Myth Busters: The Psychology of Changing Minds in a Post-Fact World

In Star Trek, the fictional planet Vulcan is inhabited by rational, sentient humanoids who are devoted to the collection of objective observations in the pursuit of truth. In real life on planet Earth, human beings of every persuasion often start with established beliefs and look for "facts" to justify them. When we are presented with facts that contradict our a priori conclusions, we can find clever (and not so clever) ways to contradict them. Psychologists call this process "motivated reasoning." 

Both Myth Makers and Myth Busters Can Indulge in Motivated Reasoning

Most scientists believe in global warming, but Ice Age Now! website founder Robert W. Felix believes in global cooling. He even moved from his home in Seattle, which, after all, was inundated by ice as recently as 20,000 years ago, to the relative safety of Arizona, only to be drawn back to spend his golden years with the people he loves despite the imminent risk of global cooling.

Felix has amassed a huge collection of data to support his belief that the earth is actually getting colder:

• In December 2016, a foot (30 cm) of snow fell in parts of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Similar amounts of snow fell in Manitoba. Surely, this disproves global warming.
• Also in December 2016, weather forecasters predicted 3 inches (7-8 cm) of snow would fall on Madison, Wisconsin, but the city actually received 5 inches. A TV weather forecaster mentioned that the city had snow emergency routes for some of its streets that could be used in case of larger snowfall. Fans noted that it was possible that the snow would linger into the summer of 2017 and begin a new ice age, but the snow had melted by three days later.
• A powerful volcano in the ocean floor exploded under the western Antarctic ice shelf only 2,000 years ago, and the heat from the lava could still be melting sea ice.
• Ocean levels around the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu have fallen, or they have risen only at three times the rate of the rest of the ocean, or they are the result of the gravity of the ocean on itself, which proves that the Pacific Ocean is actually draining.

READ Could Believing In Conspiracy Theories Be Affecting Your Health?

Mr. Felix has compiled nearly 4000 similar statements, but never mentions any heat records or any evidence contradicting his conclusions. His defenders assert:

• If you believe in sea level rise, you have been brainwashed by Obama's CIA.
• Muslims believe in sea level rise, and
• Conservatives who are scientifically literate are the least likely to accept climate change (that is, the belief that the world is getting warmer).

Critical Thinking Cuts Both Ways

What? It's the well-educated conservatives who reject climate change? How can that possibly be?

Differences over the doctrines of climate change, for non-scientists, aren't a matter of intelligence. Both believers and deniers tend to cherry pick facts that support their views. The more facts to which people have access, the more fervently they can believe or deny a proposition. People who disagree with you, no matter what your belief, may be better informed than you, not less informed than you. Telling them they are stupid not only doesn't win them over, it may be totally wrong.

Fact Checking Websites Can Backfire

It seems incontrovertible to some of us that tens of millions of people in the US and UK have fallen for hoaxes. (That does not, by the way, tell you what my politics are. You might be surprised.) People on both sides of issues are convinced that the people who disagree with them have bought into spoofs of the news and don't have the first clue about what is a critical thinker. But education efforts often don't work.

Take the example of the ongoing controversy about vaccinations and autism. Pro-vaccinators ignore the fact that about 50 years ago, in a single country, with a single vaccine that contained a single preservative that nowadays has been almost completely continued, there was a surge in cases of autism. Anti-vaxxers may buy into the idea that all vaccines are awful and it's safer for children to go vaccine-free.

When anti-anti-vaxxers set up a myth buster website to demonstrate why the MMR safe, however, they succeeded in both informing their target audience and reducing the rate of vaccination. The pro-vaccine site posted pictures of children who had suffered horrible disabilities (neurological problems, blindness, etc.) as a result of getting measles. However, the sight of suffering children carried over to the decision about taking the vaccine. People who saw the results of not getting vaccinated were less likely to have their children vaccinated, not more.

So how can anyone possibly overcome human nature to persuade people to accept information that is critical to making decisions that are critical for the human race? It's not easy, but here are some suggestions:

• Respect the difference between information graphics and graphic information. Short, snappy, visual presentations of objective, numerical information increase acceptance of ideas. Emotive, heart-breaking, pathetic, graphic photographs, on the other hand, reduce it.
• Make appeals to self-esteem to increase acceptance of information. If a misconception is tied in with self-esteem, it can be hard to overcome. The idea that you are only a person of worth because of your skin color, or your religion, or your sexual orientation, usually expressed as "at least I'm not (fill in the blank)," makes it harder to overcome erroneous beliefs about race, religion, and/or sex. Moral judgments are usually led by example. Factual judgments, however, can be facilitated by appealing to the obvious good qualities of the person you want to persuade. However,

READ What Makes People Fall For Conspiracy Theories?

• Keep in mind that conspiracy theories are more likely to be accepted by conservatives and less likely to be accepted by liberals when pitched with an appeal to self-esteem. "Everybody knows that" works with conservatives but not with liberals (which isn't to say whether one side or the other actually knows anything). It also helps to keep in mind that
• Curious people are more likely to consider views that clash with their "tribe." In general, however, the less political you make an issue, the more likely you are to persuade people to go along with you. A majority of American farmers, for instance, vote for the political party that rejects climate change, and they reject climate change. However, a majority of American farmers also respond to surveys that they believe that climate change will run them about of business. Taking an issue out of its political context changes response.

People believe conspiracy theories to make understanding easier. It's the losing side of a political battle that needs relief from cognitive dissonance. Now that the political dynamics of the United States has changed, expect conspiracy theories to be a lot more popular with the side that lost the elections, most recently, than the side that won.