Really interesting study on how we support our false beliefs

[StrangeSox]

http://www.physorg.com/news170070531.html

 

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a study published in the most recent issue of the journal Sociological Inquiry, sociologists from four major research institutions focus on one of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election: the strength and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. [...]

 

We do a lot of post hoc rationalization for our actions and beliefs. We want to have a reason for doing an action, even if its completely fabricated.

 

[lostfan]

Cognitive dissonance

[StrangeSox]

I'll see you your cognitive dissonance and raise you a Dunning-Kruger!

 

This isn't exactly the same, though. It seems to go back to our innate pattern-finding; there must be a reason for things being the way they are.

[lostfan]

I think the term for that is "confirmation bias." Which is probably a type of cognitive dissonance actually.

[StrangeSox]

I think its a bit different from that, too. what the study purports to show isn't that people believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11 because of some a priori assumptions or ideas like you'd have with confirmation bias. A bigger form of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" and attributing a self-fabricated cause to an effect because an effect must have a cause.

 

edit: the researchers introduced a new term "inferred justification" for this.

 

edit edit: here's the actual article.

 

http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hof...article_000.pdf

 

"One of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election was the strength

and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to

the terrorist attacks of September 11. Scholars have suggested that this belief was the

result of a campaign of false information and innuendo from the Bush administration.

We call this the information environment explanation. Using a technique of “challenge

interviews” on a sample of voters who reported believing in a link between Saddam and

9/11, we propose instead a social psychological explanation for the belief in this link.

We identify a number of social psychological mechanisms voters use to maintain false

beliefs in the face of disconfirming information, and we show that for a subset of voters

the main reason to believe in the link was that it made sense of the administration’s decision

to go to war against Iraq. We call this inferred justification for these voters, the fact of the

war led to a search for a justification for it, which led them to infer the existence of ties

between Iraq and 9/11."

Edited August 25, 2009 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

I still cannot believe that a lot of people believe this, especially when it was pretty crystal clear BY THE ADMINISTRATION ITSELF that this was not true. Even the favorite Darth Vader target Cheney has said over and over that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

[StrangeSox]

I still cannot believe that a lot of people believe this, especially when it was pretty crystal clear BY THE ADMINISTRATION ITSELF that this was not true. Even the favorite Darth Vader target Cheney has said over and over that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

 

The data for the study are from 2003/ 2004. They weren't actively denying links then.

 

edit: they were, see below.

Edited August 25, 2009 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

The data for the study are from 2003/ 2004. They weren't actively denying links then.

Actually, they were. The ONLY thing that was out there was Atta meeting someone in Baghdad, but that was it. And even that was pretty clear that 9/11 attacks and Iraq were not linked (that is to say, Iraq/Saddam perpetrated 9/11).

[lostfan]

The year 2002 is a good case study in "How Not to Use Intelligence," and the resulting decisions from it also happened to be some of the worst strategic plans I've ever heard of. It was like the whole thing was discussed in 5 minutes.

[StrangeSox]

Actually, they were. The ONLY thing that was out there was Atta meeting someone in Baghdad, but that was it. And even that was pretty clear that 9/11 attacks and Iraq were not linked (that is to say, Iraq/Saddam perpetrated 9/11).

 

No, they weren't. They weren't explicitly claiming it, but it was implied and wasn't denied until after that time period.

 

The rest of your post is absolutely true and that was the point of the study. There weren't any links but people made them up in their minds with a little help from a useless MSM and conservative pundits.

 

edit: "they" refers to the Bush administration, not the intelligence community.

Edited August 25, 2009 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

No, they weren't. They weren't explicitly claiming it, but it was implied and wasn't denied until after that time period.

 

The rest of your post is absolutely true and that was the point of the study. There weren't any links but people made them up in their minds with a little help from a useless MSM and conservative pundits.

 

edit: "they" refers to the Bush administration, not the intelligence community.

During the election cycle, I'm almost certain that Bush himself was VERY clear in saying "Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11". And yes, I'm quoting that.

 

[lostfan]

I don't know that they ever actually came out and said it. There was a LOT of innuendo though.

[Balta1701]

I don't know that they ever actually came out and said it. There was a LOT of innuendo though.

It really was an impressive game. They went out and made very complicated, nuanced statements about how, to paraphrase "After 9/11 we can not allow men like Saddam Hussein to acquire the world's most dangerous weapons" or "Saddam Hussein supports terrorists and we can't allow that after 9/11" to subtly link Saddam and 9/11 for anyone who wasn't 100% paying attention to the exact words they were saying. Then whenever they'd be questioned about why 70% of the country thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11, they'd shrug their hands and then go and talk about how Saddam was an evil man.

 

If the President were 1/4 as good at manipulating language as that game, we'd have a health care plan and a carbon trading plan and an immigration bill already passed.

[StrangeSox]

^I believe that's covered in the studies referenced in the paper.

 

Also, along this line, they attempt to examine this issue:

 

"How can we distinguish empirically between the informational explanation [what information is available]

and the social psychological explanation ["inferred justification"]? If the information environment explanation

is accurate and the belief is explained by incorrect information given or

suggested by the administration, then we would expect correct information

given by the administration to reduce rates of belief in the link. However, if the

belief is maintained through social psychological processes, then we would

expect little change in the face of correct information given by the administration.

