Slashdot Mirror
Why Myths Persist
lottameez recommends an article in the Washington Post about recent research into the persistence of myths. In short: once a myth has been put out there (e.g., "Saddam Hussein plotted the 9/11 attacks"), denying it can paradoxically reinforce its staying power. Ignoring it doesn't work either — a claim that is unchallenged gains the ring of truth. Over time, "negation tags" fall out of memory: "Saddam didn't plan 9/11" becomes "Saddam planned 9/11." From the article: "The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths... The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious 'rules of thumb' that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency."
It took 5000 years to come to this conclusion?
Maybe this explains why religion persists in the face of logic, it was here before science.
Religion persists against all common sense.
Trolling is a art,
3... 2... wait, I'm too late. Oh well.
Wonder how many "but religions is a myths!!!!111~" posts will get modded insightful.
or such is the Myth they are trying to manipulate.
Why not extend the slant, which wasn't present in the article, to go both ways? I can't tell you how many people I know who believe Gore won Florida and base it on the idea that major media sources verified it. You can go show them the opposite and they don't care.
What it comes down to is this, people are more inclined to believe stories which correspond to what they already believe to be true, even if the evidence against such a belief is overwhelming. It is all about change and accepting mistakes. There are too many people resistant to change and resistant to admitting mistakes.
So when informing the public about false information, one should avoid using negations?
Instead of saying "Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11.", you should instead say something like "It was al-qaida, who didn't particularly like Saddam Hussein, that were responsible for 9/11."
- These characters were randomly selected.
interests within our government and defense industry worked VERY HARD on inventing and perpetuating it. And our corporate media did their usual lapdog routine, and went along without questioning anything.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
There are many stupid people who will believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of proof. They will generally want to force you to believe what they believe even if you have proof that directly contradicts them. And, if you refuse to believe, they may try to silence.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Bush lied, LIED LIED LIED about Saddam planning 911.
You are still re-enforcing the Saddam <-> connection.
You need to leave Saddam out entirely.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
No you dim witted troll, he said that religion is a man made construction around faith. He also said that faith is a belief beyond proof that something more exists. He also claimed that science has had many leaps of faiths that have lead to logical foundation throughout its existence. He never said that God was a man-made construction, only that the rituals to worship and appease God might be man-made around the faith that a creator exists.
Some of you people are so intent on being snide that you don't even read the post you're responding to. (It makes you look like a real dumb ass.) I hope someone with some common sense mods you down, even if they agree with you're slashdot-populist message. Straw manning someone to ridicule them is unnecessary.
I think it was used as the example for reasons of the repercussions of that specific propaganda, not the percent of sheeple who believe it.
Also, as stated in the article, people are much more likely to believe a myth that they simply want to believe, regardless of truth. People want to believe their tax dollars (and blood) are funding a valiant effort that is good against an evil enemy. Hence, any myth brought up that makes the enemy sound more evil, is also more likely to be believed regardless of how true it is.
...and here we see the myths in action.
.44 Magnum at anything further than fifty feet away; and a stoic person that won't give the codes to the nuclear device isn't going to spill his guts just because Jack Bauer yells "TELL ME WHAT THE CODES ARE" in his face.
1 - stop watching TV shows and movies. They can be really bad models of a reality-based world. Examples: those 'wave your arms to operate a computer' operating systems in sci-fi films would mess up your shoulders in a day; you can't accurately shoot a
2 - If you're going to live in fear, and then define your fear as a reason to repeat a f#cked-up experiment in US foreign relations, you're not in the reality-based world in the first place.
3 - one of your sentences shows just how messed up your 'thinking' is:
you can pretend he didn't have weapons of mass destruction but what if he did?
a - "you can pretend he didn't have weapons of mass destruction". Let's look at that. In relation to the 9/11 Commission Report that said... HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. There's no "pretending" about it. No matter how much Rick Santorum and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter LIED TO YOU, REPEATEDLY LIED TO YOU, you are still gullible enough to repeat the lie as truth. And then...
b - you say "but what if he did?". You just said OTHER PEOPLE WERE PRETENDING HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. And then you ACKNOWLEDGE that he doesn't have them because you try to Appeal to Emotion, wondering what would happen if he DID have them in an alternative universe.
We should invade somewhere "in case" someone could do something to us? Is this the [f]right wing modern version of Reds Under The Beds (Arabs In The Attic)? How messed up to you have to be, mentally, to think "the best form of defense is attack, and the best form of attack is surprise"...? That's what mental people do, you do realize that, right? Mad people attack random people in subway stations and on the streets because "God told them to do it" or "they're all out to get me". And you use that as... what? A viable political opinion?
When did nutso-frigging-bazoo count as a political opinion. I'm going to call a spade a spade. You're mental. Get help.
