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!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Need to be careful here. The study concludes thusly:
"Currently, all of our backfire results come from conservatives – a finding that may
provide support for the hypothesis that conservatives are especially dogmatic. However, without conducting more studies, it is impossible to determine if the results we observe are systematic or the result of the specific misperceptions tested." pg 24-25
While there appears to be evidence that "suggests" what the HP article is stating in its headline, if the article was NOT attempting to be tongue-in-cheek with it's pronouncement, it would certainly be incorrect to state this is what the study concludes about "conservatives". I'm betting if you ask the authors, they wouldn't commit to such a conclusion.
My reason for commenting? Don't be a victim of misperception yourselves and allow yourself to fall victim to "motivated reasoning" as you dialog with folks that don't lean the way you do. In other words, don't be an ass. ;)
Sadly when confronted with this study, 72% of conservatives believed that it was totally false. Most argued in response that facts have nothing to do with opinions...
First on Alternet and now here are Hufpo are fairly credible attempts to explain so called "conservative" personalities and ways of thinking.
Sadly both these articles seem to completely ignore the most scientic treatment of the problem that exists. John Dean discovered it and used it as a basis for his book "Conservatives Without a Conscience"
http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/B0013LTF2Y
Authors please! Do add your own contributions, but no discussion of this sort can be called scholarly or even well informed unless it solidly integrates findings on the "Rightwing Authoritarian" personality type. Again, mention the best science or you are really marking your article as a shot from the hip.
Regards,
Roy
Excellent book! Dean has made a study of the entire Bush administration and conservative movement, which now scares him.
But there *is* a way to confront these people…
You have to assume that their sources are correct, and follow up with questions about what they have learned. When you do this, you are giving them the responsibility of informing, teaching you. This is a big responsibility, and when they realize that they do not have any good reason to think this way (i.e., they don't have reliable sources), they become less confident in their assumptions.
The trick is that you have to *not* be an a-hole when you do this. You have to act like a little kid who always asks questions. You have to be willing to learn from them. Most people who live in these fantasy worlds live there because they've never been given the big responsibility of informing someone else on political issues.
Rid yourself of anything that could be mistaken as condescension, and ask them questions. They may ridicule you for not knowing this already, but ignore it. Remember that you're not there to teach, you're there to learn, and at some point, they may turn the tables and ask you a question. They may want to become the student, and that's a good sign.
Great comment.
I would also add that if you consider yourself open-minded, that means by definition that you are willing to be wrong in your current views. So, you should really talk to people with an open mind.
Rather than trying to convince them of something, actually try to prove your OWN views wrong. Your audience will follow the logic with you, and can thereby actually reach the same conclusions that you reach, "on their own". And you may occasionally be surprised when you discover that your own views were wrong or incomplete.
I actually created an account just to reply to you because you make an important point.
I've found the same thing to be true -- asking questions is a great way to discuss things with people who are closed-minded and/or irrational. The key is to only ask simple questions without bias and never oppose their point of view because that would result in an argument at which point they'll close their mind and become defensive. It really is like being a kid who always asks questions. Imagine yourself inside their point of view, ask questions about the parts you don't understand, but remain within their point of view.
I'm a die-hard liberal, but this article made me sick.
If you actually read the Washington Post article that he references, you'll see the entire first half is dedicated to the same type of experiment, but with ideologically opposite examples, being used to demonstrate the exact same psychological biases in liberals.
This study is valuable because it sheds some light on the psychological processes that make rational argument difficult for EVERYONE. But to try to paint it as something that affects ONLY conservatives, and leaves liberals unscathed, is false, immature, and counterproductive.
http://higgsblogon.blogspot.com/2008/09/dan-sweeney-should-be-ashamed-of.html
Higgs, I'm afraid you've misread the article. The WaPo article states that there is some tendency in liberals to get their backs up in the face of refutation, but that the percentage still falls. For example, this paragraph:
"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."
So, there is a drop in the percentage of Democratic disapproval after hearing the refutation. But with conservatives, there is actually an increase in the percentage of people buying into lies after they hear the refutation -- indeed the percentages almost doubled. It is not the same thing.
anyway, thanks for the feedback, and I hope that clears things up.
In regards to the abortion example presented in the original article, opposition to Justice Roberts went from 56% (base line) to 80% (false information) to 72% (corrected information). So even though corrected information was presented, _more_ Democrats overall disapproved of Roberts after hearing the false information, which is the same claim you are making against conservatives.
One thing that is lacking from the reporting is the number of people involved in this study. Only percentages are being reported, so we don't know (from only the Washington Post article) if 100 or 1000 people were being observed.
He did not misread the article. The first half demonstrates the same biases in both conservatives and liberals. Then when they discuss the "failing percentages", they offer a case where liberals were given a conservative viewpoint. Apples and oranges.
I'm a leftie, but I laugh my ass off at anyone who tries to argue that political bs like this doesn't exist on their side.
Well, it certainly would be the ultimate irony for me, a liberal, NOT to recant my outrage after being presented with a rebuttal on THIS, of all issues!
