False Beliefs Persist, Even After Correction

[Render]

COLUMBUS, Ohio - It seems like a great idea: Provide instant corrections to web-surfers when they run across obviously false information on the Internet.

But a new study suggests that this type of tool may not be a panacea for dispelling inaccurate beliefs, particularly among people who already want to believe the falsehood.

“Real-time corrections do have some positive effect, but it is mostly with people who were predisposed to reject the false claim anyway,” said R. Kelly Garrett, lead author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/realtimecorr.htm

Yup, this forum is definitely proof of that.

[Lilly]

I'm not at all surprized. There's very little that can serve to dissuade 'true believers'. I suspect there's something about the particular belief they've adopted that makes rejecting it psychologically impossible for them.

[Frank Merton]

I'm not at all surprized. There's very little that can serve to dissuade 'true believers'. I suspect there's something about the particular belief they've adopted that makes rejecting it psychologically impossible for them.

I would be a little uneasy about such a system anyway; who decides when something posted is true and when it isn't? How about a post saying there is corruption in a certain institution?

What we accept as true and what we are skeptical of is largely a matter of personality, previous beliefs, life experiences, and who knows what else.

[+ouija ouija]

I'm not at all surprized. There's very little that can serve to dissuade 'true believers'. I suspect there's something about the particular belief they've adopted that makes rejecting it psychologically impossible for them.

The people you are calling 'true believers' are sometimes simply keeping an open mind as to what may or may not be true(or have an element of truth in it).

I agree with Frank Merton; what kind of 'sheep' would accept everything that system said was true without ever questioning any of it?!

[Babe Ruth]

I'm not at all surprized. There's very little that can serve to dissuade 'true believers'. I suspect there's something about the particular belief they've adopted that makes rejecting it psychologically impossible for them.

That psychological impossibility is closely related to what some call cognitive dissonance. There is some inner mechanism that makes it impossible for some people to consider or understand information that threatens their world view.

[Hasina]

Their data's solid but I'm just gonna have to disagree with it. ;3

[HDesiato]

I would be a little uneasy about such a system anyway; who decides when something posted is true and when it isn't? How about a post saying there is corruption in a certain institution?

What we accept as true and what we are skeptical of is largely a matter of personality, previous beliefs, life experiences, and who knows what else.

The function of the program appears to have been to make one aware of the existence of a differing point of view and to what degree the issue may be in dispute.

It can't "decide" what is true but will provide the information you need to get a more well rounded opinion of either side of the dispute.

Snapshot of the website for the more general Confrontational Computing Project:

http://ennals.org/rob/archive/confront

Excerpt: " Much of the information on the web consists of opinions, arguments, and beliefs. Examples include news articles, blog posts, message boards, and wikis. The Confrontational Computing project aims to understand how people argue on the web, and to develop tools that make it easier for people to do so."

" Currently, the main result of this project is ... a tool that shows you when information you read is disputed, and helps you find evidence for alternative points of view."

... So, kind of ironic to object to it, huh?

[HDesiato]

Hold it! I've overlook something.

I now see there's a difference with the hypothetical program and the actual one, so let me apologize to Frank Merton. In the hypothetical you are basically being told what to believe. I see your point, please disregard my previous post. I was wrong.

[Render]

Or as my signature states:

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” - Leo Tolstoj

Ppl link their ego too much to proving a point. They seem to think that if a theory or an idea is being proven wrong, they are therefore stupid and none-worthy or something. So they defend the wrong thing till they die, because of some misplaced sense of identity.