Please make your comments by Tues Sep 21.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Welcome!
Welcome to AP Gov! This year we will spend much of our time discussing controversial issues. You will try to make the best arguments you can for your points of view, and you will listen respectfully to the opinions of those who disagree with you. But, to what extent will the arguments and facts presented by others change your mind? We all like to think that we have arrived at our points of view by a rational process of fact-gathering and analysis, but perhaps we flatter ourselves. Some political scientists now believe that people's views can actually become more firmly entrenched when they are presented with facts that contradict their beliefs. What do you think? Read the following and share your ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First post! :)
ReplyDeleteI see a boatload of truth in this article. It seems very common for people to choose what factual information to accept or deny based on their own pre-established views and opinion. Many people are often too proud, scared, or lazy to admit that very seldom are there clear black-and-white answers to questions surrounding politics. Certainly, one's opinions are colored by their personal experiences and what they have experienced to be "truth." This can only be natural; for many people, there is no personal or emotional value in purely factual information, so it is easy to dismiss; nobody questions their own deeply embedded faiths based on religion, family, or years and years of personal encounters.
To some extent, I also think that this inability to be influenced by proven information is a reflection of the problems with a "this-or-that" political system. As we've been talking about in class, we have "Democrats and Republicans," "Liberals and Conservatives," and these labels have beliefs associated with them, so when information doesn't support one's set ideology, that means people are forced to question themselves. It is much more convenient to simply reject information and stick with pre-set ideals than to formulate a novel and individual ideology. For the sake of argument, it is far easier to say "I'm a conservative/liberal" than to say, "Well, I'm liberal when it comes to gay rights except when gays are in the military, and I'm against illegal immigration, though I'm grateful for the cheap labor that many illegal immigrants have provided, and I think big business should be regulated on behalf of the environment, even though I'm not really into the whole 'nature' thing..." It is scary and difficult to stand on your own two feet and think for yourself; it is simply "safer" to identify with a group. I think many citizens want to be involved with politics and take a stand, and simply adopting the established views of a group is the easiest way to do that. I'm not saying that is right or wrong; that's just an observation.
I agree with Tess, I definitely think there is a "boatload of truth in this article." However, after reflecting upon why it is I feel this way, I've come to support even more strongly its main argument that irregardless of facts, people are going to believe what they want to. I'm a fairly strong liberal, and am sometimes inclined to regard a stalwart member of the religious-right conservatives as someone so wound up in taking political marching orders from a long dead Jewish carpenter, that his or her beliefs and opinions can't possibly be based on sound reason and logic. The article was further supporting what I already believed, and furthermore, had a strong liberal bias. The two most heavily cited studies both painted conservatives negatively. The Kuklinski study proved how grossly misguided Americans can be in what they regard as facts about the government, but not just any Americans, Americans with, "A strong anti-wellfare bias," otherwise known as conservatives. And not only are conservatives misinformed, suggests this study, but by getting wrong the "Percentage of enrollees who are black," as I can say with almost certainty it wasn't an undershoot, they're racist as well. In addition, the Nyhan study stated that conservatives, "Believed the misinformation...even more strongly after being given the correction," while for liberals, "The corrections didn’t backfire." In other words, this study says that liberals are more rational. I realized that no matter what an article is about, if it supports my beliefs while at the same time describing conservatives as racist reactionaries, on first impression, I’m going to be inclined to agree with it. For the most part, I’m aware of my own biases, and know that just because information encourages them, it doesn’t make it right. Usually, bias wouldn’t be a good reason for agreeing with an article. However, for the fact that my own preconceived opinions were the initial cause of my positive disposition towards, “How Facts Backfire,” the arguments presented in this article could hold any more truth.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a pretty cool article in light of my situation in an AP Gov class. In the past I haven’t been the most active or informed guy when it came to politics or government. Overall this means that most if not all of my conceptions on the matter have probably been adopted from my friends or family members, rather than personal research. And now that I’m in this higher level class I really need to watch out for these borrowed opinions and not let them control my own thoughts. Especially in a community where most people have very similar views, it’s really dangerous to mistake another person’s opinion as fact. Just because I think similarly to someone else doesn’t mean I can take their word without a second thought. It’s important to avoid that kind of “groupthink” phenomena from happening. Also, now that I’ll be learning a lot of stuff in class and beginning to deconstruct and rebuild my personal views, I can’t let myself be drawn into a sense of security with my opinions. I should try and be willing to accept that what I thought may not be correct, even if it means that I totally wrong and a big, dumb idiot. Being in an AP government class doesn’t mean that I’ll be always right or that I can ignore other kids who don’t take that class. First of all, that would be a serious jerk move, but also it would be falling victim of the “I know I’m right” syndrome.
ReplyDeleteBasically, after reading this article I’m going to try and keep myself on the edge and be willing to accept only facts or factual based opinions to affect my own views, and not be content with false or incomplete facts just because they’re convenient. Also, I’ll avoid being a cocky butthead that doesn’t listen to any one else because that’s lame and nobody ever gets things done that way.