I do stand by my assertion that your post was somewhat biased, although not as badly as I originally thought. The way I read the article, there are really TWO unfortunate phenomena being observed: (1) being presented with a rebuttal does not completely erase the damage done by the misinformation, and (2) being presented with a rebuttal enhances the damage done by the misinformation. To focus on (2) regarding conservatives, without mentioning (1) regarding liberals, makes conservatives seem even weaker-minded than the facts would seem to support.
In general, I try to be about fairness first, political points second, so you can see why my original misreading so aroused my ire.
I wonder how much of this might be something similar to the "men don't listen" statement that women often make.
To quote the Wash Post Article Dan referred to in his piece, "Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation."
I saw a program once comparing the differences between men and women. In the program is was explained that from a communication standpoint, women have two verbal centers in their brains, one in each hemisphere where men only have one. As a result, women say about twice as many words throughout their day than men do. Men use up all of their word capacity during their day at work so that by the time they get home, they need to recharge.
Hang with me, here's the similarity to the quote I refer to:
When men and women are arguing, the woman makes her first point and the man immediately begins formulating his rebutal to that point in his mind and doesn't HEAR any point made after that.
It's a physiological difference between men and women's brain structures, which can't be attributed to this Conservative effect since both men and women are Conservatives...I just think it's an interesting similarity...
... and I think I saw the claims you report from that program... refuted :)
I know this feeling all too well. It is also called "Denial" and I wonder if we can come up with a 12-step program for these folks. I usually just smile at them (Conservatives) and say "That's Nice". After all it is THEIR fantasy right?
The biggest thing that blows me away right now is how bad things have gone in our country and they all act as if there is NOTHING wrong, yet they want to steal words like "Change", when we all know that means "Staying The Same".
48 days and counting before I jump up for joy or move to Canada.
So this should be the game plan:
Pick issues with with there is little or no coverage in the conservative media, eg. healthcare, education, costitutional issues etc...
Tell your conservative friends that the Bush administration/ McCain has a standpoint that you want to support, such as early childhood vacination has an impact on the performance of children's education.
Vigorusly argue againt that position
As much as I would love to believe this, it seems that the test wasn't done on a fair basis.
"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."
So, they gave the conservatives a conservative viewpoint, then refuted it, but gave the liberals a conversative viewpoint and refuted it? That makes no sense. How hard could it be for a liberal to disagree with a conversative viewpoint, whether or not it was refuted? In order to be fair, the liberals should have been given a liberal point of view, then had that refuted to see if they had the same reaction as the conversatives.
Sorry, but this "study" seems bias (and this is coming from a "bleeding heart liberal" as my co worker calls me).
That's all they had to go with- refuting virtually every right wing position is easily done;
but how can you stick with facts and not right wing fiction and fantasy and still actually refute any liberal position?
See how it works? Bias is a human condition.
Republicans are the Bully's Party.
Bullies = Cowards.
Cowards use force on those they feel would be easy prey upon, because they KNOW they are frauds and do not want others to notice.
The lower version of man.
I'll bet that applies to religious belief as well.
See Kelley Bell-Wenzlaff's Profile
As a former Democratic candidate living in a Republican district, I am constantly working on this problem. There is a way to shift conservative thinkers on some issues, but it is not a fast food fix.
It takes time.
It requires long term relationship building. People value their personal associations. They want to fit in, and are more than willing to conform to the groups to which they belong. If their issue positions are in conflict with the group, they will make small steady steps to adjust.
So do your part: Invite a conservative to your next social event. Show them a good time. Introduce them to your friends. Make them feel welcome, and allow them some time to become part of the group before attempting a political intervention.
It does work. Really. The key is the message needs to be sincere and come from a friend; someone they trust, and believe is looking out for their own best interests.
What a time to have to consider this - right in the middle of the battle for the White House. Can we wait until after this election? And the next one?...
"We have met the enemy, and he is us!" :-)
no truer words have been spoken. this should be plastered up on all the liberals doors. a manifesto for everyone who wants to inject some logic into the conservatives lives. thank you!
Conservatives know the American people would never support the cuts to protective services (defense, fire, police) and social services (education, social security, medicare) and crumbling infrastructure that would allow them to pay the derisory levels of taxation they'd be willing to pay. Therefore they developed this now discredited economy theory practice under three Republican Presidents that somehow "tax cuts create government revenue". In other words, "something for nothing". The political genius of this is who wouldn't want to believe or try and sell "something for nothing"? That each time it's been done, it is failed spectacularly, each time bigger than before with deficits exploding ever higher.
I also like the title of this post. Part of a long-term political realignment includes demonizing and treating with contempt the adjective "conservative" with the same success the right has degraded the word "liberal". Don't just attack Republicans. Attack "conservatives" and the "conservative movement", because even more than Bush incompetence, it is conservative policies and ideology itself which has failed America and left a trail of destricution at home, abroad and to our constitution.
Thanks, PLD. I actually try to always bring it to conservatism and conservatives, as opposed to Republicanism and Republicans. After all, the former actually describes the ideology, the latter is simply a description of party affiliation. And if the Republicans were the liberal party, then we'd all be Republicans. So it's not about the party -- it's about the political philosophy.
Bogus conservative theories do need to be discredited, but the Republican party of today also needs to be referred to more as reactionary rather than conservative.
I work with guys like that.
Do not feed the trolls.
This explains perpetual racism
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
