People Believe What They Want To Believe
Harris interactive headlined, “Wingnuts” and President Obama, for a poll finding that large numbers of Americans hold extreme views of our president:
It finds that 40% of adults believe he is a socialist. More than 30% think he wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns and that he is a Muslim. More than 25% believe he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a world government, has done many things that are unconstitutional, that he resents America’s heritage, and that he does what Wall Street tells him to do.
More than 20% believe he was not born in the United States, that he is “the domestic enemy the U.S. Constitution speaks of,” that he is racist and anti-American, and that he “wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.” Fully 20% think he is “doing many of the things that Hitler did,” while 14% believe “he may be the anti-Christ” and 13% think “he wants the terrorists to win.”
The poll points to a book by Jon Avlon, Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America, and was first cited by Avlon himself in a Daily Beast piece titled, Scary New GOP Poll. This market-tainted self-referential feedback loop is bad enough, but in the not-so-fine print we learn that the poll itself has no legitimacy:
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys… Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
Emphasis mine. And for the record, that statement “conform[s] to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.”
In the aftermath of the health care debate there were lots of accusations that the heated rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Fox News crew was inciting people to acts of vandalism and violence. I parroted some of that here and might even have linked to the Harris poll had I seen it before. Just lucky I guess.
This reflection was triggered today by another study. This one from academia, UGA’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, explores belief in the rumor that President Obama is Muslim:
Approximately 20 percent of Americans believed that then-Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim during the 2008 presidential campaign despite news stories and fact-checking Web sites that attempted to debunk the rumor. Barry Hollander, an associate professor in the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, analyzed data from a survey of more than 2,400 people taken at three points during the campaign to see if exposure to news media helped correct misperceptions about Obama’s faith.
“With most forms of political knowledge, media should theoretically make you more accurate,” Hollander said. “In this case, media exposure had no effect. Ultimately, the message here is that people believe what they want to believe.”
Hollander, whose study will appear in the Journal of Media and Religion, explained the findings are consistent with psychological studies on selective memory that show that people tend to discount facts that are inconsistent with their pre-existing beliefs. People are also less likely to remember information that conflicts with their beliefs.
Throughout last week’s tumult I saw people saying that both sides do it, but I held tight to my skepticism. My side didn’t spit; it didn’t shout the worst racial epithet at a civil rights icon. But today I find myself understanding that my side is just as bad. We gussy our preconceived notions up in a Harris Interactive survey. Then, armed with that ammo, we’re free to smugly believe whatever we want. Sadly, that’s just as insidious as that which we fear from the other side.
Later: Ironic that I posted moments after Joe posted on the FBI arrest of a man for threatening to kill Rep. Eric Cantor.
16 Responses to “People Believe What They Want To Believe”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV. TMV said: People Believe What They Want To Believe: Harris interactive headlined, “Wingnuts” and President Obama, for a poll… http://bit.ly/ancIw5 [...]
When I was preparing to board a boat in Michigan, someone told me that Obama has “a Muslim flag,” or “the Muslim flag,” “on his wall.”
“My side didn’t spit; it didn’t shout the worst racial epithet at a civil rights icon.
It was worse toward the previous President.
This just goes to show that if you repeat something often enough and loudly enough some people will start believing it, whether there is foundation or not. Sorry, but the situation with regard to the previous prez was quite different. For one thing there was no equivalent of the relentless and widespread demagoguing that has long been a component of the far right, and for another most of the criticism that did take place then was earned in spades. None of this would be a problem if the citizenry was more capable of critical thinking, but as it is there is a large slice of the population that is highly susceptible to propaganda.
It was worse, and false “explanations” that fall laughably on their face immediately don't change that.
“None of this would be a problem if the citizenry was more capable of critical thinking”
Screening or weighing the suffrage would solve this problem.
You are right to emphasize
It basically makes the poll pretty meaningless.
This is so true, especially if the people listing is already confused, a racist, depressed or whatever. Of course, the Republicans are experts at this. They know America still have a lot racists, militias, and ignorant people that are too lazy to even want to verify or find the real truth. There is absolutely no where in history where a President with type of disrespect from the opposite party, NO WHERE. The only possible explanation for this is just outright RACISM. IT took 10 to 15 years to completely recover from the 1930's depression and they expect President Obams to do it 6 months ago.
One has to be careful. After all, there is a Zogby poll that says that about 40% of the people (in 2007) thought that Bush knew about 9/11. I don't really believe that.
However, I do think a lot of Republicans think such things of Obama. This isn't new. While the Zogby poll I mentioned is suspect, it seems clear that a large fraction of Democrats believe that Bush purposely allowed 9/11 to happen. A lot of this is because of the high level partisanship. Maybe a third of the electorate would have regard Bush sacrificing himself to safe children holding puppies as a publicity stunt while similar numbers of Republicans have the same approach to Obama.
