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!

Comments

[WorkingClass]

I don't associate with Republicans any more than absolutely necessary and I certainly will not discuss politics with them. People are much to tolerant of Republicans. They should be isolated and ostracized. I don't care how they got that way. I regard them all as criminals.

[queotic]

That's a bit extreme, isn't it? How can you call almost half of the country "criminal" simply because they don't believe as you do? Democrats are supposed to be the diverse, tolerant party, yet you sound prejudice. Keep in mind that over 80% of the country doesn't like Bush and that includes many Republicans.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Indeed this is exactly the approach I have taken with christian fundamentalists, I have found actually arguing them out of anything, no matter how obviously wrong just too difficult.
Instead I generally aim at using the argument as a mechanism for convincing fence sitters. Fundies are even more rigid than mearly political ideological types.

[deliriousgod]

my favorite conservative fundamentalist quote is from Rexella Van Impe: "You can't trust Science because scientists admit they are wrong." That, for me, is the intellectual litmus test. If you understand what is wrong with that statement, no explanation is necessary. If you don't know what is wrong with that statement; none is possible.

[rwt1138]

Interesting quote, hadn't heard that one before. I take an opposite view; I don't trust religious leaders because they never admit they are wrong. To err is innately human. To refuse to admit error is to reveal a fundamentally dishonest nature.

[ckm]

"I don't trust religious leaders because they never admit they are wrong."
See http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/comments/pastor_resigns_i_was_wrong/

Now that your original hypothesis of religious leaders has been disproved, your second, "To err is innately human", while not proven, has another antidote in its support.

But in regards to the topic at hand, while the study referenced says that liberals may not hold their beliefs as rigidly as conservatives, they still hold basic views about the world that they will not allow to be challenged, regardless of the evidence presented to them.

[zann]

You can't blame people for being human. In some people, loyalty to their world is stronger than reason. We just have to stop electing people who think freedom of speech and the press includes the freedom to lie.

[deliriousgod]

I don't know if it is human. Perhaps mammalian, but possibly reptilian. the human brain is actually three brains: a reptilian brain which can function without the mammalian brain which grows over it, and then the 'human' brain is the smallest and newest part, and i think not activated fully in all individuals. Turning on that function somehow is the unsolved riddle. Perhaps it is as simple as 'humility'; this is a discernibly absent characteristic of very certain and immoveable personalities. Someone who thinks they know everything already can never learn anything.

[Mogamboguru]

You are, in fact, on the traces of something important.

Because, the rightwing-media and politichians, as wel las the big corporations, are going at great lenghts to make you just switch OFF your human brain - because by appealing to your reptilian and mammal brains, they can make people do WHATEVER THEY LIKE!

Reptilian and mammal brains simply work after the "Pavlov's Dog"-principle: Promise-expectation reward.

There's not only no need for appelling to the human brain for the Republicans and the Republican­-affiliate­d corporations, to appeal to your human brain - it would be COUNTEREFFECTIVE for them, to appeal to your human brain. THAT'S the reason for the - in our eyes - wanky campaigning of McC.ain and Pal.in: They are not campaigning for the votes of HUMANS, but for the votes of REPTILES AN MAMMALS!!!

And reptiles and mammals simply CANNOT be reached by intelligent campaigning - because this will always only appeal to human beings!!!

QED!

[MOregon]

This has also been more prevalent as there has been a decline in funding for the arts. Literature, poetry, music, dance, art, gardening, religious spirituality are not products so much of the binary mind but by the perception of metaphor, nuance and mystery. And real change is made using these faculties as well as facts.

This is where Obama shines, but it is so hard to describe to those who don't just "get it". But what I do find interesting is that if we are friendly, passionate and respectful enough, it does pique their curiosity, and we will win the healthy way -- through attraction rather than hitting people over the heads with facts.

[Jim--C]

uhhh remember you're talking about tro//s .

[MOregon]

I think that is why Jesus spoke in parables. If he were just to say what he wanted to say, it would initially be argued back and forth ad nauseum. But by telling a thematic story where the outcome was a kind of upside down logic, it was first perceived by the heart before the intellect. Maybe that is the key here. I don't have any ad ideas on this theme though as it would take more thought to get the upside down logic/truth part.

Something along this vein could be taken right from the Democratic convention. A lot of people who watched CNN (I saw it on C-Span) missed the everyday folks who spoke in front of the crowd and explained why they were voting for Obama. Wasn't Barney Smith cute? He told a story in his slow midwestern drawl, then said he was voting for Barack Obama because he needed a government that "cared more about Barney Smith than Smith Barney". What a hoot as the crowd chanted "Barney, Barney!" He really left an indelible mark. It would make a great ad and they could add something about Obama's "upside down tax plan" as opposed to Bush/McCain. Or Obama could take advantage of the current economic crisis and say something like, if we had paid more attention to Barney Smith, rather than deregulating Smith Barney, we would be in better shape....

[jadeba]

Oh, this goes along with the study that showed Bush supporters had no idea about what Bush believed or had done. One example, they thought he supported Kyoto, when we know he did not. They were terribly misinformed, whereas Kerry supporters knew where the candidates stood on the issues. Posts here confirm all of this - repubs tend to attack irrationally, rarely, if ever, are their posts based on issues or policy. I don't think that issues much matter to them. I don't know if they're stupid, I think they're just very closed minded.

[research]

conservatives are tribal.

They may not believe their own leader, but if you question their people, they rally their minds to protect them.

We must vote the GOP out of office.

Carry forms with you to register people during your day. You might want to ask if they are for Obama first.

[alguien]

i think they skirt the fine line between being a tribe and a pack.

[jadeba]

This is so true. I've found that they won't even discuss issues - it's more than they can process. Could it be a brain virus? Are they aliens? Definitely some kind of personality disorder. If you say anything they don't want to hear, they check out.

[NoOneSpecial]

There is one thing you can try.

Trying agreeing with them first, then lay out the logical consequences of their position in an intelligent but humorous way that shows how absurd, racist, or whatever their positions are.

It doesn't necessarily change their minds, but it does confuse the hell out of them. Mainly because if they try to argue against you at that point, they end up arguing against themselves and/or setting up even more great absurdities.

By avoiding confronting them directly with facts, you are often far more successful at getting around this "truth barrier" they instinctively throw up.

[noralou]

Those are some truly scary statistics! Sometimes I think our democracy is doomed, this didn't help!

[Maury66]

The simplest explanation, not complete or perfect, but a good basic place to start.....­.love....t­hey love their philosophy, because it satisfies some craving, some need they have....and they won't see her flaws, her unfaithfulness, or her bad temper, because love is blind, and springs eternal, and conquers all......I hope this helps.

[deliriousgod]

the problem is they think they are christians but they are actually worshipping some old stone god with a blackened altar

[kellygrrrl]

Maybe the true problem is this:

Dems listen to all sides
Dems admit when they are wrong
Dems have no problem disagreeing with each other

hmmmmm

[robinogle]

Maybe the true problem is this:

Dems listen to all sides
Dems admit when they are wrong
Dems have no problem disagreeing with each other

i disagree, kelly :) that doesn't sound problematic LOLOL maybe the true problem is the rightwing-nuts cold and distant relationship with the truth.

[tomjones44]

scary.

[MrKnuckles]

There are people who find personal freedom and individual choice so burdensome that they'll willingly abdicate their personal self to almost any cause, and often fanatically, to escape the feelings of isolation and lack of certainty often inherent in having to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves.
They actually find the sometimes isolating experience of personal freedom to be deeply disturbing, and some who feel this way will do almost anything to completely surrender themselves to something, "bigger than themselves". Often the insistence that obvious lies are the truth is one of the first elements of personal integrity to be surrendered in their quest to, "be as one" with their chosen group or cause.
But surely, (despite what one might surmise from this particular Yale study), this tendency isn't solely the sin of Republicans, but then again, it surely doesn't seem to help much either.

[MajorKong]

What did you expect. By their own admission they "create their own reality".