-Tyler
I would have to agree with Tyler and say that when it comes to political issues I mainly stick with the opinions of my family, but taking this class will open my mind up to a new way of thinking and I'll begin to form my own political opinions.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to this article, the author makes a lot of valid points, especially about the way people vote. While I was reading it, I instantly thought of Political Socialization and the way some people vote. They don't take the time out to study the candidates or the issues, but simply go along with what agrees with their morals and values the most. .... And when it comes to telling someone factual information on something they already have a formed opinion on, most likely they will reject the information. Bottom line is, people don't like to be told they're wrong and when you do, they will only fight you harder.
-Lindsay
I really thought this article was interesting, and in a way kind of scary. Joe Keohane talked about the concept of in "modern democracy...an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one." Growing up in an area of liberal "informed citizenry," I personally would rather have so "informed" citizens making the decision for our country rather than the "uninformed." However, after reading this article, I made me wonder if the informed can really be considered fully informed. The officials elected for Congress are thought of as "informed" by those that voted them there, but they too are not open to blatant facts that discredit their own beliefs. For example, the issue of global warming. For years scientists have given fact after fact about the progressing problem of global warming. The truth is now evident with the temperature rising and ice caps melting. People can literally SEE the problem. However, some Republicans that are endorsed by companies that would be hurt with regulations against pollution, refuse to even admit that global warming exists. This is after scientists have virtually proven that global warming is becoming a huge issue. It makes you question what "informed citizenry" really is and what defines it.
ReplyDelete-AU
To start off, I found this article to be very interesting as well as very truthful. I agree what with Ali said in her comment. When thinking about who I would want to represent me, I would usually think that I would want an "informed" person. But now after reading the article all the way through, the definition of an informed person seems to have changed. I think that now it seems even more to mean someone who is educated from a limited point of view. For example, someone who has been very much educated from high school and college but is from a highly liberal region and family could be very informed that gay marriage is completely fine and that they have just as much right as anyone to get married; while another person from a much more conserved background could be well-informed in that they have come up with reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed. Indeed, this does completely revamp what is means to be "informed" as well as completely breaking the term apart and creating new definitions for itself.
ReplyDeleteIt is both frightening and fascinating at the same time. It makes me even question how I am "informed." I usually think of myself as a well-informed person who is open to new ideas, but at the same time, I am very set in my ways when I am very passionate about supporting something. It makes me question if even if I believed in the wrong thing, if I were presented with the correct information, would I even believe it?
I think this article was really eye-opening because it shed light on the fact that most Americans, even those considered to be in the "political strata" are resistant to change their minds, even when presented with facts that contradict their opinion. One argument made that I found particularly interesting was that no matter the level of political involvement or education, people are still likely to stick to their original beliefs instead of considering the alternative. A lot of times, more educated people believe that they are making the right decisions and therefore should not be questioned. However, they are just as likely to be incorrect, yet even less likely to change their minds.
ReplyDeleteThe main point that Joe Keohane's article makes, in my opinion, is that people can interpret facts differently based on their preconceived opinions. If a self-identified liberal and a self-identified conservative are both told the same piece of information, such as the fact that deaths in Afghanistan have increased greatly this year, the two will likely interpret it very differently based on what they want to believe. This makes me wonder if no piece of information that I learn is without bias; and if this is true, how I can form opinions of my own that are not based around any partisan belief.
I agree with Ali's comment about how this article is "kind of scary." I feel this way because there are people that are so set in their ways and their beliefs that even clear, straight facts can not change their minds. While in some aspects this dedication can be a good thing, I think it is a bad and damaging thing when one can not differentiate clearly right from clearly wrong. I thought the study that James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois conducted was very interesting, as well. I thought it was almost funny that the people who were the most confident about their answers were the ones that were most likely to be wrong. I think that these people definitely use this confidence as a defense mechanism and assume they won't be questioned if they seem informed.
ReplyDeleteThe article clearly shows that people always hear information with their own bias tainting it. I wonder if there is any way that people will be able to ever change their opinions and start with a clean slate once they formulate views.
While the thought that the majority of voters is uninformed is "scary", I feel that the fact that people cannot even trust news sources is even scarier. In Kukslinki's study, the group given corrected information from a newspaper headline, rather than from the surveyists, were less inclined to change their views. I do not think this is a reflection on voters, however, as much as bias in the media. People are inclined to stick to their views just as much because of "I'm Right" syndrome as because of distrust of media outlets. For how can a person ignore one set of facts and ideas they learned from the news, that have already been ingrained, for another newer set of differing facts learned, once again, from outside influences? This fear and denial of contradiction between different sources leads to, rather than renewed thinking, a new strength for older biases; unable to choose between opposing facts, people cling to more sacred values rather than question them. I do not think this problem can be resolved easily; for as long as voters are exposed to biased media and skewed facts, they will be lost in a sea of political conflict, and further stick to their version of the truth.
