During the campaign and into his presidency Donald Trump repeatedly exaggerated and distorted crime statistics. Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed, he asserted in his dark speech at the Republican National Convention in July 2016. But the data here is unambiguous: FBI statistics show crime has been going down for decades.

CNNs Jake Tapper confronted Trumps then-campaign manager, Paul Manafort, right before the speech. How can the Republicans make the argument that somehow its more dangerous today, when the facts dont back that up? Tapper asked.

People dont feel safe in their neighborhoods, Manafort responded, and then dismissed the FBI as a credible source of data.

This type of exchange where a journalist fact-checks a powerful figure is an essential task of the news media. And for a long time, political scientists and psychologists have wondered: Do these fact checks matter in the minds of viewers, particularly those whose candidate is distorting the truth? Simple question. Not-so-simple answer.

In the past, the research has found that no only do facts fail to sway minds, but they can sometimes produce whats known as a backfire effect, leaving people even more stubborn and sure of their preexisting belief.

But theres new evidence on this question thats a bit more hopeful. It finds backfiring is rarer than originally thought and that fact-checks can make an impression on even the most ardent of Trump supporters.

But theres still a big problem: Trump supporters know their candidate lies, but that doesnt change how they feel about him. Which prompts a scary thought: Is this just a Trump phenomenon? Or can any charismatic politician get away with being called out on lies?

In 2010, political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler published one of the most talked about (and most pessimistic) findings in all of political psychology.

The study, conducted in the fall of 2005, split 130 participants into groups who read different versions of a news article about President George W. Bush defending his rationale for engaging in the Iraq War. One version merely summarized Bushs rationale There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. Another version of the article offered a correction that, no, there was not any evidence Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

The results were stunning: Staunch conservatives who saw the correction became more likely to believe Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. (In another experiment, the study found a backfire on a question about tax cuts. On other questions, like on stem cell research, there was no backfire.)

Backfire is a pretty radical claim if you think about it, Ethan Porter, a political scientist at George Washington University, says. Not only do attempts to correct information not sink in, but they can actually make conflicts even more intractable. It means earnest attempts to educate the public may actually making things worse. So in 2015, Porter and a colleague, Thomas Wood at the Ohio State University, set out to try to replicate the effect for a paper (which is currently undergoing peer review for publishing in the journal Political Behavior).

And among 8,100 participants and on the sort of political questions that tend to bring out hardline opinions Porter and Wood hardly found any evidence of backfire. (The one exception, interestingly, was the question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But even on that, the backfire effect went away when they tweaked the wording of the question.)

Theres no evidence that backfire describes a common reflex of Americans when it comes to facts, Porter assures me. (Nyhan, for his part, never asserted that backfire was ubiquitous, just that it was a possible and particularly consequential result of fact-checking.)

Stories of failed replications in social psychology often grow ugly, with accusations of bullying and scientific misconduct flying in both directions. But in this story, researchers decided to team up to test the idea again.

The fact that Nyhan and Reiflers breakthrough study didnt replicate isnt a shocker. This happens all the time in science. One group of researchers publishes a breakthrough finding. Another lab tries to replicate it, and fails.

But instead of feuding, Nyhan, Reifler, Porter, and Wood came together to conduct a new study.

If you believe in social science, this is an ideal way to resolve a dispute, Porter says. If we can devise an experiment together, then the results are going to have something meaningful to say about our differing understandings of the world.

So the four researchers collaborated on two experiments with a wide range of people as subjects, including Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters.

The first experiment drew on Trumps exaggerations of crime statistics.

In the experiment, participants read one of five news articles. One was a control article about bird watching. Another just contained a summary of Trumps message without a correction. The third was an article that included a correction. The fourth included a correction, but then also a line of pushback from onetime Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who said the FBIs statistics were not to be trusted. The fifth included a line where Manafort really laid into the FBI, saying, "The FBI is certainly suspect these days after what they just did with Hillary Clinton.

