This is an interesting analysis on the self-reinforcement of misinformation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-appear-to-be-misinformed-not-uninformed/

In 2000, James Kuklinski and other political scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign establishedan important distinction: American citizens with incorrect information can be divided into two groups, the misinformed and the uninformed. The difference between the two is stark. Uninformed citizens don’t have any information at all, while those who are misinformed have information that conflicts with the best evidence and expert opinion. As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

Furthermore, in 2010, political scientistsBrendan Nyhan1 and Jason Reifler2 found that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”

Strong partisans are more likely to participate in the primary process, making it also likely that at least some highly engaged primary voters are also confidently misinformed and unwilling to accept contradictory evidence.

And a somewhat related article on the award-winning lies of the atrump campaign. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/

In 2000, James Kuklinski and other political scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign establishedan important distinction: American citizens with incorrect information can be divided into two groups, the misinformed and the uninformed. The difference between the two is stark. Uninformed citizens don’t have any information at all, while those who are misinformed have information that conflicts with the best evidence and expert opinion. As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

Furthermore, in 2010, political scientists Brendan Nyhan1 and Jason Reifler2 found that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”

That agrees with what I’ve observed.

“I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest”

I wonder how many people who read that 76% of 77 statements were found to be untruthful came away thinking that only 1 statement out of 77 was found to be true.

The Rev Dodgson said:

“I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest”

I wonder how many people who read that 76% of 77 statements were found to be untruthful came away thinking that only 1 statement out of 77 was found to be true.

75%?

~58.5 true.

untrue sorry.

>the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.<

While this has long been known, the important question is: What, if anything, can be done about it?

Bubblecar said:

>the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.<

While this has long been known, the important question is: What, if anything, can be done about it?

Or at least, how can we recognise this effect in our own thinking, even if we can’t do much about other people’s?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Or at least, how can we recognise this effect in our own thinking, even if we can’t do much about other people’s?

People like you and I who are motivated to continually update our views to keep them accurate, and are reasonably skilled at doing so, already employ a sufficiently self-critical perspective.

But we’ve all encountered people (on internet forums and elsewhere) who seem to lack this basic motivation and its associated skills and self-critical perspective. And these people can cause a lot of damage.

How would you classify Trump supporters?

How about subscribers to WUWT?

Ian said:

How would you classify Trump supporters?

Disaffected morons.

Ian said:

How about subscribers to WUWT?

Affected morons?

beliefs might be seen as a psycho-emotional investment, part of a person’s character, and often half an idea (a notion) is worse than no idea at all.

Bubblecar said:

>the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.<

While this has long been known, the important question is: What, if anything, can be done about it?

I do that that people like that are in a minority. I’m not sure what can be done other than to try to foster and favour an evidence based approach to everything: in schooling, in government etc. Make people proud to honour evidence and pay attention to detail.
There are subjective matters of course on which people will have differences of opinion, and even in matters that do rely on facts there will be grey areas. But when Trump says that “the most highly taxed nation in the world”, or that only 16% of white murder victims are killed by whites, people should have enough knowledge about the world they live in to know that those statements are wrong. They should be attuned to commentary about the guy they support to pick up on it when he makes statements that are ridiculous, or at least be able to check it out for themselves.
I suppose it is easy for Australians to pay out on the USA (fk we voted Abbott in) but there does seem to be a deepening dichotomy in the USA, and on one side of stand people with their heads firmly and happily right up their own arses.

Perhaps the key is to not be fanatical about anything. You can favour an idea or a candidate but you don’t have to marry them. There’s no shame at all in revising your opinion.

Perhaps the key is to not be fanatical about anything,
try telling that to a Collingwood nut job.

Surgical removal of diseased brains?

Ian said:

Ian said:

How about subscribers to WUWT?

Affected morons?

see Ian, that response just shows that you are intolerant to other peoples opinions, opinions that you don’t even understand

The_observer said:

Ian said:

Ian said:

How about subscribers to WUWT?

Affected morons?

see Ian, that response just shows that you are intolerant to other peoples opinions, opinions that you don’t even understand

And how have you assessed what Ian understands? From a 2 word sentence?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Ian said:

Affected morons?

see Ian, that response just shows that you are intolerant to other peoples opinions, opinions that you don’t even understand

And how have you assessed what Ian understands? From a 2 word sentence?

I’m speaking to Ian, fuckwit

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

see Ian, that response just shows that you are intolerant to other peoples opinions, opinions that you don’t even understand

And how have you assessed what Ian understands? From a 2 word sentence?

I’m speaking to Ian, fuckwit

No actually you are speaking to the whole forum. You are full of justifications for behaviour that is simply mindless and spiteful. You have problems that can’t be fixed here unless you apply yourself to developing better manners.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

And how have you assessed what Ian understands? From a 2 word sentence?

I’m speaking to Ian, fuckwit

No actually you are speaking to the whole forum. You are full of justifications for behaviour that is simply mindless and spiteful. You have problems that can’t be fixed here unless you apply yourself to developing better manners.

Funny that Ian refered to people as morons just because they have a different opinion.

that went right over the top of your head, as well as all the insults directed at me.

hypocritical fuckwit

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

I’m speaking to Ian, fuckwit

No actually you are speaking to the whole forum. You are full of justifications for behaviour that is simply mindless and spiteful. You have problems that can’t be fixed here unless you apply yourself to developing better manners.

Funny that Ian refered to people as morons just because they have a different opinion.

that went right over the top of your head, as well as all the insults directed at me.

hypocritical fuckwit

You are terrible at discerning what my thought process is or the information I absorb. You also seem to think high school didn’t condition me to be able to ignore name calling.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

No actually you are speaking to the whole forum. You are full of justifications for behaviour that is simply mindless and spiteful. You have problems that can’t be fixed here unless you apply yourself to developing better manners.

Funny that Ian refered to people as morons just because they have a different opinion.

that went right over the top of your head, as well as all the insults directed at me.

hypocritical fuckwit

You are terrible at discerning what my thought process is or the information I absorb. You also seem to think high school didn’t condition me to be able to ignore name calling.

Not at all. I know I upset you greatly, & that is very satisfying for me

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Funny that Ian refered to people as morons just because they have a different opinion.

that went right over the top of your head, as well as all the insults directed at me.

hypocritical fuckwit

You are terrible at discerning what my thought process is or the information I absorb. You also seem to think high school didn’t condition me to be able to ignore name calling.

Not at all. I know I upset you greatly, & that is very satisfying for me

You fool yourself little boy. I enjoy your visits immensely. I do suffer fools lightly you understand…..

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

You are terrible at discerning what my thought process is or the information I absorb. You also seem to think high school didn’t condition me to be able to ignore name calling.

Not at all. I know I upset you greatly, & that is very satisfying for me

You fool yourself little boy. I enjoy your visits immensely. I do suffer fools lightly you understand…..

my “sub standand abservations”

is that the best you can do dear

Furthermore, in 2010, political scientistsBrendan Nyhan1 and Jason Reifler2 found that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”

This also helps to explain why quiet people are considered more intelligent than noisy people. Those noisy people who continually defend their prejudices never learn. And further, the more often they propound their opinion, the more radical that opinion becomes.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Not at all. I know I upset you greatly, & that is very satisfying for me

You fool yourself little boy. I enjoy your visits immensely. I do suffer fools lightly you understand…..

my “sub standand abservations”

is that the best you can do dear

That’s ok Dumbo. You can go back to bed but remember to prop your over-sized head up. You know you wake up with tourettes when you pinch that nerve……..

mollwollfumble said:

Furthermore, in 2010, political scientistsBrendan Nyhan1 and Jason Reifler2 found that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”

This also helps to explain why quiet people are considered more intelligent than noisy people. Those noisy people who continually defend their prejudices never learn. And further, the more often they propound their opinion, the more radical that opinion becomes.

Whilst I agree, I could also suggest that there are quiet people out there who are radicalised because of popular misinformation.

your posts are so inconsequential that I can now ignore all of them

The_observer said:

your posts are so inconsequential that I can now ignore all of them

Ha. So then that’s goodbye?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

your posts are so inconsequential that I can now ignore all of them

Ha. So then that’s goodbye?

no, I was speaking to Post only, love

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

your posts are so inconsequential that I can now ignore all of them

Ha. So then that’s goodbye?

no, I was speaking to Post only, love

Were that so you would be sitting across from me enjoying a beverage. Instead you remain in your room with your bag over your head resenting a group who enjoy each other’s company and trying to ruin their day to the best of your ability. I’m sorry you were picked on in school. It’s terrible that the teachers never saw the genius in your essays. There should be a support group for that though. Something like the Lifeline Helpline or something?

T_o can be quite sage.

Ian said:

T_o can be quite sage.

ref: ?

>I’m speaking to Ian, fuckwit

He knows the correct useage of a comma for one thing.

Ian said:

>I’m speaking to Ian, fuckwit

He knows the correct useage of a comma for one thing.

ah. :)

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

>I’m speaking to Ian, fuckwit

He knows the correct useage of a comma for one thing.

ah. :)

http://www.dumbtionary.com/word/useage.shtml

Usage… stoopid

Ian said:

Usage… stoopid

Fits the thread title… ;)