ReplyDeleteI think that Joe Keohane makes some very interesting points throughout the article. I agree with him that once people form an idea and a viewpoint on an issue, it is very hard to sway their views, even if there is evidence proving they are wrong. For example, many scientists have proved that there is climate change, however, many people still believe that global warming does not exist. I think these people had already been influenced by other sources before they were informed about scientific research discrediting their theorems. I think that shows that preconceived notions and opinions can affect people's judgment and people's openness to new ideas and viewpoints. Additionally, I also agree that people who have the strongest opinions can often have the least information. It would be even harder to attempt and change the ideas of a radical, on either end of the spectrum, then a more moderate.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the article I was reminded of an article I read in the Boston Globe recently. I was reading through the "Corrections" section, and one of the corrections involved an article I had read a few days before (even though it wasn't as important as a false report on WMDs, it still would've had an impact on the article). I remember thinking about how that correction didn't really change my overall view on that article, even though it could have if there was no initial mistake. I think it didn't affect my opinion because I had already read the article, formulated an opinion, and let it sink in for a few days before I found out that part of the basis for my opinion was false. Even for a small, relatively insignificant article, I still had difficulty grasping the new information. That shows that it is often very hard to change an opinion once someone formulates their own opinion; and that is even more true on a very controversial and partisan issue.
The fact that many people are politically ignorant and more apt to fight for their rooted beleifs rather than hard facts in front of them is unsettling yet believable. This article discussed many natural reflexes that are triggered when one's opinions are challenged and I agree with Keohane in saying that facts can not always set veiws based on fiction straight. People see what they want to see, whether it is there or not. I think the biggest contributor to this problem of misinformation is the media. In this day in age people are always busy so the front page of the newspaper or a few segments from CNN are all they have time for. I often catch myself and others backing up arguments with 'facts' from news articles. However, most articles have some bias and many have misinterpreted facts which people are too lazy to check. I agree with Pam's comment above that general unreliability of the media is very scary. The article argues that the problem is that people's opinions are all but set in stone based on false information, but how can they become factually informed if much of what they are reading is sensationalized, biased, misinterpreted or altogether wrong?
ReplyDeleteI think this article is a little worrisome but not altogether surprising just based on how partisan politics have become recently in this country. But I think a lot of it has to do with the massive amounts of information that are available to people now. This contributes a lot to what came up in the article about how when “facts are internalized, they are very difficult to budge.” When people read something in the news they take it as fact. When you try and come back at them and say that it isn’t true and that something the total opposite is the fact, they try and cling to what they originally heard because why would something in the news be wrong? But there are so many different outlets for information today that everyone gathers their facts from different sources, assumes them to be right, and then everyone clashes together with their different information. Every paper and news station wants to be the first one with the scoop and sometimes their information is proven wrong by another source, but they still think it’s right because they heard it first on another. With such easy access to publishing news, and so many different places for people to have access to it, you are always going to have people believing different information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pam's point that the general public's reluctance to change their mind is partially due to the mistrust of media. However, I also think that media reinforces partisan politics, and so people are more likely to distrust news sources they consider to be associated with the other political party.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if I read an article in The New York Times, and then see a contradictory story on Fox News, I will be more likely to believe the first set of information I read in The New York Times, because Fox News is a traditionally conservative news source. Even if Fox News had found out more information about this topic and was correct, I might not believe it because I would think the information was coming from a biased source.
I think Rachel makes a really good point about from what source you get information and furthermore that an individual picks and chooses what they believe. I think that another important aspect to note is that in present day, the news is unfortunately fueled by entertainment rather than fact. For example, the whole Terry Jones fiasco was blown out of proportion simply because he was entertaining. Newspapers and writers knew that this man was going to be seen as entertainment to the American people and it's sad that some Americans would rather have entertainment than news.
ReplyDeleteLike Rachel said, I am much more likely to believe a story in the New York Times rather than Fox News but what's important to remember is that a whole different part of the country would believe Fox News over the more reputable New York Times. For example, Fox News really caters to the conservative Tea Party who in turn point to stories broadcast by Fox, even when the stories are incorrect or exaggerated. Of course news stations have the freedom to broadcast as they wish but I personally think that the news has turned away from fact and is now looking to opinion. Part of the reason behind this is because our country is so partisan and in a time of downturn. During times of tension, I think people look for hysteria, such as Terry Jones, and kind of latch onto it. The problem of course is that this only leads to raised tensions and issues being blown out of proportion.
@ Laura
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree with what you said about people take the first thing they learn as fact. I know that in the past, I've been like that, even for non-political or even important things.
Sometimes my big bro would tell me some stuff maybe about the news or history, and I would really internalize his words a) because he's my bro and I used to idolize him a bit and b) because he was the first to tell me that tidbit of info. Then if any of my buds told me something slightly different about it, I'd find myself battling them because of my opinions I made from my brother. In the end there's too much emotions and personal feelings effecting facts that there will never be an objective truth/source available for the public to get their news from. And like Rachel said before, even if people get the same info, they'll interpret it differently.
Everyone who has posted here seems to agree with the article; people do use news stories to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. Not to be "that guy," but this article could be total bogus, but we're believing it... Perhaps this article is "sensationalized, biased, misinterpreted or altogether wrong," as Becca would put it. All the same, I was in Temple for Yom Kippur services today, atoning, stomach growling and whatnot, and a line from one of the "call-and-response" prayers really stuck out to me. The gist of it was "Forgive us for manipulating information to satisfy our own ideas." I think it's amazing how widespread this notion of "believing what you want" is, and that, in some religions, it is something that must be repented for. It is bad that people do this; many people agree. However, I wonder how people can change this seemingly natural tendency, or if that is even possible. Clearly people's tendency to twist the truth to fit their own values is something politicians and other public figures take seriously when they try to appeal to the public; it seems that some vicious cycle is at work here, and has been for so long that it is impossible to try to fight it.