The thinking here: If anyone should be able to incite a backfire effect among Trump supporters, its Trumps campaign director. Manafort gives Trump supporters cover. They can reject the correction and cite one of the most influential figures in the campaign. And if theres a time backfire ought to occur, its during a presidential campaign, when our political identities are fully activated.

But it didnt happen. On average, all the studys participants were more likely to accept the correction when they read it. Trump supporters were more hesitant to accept it than Clinton supporters. But thats not backfire; thats reluctance. Manaforts assertion that the FBI statistics were not to be trusted didnt make much of a difference either.

Everyones beliefs about changing crime over the last 10 years became more accurate in the face of a correction, Nyhan says.

The research group then conducted a second experiment during the presidential debates. This one was conducted in near-real time: On the night of the first presidential debate, the group ran an online study with 1,500-plus participants.

The study focused on one Trump claim in particular. Trump said thousands of jobs [are] leaving Michigan, Ohio ... theyre just gone.

This, again, isnt true. The Bureau of Labor Statistics actually finds both states created 70,000 new jobs in the previous year. Half of the participants saw the correction; the other half did not.

Again, the researchers found no evidence of backfire. Its worth underscoring: This was on the night of the first presidential debate. Its the Super Bowl of presidential politics. If corrections arent going to backfire during a debate, when will they?

In both experiments, the researchers couldnt find instance of backfire. Instead, they found that corrections did what they were intended to do: nudge people toward the truth. Trump supporters were more resistant to the nudge, but they were nudged all the same.

But heres the kicker: The corrections didnt change their feelings about Trump (when participants in the corrections conditions were compared with controls).

People were willing to say Trump was wrong, but it didnt have much of an effect on what they felt about him, Nyhan says.

So facts make an impression. They just dont matter for our decision-making, which is a conclusion thats abundant in psychology science.

(And if youre thinking, How could one short experimental manipulation really change how much participants like Trump? know that other research shows its possible. Notably, studies conducted during the election found that just reminding white voters they may be a racial minority one day increased support for Trump.)

The big question is: To what extent do those results generalize beyond Trump himself? says Nyhan. Many of his supporters may have to come to terms with his records of misstatements by the time this study was conducted.

Nyhan is reluctant to place the blame on Trump supporters themselves its just human nature to stand by our political partys candidates. But he says theres something wrong with our institutions, norms, and party leaders who enable the rise of candidates who constantly lie.

At least its nice to know that facts do make an impression, right? On the other hand, we tend to avoid confronting facts that run hostile to our political allegiances. Getting partisans to confront facts might be easy in the context of an online experiment. Its much harder to do in the real world.

These results have not yet been peer-reviewed or published in an academic journal so treat them as preliminary. But I did run them by several political science and psychology researchers for a sniff test.

These two experiments are well done, and the data analysis appears to straightforward and correct: we observe clear movement on subjects beliefs as a result of factual corrections, Alex Coppock, who researches political decision-making at Yale, writes in an email. This piece is nice because it adds to the (small but growing) consensus that backfire effects, if they exist at all, are rare.

Others commended the researchers for collaborating in the face of conflicting results. I think this is exactly how the scientific process should operate as we try to explain human behavior, Asheley Landrum, who researches politically motivated reasoning at Texas Tech, writes. Social scientists, arguably, should be even more aware of motivated reasoning, recognizing that it also occurs in scientists.

Nyhans research is about seeing if attitude change is possible. And this research often comes to frustrating ends. In one study, he and Reifler tested out four different interventions to try to nudge vaccine skeptics away from their beliefs. None made a difference. Though it is illusive, at the least, he found a little attitude change within himself.

Jason [Reifler] and I have definitely updated our beliefs about the prevalence of the backfire effect, Nyhan says. He wont say its been debunked. But hes moving in that direction.

