Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
|
Those findings actually make some sense in the context of conspiracy theories, but I think the author of the article is missing the fact that the findings aren't inconsistent with the basic conception of motivated reasoning. When told to believe something that conflicts with our understandings, we ask "must I believe this". When told to believe something that aligns with our understandings, we ask "can I believe this".
In the specific context of conspiracy theories that they're dealing with, you're effectively just undermining the latter - you're hammering home to people, "no, you cannot believe this". People will still resist that conclusion, but it's not surprising that it's possible to create doubt by providing unequivocal facts that don't depend on interpretation or moral judgment of any sort. This notwithstanding the fact that even presented with that kind of evidence, obvious reality is still resisted tooth and nail. Hell, just look at any controversial call these playoffs and see how different fan bases react to video evidence in 1080p from multiple angles.
That isn't the case with politics and morality. Any rational argument you might make that X is good or Y is bad in those arenas is easily dismissed or justified because there just isn't math, or photographs, or historical records, or eyewitness testimony that you can present people with. In those arenas, you basically have to get people detached from their intuitions emotionally before reason can do any effective work.
So some guy might be more inclined to buy into Pizzagate because he hates Hillary Clinton and everything he stands for. Using mounds of evidence, you might be able to decrease his certainty that Pizzagate is a real thing. But in the vast majority of cases, you're not going to be able to rationally convince him to stop hating Hillary and everything she stands for. Your logical arguments will fail to persuade, and your mockery will only make him hate you, too (and by association everyone who holds similar views to you).