ReplyDeleteWhile this article is certainly applicable to both political and social issues, as I was reading I could not help but think about a specific world issue: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a Zionist (a term with so many connotations I hesitate to use it), the ongoing conflict in the Middle East conflict has a personal relevance to me. Raised Jewish with a deep affection for Israel, I truly understand not wanting to be wrong. Even when presented with hard factual evidence against Israeli policy, I instinctively become defensive, and even more strongly devoted to my original beliefs, just as Keohane describes: “they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs.”
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, the reverse situation is equally common, and it is unbearably frustrating for me. When presented with the stimulating opportunity to discuss Israel and Palestine with those opposed to Israel’s policies, I am often shocked at the unwillingness of Israel’s opposers to listen or accept my factually-based arguments. After eighth grade, for example, I tried to pursue an ongoing discussion regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict with my social studies teacher via E-mail. During Israel’s 2008 incursion into Gaza, my former teacher sent me propaganda articles and essay’s regarding Israel’s war violations, and, as Keohane would expect, I responded by defending Israel’s rights, citing a double-standard between the Arab nations Israel, and using hard, factual evidence to support my claims. My former social studies teacher did not respond to my arguments, and instead attacked my moral worth and lack of compassion.
Essentially, I understand firsthand the points that Keohane raises in his article. As many have already stated, it is absolutely frightening to think that when individuals are attacked with fact, it draws them even deeper into denial. Still, I acknowledge the difficulty in changing one’s mind on certain issues, especially when one’s opinion on an issue constitutes one’s core values.
I found it slightly disturbing that this article wasn't shocking at all. I'm willing to bet that everyone in this class sees examples of people resistant to change, whether it's a teacher who refuses to see a student's argument because they don't agree or a classmate who refuses to believe a rumor because they "know" it can't be true, so it's not surprising at all that voters behave the same way when it comes to political issues. Admittedly, the overwhelming abundance of both facts and fallacies in the media makes it extremely difficult to sort one form the other, but this isn't an excuse for voters to ignore truths or twist them in favor of their own views. Even worse then voters choosing to ignore the truth, whether it's subconscious or intentional, is political leaders creating their own truths in order to further their own cause. One line in particular stood out to me: "The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are." This reference to how demagogues keep their supporters on their side reminded me of some sort of Hitler-like regime. That's probably a little extreme, but threatening voters seems like something that happened in some communist country, not our American democracy. No matter how people choose to interpret the information they receive, nobody should feel threatened enough to vote one way or another.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely agree with Ben that this article has a strong liberal bias for the reasons that he pointed out but I would strongly disagree with his point that it is the conservatives that are less rational because of their beliefs. While I think this article was stacked to the left, these studies could have just as easily shown liberals in the same light that it showed the conservatives, it was just a matter of the issues that were chosen. When you choose an issue like welfare, obviously most conservatives are going to feel strongly that there is factual evidence that proves welfare to be negative and liberals are going to feel that there is factual evidence that proves welfare to be positive. But depending on how information is provided on different issues that mean more to different ideologies, liberals can act in the same way. In the Nyhan study, people were told that “Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research” when really “only certain federal funding was restricted.” When the “self-identified liberals” were given the facts, “readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.” Liberals were just as set in stone about their beliefs as the conservatives, it just depends on the issues and how they are presented.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Tess that “this inability to be influenced by proven information is a reflection of the problems with a ‘this-or-that’ political system.” I think people cling so hard sometimes to their liberal or conservative identity that they find themselves incapable of shifting their views at all when presented with the facts. However I do think that maybe with the growth of the independent party, that allows a little bit more freedom to experiment with different views, that maybe this could start to change.
I think that the article was saying that if people were more imformed that the decisions they make wouldn't really matter. I agree because people now don't seem to care what the facts are. Voters don't even consider the facts. They vote based on who they like or who they believe they are supposeto like based on the party they are affiliated with. It's somestime indicated that people are just blind and just play follow the leader and do whatever they see other people doing.
ReplyDeleteEven with correct information about a party some voters vote base on popularity and not on the issues.
First off, I think that this is a really interesting article and was very eye opening. I especially think that the quote, “Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger,” was slightly disturbing. The reason there are facts in the first place is to clearly show what is the actual truth. When voters ignore facts and enforce their views and opinion based off nothing, it just causes more unnecessary rifts and arguments between political parties. Thus taking time and publicity that should instead be used for more important issues.
ReplyDelete@Pam
I agree with Pam's comment above. If people can't trust the media, then they won't trust the facts given to them. It's sad that people are ignoring facts, but it's even more sad that they are doing this because they can't trust anything from the media. Everything changes in the media so quickly that most people don't know what to do. At one point a story could say something and one moment later, the story could be completely different.