What is really sad is that you see the parties using charges of partisanship as the basis for their partisan attacks on each other.
Oh, the link to the Zogby poll is….
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1358
I keep thinking about something, and am going to make a pass at it.
The thing which is taken as a given
It's taken as a given, amongst many on the left and amongst many moderates, that the right are more ignorant, violent, racist (and other ists), selfish, greedy; that the principles and ideas of the right are more grounded in ignorance, racism, selfishness, greed. It's also taken as a given amongst many on the TMV blog and in TMV's comment sections.
Now, this opinion, i.e. this thing which is taken as a given: cannot be proven or disproven. It is based on anecdotal evidence, and on faith. As such, this thing which is taken as a given is both like an undisprovable faith-based religious belief, and like an ism such as sexism or racism.
What is the difference between saying: “Women are more emotional and unstable”, vs. saying “the right is more violent and hate-filled”? Neither statement can be proven or disproven. Both statements are supported only by anecdotal observation. The only difference is the former is considered regrettably misguided; and the latter is considered – by many – to be a necessary given if a conversation is to be polite and intelligent.
What is the difference between saying “Black people are more lazy and dense” vs saying “the right is more selfish and ignorant”? Neither statement can be proven or disproven. Both statements are supported only by anecdotal observation. The only difference is the former is considered a regrettably misguided; and the latter is considered – by many – to be a necessary given if a conversation is to be polite and intelligent.
The demand
Amongst many persons on the left – i.e. neighbors in our workplaces, churches, schools, media, and neighbors in this blog and in this blog comments sections – when political discussion arises: there is an always implicit, and sometimes explicit, demand for anyone with whom they converse to acknowledge the thing about the right which is taken as a given. Inside this demand exists an explicit assertion, i.e.
It's a DEMAND: ACKNOWLEDGE this thing which is a given! I DEMAND IT!
The weakness
Regrettably, I have often caved and acknowledged the thing which is taken as a given. I suspect I am representative of many persons. I didn't cave b/c I believed it. I do not believe it. At all. The assumption, in my opinion, is foolish, misguided, and often used as a ploy to gain power inside a conversation. Rather, I caved to the pressure which seems, to me, still, to be so heavily in the air and in the culture. I compromised my principles. I professed what was a lie. I thought I wanted to join certain conversations. I wanted to be thought of as an intelligent person: as a person on the inside, as a person in the smart set. I was weak.
No more. I will not be professing this lie in future. I'm not as weak as I once was. I don't crave approval as I once did. I do not care what opinions of me are held by those who believe the thing which is taken as a given. If I am excluded from their conversations, then they are doing me a favor: they are demonstrating that I do not want into those conversations anyway.
The contradiction
If the right's ideas are grounded in ignorance, hatred, greed, et al: then these ideas can be solidly discredited based on lack of merit, and ought be. Such discrediting ought be easier, and more effective and long-lasting, than using anecdotal evidence to persuade of the right's ignorance, hatred, greed, et al.
Well said. It's always seemed as though it was just another way of discounting the opponent, to avoid answering their points.
Yes. That's frequently my impression, also. Persons can be true believers in the meme, yet still employ the meme in strategic fashion, i.e. so as to avoid reasoned response re ideas and principles. I wonder if the effectiveness of employing the meme is beginning to dissipate? Sometimes, I sense change in the air.
Looks like this is a “right-only” thread. Don't you see the irony of your doing exactly what you accuse the other side of? Take a look at any comment by DLS or SD and substitute their “isms” for the ones you list. To them, and perhaps to you, everyone on the left is “childish” “kiddies” who want “open borders with Mexico” and no one in the Obama admistration could possibly be sincere when they extend unemployment benefits or support Affirmative Action. No, they're “buying votes.”
So to use your words, “If the [left's] ideas are grounded in [childish, pandering, magic pony, socialism et al:] then these ideas can be solidly discredited based on lack of merit, and ought be. There is no need to discredit based upon the thing which is taken as a given.”
If/when someone on the right insists a thing which is strictly based upon anecdotal evidence must be pre-agreed upon – by all parties – as a condition of entering into an intelligent and reasoned conversation: then the person on the right is wide open to have their assumptions questioned.
While 95% of all conservatives and liberals might not be nut jobs, we shouldn't hesitate to call out the extremists and ignore them when they appear.
I really don't see the point in debating anyone that thinks Bush was a Nazi or Obama is a Marxist.
My point: debate the issue, or don't. However, something is wrong when we must pre-agree that Obama is a Marxist, else it be deemed the conversation cannot be intelligent and reasoned. For instance, whether or not Obama is a Marxist has little to do with the merit or lack of merit of the government running the college loan programs. If my argument against the college loan programs amounts to: Obama is a Marxist, therefore the college loan programs are an oppressive government power grab, then something would be wrong with my argument.