There's no single reason for the Iraq invasion. We must separate the initial drive for war and the different selling points that got the idea accepted. The compromises between the different selling points also contributed to the large failures in the project.
First, whose idea was the invasion? The idea belonged to a small group of strategists, who believed in the benign military power of the U.S. They thought they could finally solve the Gordian knot of the Middle East that was (1) causing terror attacks against the U.S., (2) threatening U.S. access to vital oil resources, (3) threatening the very existence of Israel (these strategists were committed to Zionism) and (4) condemning vast masses of Arabs and Iranians to tyranny.
The strategists argued the root cause of all these problems was the big mistake committed by Britain and the U.S. after WWII when they founded arbitrary kingdoms in the area and installed their vassals as rulers. The surprising examples of Eastern Europe, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines showed that all nations yearn for democracy and, more importantly, that doesn't spell disaster for the U.S. strategist interests. In other words, democracy is a win-win for everybody. So these idealistic strategists were convinced that the Middle East required true democracy from Morocco to Iran.
The idea was to start a positive domino effect whereby a few good examples will get the ball rolling and the remaining Arab states will follow example without U.S. military involvement. The project was started with Iraq for various reasons. Mainly, it was easiest to sell to the U.S. public and secondly, it was led by a sworn enemy of Israel -- even if the project should fail, at least Israel would have one less enemy to worry about.
Now the strategists understood their project about an aggressive war to liberate an Arab nation wouldn't be well received by many people in the U.S. so they came up with a number of baits. They convinced some powerful politicians and industrialists with the promise of huge government contracts. They placated many conservative realists by assuring them that this was the only way to keep the oil. They assured the fiscal conservatives that looting the Iraqi oil will pay for the endeavor. And finally, they had an easy time selling the idea to the U.S. citizenry. At the time the Americans were in a militaristic fervor, and many, many conservatives had been feeling for a long time that the first Gulf War needed to be finished.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction pretext was just a formal gimmick. Nobody believed it, nobody cared except it was nice that the inevitable and much desired war seemed to have an objective justification.
The original idea really was to bring American-style happiness to the Iraqi people, and at first many Iraqis were hopeful. However, because of the necessary compromises that were needed to get the war sold, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have had to die. Since the war wasn't supposed to cost anything to the U.S., there weren't enough soldiers to secure the country and disproportionately many were dedicated to securing the oil facilities. Also, not enough money was granted for the infrastructure projects and what money there was was given to wasteful companies owned by U.S. cronies. The people were "liberated" but the free press was censored and reporters were assassinated.
You do realize Intelegence, Governments/ people thought that Iraq did have WMD During the Clinton Administration. And Clinton did some pot shots at Iraq due to this fact. Sadam was putting on a biggest poker face and that is what cost him. Sure after the Iraq war we now find the evidence to be less then stellar mostly because of the governement doing the finger pointing where it is everybodays fault and nobodies at the same time. Spending millions of investigations to realize that it is not true.
At the time america was 90% sure Iraq had WMD... But I doubt that was the real reason, because the real reason would be politically incorrect.
My theory.
1. End Sansions (AKA Oil) There were sansions on Iraq hurting the Iraqies and American interest in oil as well. By kicking the leaders out we can end the sansions.
2. Force terrorist to think locally. Why spend resources try to atack unarmed civilians on the other side of the earth when there is a bunch of armed ones right next door.
3. American Influence. Dealing with americans even occupiers makes people realize they are not as evil as they once thought, They may not like the occupiers but many of the civilians learn that americans are not as blood thirsty as they origionally beleaved.
4. Iraq is the most religious tolerant country in the area. Giving the best chance for reform.
Those are my theorys on the real reasons but most americans will be angry from them because it is more of the ends justify the means mantanility. Needless to say I don't think it worked as well as planned. Not accounting for the secratarian violance.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you ask me, the reason that religion has a bad name in some quarters is the propensity of those who are religous to do very unpleasant things to those who disagree with them about minor points of theology.
It's really hard to take the concept of a loving God seriously when the jerk promulgating it is beating the crap out of person or persons who are not members of the right club.
You folks need to clean up your act. Then we can talk.
(But I think [yes that's an act of faith, not reason] that probably by the end of this Century. the non-believers will have their picture of the universe all neatly tied up with all the loose ends tucked in. When (OK, if) that happens, you folks will find it harder to dismiss 'rationality'.)
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Actually, he did have WMDs. During the Clinton Administration. Then he got rid of them. Then the US invaded. Sure sends a clear message. If you don't have WMDs, you're screwed. If you do have them (India, Pakistan, N. Korea, China) you're safe.
You are not the customer.
You must live in a box, because you seem to think that everyone else does as well. The next time you're repositioning your refrigerator bungalow so the "this end up" points north, you might want to consider the possibility that not everyone who believes issue A also believes issue B. Boxing people into stereotypes limits your ability to argue effectively, as it makes it appear that you are unable to effectively argue issue A, so you bring up B to change the subject.
- Yes, I am posting at a -1, and no I will not use a proxy to bypass my circumstances.
The US had beaten the North Vietnamese on the battlefield in every single major engagement when they were deployed. Even after the bulk of US ground forces left and all that was left was advisors and air support. The '72 NVA offensive failed. It was only after the US stopped funding the puppet South Vietnamese regime in '75 that they collapsed.
Following your much appreciated defense of U.S. military capability*, I have to point out an important lesson that is relavent today: We may have won every battle of Vietnam, but we still lost the war. Because in a guerilla war, winning battles in the field is not as important. Being able to crush the enemy when they dare to stand and fight is meaningless when the survivors, the smart ones, will just fade in the face of the attack and blend back into the population. The same holds true in Iraq, which is why invading Falluja was both a cakewalk and a fool's errand. Our forces far outmatch the insurgents, and that hardly matters for victory. It's very frustrating for those who want military solutions for everything, who think the problem with Vietnam is that we didn't spend enough blood and treasure, but it's a lesson we'll have to learn.
* I liked the part where the OP said the U.S. only attacks when it has overwhelming force. Duh, because that's a good strategy for winning! The primary strength of our armed forces is logistics, the ability to move our forces to where they are needed, and to keep them supplied, and to take ground piece by piece by dropping shit-tons of firepower on it. It's how the North won the Civil War against superior Southern generals, it's how we kept the march across France going, and it's what our last Secretary of Defense decided to throw out the window because he thought he knew better.
The enemies of Democracy are
...aren't really atheists, they're more likely to be garden variety anti-christians. They disprove god by choosing the most asinine examples from their youth and ridiculing them. The 100 proofs against god are all just negations of some idiot christians 100 proofs for god.
"If there was a god, I'd be happy, I'm happy therefore there is a god"
vs
"If there was a god, I'd be happy, I'm not happy therefore there is not a god"
Both statements are about as stupid as stupid can get and yet both sides of the debate choose to use this crap to gore their oxen. People actually choose to link to this drivel in their sigs. Why not just put "I'm a complete moron and proud of it" as your sig.
Feel like I should flag this one. From what I've read, Einstein didn't believe in gods. The quote about gods not playing dice was -- reportedly -- a metaphor.
A list of impressive people, though one could question whether their various strengths lend them credibility in theological matters. But regardless: doesn't asserting the right/imperative/ability of people to think and speak for themselves seem a bit contrary to claiming that the beliefs of others should be considered persuasive?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
So basically, religion is the problem AND the solution? Because I'm pretty sure it's killed more people than most causes, yet gives us "ethical principles" you espouse, presumably based on religion, due to your contradiction of the GPP.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Gravity isn't a fact. It's a theory. It's "just" a theory, in the same sense that Evolution is, by the way.
Not all facts are mathematical in nature. "Facts" can refer to observations, as well. Even observations that are not 100% repeatable or 100% accurate come within the realm of fact. The effects of gravity and evolution are observed facts. Various theories (there isn't just one theory of gravitation, you know) have sprung up to help us understand those observations. So, GP was right: It's a fact that if he jumps up, he will come back down. Is it faith to say that the same thing will happen every time he tries the experiment (as long as he stays on planet Earth, at least), he will get that result? My answer is no: It's a statement consistent with every observed fact that might be relevant to the question. You are equating faith with inductive reasoning, but I don't think that equation stands.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
are you completely ignoring the fact that dispite the fact that nobody in the administration said that Saddam caused 9/11, that there is still a belief among many people that he was in fact the cause? Also it doesn't have to be composed solely of idiots, idiots can repeat what they thought they heard, and repeat it ad nauseum eventually non-idiots will hear that myth. or recieve it in the form of email and forward it to 50 of their friends, who send it to 50 of their friends, and soon we have people wondering where this whole thing came from.
So there is no self determination, then, for if it is not you but God who is deciding you be good then you are not living your own life.
;)
If you believe in self determination then you MUST believe that the good came from that person.
Unless, of course, you think good is a substance, in which case God help you
Not silly, just treating the religious the same as everyone else. If I believe in invisible people, talk to them, and think they talk to me, I am declared crazy, and it is automatically considered negative to my well being. If I call them Jesus and God, somehow this is supposed to make me not crazy? Now, THAT is silly.
And people say slashdot is "left-leaning"? Bullshit. It's pathetic to see the right-wing jesusbots downmodding anyone who points out the insanity of religion.
Care about privacy? Read this!
"People will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true."
The Gospel according to lolcat