I really like how Katherine applied the ideas of the article to situations in the school. It's very true that people are reluctant to believe others and change their previous thoughts. This occurs in all sorts of situations, not just ones having to do with the media and politics. I also agree with what Katherine said about how people shouldn't use all of the lies in the media as an excuse to ignore what is being said or twist things to fit their beliefs. I think it is up to each individual person to try to take in what the media says and then form an opinion on it that is independent from previous thoughts. While this might be extremely difficult, it is essential to living in a country where people can have power.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised by Keohane's findings in this article. As many people have already pointed out, once someone has a certain view or belief, it is nearly impossible to change their mind. People seem to want the world to fit into some formula that, once figured out, will solve all their problems and magically tell them what to believe. People no longer look for truth or honesty in what they hear because it’s too difficult to create a viewpoint on every issue independently. Instead, people associate themselves with one general idea or group and then blindly follow them. What many people don’t want to think about, and what Keohane calls them out on, is that the world is too unpredictable to be categorized this way. But people still try to find patterns in life, like associating with just one political party and always agreeing with that party’s opinions. I believe that this is what causes non-facts to become truth for many people, and why truth is often ignored. I also agree with Keohane that people with a higher education are be less inclined to accept new information. Going back to my (brilliant) formula analogy, a person with a higher education has spent more time perfecting and cementing his/her formula, where as a person with less education is less attached to what they believe is more likely to question it.
ReplyDeleteAt the core of the problem is how “people tend to seek consistency” in their lives, which creates bias for people and what they are willing to believe. Keohane makes a strong argument that, unless people become more willing to accept views different from their own, a government based on the opinions of the people will not work. The only problem is, how do you convince someone to abandon the safety of the formula? Personally, I don’t think it can be done; it takes time and effort to form opinions, and many Americans are too lazy and don’t really care enough about politics to learn and have a stand on each issue individually.
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm going to play Devil's Advocate. While I agree with the article in that people that have preconceived notions are unlikely to change their minds, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Yes, if you think that the U.S. found WMDs in Iraq, you should change your mind. But this article is only talking about cold, hard facts and fails to address another huge piece of American politics: opinions.
Now, your opinions can be based on a number of things: facts, family, background, school, etc. So, yes, while the facts you have might be wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that your opinions are wrong. People can still vote and make informed decisions and back them up without the use of facts. In our society today, we tend to look down on things that aren't backed up with facts (i.e. personal experience is just that: personal, gut feelings are simply feelings, nothing more, etc.). But I think all of these methods of making a decision are just as valid as looking up a study or experiment and making a decision based on that. Think about it: if we can interpret facts to suit our beliefs (as the article says we can) than being informed, or having the facts, really makes no difference. While I get that that's a scary thought for some, for me, it's actually liberating. If I'm having an argument with you, I don't really care what a study conducted by some guy in another state says, I care about what YOU have to say. I think it's time for people to just trust their opinions. At the end of the day, people vote and make decisions based on opinions, so while facts are great, it's hard to tell exactly how much of a difference they make.
I believe that when people are presented with the facts they will take the information and then form their own opinions. However, as people of reason we have been taught to question information that is given to us and ask if that information is bias or untrue. We are more likely to believe our own original thoughts rather than accept the facts presented by others.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge that faces an informed public today is counter information. This is information that is incorrect and is shared with the greater population in order to sway public opinion. An example of this is the negative campaign to depict President Obama as a Muslim. According to the Pew Research Center poll conducted in August 2010, “18 percent of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim.” (http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx) This negative campaign is a deliberate attempt to misinform the public and interferes with the idea of having a well informed public able to make informed decisions.
In today’s society it is very difficult to assess when the media is telling the truth or when a fraud is being perpetuated on society. Another example of this is the belief that Iraq had WMD. When people were told this was a lie they continued to believe that it was true. How does one judge when to relinquish a pre-existing knowledge? How do you determine what is the truth and what is a lie? People are reluctant to give up on their original belief even when they are told that the information is incorrect.
I agree with Gigi in that many people seem to just vote with whatever is popular. I know for a fact that before I started becoming interested in politics and with what is going on in the world, because my family usually votes Democratic, I was always rooting for the Democratic candidate even though I had no clue what each individual stood for. I realize-as Gigi and many others pointed out- that this kind of biased is a pretty normal thing not only here in the US, but also in many other places. While I believe that this kind of voting without being really informed is not favored, I see Tema's point in saying that if everyone was really informed, then it might not change anything. Nonetheless, I think it just makes for a much better system if people actually took the time to learn about what they wanted in a leader representing them in the government, as well as learning about what each candidate has to offer.
ReplyDelete@Tema
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your livening up the conversation by playing devil’s advocate, I respectfully disagree with your argument that opinion and “gut feeling” have equal weight to fact in the process of government. I think it is a necessity for members of any society to alter their opinions based on fact. As you cite, we can interpret facts to support our own beliefs, but the use of fact in political debate is imperative. To use an extreme example, if our beliefs came solely from personal experience, surely there would be billions of Holocaust-deniers, as based on our own experiences, no human society could enjoin millions of murders. Fact is what proves that the Holocaust happened, despite the feeling that no such horrendous genocide could have ever taken place.
I also believe persuasion is an impossible task without citing fact. Just stating, “I oppose the bailout” and listing the personal reasons why is simply not as convincing as noting the deficit and predicting tax increases. Without evidence for personal beliefs, how can we expect someone else to change theirs? There is no way to rationally combat an argument made with straight, hard, provable fact, except perhaps with more fact supporting the opposing point.
