can be sure.

Too often, unfortunately, our political leaders care more about appearing "gentlemanly," they want to "take the high road." The mythical, legendary, path-to-nowhere "high road."

But where is the virtue in failing to confront a lie, particularly one that has the potential to do real harm? Where is the virtue in fearing to lay out facts, forcefully and without apology?

That's no virtue at all -- it's a moral failing of the worst kind.

Democrats, stand up and speak out! Condemn a lie when you encounter it, and speak the truth in plain language! Sometimes the truth hurts, but America's in need of a little tough love right now, a little medicine that may be bitter going down t first though it surely is needed if this nation is going to have a chance at healing.

:dem:

[Igel]

7. That's what the article says doesn't work.

First, avoid presuppositions, when left or right. To deny a presupposition, you must (a) recognize it as something that cannot be denied by denying the utterance it's embedded in. The problem is, to parse the utterance you *must* assume that the presupposition is true; getting the time and making the effort to figure out if the presupposition is true or not takes time that the listener typically doesn't have.

"Do you still beat your wife?" is one such example. "Yes" implies the presupposition "you beat your wife" is true. But "no" also implies the presupposition is true.

Strictly speaking, they have no truth value, they're neither false nor true, they're presupposed. They're unavoidable, we have to be able to make statements that are not assertions in order to produce hypothetical utterances and grammatically we don't care about their truth value, but controversial or questionable presuppositions, if important to an argument, should be made into assertions and dealt with at that level. Therefore, n many arguments I consider them to be manipulative, whether from progressives or conservatives.

So watch for embedded presuppositions.


Second, you have to look out for fallacies. Once you've accepted the truth of something, it gets worked into the rest of the information you have. Getting it excised isn't always easy. You'll almost certainly remember what's in long-term memory, *but* you'll have to convert the newly added negation to long-term memory and get it 'into' the right spot.


Third, refrain from phrasing things as negatives. "I am not a liar" implies something like (not (I am a liar) ). The semantic structure, more or less parallel to what we do with embedded presuppositions, requires assuming the positive form of the utterance. Problem is, over time, as you forget bits of the information, forgetting the 'not' portion is very easy.


I avoid the word 'lie' unless I know that the *assertions* are false. Remember that something can be false and yet not be a lie. The assertion embedded as part of the word's meaning is "intentional", and just as we can overlook parsing "below the surface" and not recognizing when an embedded presupposition is false, we can also have a mental lapse and not notice when a deeply imbedded assertion is false. Hoping that somebody makes that mistake also counts, in my book, as manipulation. And I don't like being manipulated.

[angstlessk]

8. No, what the poster above said is correct...DO NOT ALLOW IT TO BECOME

LEGEND OR MYTH...CALL OUT A LIE..IMMEDIATELY...then it is not allowed to become a legend or myth.

[depakid]

9. Interesting that a perpetuator of myths like the Post

would publish this piece....

[struggle4progress]

10. kick

:kick: