Conservatives and misinformation

I thought this was interesting. It's from 2017 but I just noticed it. As a liberal, I have found it harder and harder to understand conservatives since the Trump era began. I think this article goes a long ways towards explaining why conservatives are as they are: Why conservatives are more susceptible to believing in lies. (slate.com)

Agree or disagree and why? And what can or should be done? What makes somebody a liberal or conservative besides where they happen to be born?

 

My response is a question. How does slate.com explain the complete absorption by Democrats and liberals of the tremendous magnitudes (makes 2020 and Jan 6 look like a gnat hill) of lies, subterfuge, and deleterious actions following the 2016 election that went on at an extraordinary incessant pitch for 5 years now and still counting?

 

Total LW nonsense. Ironic you'd believe conservatives are more susceptible to lies while citing a Slate LW poop fest as prove. Look un "conformational bias"

 

You are right, but are no different.

 

I think folks from any side of the aisle are going to be a mix of personalities. Some of those personalities are going to be more susceptible to believing what they want to believe instead of what the facts and evidence show. There are plenty of liberals who believe nonsense, just like there are plenty of conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, anarchists, etc etc etc.

The problem is that media outlets across a variety of different mediums know this and appeal to it. For example, FOX News and CNN are essentially the same news channel, they just serve opposite sides of the population demographics. Their methods are the same. They do the same things, they just tailor what they say and how they say it for the audience they are selling to. Neither is impartial and neither are going to give you an honest take on anything. They are more useful for validating your beliefs than they are giving you an objective viewpoint.

The smaller niche media outlets like OAN and Newsmax are just smaller but more extremely tilted versions of FOX and CNN. They do the same exact tailoring of viewpoints, but their standards are lower. They are more akin to supermarket tabloids than mainstream news outlets. People who consume the "news" from the latter outlets, and their left-wing counterparts, are those who are especially interested in only hearing news that matches their own biases.

All of this is the direct result of a system where news is provided for profit. It's a product. We consider a free media to be essential to a functioning democracy, but we fail to appreciate how news as a product slants everything a free media might tell you. I'm not certain there is a better way, because the money to run a media company has to come from somewhere and they will always be beholden to that source, but it remains a fatal flaw just the same.

 

I disagree. My opinions are based on evidence or trust in actual experts. There was an example of a thing some liberals have fallen to misinformation on, GMOs, but I have not seen evidence that GMOs should be avoided and so don't agree. Republicans generally don't trust experts and are more misinformed as a result, on average.

Did you even read it? It makes sense. Obama provides his birth certificate, and this evidence doesn't convince birthers. Trump claims his inauguration was bigger, and photographic evidence comparing them does not convince Trump followers this was a lie. The things conservatives call liberal lies aren't lies at all, in most cases.

 

Because conservatives are in a different world than the information you are getting from the news media.

 

From what I've seen, I believe a lot of it comes down to genetics and life experiences.

But being indoctrinated or exposed to biased information that distorts and twists the truth can also play a role.

 

This is all ancient trivia.

 

I'm unsure of the meaning of "The mistrust has in part, at least, been deliberately inculcated. The fossil fuel industry publicizes studies to confuse the climate change debate; Big Pharma hides unfavorable information on drug safety and efficacy..."

The fossil fuel industry (among others) DOES publicize studies to confuse the climate change debate, and Big Pharma (more accurately) FUNDS studies of drug information that favor their products. These are things that provably happen.

'Science' is, at the individual level, a for-profit enterprise (how many scientists are independently wealthy?) and therefore subject to manipulation by those with vast wealth and an agenda. It wasn't so long ago that 'liberals' (I really hate that term as its entirely subjective, but you used it, so I will) recognized how the corporate money powers were corrupting every facet of our civilization and were begging conservatives to wake up to it. Now that 'conservatives' agree, 'liberals' embrace the establishment? What am I missing?

 

I understand your point; however, I don't care for the tone of your linked article. It reads like a "trash conservatives with softer words". I also believe that we really don't take the time to understand other people's point of view and we don't get anywhere by constantly arguing and pointing fingers. It's just a waste of time and energy.

Nevertheless, there is some validity in some of the points. For example, it is accurate that conservatives are less educated but lack of schooling in a post-secondary educational program does not mean they are stupid or dumb. I know a ton of idiots with college and beyond credentials. And, this point alone, illustrates my hesitation to endorse the article.

In my experience, conservatives are more like to live in rural areas in the place where they grew up or very close to it geographically. It logically follows that they would not necessarily be exposed to other races, people with different religious beliefs and/or homosexual people because the people that fit those demographics often live in urban areas. And, when we are not exposed to people different than ourselves until adulthood, it is harder to balance that information with what we've always believed even when the new information contradicts what we were lead to believe or believed within ourselves.

For example, I hired a woman a couple years ago and we were just talking one day. She looked around and told me that one of her nephews is gay. She said all the words in her normal tone but whispered the word "gay". Internally, I was LMAO because we were the only two people in the building at the time. Why the hell was she whispering? LOL I'm not homophobic and I don't care who anybody loves. There's not enough love in the world, IMO, so it's unfair to make other people's lives miserable because they don't conform to what we want them to be or love who we want them to love. I have way too much to worry about in my own life. I don't worry about those details about others and it does bother me that some conservatives want to have their rights protected but want to dictate what other people (with those same rights) can and can't do.

In my experience, conservatives are also more likely to have more children, practice whatever religion they grew up with, have a hard stance against abortion and for 2A. So, again, it's only logical that they hold some of the same, if not all, beliefs of the people that raised them. And, until television and the internet were invented, they were very unlikely to ever see or be exposed to minorities, gay people and/or non-Christians. And, I think we all can agree that we see this in action all the time. Many people that espouse those hard stances aren't willing to consider anything that refutes it because that would force them to shift their paradigm. We also can't overlook the deeply held beliefs about race relations and homosexuality and it is very deeply ingrained in white people that everyone else is "bad". We don't want to upset the apple cart because we risk being rejected by other white people by engaging with "others.". Sure, it's possible that a person is not racist, personally, but a LOT of people will make choices that lean toward them having the most level of support in their own communities. We see it here. Someone will say something prejudicial and others flock to "like" the post and that gives them the validation that they are right instead of recognizing they could be wrong and everyone that agrees with them is wrong. It's much hard to have this kind of influence on non-conservatives because, as a I mentioned, they usually live in urban areas with millions of people so their worldview is shaped by the increased exposure to people different from them.

The other thing I've noticed about conservatives is that they are very loyal and very strong in their convictions. A lot of that is based on being around the same people they grew up with and knowing those people had their back and they had theirs. I knew two brothers in North Carolina several years back and they fought CONSTANTLY. Seriously, they fought every second of every day. One brother lived in the house where he grew up and the other lived on the same property in a garages converted to a living space. It was amazing watching them go at it over the silliest stuff. Yet, when one of the brothers bought food, he would share with his brother and vice-versa. I don't have a loving or supportive family and they wouldn't give me a sandwich or glass of water so it was very interesting watching those two. LOL

Further, in that same topic, conservatives aren't likely to rely on others outside their close-knit group. For instance, about 20-23 years ago, I had a friend in Louisiana in one of the poorest parishes (what they call towns). Her son lived with his gf and he worked nights. One evening, she called my friend and said that she was putting the kids to bed and heard a noise outside her house. Within 10 minutes, my friend's husband and about 10 men from the area, locked and loaded, had her house surrounded. Nobody even thought about calling the police. They were right there and I remind myself of that when some of the more "vocal" conservatives stand their ground about their beliefs. If nothing else, they are consistent in that. They have the privilege of their foundation being rock solid so they don't see a reason to change because that works for them and always has.

I also can't say that I blame conversatives for being mesmerized by Trump. He IS a professional con man. That's what he does. That's what he's always done. He knows *exactly* how to "work the room." And, this falls right back on the above points. They probably have never been exposed to too many con artists because of their close-knit family and friend connections. So, all Trump really had to do was play a game. He hugs the flag on stage. He holds up a bible at a church. He trash talks other elected officials (because he's an imbecilic). He tells them that this is their country (and they want everyone not like them to go away anyway so that makes them feel good about him even more). He tells them exactly what they want to hear and he does it convincingly. It's not that they are stupid or gullible or naïve or idiots or have any deficit. It's that he's a very mesmerizing con man working his game and he is extremely dangerous because of that influence. I mean, I can't stand him even a little bit and I was impressed that he got non-billionaires to send him money. That's freaking crazy.