Link:
Trump supporters know Trump lies. They just don't care. - Vox

Many of the stories are about power, and the violence, both implicit and explicit, imbued in its existence. The entirety of Ants reads When I crushed a large number of ants by accident with my feet, I realized that weakness is punishment without wrongdoing. It has that special quality that give allegories their power: It seems obvious, but only after you finish it. Many of the stories use animals or household objects as a window into the human. Later, in Greatest Creatures, a mother ant and a son ant are discussing which species is better, humans or ants. The story ends when the mother points out that, though humans have many geniuses among them, theyve been unable to prevent the catastrophic from occurring, and the fact that ants have prevented it makes them better. Like Alomars best work, it makes a point that is equal parts silly and compelling: By most metrics, humans seem a great deal more important than ants, but it also seems obvious that whichever species finds a way to avoid destroying itself is the better one.

In Who Deserves a Muzzle? a dog watches his owners shout at one another and considers whether it makes sense that he be required to wear a muzzle and collar when his behavior is so much better than theirs. Later, in They Dont Know How to Bark, two dogs reflect with sympathy and pity on humans poor sense of smell and ugly language. Again, Alomar is being fundamentally ridiculous while making an odd sort of sense: Hes writing against the arrogance that can come from a limited perspective. But these are not childrens fables: Alomar often centers greed, arrogance, cruelty, and above all, folly. When inanimate objects attempt to replicate what they see from humans as a means of self-determination, it has disastrous consequences, like in the collections title story:

Some of the teeth of the comb were envious of human class differences. They strived to increase their height, and, when they succeeded, began to look with disdain on their colleagues below. After a little while, the combs owner felt a desire to comb his hair. But when he found it in this state, he threw it in the garbage.

In Alomars world, human behavior seems destructive, even to people, as long as theyre not the ones theyre observing. The change in perspective is what reveals human beings as ridiculous: If it is ridiculous for a comb to be vain, how ridiculous is it for a person?

Throughout the stories, humanity is often portrayed as the enemy of everything within its striking distance. But the harm is often inflicted in the background, like its just something that happens. When Alomar turns his attention to the elements that make that harm possible, things begin to feel much less silly. In A Taste, the devil tastes a drop of human hatred, is poisoned, and dies. Alomar hits this note again in Human Malice, where an argument between a nuclear bomb and a grenade over which is more evil is ended when human malice intervenes and points out that it created them both. Alomar posits hatred and malice as elements of human nature, not its sum total, but in emphasizing their destructive powers, he recognizes their control over the way huge swaths of the world lives. The effect is that Alomars stories give brief flashes of insight into the magnitude of human evil, like staring directly into the sun for a moment before having to look away.

Its not that Alomar is cynical; hes exhausted. Journey of Life, the first story in The Teeth of the Comb, follows a nameless, sexless character as they pour over maps and walk through crowds shouting for a beloved they never find. The true object of the search is only revealed in the last line: I stood on my shaking legs and continued my journey, searching for humanity until the last moment. The character maintains hope because they are willing to continue searching, but the reader can see the truth: theyll be looking forever. Importantly, Alomar does not denigrate his character for their wrongheadedness; instead, he casts the quest as noble, in spite of its futility.

Read the rest here:
How a Syrian Writer Takes on War - New Republic

In a world wherepost-truth was 2016s word of the year, many people are starting to doubt the efficacy of facts. Can science make sense of anti-science and post-truthism? More generally, how can we understand what drives peoples beliefs, decisions, and behaviors?

Scientists have developed many theories to describehow people process and think about information. Unfortunately, theres an increasing tendency to see people as creatures whose reasoning mechanisms are largely dependent on a narrow set of processes. For example, one popular theory suggests that if we just communicate more accurate information to people, their behavior will change accordingly. Another suggests that people will reject evidence if it threatens their deeply held cultural worldviews and associated feelings.

Its more important than ever that our approach to communication is evidence-based and built on a strong, theoretical foundation. Many of these models contribute valuable insights and can help us design better communication, but each on its own is incomplete. And science communicators have a tendency to oversimplify, focusing on a single model and disregarding other theories.

We suggest that this is a dangerous practice and less effective thana more nuanced and holistic view. The apparent choice between fact and feeling, or between cognition and culture, is a false dilemma. In reality, both are related and address different pieces of the decision-making puzzle.