In addition, facts are helpful tools because they are constant. Unlike one’s opinion, which changes and develops over time, facts allow us (voters) to think rationally and consider the big picture of an issue. Question 1 on the Massachusetts ballot in 2006 would have allowed food stores to sell wine, a clear personal convenience. Yet the ballot initiative failed because the opposition looked at the bigger picture and cited fact, real evidence that alcohol sales in grocery stores increase alcohol-related health problems, injuries, and deaths, based on data of other states. Some voters may have voted “No” because of personal experience with alcohol, but I would guess that most just saw the tangible hindrances that the law’s passing would cause.
I cannot deny that opinion plays an irremovable role in the political process, but I still affirm that opinions without fact ought to be negated.
The fact that many voters have a preexisting set of political values and morals is quite believable. Voters usually seem to follow the crowd - that is their party - and vote for the who they think is the most liberal or the most conservative. As Keohane points out, our beliefs do control which facts we choose to accept, which didn't come as a surprise to me. The idea of constantly telling ourselves what to believe and that we are always right can come to backfire in a political or voting situation. It would be as if our political affiliation would conflict and take over our opinions, which would lead to the death of democracy. I agree with Keohane in that people tend to go one way in life and keep a consistent set of views. This creates a biased view that affects everything that people hear or think about things. When this is applied to politics and voting, people seem to have lost their opinion and gone to vote strictly based on their party's ideals and morals.
ReplyDelete@Ali
I agree with Ali in the fact that information is fueled by entertainment these days. People have become so obsessed with other people's lives and what they do that they don't look at the straight facts. If a story is important and serioius, people are less likely to pay attention to that than a celebrity related, entertaining story.
I agree with Tyler. He makes a good point that because our community and school generally have liberal views, people could easily start believing something just because almost everyone else in the community believes it, even if it is not true or is an exaggeration. I think that because we are in a community that is primarily liberal, our news sources and ways of keeping up to date with the news are probably mostly left-leaning, which could further influence someone’s opinion. And if people blindly trust the news source, then facts could be misinterpreted or they could be flat out wrong. Also, I agree that because we are in an AP Gov class, we might also believe that the things we learn or discuss are always true, even though they might not entirely be. Hopefully we will be more aware of the potential misleading nature of news, and will be able to view news more skeptically and critically.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking back over my notes from chapter one, I realized that the information in this article relates in some ways to the reasoning the framers of the constitution used when they decided that it would be a good idea to use representative democracy rather than direct(or participatory democracy). The framers felt that having the people elect leaders, rather than being directly involved in making decisions for the nation, would be best because they felt that the people could not be trusted. They thought that people were easily influenced and based their opinions on “fleeting passions.” This article reinforces the idea that people may not be able to be trusted with great decisions, because they do indeed base their decisions on initial feelings. However, this article goes even farther in its explanation of why people cannot be trusted. The framers thought that part of the reason why a direct democracy could not be used was because the people did not have enough time, information, interest, or expertise to make big decisions. However, this article suggests that even if a person is given more information, that information will not necessarily make the person better suited to make a decision. In fact, this article suggests that all more information might do is make the person more adamant about his/her original opinions, no matter if the new information supports or rejects them. That is what is most scary about this article! Most people probably like to believe that they come up with their ideas and opinions in a logical way, but it now appears that is not true. It is interesting to think about some of the things that could be subconsciously impacting our views.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tess that there seems to be a “boatload of truth” in this article. I think it definitely makes sense that our brains would respond in this way. It seems only natural that a person would become defensive when someone challenges his or her beliefs and opinions. As political scientist Brendan Nyhan suggests in the article “The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong.” People can be very stubborn, and as much as they think they are being open-minded, I think that, in reality, it is impossible for one’s bias not to impact his/her response to information, even if it is subconsciously. Responding to Tyler’s post, I think that reading this article should definitely be a message that we should all be more conscious of how we are arriving at our opinions. Are we really arriving at them on our own? Are we actually keeping an open mind when we read facts? Are we only trusting reliable sources? Are we evaluating and acknowledging the biases of sources? While this article suggests that our subconscious might be ruling our political opinions, I think that we can all make a conscious effort to lessen this impact.
ReplyDeleteGood for you, Tema, for playing Devil
ReplyDeletes Advocate- it was definitely a struggle finding an up side to how people's misconceptions could be beneficent, and you made a good argument. I completely agree that personal decisions are unique to the person or people who experience them, but this stood out to me:"People can still vote and make informed decisions and back them up without the use of facts." At first, i absolutely disagreed- I thought that in order to be informed, one has to have facts. But after thinking about it, I'm going to go ahead and back you up on that. Dictionary.com defines informed simply as "having information", and isn't information what you gather through your experiences? Though I don't generally agree that misinformed people can always guarantee an informed decision, there is definitely something to be said for your experiences. Don't your experiences form your moral and ethical values, and therefore your ideology, and therefore your general political views? If we didn't draw from personal experience, we'd have no opinions of the facts that are presented to us. In reality, personal experience may not be the way to go when it comes to voting but they definitely have a major influence on the way we vote.
@Tema:
ReplyDeleteYay for other points of view! I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. While ideally it would be nice for "people to just trust their opinions," I think the major point of the article is how people form those opinions. In class we've been talking about the many factors that form people's views, so the opinion you have isn't necessarily YOUR opinion but a result of countless influences on you. You mention this briefly in your initial comment, but never fully address the ways an opinion can be altered. Are opinions that are completely refuted by facts as valid as ones with statistical evidence backing them up? There's a big difference between what someone WANTS to believe and the truth, and that's the problem I have with saying that opinions>facts. Again, this comes back to the issue that people believe what they want to believe and ignore things that scare or confuse them. At least facts have some weight behind it, confirming a belief, where as "gut feelings" are really just arbitrary, affected by various factors in a person's life. To end on a positive note, I'm glad that you decided to spice up the discussion by providing a conflicting viewpoint! But I disagree :)
Sorry if I am repeating others people because as I skimmed through the other comments before posting my first post I got the feel that we were all agreeing that this article is unsettling but very understandable and believable. When reading this article I remembered the activity we had in class about the Mann act and how a majority of people in our own class, people who I know are all very bright and well informed, made stuff up because they did not want to say they didn’t know the answer. We said in class that this is a very common reaction, making something up when one does not know the answer. I feel that this whole idea of not wanting to admit to not knowing something crosses over into the idea of one not wanting to say they are wrong, which I feel is the major theme of the Globe article. As Americans and I guess as people in general no one wants to be the wrong one, it makes us feel stupid. I know for me I hate saying I’m wrong and I will fight and fight until I can’t push it anymore, and even then I still harbor a little part of me that wants to believe I’m right. I know that this is one of my more annoying and unattractive qualities but I think it is human and if anything this article proved that to me even more. People are stubborn and we grow and mold our belief threw our experiences which Tema, through the media which Rachel mentioned, then we get even more through our families and our environment. For me my views have been formed by the family and by living in such a liberal area. So the beliefs which we have created and which have evolved somewhat over time are obviously going to be very hard to beat out of us. I think that no type of fact or news article will be able to change anyone’s total beliefs because like the article said people will choose what they want to hear and believe and dismiss the rest. Selective hearing is a major part of this issue in our society. I don’t watch Fox news, I don’t read the herald and I certainly don’t talk politics with my grandmother because I don’t want to hear the conservative view point all that much. So I read the New York Times and talk to my friends and family who, for the most part, are all liberals. I’m working on changing this, but I think this article shows that many Americans are in the same stubborn mind set that I myself am in. We talk to people and listen to facts that will reinforce our belief and ideas and like Keohane said” This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.” SO i guess I am saying I agree with the article and it kind of pushed me to do some self reflecting and see how I myself and like the American public in the way that I have allot of bias and am to stubborn!
ReplyDelete@Tess
I really like all the points you made in your post. I totally agree with your idea that for many people “there is no personal or emotional value in purely factual information, so it is easy to dismiss; nobody questions their own deeply embedded faiths based on religion, family, or years and years of personal encounters.” This is one of the thoughts I came away with after reading the article. I also really liked your view on our “This or that political system” and your point that it is allot easier to stand with a group and allow your views to be reflective of the groups rather then your own. I think this is a totally true idea and is something that so many Americans feel. Like the article was saying people stick with those who reinforce what they belief and I think that this is what being able to identify with a political group offers us.
@Ethan
ReplyDeleteAs a voter we need to ask who is providing the facts that we are presented with. In the case of the 2006 ballot question to sell wine in grocery stores information was released by the Wine Merchants and a group called the Concerned Citizens for S.A.F.E.T.Y. These two organizations presented a scare campaign to ensure the continuation of the monopoly of wine sales by liquor stores in Massachusetts. When I quickly looked up to see who the Concerned Citizens for S.A.F.E.T.Y were I could not find any information about their status. We need to ask, what is the political agenda behind the information that is being shared. Who will benefit from this legislation being passed or from it’s failing? We will shape our opinions based on the facts that are presented but we must ask what facts are being presented and are they bias.
Sean, I agree with your comment that people follow a “formula” in creating their beliefs because of difficult trusting the media. After all, it is easier to rely on others to form opinions for the public than for an individual to file through information and made a decision for him or herself. This is the reason why so many people choose to be simple “democratic” or “republican”- clear cut political bases-rather than registering independent and sifting through candidates as election time rolls around. The media, with its carefully (and sometimes not-so-carefully) covered biases is a difficult source to find reliable factual information in.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while I agree with your view of the media, I disagree with your statement that “a higher education has spent more time perfecting and cementing his/her formula, where as a person with less education is less attached to what they believe is more likely to question it.” While more highly educated people may have spent more time perfecting their opinions in classrooms, less-educated people are just as influenced by their own outside-of-the-classroom experiences and connections, such as opinions they hear at work or from their families. One example I can easily come up with is my grandmother. Though she struggled with undiagnosed learning disorders growing up and was never given the chance to go to college, and still does not often keep track of politics, she has formulated extremely strong opinions on a variety of key political issues such as taxes and welfare. These are not her own opinions, nor opinions she learned at a prestigious college; rather, they are the opinions of her friends, and her friends’ husbands, that have trickled down to her through conversation and which she stubbornly believes in, despite her lack of facts to support her beliefs.
I believe that everyone is subject to purposely-biased opinions, and thus everyone is privy to false facts and wariness of news and political sources. Everyone created their own political “formula”-their own belief system-and, in a world where no news analysis can be trusted, try to stick to beliefs they call their own.
So Keohane pretty much says it all in this article. People form a lot of their political opinions based on bias and filter out most opinions that disagree. Even worse, the truth sometimes drives people even further into their misconseptions because they are embarrassed to be wrong. There really is no simple solution to this, considering that even our elected leaders make decisions based on similar bias. He points out that politicians may even be more misled by thinking that they are right about everything (even though they may not be). In addition to this, there is pressure put on them by the public who elected them to keep the same beliefs and vote based on their original messages. Politicians won't get reelected if they suddenly decide to switch political parties, or even vote with the other party a few times. Thankfully the impact of this is muted because there is probably similar amounts of misconception on both sides of the political spectrum, which would cancel out any people voting on one side. I'd like to point out that there probably is one answer to the ultimate political question at any given time, its just that we don't know what that is, and chances are that either parties proposals could be right for any given issue. I think this is why political parties block progress, because people think that a conservative or liberal position is always right, and votes based on that, when in reality many problems actually originate from political gridlock and failure to act in the interest of the nation rather than one's political party.
ReplyDelete@Tilly
I agree that this article had a lot of political bias. In general it tends to assert that conservatives are the ones who tend not to be swayed by facts, even saying "The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire," after talking so much about how corrected facts usually backfire. I think it's a general bias of liberals that conservatives are the people who disregard facts and act based on preconceived beliefs (whether it works the opposite way I don't know). I think bias in either direction is what causes so much conflict and disagreement in government, the belief that one party cannot be trusted and isn't acting in the interest of the people. Much of this is based in fear, and the majority of people feel they need to trust one political ideology because they know that they will not be able to completely understand every issue enough to make a conscious decision on what side to take. Therefore, people tend to trust their beliefs in spite of some fact for fear they may be wrong, and this system continues because there is usually no consequences large enough (on the whole country) to sway political belief. Government never does enough, however, according to the general public, which is why the party in power changes so often (see Obama's election, and now dissatisfaction at this 'new' government that had so much support 2 years ago, even though things have generally gotten better). In conclusion, there is no real answer of which party is always right, which causes all of this disagreement and misguided beliefs.
I don't really agree with Lindsay and Tyler. My family doesn't impact my political views. It is true that most parents due have an impact on their children but my family isn't the type of family to have political views to share. Families and other factors do make a difference. I don't feel like family has a deciding factor in my politcl views.
ReplyDeleteHello again. :)
ReplyDeleteTo Ethan:
First, I just want to clarify something. There's a difference between a "gut feeling" and feeling like the Holocaust didn't happen. I used gut feeling as a way of explaining how people could make decisions in ways other than analyzing facts and statistics. Feeling like the Holocaust didn't happen or saying it didn't simply because you didn't experience is just being plain stupid and ignorant. Furthermore, your example does not lead to an opinion being formed. I think an example that might have supported your argument more would be to look at denying the Holocaust the other way around: why deny it in the first place? A big reason might be anti-Semitism. Now, you can say that that feeling of anti-Semitism leads to being misinformed and denying the Holocaust.
However, I still think that opinions are more important. Facts are just one element of an opinion, along with experiences and, yes, gut feelings and your family, etc. Is it true that your opinion holds more water if you can back it up with fact? Yes. Does it mean that your opinion is wrong or worth less if you can't? I don't think so. We also have to look at the definition of "fact". That's very different for a lot of people. Think about religion. Millions of people believe the Earth was created in seven days. To them, this is fact. I disagree. Their fact is based on a belief system, mine is based on something else. Even facts, at their very core, can be disputed.
To Sean:
Your opinion is YOUR opinion. Yes, other things might have influenced you, but you chose how to respond to those influences (even if the choice was made subconsciously). In addition, that exact combination of influences could only happen to you. It sounds cheesy, but your life is unique, therefore your unique experiences lead to your unique set of opinions. You could have the same stance on an issue as someone else, but your reasons could be entirely different.
And an opinion that's completely refuted by fact can be just as valid. Again, it depends on what you consider to be a fact. For example, if I'm arguing with someone about gay marriage and the other person says it's wrong because of their religious beliefs (which are facts to them) and I say it's right and show them all of these statistics about how gay couples are just as likely to raise wonderful children and show them statistics about how high divorce is in straight couple, we both consider our evidence to be factual. Who's to say either one of us is wrong?
Sean O
ReplyDeleteI agree with your concept of a formula. It is simply easier to set a course for yourself and consistenly follow it rather than chart a new course each election year. However, I dont believe that by chosing one formula or identifing with a certain polictical ideology or political party that a person will completley conform and except that parties ideals blindly. while people may follow somewhat carelessly there must have been an issue that they were passionate about which got them involved in the party in the first place, and for that issue, which is different for all people, that person will always stand up. second i do not agree with your statement that more highly educated people are more "cemented in their formula/beliefs". Ones level of education has no bearing on how attatched they are to a certain issue, i think that higher educated people just tend to be less open to opposing data because they are more skeptical of its accuracy. They are more likley believe in the absolute truth of what they have studied and researched while less educated people are probably more likley to doubt themselves and their research. I also agree with Tema's last statement that there are often two opposing sets of 'facts' to an argument and it can be hard, even impossible to say whose facts are 'more right'.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete