One might suspect scientists of belaboring the obvious with a recent study called Belief in Fake News is Associated With Delusionality, Dogmatism, Religious Fundamentalism and Reduced Analytical Thinking.
The conclusion that some people are more gullible than others is the understanding in popular culture — but in the scientific world it is pitted against another widely believed paradigm, shaped by several counterintuitive studies indicating that we are all equally biased, irrational and likely to fall for propaganda, sales pitches and general nonsense.
Experts have told us that consistent irrationality is a universal human trait. A columnist in the Washington Post recently reminded readers of Jonathan Haidt’s “cogent and persuasive account” of how bad humans are at evidence-based reasoning. The article also cited the Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow to argue that we are ruled more by tribes, affiliations and instincts than by evidence.
However, is it not possible that this applies to some people more than others? Is it reasonable to believe that we are all equally bad at reasoning? Luckily, some scientists appear to think that they are capable of evidence-based reasoning and they have investigated the questions.
Canadian psychologist Gordon Pennycook, an author on the delusionality paper and a leader in the camp promoting the idea that some are more gullible than others, concedes that it is a little weird that one can get published demonstrating that “smarter people are better at not believing stupid things.”
That is essentially the conclusion in a newer paper not yet officially published, Rethinking the Link Between Cognitive Sophistication and Identity-Protective Bias in Political Belief Formation, which he cowrote with Ben Tappan and David Rand.
They question the idea that smarter people are, if anything, more likely to believe false things, because their mental agility helps them rationalize.
It is a school of thought that became popular partly because it is a bit loopy and partly because views that lump us all together have a ring of political correctness.
The roots of it trace back, in part, to Yale researcher Dan Kahan, who has conducted widely respected experiments showing that people’s views on technical subjects such as climate change and nuclear power depended almost entirely on political affiliation.
I wrote about Kahan’s work, citing a study that “showed that the better people are at math and reasoning, the more likely they are to align their views with ideology, even if those views included creationism or other unscientific stances.”
Pennycook said he agrees with Kahan on this to an extent; it is not incompatible with his findings, but it applies only in special cases, such as climate change, where the subject matter is technical and complex. On TV, complete charlatans who know the right buzzwords can sound as erudite to the lay public as the world’s true experts would.
However, Pennycook and his colleagues questioned whether this counterintuitive finding applied more generally. To put it to the test, they showed subjects a mix of fake and real news stories and asked them to rate their plausibility. They found that some people were bad at this and some were good, and that the best predictor of news discernment was something called the cognitive reflection test.
The test uses questions such as this: “A bat costs a dollar more than a ball. The bat and ball together cost US$1.10. How much does the ball cost?” Low scores are correlated with religious dogmatism, superstition and belief in conspiracy theories, as well as a type of fake aphorism that Pennycook called “pseudoprofound.”
Understanding who believes fake news and why touches on the very foundations of democracy. Why listen to experts who have spent a lifetime studying something if they, like all of us, deserve an F in rationality? Why bother trying to think anything through?
Well, maybe because the truth is out there. In the book Network Propaganda, a group of Harvard researchers analyze thousands of social media posts to demonstrate the influence of false and misleading information in US politics. They also dispel the myth that partisans on the left and right are equally influenced by falsehoods.
Data show the problem is concentrated on the right, they say.
This is not to say that people who are good at picking out fake news and score well on the cognitive reflection test are smarter than other people in other ways.
As Michael Shermer said long ago in his classic Why People Believe Weird Things, very creative people — even famous scientists — can be subject to delusions and occasionally believe in astrology or conspiracy theories.
Pennycook agreed that this is not just a cognitive issue, but could encompass elements of personality and mental health. Just as Shermer showed that there are creative delusional people, there also are those smart-but-narcissistic types — the people who insist that all climate scientists are idiots, for example.
Some are still thinking that ball costs US$0.10 and are gloating at how stupid other people must be not to get this immediately.
Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She has written for The Economist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Psychology Today, Science and other publications. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
The topic of increased intergenerational conflict has been making headlines in the past few months, showcasing a problem that would only grow as Taiwan approaches “super-aged society” status. A striking example of that tension erupted on the Taipei MRT late last month, when an apparently able-bodied passenger kicked a 73-year-old woman across the width of the carriage. The septuagenarian had berated and hit the young commuter with her bag for sitting in a priority seat, despite regular seats being available. A video of the incident went viral online. Altercations over the yielding of MRT seats are not common, but they are
The party of former Czech prime minister Andrej Babis this month won 80 out of 200 seats in parliamentary elections. Combined with the 15 seats of the Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) party and the 13 of the Motorists for Themselves (AUTO) party, the result paves the way for the populist leader’s return to power. In addition to Babis’ populist ANO party, the anticipated coalition is expected to include the two anti-system parties, which campaigned on discontinuity with central aspects of the EU policy framework. While the two smaller parties’ main domestic priorities differ — with the SPD focusing on immigration control
RSS