One well-known theory about how people absorb new facts is the information deficit model. The main idea here is straightforward: If you throw more facts at people, theyll eventually come around on an issue.

Most behavioral science scholars agree that this model of human thinking and behavioris clearly incomplete people rely on a range of other cues besides facts in guiding their attitudes and behavior. For example, sometimes we simply act based on how we feel about an issue. Unfortunately, the facts dont always convince.

But the term information deficit is problematic, too. People tend to have limited information in most areas of life. For example, we often dont know the thoughts and feelings of other people we trust and value. Similarly, we might have limited knowledge about appropriate cultural norms when traveling to a new country, and so on. Information deficit isnt a very meaningful term to use to theorize about human thinking.

Another theory about human thinking is called cultural cognition. In brief, it suggests that our cultural values and worldviews shapehow we think about science and society.

Its easy to be duped into thinking of the human brain as a sponge that soaks up only the information it wants to believe. For example, the theory suggests that peoples position on divisive issues such as climate change is not informed by scientific evidence, but rather by the strong commitment people have to their political groups and ideologies. The idea is that to protect our cultural worldviews, we actively reject evidence that threatens them think of someone who fears that government action on climate change undermines the free market.

In short, this narrative sounds appealing on the surface, as humans organize themselves in groups, and much psychological research has shown that we derive part of oursocial identities from the group affiliations we maintain.

Yet, its focus is overly narrow, and theres a logical fallacy in this conception of human thinking. We belong to many groups at any given time and we juggle many different public and private identities. The real question is about nuance; when and under what conditions is someone motivated to reject scientific facts in favor of their cultural worldview?

To throw all our fact-disseminating eggs into one or the other theoretical basket is oversimplistic and deprives us of important insights.

A more nuanced perspective recognizes that facts and information are embedded in social and cultural contexts. For example, peoples perception of expert consensus matters a great deal, especially on contested issues, and is often described as agateway belief that influences a range of other attitudes about an issue. The near-unanimous consensus that vaccines do not cause autism or that climate change is human-caused are all scientific facts. At the same time, consensus information is also inherently social: It describes the extent of agreement within an influential group of experts.

People often want to beaccurate in their views, and, in an uncertain world bounded by limited time and effort, we make strategic bets on what information to take into account. Consensus acts as a natural heuristic, or mental shortcut, for complicated scientific issues.Numerousstudies have found that highlighting scientific agreement on human-caused global warming can help neutralize and reduce conflicting views about climate change.

Similarly, while some studies have found a limited effect of knowledge on judgment, when you dig deeper into the data, a more nuanced and insightful picture emerges. For example, some studies claim that adeficit in scientific knowledge does not explain why people are divided on contested issues such as climate change. But whats being measured in these experiments matters. Indeed, indicators such as how well people understand numbers or their scientific literacy which is what some of these studies actually quantify are categorically different from measuring specific knowledge people have about a topic such as climate change. In fact, a survey across six countries found that when peopleunderstand the causes of climate change, their concern increases accordingly, irrespective of their values. Similarly,otherstudies show that explanations about the mechanisms of climate change can reduce biased evaluations of evidence as well as political polarization.

In short, facts do matter.

Indeed, there is no need to throw outthe baby with the bathwater. Instead, we need to dispel false dichotomies and folk psychology about human thinking that currently dominate the media. Repeating the story that people dont care about facts runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. A holistic view acknowledges that people rely on cognitive shortcuts and emotions, care about social norms and group identities and are sometimes motivated in their reasoning, but it also recognizes the research showing that most people want to fundamentally hold accurate perceptions about the world.

This is particularly important as the public is currently hampered by misinformation and fake news. In two separatestudies, we each found that misinformation about climate change has a disproportionate influence on public attitudes and opinion. However, we also found that inoculating people against the false arguments neutralized misinformations influence, across the political spectrum. In essence, teaching people what false arguments might be deployed helped them overcome their cultural biases. Other work similarlyshows that the politicization of science can be counteracted with inoculation.

People are complex, social, and affected by a diverse range of influences depending on the situation. We want to hold accurate views, but emotion, group identities, and conflicting goals can get in the way. Incorporating these different insights into human thinking enriches our understanding of how people form opinions and make decisions.

Effective science communication requires an inclusive, holistic approach that integrates different social science perspectives. To simplistically focus on a single perspective paints a limited and increasingly inaccurate view of how humans form judgments about social and scientific issues.

Link:
Even in the era of fake news, facts can shape our opinions - Grist

Recently, much hay has been made about a Guest Opinion that claimed people who display a Hate has no home here sign are hypocrites in that such signs are code for I hate Trump.

Although it is usually impossible to judge the intentions of actions, the display of such signs logically demands that the owners claim they hate no one, that they are sending a message to some who, in their opinion, do hate others, and that they are morally superior to such haters.

The problem is that the sentiment Hate has no home here can only be justified religiously under the rubric that humans are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Secularism has as its basis that religious beliefs are merely personal, biased world views. Even if God does exist, he, or at least his revelations to humanity, are irrelevant to the public square.

Secularism appears to be stuck in the Enlightenment, which claimed that morals could be justified by pure, detached reason, as if that overall project has not been discredited by academics for over 100 years.

So, without a religious basis, morality becomes a mere shouting match over who can scream the loudest or act the most indignant. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote all animals ... strive instinctively for an optimum combination of favourable (sic) conditions which allow them to expend all their energy and achieve their maximum feeling of power. Thus, if person A thinks it is to his or her advantage to discriminate against person B, who are you to judge? One could even argue this is perfectly Darwinian. Ironically, the quote comes from Nietzsches book, Beyond Good and Evil.

We have here a clear example of how the pen is mightier than the sword. The ideas that permeate a culture are far more dangerous than even going to war. Barack Obamas dissemination of his functional atheism (as he was labeled by famous atheist Richard Dawkins) has had a far more pernicious effect on our culture than Donald Trumps personal puerile and bellicose behavior ever could. For example, the Family Research Council (admittedly a Christian organization) claims in its report Hostility to Religion: The Growing Threat to Religious Liberty in America, that there has been a 76 percent increase in violations (might we say hate toward?) of legitimate religious freedoms that can be tied directly to Obama administration policies.

Additionally, the hatred of the political left toward the political right is on display daily. The lack of condemnation over Kathy Griffins bloodied Trump head has been deafening. The shutdown at universities of speakers not following politically correct orthodoxy only makes our divisions worse. (So much for diversity and dialogue.)

Furthermore, what greater hate can there be toward a fellow human being than to support his or her execution before he or she is even born?

And, of course, people who have honest doubts about climate change are not met with logical counterargument but simply insulted. Take Trumps pullout from the Paris agreement. As columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the agreement was completely non-binding, non-enforceable and allowed China and India to continue to put our planet in jeopardy for another 13 years. Predictably, there was a cacophony of catcalls skewering Trump for his alleged scientific naivet.

However, science does not work as straightforwardly as we are taught in school. Consider Thomas S. Kuhns 1962 book, The Structures of Scientific Revolutions. Parade magazines capsule review calls it a book of science as explained by a physicist and philosopher who suggested that understanding is not merely a matter of gathering the facts. The book demonstrates how scientific advancements actually happen and undercuts the justification for any arrogance on the part of those who respond with mere disdain to those, for example, who may have their doubts about climate change or its causes.

Recently, this paper editorialized and lamented that the courtroom appears to be the last bastion of decorum in a society where most people seem to think the rules apply to everybody but them. But given that progressives have spent the last 50 years undermining traditional sexual mores while naively thinking their rejection of some moral standards would not spread like a cancer to the remainder of human behavior, how could we not but have arrived at this point?

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Charles D. Dern, Ph.D., Plumstead, is an adjunct teacher of philosophy and theology.

View original post here:
As ye sow, so shall ye reap - The Intelligencer