Psychological 'Vaccine' to 'Inoculate' People from Accepting 'Fake News'

in #fakenews8 years ago (edited)

How do you vaccinate people against climate change misinformation? Tell them lies, according to psychologists from the University of Cambridge, Yale University and George Mason University.

This idea comes from medicine and virology where exposing the body to a weakened version of the virus allows it to build a tolerance. The point is to tell lies and expose them as lies, not to tell lies as if they were truth.


source

Social psychologists researching "fakenews" have come up with a strategy published in the journal Global Challenges. They want to inoculate the public against misinformation, specifically the "fake news" websites such as those they deem to be propagating myths about climate change.

Previous research has shown that counteracting politicization of science can be done through high-level consensus forming among experts to convey the reality, yet other research indicates that public opinion on climate change to be shaped with limited external validity. The current research wants to explore how people doing the evaluating process the consensus information while they are in a polarized information environment (like one political party vs. another).

In order to get people to address climate change, people will need to change their behaviors and how they make decisions in life. Researchers and scientists see a problem through the increased politicization of climate science and the attempts by certain disinformation campaigns to undermine the "scientific consensus". Researchers wanted to identify an effective way to engage the public about issues across the political spectrum.

In presenting facts followed by misinformation, the false material cancels out the previous accurate statement in people's minds and end up back where they started. Lies canceled out the facts. Researchers decided to add some misinformation to the delivery of their own facts through distortion tactics used by other groups. For some reason, this helps shift and hold people's opinion closer to the truth when follow-up exposure to "fake news" was introduced.

Lead author, Sander van der Linden, has a poignant statement to make about being influenced by falsity (as I talk about in my own work):

"Misinformation can be sticky, spreading and replicating like a virus."

Once falsity takes root in our consciousness, we can become attached to it and it becomes a mind virus that we unknowingly spread to other consciousnesses through the words we use to influence them into accepting the mind virus.

By injecting a small amount of misinformation, this acts as a vaccine that preemptively exposes people and warns them, although subconsciously, about the misinformation and helps them to preserve the facts. The idea is that a cognitive repertoire is built up that acts as a resistance to misinformation and reduces susceptibility to accepting it the next time it is encountered.

To determine how opinion shifted, 2000 participants from various ages and political views were shown a website that alleged 31,000 scientists had signed a petition saying there was no evidence of human caused carbon dioxide release leading to global climate change. There was also the alternative accurate statement that 97% of U.S. scientists agree on man-made climate change.

Participants there were only shown the climate change consensus showed an increased agreement with the scientific consensus by about 20%. Those were shown misinformation alone resulted in a 9% drop in accepting the scientific consensus. Other participants were shown the accurate information followed by the false petition and there was neither an increase or a drop in accepting the scientific consensus. Conflicting messages can leave people unsure of what is what and it brings them back to square-one where they started off not knowing what was what.


source

Two groups were given the information "vaccine" of a general-correction of the false data, which showed a 6.5% increase in acceptance towards the scientific consensus, despite exposure to fake news. A more detailed correction served as an inoculation to achieve a 13% increase in acceptance.

The misinformation was not presented as information, but was demonstrated to be false through either general or more specifically detailed corrections, which sowed seeds of doubt and undermined the claims. Tobacco, fossil fuels and chemical companies have long used psychological inoculation to undermine scientific facts in the public consciousness. The same process can be reversed to promote facts instead.

In looking at Republicans, Independents and Democrats, inoculation messages were all equally effective in shifting their opinions to be consistent with climate science conclusions. The normal backfire effect where people reject information did not occur when inoculation messages were used. Including the misinformation in the presentation of facts helps to preemptively warn people against the spread of misinformation that can influence them into accepting falsity.


source

Changing minds is indeed hard, as I recently posted.

"There will always be people completely resistant to change, but we tend to find there is room for most people to change their minds, even just a little."


References:


If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:

Upvoting ,    Sharing or   Reblogging below.

Follow me for more content to come!


@krnel
2017-01-24, 12:05pm

Sort:  

Hello @krnel,

Congratulations! Your post has been chosen by the communities of SteemTrail as one of our top picks today.

Also, as a selection for being a top pick today, you have been awarded a TRAIL token for your participation on our innovative platform...STEEM.
Please visit SteemTrail to get instructions on how to claim your TRAIL token today.

If you wish to not receive comments from SteemTrail, please reply with "Stop" to opt out.

Happy TRAIL!

Thanks ;)

Scientists are made up of humans like every other grouping and so have all of the weaknesses and corruptions found in other professions. Many sins are committed to fraudulently gain prestige.

Some scientists ride a wave of fame for years before eventually being shown to have falsified their research results, ignored or thrown out contradictory results or facts, or simply dismissed newer competing theories using the authority of their established academic position.

Yup. I didn't criticize the study much, but I have responded in comments to clear things up on issues. Just too much to get into to explain it all. I was more interested in showing more of the "fake news" "problem" that the mainstream is devising tactics to deal with.. .hehe. Social engineering. Although I didn't mention that either lol. Thanks for the feedback.

Perhaps you could bring the Tavistock Institute under your piercing gaze in a future article.

Yeah, I had that idea a while back, its in a file if I come back to it: tavistock, ford, carnegie, rockefeller foundations and their social engineering.

In order to get people to address climate change, people will need to change their behaviors and how they make decisions in life.

I still can't fully make up my mind on "global warming", "climate change", "global meltdown/flooding/increase huricanes" you name it.

It seems that for the average person at least, it's easier to find well presented and digestable binding evidence for #pizzagate than it is for climate change!

Yes yes, I've seen a ton of charts, photographs, scientists, politicians and famous people talk about and even present what they officially consider to be the final evidence for it, but they never seem to present the actual source material, show us how they got it and stay around for the questions and scepticism.

Oh no! If I actually question anything, then I'm a denier and we all know what that means...

Thankfully, I've come across some material on Steemit that could settle this issue for me. But I have yet to read it, because it's so darn much information beating around the bush and still not in a format that can just be picked up and read through!

-Thank you at least for an interesting article krnel.

Yup, it's a false dichotomy in that sense, since they just expect everyone to believe the appeal to authority of "experts". Until they start treating us with respect to give us the information, then thing might change. But blind obedience is what is expected from many, scientists and regular people who buy into it. I accept man-made CO2 and the problems with it. But as I have said in comments on other posts, and my own posts, there is more going on the climate change than simply CO2.

As my post later today will show some more issues that are clearly being ignored by the scientific community, and that is of the chemicals we create that we poison ourselves with, and all the pollution we create. C02 is the big hype and buzz, and everything else is being ignore so we can keep killing ourselves slowly and tax the fuck out of everyone for carbon... oy... And yeah, if you don't go along with, then you're a denier. Thanks for the feedback.

This is a pretty interesting idea, thanks for sharing! However as a bit of constructive criticism, it would have been nice to hear more about your own thoughts on it, especially as it related to Steemit if that'd interest you 😇

Most interesting is that this tactic seems to have been used for a long time without this kind of metaphorical framing as inoculation. It's interesting to see how it works and also scary how successfully we can be manipulated.

A further question could be, is there a way to disrupt the inoculation completely? Or in other words, how can we protect ourselves from inoculation as manipulation?

A thought of Steemit: I see a lot of spurious claims and information here, maybe the anti-censorship bent of Steemit introduces some of this inoculation (read: contrasting information) organically? Because there's a lot of good stuff here too.

Thanks again 🙏 👍

Indeed, it comes down to individual thinking capacities and understanding how to think better. The inoculation can work for influencing the acceptance of truth, just as much as it can work for falsity as well. There are issues in the mainstream, and on Steemit, of an inability to think better and people spread unverifiable information as a result. The cure is ourselves, to educate, learn and evolve consciousness. :) Thanks for the feedback.

I used to be a believer in human caused climate change. The way I got past the fake news was by becoming fully conversant in the Trivium (not the neoplatonist retooling) and Quadrivium, and then I spent about 6 years studying the physics of the Earth/Sun system, which lead me to the fact that climate change is happening on other planets in the solar system. I know that humans are poisoning the ecosphere, of that there is no doubt, but I also know that humans are not causing energetic changes on Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn that I have seen so far. The Sun is an astonishing thing. CO2 is something to be watched, but is not a major driver.

I would recommend the Trivium and Quadrivium to anyone who wishes to increase comprehension, but beware of false interpretations. Take nothing for granted.

Indeed, you summarized my research as well hehe. Although I did not go into as depth as you, the research I had done was enough to point to alternative factors that remove the onus of blame squarely on humans for heat rising. Until this is openly added to the honest discussion, the "scientific consensus" will seem like a censoring and fraudulent panel to many who have more data than the public is being given. Thank you for the feedback.

Excellent, there are more of us every day. The false dilemma, and appeal to authority are keeping fewer people trapped all the time.

Thank you for the post.

I like that comparison with climate change. Just like social media, it's having it's own climate change and in order for us to make a change, we have to change our behavior more to change the effect we have on the social media world.

Indeed. The main message was to show the psychological aspect of how to influence people, either with lies of truth, and you can inoculate people to reject the opposite. We have to change our behavior for sure, and that will determine the future we create. Setting the bar high isn't often welcome. Gradualism is a result because people are stuck in their ways. Thanks for the feedback.

Yes. Gradualism over time :)

Yeah, there is a good and required kind, and if that gradual learning is not employed to actualize ourselves into truth in our lifetimes to create change, then we won't get real change, because people aren't learning, are unaware, and that means instead of change in our lifetime from doing the inner work, we are going to have BS gradualism of change, going back and forth, and the gradualism and incrementalism of the globalist elite and their agenda upon us without us even realizing it, as has been the case for centuries. Rant done. LOL

Now that's a unique approach...are they hiring???

hi krnel, i read some amazing conversation from you steemit community discussions on discord. i just join that discord channel and saw where you wrote of established dream of using steem to touch humanity. i share that same goal. i really need your help to support my goal. i would love you to read this post and likely help me propagate it too. but your going through it is a good start as the post is pretty lenghty. i would have reached out to you on discord but i am at work all night and discord is blocked on work pc. thus i am leaving you a link here!
https://steemit.com/steemit/@surpassinggoogle/dear-steemians-i-want-to-live-my-steem-dream-and-i-need-your-help-i-have-created-steemlab

Interesting read!