So, I said all that to say that I'm not partisan and I love my country. Yes, we have some things to work out but as long as we keep trying to bridge the gap between whatever two groups are bickering. we have a chance to recognize and appreciate that we have much more in common and fewer differences than we may have initially believed. There is no harm in bridging that gap because 100% failure leaves us right where we are. The only way is up from there.

 

As your intelligence and credentials increase, so does the likelihood of believing your own bullshit.

As for misinformation, the best strategy is to critically assess as much information from as many varied sources as you can and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Reporting is an inherently reporter-dependent endeavour, unless you provide the material in full.

I'll refer to my homeslice John Stuart Mill on this one:

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."

 

Not if you associate conservatives with misinformation while claiming that dems/progs/libs are any different. I live in your party's petri dish.

 

I think it may be a reaction to the way that President Obama, and Hillary were treated by Republicans and Former President Trump.

 

You shouldn't be surprised that I found that article almost entirely wrong. The real split on what's real and what isn't is almost entirely the fault of the media. Since you mentioned the Trump era, since the Trump era almost every liberal person I know in real life an almost all on this forum believed and still believe wholeheartedly that the Russians had some sort of deal with Trump to help him win the elections in exchange for some sort of unstated preferences. It sounds absurd on it's face and I'm pretty sure our media from an earlier age (like just 10 years ago) would never have fallen for such a stupid conspiracy theory.

So, when someone on the left posts an article speculating why dumb conservatives believe lies instead of THE TRUTH like smart liberals, I have to shrug. If only the misinformation had just stopped with the Russia Collusion conspiracy theory...

Definitely from this conservatives point of view, sometime around 2017 the left went crazy and believes almost any stupid lie they are told by their partisan news media; no matter how ridiculous. It's not yet abated and we're still living in an era in which half the country (your half) believes the most ridiculous things and are putting "our democracy" in danger.

 

Strawman alert.

 

Somebody just had their gospel mocked!

 

It's not my gospel. That's what makes it a strawman argument.

 

On this forum, when I think of the Russian Collusion Conspiracy theory, I think of you. You've been one of the most prominent proponents. So are you rejecting it now?

 

That doesn't sound right to me. There was concern that Trump was colluding with the Russians. There was cause for investigation. The investigation didn't find evidence that Mueller felt would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that conspiracy occurred. Though there are asterisks such as the Trump tower meeting, and sharing of data via manafort.

What's also true is that Putin preferred Trump and the Russians helped him win, but not by colluding with him. Where was the misinformation? You're upset there was an investigation?

You mean like Obama being a Kenyan muslim sleeper agent for Islam? But you misrepresented the position of the left. Russia wanted Trump to win. They just didn't do so by cooperating with him as much as we were concerned might have happened.

It wasn't misinformation. It was an investigation that didn't lead to charges. Should we fault the police for investigating people who turn out to not have provable guilt? (or who are innocent, though that's not how law approaches it).

Sounds like there are some other issues going on you don't understand.

 

Hmmm Yet CNN and MSNBC viewership numbers are down 80%. And their advertisers are looking for better networks.
Go figure
The group that hosted thousands of fake claims, watches their media implode, but its Conservatives that are the problem.
Sounds like a whole lotta projection to me. lol

 

Meh tribalist cheerleading.

Reading articles all about how bad people you disagree with are is really self survive and not very valuable.

All parties do it and I find myself sometimes sucked in. It's important to remember the people you disagree with are people much like you. It's tempting to fall for this stuff but we really shouldn't.

 

mostly nonsense - liberals are more liking to believe Slate sewage.

 

I think that's a healthy attitude, but I wanted to find why that tribe in particular believes things without, and often in spite of, evidence. How can I reason with them?

Except I had no idea about their ratings and don't care as long as some source of reality exists. Maybe bbc. Otherwise you're just using ad populum fallacy.

 

Since the majority of them believe in a religion I can see why they believe in misinformation.