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.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS