[mikeh]

I was reading on Slate this morning, and saw a column that mentioned an article in the Washington Post. The article was on a study performed by two political scientists. They surveyed a group of self-described conservative volunteers. They gave them a list of Bush pronouncements, leading up to the invasion of Iraq, in which Bush referred to the WMD that Iraq had.

They then gave half of the volunteers a neutral document discussing the WMD evidence after the invasion of Iraq... the 2004 Duelfer report. This was a comprehensive review of the evidence, which concluded by stating that there had never been any real WMD threat.

The two groups were then asked their opinion of the WMD issue. The non-intuitive result was that those who had been given the detailed refutation were 'vastly' more likely to still believe the Bush statements were true than were those who had not been given the refutation.

This result is apparently more common with conservatives than with liberals.

It may go to explain several points that have puzzled me.

In the short term, it may explain why Palin is so popular... even tho her shortcomings are becoming more and more apparent as time goes by, there is no evidence that those attracted to her candidacy are being influenced by the clear evidence of petty spite, vindictiveness, and intolerance reflected in her statements in her church, her efforts to ban books, her firing of the police chief, her refusal to cooperate with a (largely republican led) state enquiry and so on.

In the longer term, it may explain why there are so many creationists and other fundamentalists in the US... it is not merely that some prefer belief over evidence.. it now appears that for some mind-types, evidence that contradicts faith actually strengthens it.

I guess my hope that most humans have some element of the rational (a hope that I have clung to despite the evidence to the contrary... maybe the backfire effect at work in me?) is without foundation.

[han]

As a creationist and a big believer in weapons of mass destruction I wonder why you state with such conviction that

Quote

This result is apparently more common with conservatives than with liberals.

Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

From my perspective the Duelfer report is quite liberal, certainly the results are. Who are you to judge that this report is any more neutral than the pronouncements of the President of the United States?

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps the Aesop's fable about the wind and the sun applies? The more you present rational argument and plausible evidence, the tighter the fundamentalist clings to his coat of belief?

You cannot shake or replace a structure that is imaginary and that is held in place by illusion. Only the fabricator of that illusion can dissolve it of his own accord. Ignorance is bliss but knowledge is power. You only have to make the decision to ditch one and accept the other.

[mikeh]

han, on Sep 18 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

As a creationist and a big believer in weapons of mass destruction I wonder why you state with such conviction that

Quote

This result is apparently more common with conservatives than with liberals.

Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

From my perspective the Duelfer report is quite liberal, certainly the results are. Who are you to judge that this report is any more neutral than the pronouncements of the President of the United States?

I was quoting the article, not my own opinion...not having read the report, I don't have one

[matmat]

heh

i suspect it has to do with being perceived as being stupid, in a sense.

those that read the original statements, but not the report can claim that they have processed additional info and thought about things themselves and reconsidered their stance.

those that got both the original and the spoonfed report do not want to admit that they change their mind simply on the basis of a single document. I wouldn't be surprised at all if their view actually did change, but they did not want to admit it to anyone.

who knows...

[pclayton]

Let's not forget global warming either.

We all have our sacred cows to defend.

[matmat]

pclayton, on Sep 18 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

Let's not forget global warming either.

We all have our sacred cows to defend.

penguins don't have cows (sacred or otherwise).

[Al_U_Card]

Rather like being told to clean out the horse stall that is full of ***** and then taking a dump and saying that it made no difference and therefore I don't need to clean the stall after all...

[PassedOut]

pclayton, on Sep 18 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

Let's not forget global warming either.

We all have our sacred cows to defend.

Good example. No matter how much evidence piles up, some folks become even more convinced that it's not true.

[barmar]

This might be an interesting topic to raise at predictablyirrational.com. Dan Ariely is an MIT professor of behavioral economics, and he studies peculiar influences on human decision making. There are some really irrational behaviors; for instance, if you ask people the last 2 digits of their social security number, and then ask them how much they'd be willing to pay for some item, people with higher numbers tend to be willing to pay more -- the high numbers get into their head and pull them in that direction.

You can send him an email, he might write a column in his blog about it.

[Al_U_Card]

I am much too busy irrationally adding to this debate, why don't you? (Or did you already use up your quota of irrationality with the suggestion?)

[helene_t]

That evidence against religious dogmas often strengthen the same dogmas is well known. It is an example of so-called cognitive dissonance.

I have decided (for some unknown, probably irrational reason) to play Xclusion Blackwood. I have invested lots of time in learning the convention. It would course me huge pain to have to admit that Xclusion is worthless. So if someone presents evidence that threatens to shake my belief in Xclusion, I must make up an even stronger belief in Xclusion to counter-balance that evidence.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Sep 18 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

I was reading on Slate this morning, and saw a column that mentioned an article in the Washington Post. The article was on a study performed by two political scientists. They surveyed a group of self-described conservative volunteers. They gave them a list of Bush pronouncements, leading up to the invasion of Iraq, in which Bush referred to the WMD that Iraq had.

