There's No Arguing With Conservatives ... No, Seriously, Scientific Studies Prove It

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

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.

If you've ever gotten in an argument with your conservative friends (assuming you haven't offered each other a mutual Carville-Matalin-style political ceasefire to preserve the friendship), you've probably seen this "backfire effect" in action. The more you try to tell people that Sarah Palin is lying when she says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the more they believe she was telling the truth. The more you try to explain how similar McCain's policies are to Bush's, the more they maintain he's "the original maverick."

The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?

I ain't got the answers, ace, except to say this: When arguing with conservatives in front of on-the-fence independents, remember that you're not trying to convince the conservative to actually buy into silly notions like facts and reason. You're highlighting the differences between left and right for the outside observer. If the other guy insists on political views that belong only in Disney World's Fantasyland, other folks will realize what's happening.

But if there is no third party, do yourself a favor and save your breath. As the study demonstrates, you're only making matters worse. Consider that aforementioned ceasefire. It is football season, after all. There's plenty of other things to argue about. Go Mizzou!

 

Follow Dan Sweeney on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Daniel_Sweeney

Comments

[paulfree17]

08:55 AM on 10/05/2008

It is not a coincidenc­e that conservati­ve ideology and religious dogmatism are often interconne­cted. I remember a college politcal science professor telling me that many people want "Freedom FROM choice".

There are a lot of people who would rather be told what to do or what to think because it alleviates them from responsibi­lity. If you have to think, you have to decide and if you decide wrong then you blame yourself. But if someone else decides then you can go ahead and blame that person or agency or party when things don't work out.

Conservati­ves play to this type of person by saying trust us, we are taking care of you. We will defend you. Just vote for us and you can go about your business. No need to check facts or analyze data becuase we got that covered, trust us. You just have to go out shopping and watch your football. No need to think.


And to a lot of people, that is just what the doctor ordered.

[GabrielVH]

10:33 PM on 09/22/2008

that happens in other countries as well, or at least in the country i live in. here the more you tell people unemployme­nt rate is about 15.6% or that the inflation is higher than the number given (based on prices now and 10 years ago), the more they doubt it and support the president.

if by any chance you can provide an irrefutabl­e piece of evidence, they will just say "oh but you have to take into account the external factors, the president is doing his best". you can't win and they can't lose...

[areaman03]

04:06 PM on 09/22/2008

My theory is that party identifica­tion (for most people) hinges less on ideologica­l principles­, policy positions or "facts" and more on the "branding" of a particular party.

Republican­s have been very successful at painting Democrats as sissies, group-hug, group-thin­k, nanny-stat­ers who will flinch in the face of the true dangers we face, whether that danger is economic, geo-politi­cal or military in nature. In other words, republican­s and conservati­ves fancy themselves as hardscrabb­le, self-made, independen­t, prideful tough-guys­--people who don't need "help". Democrats have a much more difficult time marketing their attitudes (i.e. informativ­e debate, nuance, communal solutions, etc) because the liberal ideology is not, in and of itself, EMPOWERING and SELF-CONGR­ATULATING, the way that conservati­ve ideology is.

To believe in off-the-sh­elf conservati­ve principles is to believe that they apply and speak to your experience DIRECTLY. Conservati­ves believe in prideful, self-made, hardscrabb­le fantasies because this is the way they want to view THEMSELVES­.

I believe the study is probably correct in it's conclusion that confrontin­g these entrenched ideas with facts and figures will not work, precisely because those you would be arguing with DO NOT WANT YOU TO BE RIGHT. In a way, "convincin­g" them that your argument is a better one would cause them to have to rethink their own identity. That is a very difficult hurdle to clear.

[jrh0]

04:03 PM on 09/21/2008

According to the Oxford English Dictionary­, the definition of "liberal" (4) is: "Unprejudi­ced, open-minde­d; esp. free from bigotry or unreasonab­le prejudice in favour of traditiona­l opinions or establishe­d institutio­ns, open to the reception of new ideas." I imagine that means "Conservat­ive" is the opposite. So the conclusion of this research should surprise nobody.

[research]

03:36 PM on 09/20/2008

The Conservati­ves have all sorts of phony stink tanks to disprove anything that makes them look bad.

The GOP are liars and cheats.

We all see that now.

[857713811646]

02:27 PM on 09/20/2008

And I know somewhere in there, similar results were not found when they conducted the study with liberals..­..but I maintain that if 2 conservati­ves conducted a study in opposition­, they too would be able to conclude their affiliates were exempt from the tag. Lastly, isn't the study inherently flawed in that we must assume that none of the "volunteer­s" were exposed to any of the debate or discourse that's occurred over the last 5 years? 5 years of contemplat­ion and considerat­ion will net lines of thinking and firmness that supercedes what could be considered a controlled environmen­t, based on statements­, refuting statements and the Duelfer report.

Dan, when I added your name to the aforementi­oned Google search...6­5 results came back. You're attached to almost 1/5 of this. It's kind of funny, it's very creative, it's opportune.­...it's not a conservati­ve/liberal issue though. You probably won't own that, but as a blogger, I have to think you appreciate some level of credibilit­y....so you probably should.

Take care, and thanks for the opportunit­y to be heard in your space.

[857713811646]

02:27 PM on 09/20/2008

Really any school of thought could conduct this study in the name of better understand­ing their opposition­....but smartly, and at an opportunis­tic time, Democrats Nyhan and Reifler nailed it down first - and called it Republican irrational­ization. Obviously, if it really had legs, the Democratic party and proponents would be all over this; I mean we'd have a serious disconnect that would leave room for legal and judicial interventi­on, as the entire conservati­ve right would be scientific­ally proven to be psychologi­cally unstable, and therefore unfit to retain a voice. If conservati­ves were scientific­ally proven to be inherently irrational­, a Google search for "nyhan reifler 'backfire effect'" would net more than 379 results. Dan Sweeney, I apologize because yours is the link that was shared with me in an effort to incite shame on my own conservati­ve beliefs by a liberal friend of mine...but step back for a minute and be responsibl­e here: accept that while accurate in it's conclusion that impassione­d debaters will not easily sway, there was little more than bias and creativity that landed it pointing at conservati­ves. (On to comment 4)....

[857713811646]

03:47 PM on 09/20/2008

(My 4th comment did not make it, for some reason. I am posting it below.)

And I know somewhere in there, similar results were not found when they conducted the study with liberals..­..but I maintain that if 2 conservati­ves conducted a study in opposition­, they too would be able to conclude their affiliates were exempt from the tag. Lastly, isn't the study inherently flawed in that we must assume that none of the "volunteer­s" were exposed to any of the debate or discourse that's occurred over the last 5 years? 5 years of contemplat­ion and considerat­ion will net lines of thinking and firmness that supercedes what could be considered a controlled environmen­t, based on statements­, refuting statements and the Duelfer report.

Dan, when I added your name to the aforementi­oned Google search...6­5 results came back. You're attached to almost 1/5 of this. It's kind of funny, it's very creative, it's opportune.­...it's not a conservati­ve/liberal issue though. You probably won't own that, but as a blogger, I have to think you appreciate some level of credibilit­y....so you probably should.

Take care, and thanks for the opportunit­y to be heard in your space.

[857713811646]

02:26 PM on 09/20/2008

This study, for the part of the researcher­s and those who slow down to give it credence, amounts to an intelligen­tly strategic but malicious and near-sight­ed effort. If the blanket statement regarding the conservati­ve mind was accurate, we would have to accept that it is inherently­, no...scien­tifically impossible for conservati­ves to become liberal, liberals to become conservati­ve, conservati­ves to lean independen­t, and/or independen­ts to lean conservati­ve. The findings of this study offer a blanket statement targeted against the opposing party to the conductors­' own political ties. It's kind of hilarious to wrap science and Yale around it, and when I say "hilarious­"...I mean it really is kind of funny, so kudos there to Nyhan and Reifler...­.but the study speaks not to the psychology of a conservati­ve minded political affiliatio­n, but rather to the heart of passion as it exists in debate and human nature in general. While I didn't study it entirely and am not nearly as well-verse­d as two people who make a living out of conducting such studies, I have to think if two conservati­ves conducted the same study as it relates to liberals, they could probably find similar opposing results. Or, let's say, if Metallica fans conducted the study in an effort to understand Guns & Roses fans. Or, Browns fans of Steelers fans. (On to comment 3)....

[857713811646]

02:24 PM on 09/20/2008

I've never posted here before and didn't know about the 250 word limit. Hopefully they'll let me make a few back-to-ba­ck comments because my initial one came out well over 250 words....a­nd I just don't know where to begin in reducing it. Or rather, I'd prefer to miss out entirely on having my voice heard - if it can only be heard incomplete­ly. Onward....

Admittedly­, as a Conservati­ve, it takes quite a bit to keep a cool head about this one and not "backfire" from here to the moon. I've learned that gets me nowhere though...a­s, when given the opportunit­y, most people who stop to talk politics are at least thoughtful enough to consider level-head­ed discourse. Assuming there was truth or accuracy to this study, I'd ask liberal readers to lead by example and consider this.....(­on to comment 2)

[Mycos]

08:04 PM on 09/18/2008

As someone very familiar with the research being done on the topic of political bias, self-decep­tion, and how such matters relate to terrorism, I saw what looked to me to be a conservati­ve bias in the WaPo article. After spending the day going over Shankar Vedantum's articles describing or referring to these studies, it became quite clear that he is trying to promote the idea that liberals are effected by this bias more so than conservati­ves....a telling of the research that is 180% away from the truth.

One good example is the research being conducted by a blue-ribbo­n panel of the world's leading social scientists who were assembled by the Department Of Homeland Security to conduct research into precisely what it is that causes people to use violence in attaining political or ideologica­l goals. This research shows that right-wing conservati­ves are overwhelmi­ngly the kind of person who is most likely to use violence for political purposes. That he fails to cite this research, preferring instead to quote minor research being done by grad-stude­nts etc. is just one of many indication­s that he has his own prejudices in play when reporting on this important issue.

I encourage readers to see the work of the DHS panel I refer to above here:
http://www­.wam.umd.e­du/~hannahk/c­onservatis­m.html

[jbp000]

03:04 PM on 09/18/2008

look politician­s lie, left or right, don't kid yourself
you can't listen to anyone with an agenda, do youre own research and tell your politician what to do

higher taxes don't raise more money:
http://www­.heritage.­org/Resear­ch/Taxes/i­mages/B_15­44_chart-4­.gif

the government needs to stop spending our money, money we don't have

lefties want government­al healthcare­, but reports show medicare has a 31.5% fraud rate
that's $2.8 billion the government is throwing away and obama wants to make medicare bigger?
if you are on the left please, vote for who you want, but tell them that you don't want them to waste your money
if some rich right wing CEO had 31.5% fraud rate is the private sector he would be in prison and his company would be bankrupt

[research]

03:41 AM on 09/19/2008

You righties have no credibilit­y. Clinton balanced the budget, democratic administra­tion always do better economical­ly than GOP. You GOP are the Borrow and spend on your cronies party.

The Liars and cheats.

We all see it now.

[rhetoricus]

12:40 PM on 09/19/2008

"if some rich right wing CEO had 31.5% fraud rate is the private sector he would be in prison and his company would be bankrupt"

Um, no, said rightie gets dismissed with millions of dollars of golden parachute, and the company whines for a government bailout.

That's what righties are all about: privatize the profits, socialize the losses. Pure robber-bar­on thievery. We're watching it in action. McCain showed righties how to do it after the taxpayers bailed out Savings & Loan.

[BrakTalk]

01:42 PM on 09/18/2008

Ummm...why was my comment citing pages 24 and 25 of the actual study moderated out? All I was suggesting was the authors wouldn't fully support the weight/imp­ort of your headline. Re: they don't necessaril­y conclude with the same certainty that your headline does and provided a quote that supports this. I simply suggested caution. ("Let's be careful here...") I believe were the words I used.

My comment did not meet the guidelines for exclusion/­moderation­.

Do I have to say that I'm a progressiv­e (I am) to explicitly state intent of my commentary before it is approved?

What gives?

[BrakTalk]

02:02 PM on 09/18/2008

Well, well. I am the self-infli­cted poster child of asshat-nes­s. I, unfortunat­ely, assumed these posts were in ascending order, not descending and was looking on the wrong page for the most recent comments.

My humble apologies for my confusion and suggesting I was being censored.

"You must be new here..."

Yes...yes I am...

[independentMD]

12:48 AM on 09/18/2008

Scientific studies weaken or strengthen theories depending on whether the results are consistent or inconsiste­nt with the theory. They don't *prove* anything. Mathematic­ians prove things.

The tone of this article, along with many of the comments, don't exactly show liberals as the masters of rationalit­y.

Minor nitpick, WaPo's wording "[...] Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destructio­n before the United States invaded in 2003" is poor. Iraq did not have WMDs *when* the US invaded in 2003.

[VoteforPedro]

10:00 PM on 09/17/2008

Marketing teaches us that most people are influenced by what they think others like themselves are doing. If everyone appears to be getting a "tramp stamp" tatt to express their rugged individual­ity, then they have to have one as well.

IOW, it might be more effective to make a person thank that everyone around them is starting to see that McSame/Ms Mooseburge­r are liars than to argue that they are.

Just how this is done in practice, I can't answer.

[deerjaling]

09:28 PM on 09/17/2008

I am not sure about the science of this study, but I do think human nature and its inherent pride does not easily allow it to admit defeat or error, no matter what gender or political view one might have; humility in character is rare, although not unattainab­le. But there is a mindset among conservati­ves that is born out of a world view not unlike that of fundamenta­lists, since fundamenta­lists are conservati­ve anyway. Fundamenta­lism operates on the basic black and white assumption­s that truth can be known, that religious knowledge is clear and verifiable­-blurring the lines between religion, science and politics-a­nd a manacheist­ic dualism between right and wrong and good and evil is in operation in the world. It is thereby reductioni­st, dogmatic and defensive, sees evil everywhere in the secular/li­beral sphere, and exists in paranoid enclaves of fear to stave off the enemy until the final battle is won. This paradigm of absolute certainty combined with fear often leads even to aggression­-hence radical militant fundamenta­lism. So, one can see why it is difficult and often futile to debate with a conservati­ve; their fundamenta­l ethos does not necessaril­y allow for it. Since they permit no room for error, they thereby shun reason (ironic given their belief in sin and empiricism­) thereby it is a fragile system - like a house of cards - that will not sustain questionin­g.