Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Myths Persist

Posted by kdawson on from the say-it-first-and-say-it-loud dept.

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."

4 of 988 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If only I had mod points...

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  2. Repeat! by Mononoke · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I just KNOW I've seen this story posted before.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  3. Well.... by Gravatron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That certainly explains why monster's hdmi cables contenue to sell so well, despite ebing the same as a $5 one.

  4. Application to "OOXML is an open standard" myth? by jafoc · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Sounds like this means that we'll really have an uphill battle in convincing decision-makers that despite the name, OOXML is not really an "open standard" but rather Microsoft's anticompetitive strategie aimes at killing ODF.

    Maybe the lesson is that we should not debate whether OOXML is "open" but rather focus on the fact that it is immature, and at the same time point out the massive irregularities at ISO and promote a more reasonable approach to standardization such as OpenISO.org?