There's just no point arguing with conservatives

[foolishwisdom]

A study from the Washington Post proves that arguing with conservatives is, quite literally, pointless. As it turns out, the more you challenge the conservatives' beliefs, the more they'll cling to their beliefs.

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

So if you're arguing with a conservative with the goal of convincing him/her, do not bother. Not only are you never going to win, you may also make the conservative you're talking to cling to their beliefs even stronger.

[itachirumon]

So what you're saying is... instead of arguing with them... we just need to beat them with large sticks until their brains detach from their bodies, leaving them human shells so they can't vote?

I'm all for that but... can I use my pretty Katana instead of a big stick? It hasn't ever tasted blood.

[DeadpanDoubter]

...I really don't know what to think. On the one hand, yeah, it makes sense; 'conservatives' cling to their ideas of tradition, right vs. wrong, etc. whereas liberals tend to...well, not do that. On the other hand, it kinda comes off as liberals smugly patting themselves on the back.

In any case, it's usually best to let people, whether liberal or conservative, learn from their own fuck-ups, if that's at all possible...like my formerly insanely conservative mom becoming more open-minded about gay rights, non-Christians, etc. because she's being exposed to how she's screwed her own shit up by being a close-minded bigot.

Maybe that's just the case for stubborn people in general, though.

[Dan]

Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

Here's the flaw in their study: they should have taken a false claim (and its refutation) made by a liberal politician. Liberals would tend to already disbelieve Bush's claims.

[verasthebrujah]

Jun 20, 2011 13:52:04 GMT -5 Dan said:

Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

Here's the flaw in their study: they should have taken a false claim (and its refutation) made by a liberal politician. Liberals would tend to already disbelieve Bush's claims.

As this research hasn't been published yet, I haven't had the opportunity to read it. However, one of my professors has described it to me. If I understood him correctly, the misinformation provided to liberals regarding Bush's stance on stem-cell research is information that they would be inclined to believe anyway, just as conservatives were inclined to accept misinformation about WMDs in Iraq.

The original Washington Post article, it goes into more detail about the effects of misinformation on liberals.

In experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University, volunteers were given various items of political misinformation from real life. One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation, and this is exactly what Bullock found. Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to disapprove of Roberts after hearing the allegation.

Bullock then showed volunteers a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters. He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad. Although 56 percent of Democrats had originally disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation, 80 percent of Democrats disapproved of the Supreme Court nominee afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent.

Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place.

Bullock found a similar effect when it came to misinformation about abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Volunteers were shown a Newsweek report that suggested a Koran had been flushed down a toilet, followed by a retraction by the magazine. Where 56 percent of Democrats had disapproved of detainee treatment before they were misinformed about the Koran incident, 78 percent disapproved afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval dropped back only to 68 percent -- showing that misinformation continued to affect the attitudes of Democrats even after they knew the information was false.

It would seem that while misinformation does affect Democrats (not necessarily liberals), even after it has been cleared up, the effect is much stronger in Republicans.

[tolpuddlemartyr]

Part of the reason people argue with conservatives is not to convince the conservative knucklehead who'll swear black and blue that the Carbon Dioxide is not polluting, that Global Warming is not happening or that the Earth is six thousand years old but the undecided voter who's watching the show from the sidelines.

[Dragon Zachski]

Jun 20, 2011 16:46:09 GMT -5 tolpuddlemartyr said:

Part of the reason people argue with conservatives is not to convince the conservative knucklehead who'll swear black and blue that the Carbon Dioxide is not polluting, that Global Warming is not happening or that the Earth is six thousand years old but the undecided voter who's watching the show from the sidelines.

This.