They then gave half of the volunteers a neutral document discussing the WMD evidence after the invasion of Iraq... the 2004 Duelfer report. This was a comprehensive review of the evidence, which concluded by stating that there had never been any real WMD threat.

I am wondering: have you actually read the report? I only browsed through the "key findings", and I didn't find any sentence resembling your quote above. Instead the report has many sentences similar to

Quote

Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq’s BW program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program.

Quote

As with other WMD areas, Saddam’s ambitions in the nuclear area were secondary to his prime objective of ending UN sanctions.

Quote

ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.

In other parts, it clearly states Saddam's intention to acquire nuclear weapons, or steps he took to enable a revival of his nuclear weapon's program at an appropriate time.

Besides wondering how many of the participants of the study actually read the report (just the key findings are 19 pages), I think it is very natural to interpret this text according to your preset opinion on a flimsy reading. To put the reports' finding into proper context, you have to note the many things it actually does not say.

If you are really so surprised that some people form their opinions irrationally, may I recommend an arbitrary popular science book on psychology?

In particular, I think before anyone makes or quotes bold statements such as

Quote

This result is apparently more common with conservatives than with liberals.

that could easily be interpreted as insulting or condescending, they should have better evidence than hear-say about one particular study.

[kfay]

helene_t, on Sep 18 2008, 04:42 PM, said:

So if someone presents evidence that threatens to shake my belief in Xclusion, I must make up an even stronger belief in Xclusion to counter-balance that evidence.

What if someone told you that KFay plays it?

Unfortunately back when people saw how firmly Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Bozo the Clown & Co. believed in the presence of WMDs this sort of deterrent had no effect on conservatives.

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Sep 18 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

In particular, I think before anyone makes or quotes bold statements such as

Quote

This result is apparently more common with conservatives than with liberals.

that could easily be interpreted as insulting or condescending, they should have better evidence than hear-say about one particular study.

i think it's pretty much established that most people find some bald assertions more compelling that others based on preconceptions and/or worldviews...

[matmat]

luke warm, on Sep 18 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

i think it's pretty much established that most people find some bald assertions more compelling that others based on preconceptions and/or worldviews...

this bald assertion is preposterous.

[mikeh]

Quote

I am wondering: have you actually read the report?

No... as I wrote well before your post, I did not read the report and thus I disclaimed any opinion on it.

Quote

In particular, I think before anyone makes or quotes bold statements such as

Quote

This result is apparently more common with conservatives than with liberals.

that could easily be interpreted as insulting or condescending, they should have better evidence than hear-say about one particular study.

I would hope that most adults with a basic level of reading comprehension would have seen that I was referring to a column written by another person, and that I was posting information gleaned from that column... including the statement (which was not mine, but which was apparently, and I stress the word 'apparently' part of the study's findings) that the effect was more prominent in conservatives than others.

If you are so sensitive that you think that this was aimed at you, or that it was condescending or insulting, then I feel sorry for you, and suggest that you buy and read some arbitrary book on English

I did find the reported findings to be consistent with my understanding of human nature... disappointing, yes, but not surprising. It fits well with other studies of which I have read (and, no, I haven't read the source material) which suggest that many adult humans have a fundamental need for hierarchical social structures, in which change or innovation, in thought or deed, is feared. Such attitudes are inculcated in the military (where the explicit purpose of boot camp is to break down a recruit's innate social conditioning and to recondition the recruit to respect and obey authority and to conform), and resonate well with the fundamentalist religious mindset (which uses bible study, sunday school, sermons and the like... change the practice to reflect the religion and they all look the same.... to similar effect, especially on the young). And, yes, I have read a number of books on psychology and anthropology. Moreover, I think I understood them far better than you appear to have understood my post.

[cherdano]

No, I didn't take it as aimed at me, as I am neither religious nor conservative. I am probably one of the most liberal posters here (as anyone who not only posts butt also occasionally reads in the Water Cooler may have noticed), and I do think quoting (you did note that I wrote "makes or quotes", right?) such a statement with only hear-say evidence is condescending.

It is clear that their can be little evidence from the study as you described it for that statement (how can you compare liberals and conservatives by studying a group of self-described conservative volunteers), and that it would be generally very difficult to find evidence for this statement by similar studies. So nobody would find it worth quoting such a statement unless it fits their preconceived opinion.

[matmat]

cherdano, on Sep 18 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

... not only posts butt also occasionally...

you said butt.... hehehehehehe

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Sep 18 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

It is clear that their can be little evidence from the study as you described it for that statement (how can you compare liberals and conservatives by studying a group of self-described conservative volunteers), and that it would be generally very difficult to find evidence for this statement by similar studies.

Unless some of those studies were performed by studying self-described liberals?

Otherwise I agree with your post, including the butt typo.