Re: Why most people reject evidence of news bias (by their preferred provider) without examining it
Posted by sinister burt on May 16, 2022, 11:44 am, in reply to "Why most people reject evidence of news bias (by their preferred provider) without examining it"
As someone here's signature says, easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled (another fake mark twain quote?). It's partly the sunk cost fallacy - one of many intuitive but wrong aspects of how our minds tend to work which are utilised by the media/politicians/pr etc (another common one is the gambler's fallacy ('I've flipped this coin/done the lottery/worked this shitty job 3 years in a row - I must be more likely to win now'); also priming bias, anchoring etc, very useful to them) |
It's also the more obvious idea that if we build our identity/personality/social life around a set of ideas we're going to be loathe to give up on them, and have to go through rearranging years' worth of mental furniture and adjusting/examining the narrative we tell ourselves/others about who we are - far easier to apply a little semi-conscious short-circuit in the brain to ignore the problematic data and save having the ground pulled from beneath us - or having to say 'are we the baddies?' - (non religious people like to mock this or of short circuit in some people of faith, but we all have them - maybe even need them I guess to save time if nothing else).
(funny you should say, I've come across a fair bit of often emotional rejection of evidence that threatens a worldview among some 9/11 'believers'' (even among the 'better', ae911-aligned ones) if I start to question some of their shibboleths - they can't accuse me of rejecting these ideas because of emotional attachment to the mainstream view as I'm fully prepared to accept the idea (and have for years of my life), but their evidence and potential biases should be questioned and scrutinised for bullshit/grift just as much as anyone's)