To distinguish empirically between these hypotheses, we need to present

respondents who believe in this link with information from the Bush administration

itself that casts doubt on the link. If voters show a willingness to change

their minds in the face of this information, we can conclude that the belief in

the link was a product of incorrect (prior) information given or implied by the

administration. However, if they show resistance to the correct information,

then social psychological processes are likely to be at work."

Edited August 25, 2009 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

During the election cycle, I'm almost certain that Bush himself was VERY clear in saying "Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11". And yes, I'm quoting that.

 

From the study's methodology:

 

President Bush himself said,

“This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and

Al Qaeda.”

 

which is the phenomenon they investigated. I was incorrect earlier.

[kapkomet]

It really was an impressive game. They went out and made very complicated, nuanced statements about how, to paraphrase "After 9/11 we can not allow men like Saddam Hussein to acquire the world's most dangerous weapons" or "Saddam Hussein supports terrorists and we can't allow that after 9/11" to subtly link Saddam and 9/11 for anyone who wasn't 100% paying attention to the exact words they were saying. Then whenever they'd be questioned about why 70% of the country thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11, they'd shrug their hands and then go and talk about how Saddam was an evil man.

 

If the President were 1/4 as good at manipulating language as that game, we'd have a health care plan and a carbon trading plan and an immigration bill already passed.

 

He needs to borrow that straw man from Bushie?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

for Kap:

 

This “denial” category provides one clue to the survey findings of high rates of

belief in a link between Iraq and 9/11: some respondents may make a mistake

on the survey because of a general unfamiliarity with the region, even if they

do know the current state of the evidence. By engaging in a dialogue with the

respondent, we were able to show that he had a clear sense of the state of

evidence, but slipped in his more general knowledge and mental classification

of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a finding that is not possible using simple

survey methods. Seven interview participants out of 49 (14.3 percent) fell into

this “denial” category. This suggests that polls asking about a link between Iraq

and 9/11 may overstate the true level of belief in the link.

[kapkomet]

for Kap:

 

This “denial” category provides one clue to the survey findings of high rates of

belief in a link between Iraq and 9/11: some respondents may make a mistake

on the survey because of a general unfamiliarity with the region, even if they

do know the current state of the evidence. By engaging in a dialogue with the

respondent, we were able to show that he had a clear sense of the state of

evidence, but slipped in his more general knowledge and mental classification

of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a finding that is not possible using simple

survey methods. Seven interview participants out of 49 (14.3 percent) fell into

this “denial” category. This suggests that polls asking about a link between Iraq

and 9/11 may overstate the true level of belief in the link.

ok, so then when the study was conducted, just the association of the question itself may lead people to say "9/11 and Iraq" were connected? I have not read the entire study but this part is sort of weird. I mean, I've conducted enough graduate level "surveys" to understand leading questions and trying to not get takers to be lead to an answer but ... ???

[StrangeSox]

ok, so then when the study was conducted, just the association of the question itself may lead people to say "9/11 and Iraq" were connected? I have not read the entire study but this part is sort of weird. I mean, I've conducted enough graduate level "surveys" to understand leading questions and trying to not get takers to be lead to an answer but ... ???

 

I think if you dig into the research methods it'll be clear what they were doing. These were follow-up interviews after initial surveys were returned.

[kapkomet]

I think if you dig into the research methods it'll be clear what they were doing. These were follow-up interviews after initial surveys were returned.

Got it. Still, this does raise some skeptical findings on THAT issue. I'll try to go back and read it later. Right now I need to go take an income tax test. This should be fun.

 

[Texsox]

We are a nation of labels and sound bytes. Slogans and catch phrases with the attention span of, well something with a short attention span.

[bmags]

We are a nation of labels and sound bytes. Slogans and catch phrases with the attention span of, well something with a short attention span.

 

I don't think that's unique to us. There's been numerous examples of political parties taking over on a great slogan (e.g. Peace, land and bread , makes the trains run on time)

[kapkomet]

I don't think that's unique to us. There's been numerous examples of political parties taking over on a great slogan (e.g. Peace, land and bread , makes the trains run on time)

(Marxist) hope and change.

 

I kid, I kid.

 

I do think that "soundbyte" dilemmas are a lot more prevalent now then ever before because most Americans don't have a clue how to think critically anymore.

 

[Texsox]

(Marxist) hope and change.

 

I kid, I kid.

 

I do think that "soundbyte" dilemmas are a lot more prevalent now then ever before because most Americans don't have a clue how to think critically anymore.

 

Additionally, we are hit with the soundbite at a dizzying rate and from so many different directions. We'll watch the same news feed for hours with 90% of the information looping. That ingrains it into our subconscious and free from any critical thinking.

[StrangeSox]

(Marxist) hope and change.

 

I kid, I kid.

 

I do think that "soundbyte" dilemmas are a lot more prevalent now then ever before because most Americans don't have a clue how to think critically anymore.

 

I don't have any cites to back this up but this seems like false nostalgia to me. We may be bombarded with more jingoism and polemics these days, but I don't know that we thought better in the past.