upworthy

politics

Education

Tired of arguing with misinformed people? Experts say there’s an easy way to change their minds.

It turns out we’ve been talking about facts the wrong way.

via Canva/Photos

Two young men arguing.

The downside to living in the Information Age is that we also live in a time when misinformation runs rampant. Studies show that fake news stories spread farther than those that are true, and people tend to believe information because it suits their worldview rather than because it happens to be correct.

It would be fine if most information was about things that are inconsequential in 2024, such as Bigfoot conspiracies or who killed John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation affects people’s everyday lives, whether it’s vaccines, technology, or fluoride in our water supply. We saw it happen in real time when misinformation made it very hard for the average person to make sense of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it killed millions of people across the world.

That’s why it’s so important for people to respond correctly to misinformation. Knowing how to do so could mean the difference between life and death.

argument, misinformation, newsA woman who is confused by conflicting information. via Canva/Photos

A new paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows that many people have been using ineffective tactics when fighting misinformation. Most people think the best way to counter misinformation is to make a counterargument that refutes the incorrect person’s claim.

For example, if someone says that fluoride in the water supply is a way for companies to dump their toxic waste. Most people would do some Googleing and respond that, actually, that was a conspiracy theory that took hold in post-war Europe. However, researchers note that correcting people is an uphill battle. “People don’t like to be contradicted, and a belief, once accepted, can be difficult to dislodge,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes.

What’s the most effective way to counter misinformation?

Researchers suggest a more effective countermeasure to fighting misinformation: “bypassing.”

“Rather than directly addressing the misinformation, this strategy involves offering accurate information that has an implication opposite to that of the misinformation,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes. Instead of countering the incorrect opinion on fluoride, you bring up another positive point about fluoride that may cause them to reconsider their beliefs. Simply put, you counter the “negative implication of the misinformation with positive implications, without taking the difficult path of confrontation.”

So, if someone says, “Flouride is toxic waste,” you can respond with, “The Centers for Disease Control says Flouride is one of the 10 Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century, reducing tooth decay by approximately 25% in children and adults.”

One of the study authors, Granados Samayoa, says that “bypassing can generally be superior to correction, specifically in situations when people are focused on forming beliefs, but not attitudes, about the information they encounter.”

argument, misinformation, newsFriends having a friendly debate.via Canva/Photos

What is the ‘backfire effect’?

The “bypass” strategy also makes sense because of the “backfire effect,” a psychological phenomenon that says when people are introduced to credible information that contradicts their firmly held beliefs, they reject it and hold onto their beliefs even more strongly. Considering this, countering someone's misinformation with contradictory evidence may even worsen things for both parties involved.

The good news is that you don’t have to be a super-hero fact-checker to combat the spread of misinformation or have to get in someone’s face and start a heated argument. Using strategies like bypassing, you can help tackle misinformation in a non-confrontational and effective way. It’s all about shifting the conversation and planting a seed of truth that could grow into greater understanding.

From Your Site Articles
misinformation
Democracy

A big reason why political polarization is spiraling out of control and how we can fix it

A new study shows us how to be more humane.

via Gage Skidmore/Flickr and Prachatai/Flickr

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.

Polls show that Democrats and Republicans believe they have less in common now than they did 17 years ago. In 2007, around half of Democrats (46%) and Republicans (43%) thought those on the opposite side of the aisle shared their values and goals. However, a 2024 poll found that only 31% of Democrats and 26% of Republicans believe they share the same values and goals as those in the other political party.

The widening political divide makes addressing many of America's pressing issues harder. It has also created a political climate in which the parties favor extremists, and people in the political center feel they have no one to represent them.

A new study from the British Journal of Social Psychology has identified one of the major reasons people are becoming increasingly divided over politics. The good news is that it points to a solution.

Why are Americans so politically divided?

According to the study, one of the most significant and disturbing aspects of the political divide is the belief that the other side is less-than-human. This happens when someone’s relationship with their party evolves from simple identification to political narcissism. Political narcissists are emotionally involved with their party and have an “unrealistic belief about the unparalleled greatness” of who they are.

These people can't admit to their party's faults and believe that everything the other side does is wrong.

People often become political narcissists when they feel dehumanized by the other side. This leads them to believe the other side is less-than-human, too.

“Our findings suggest that dehumanization is not exclusive to any one political ideology,” one of the study’s authors, Marta Marchlewska, an associate professor and head of the Political Cognition Lab at the Polish Academy of Sciences, told PsyPost. “Both liberals and conservatives may dehumanize their opponents when they identify with their political group in a narcissistic way. Collective narcissism stems from self-related psychological issues, such as anxious attachment styles and low personal control, as well as group-related concerns like perceived in-group disadvantage.”

The interesting takeaway from the study is that when one group or political leader lashes out at the other in a dehumanizing way, they are pushing for the other side to see them as less than human, too. So, in a way, dehumanizing the other side robs you of your humanity as well.

voting, 2024 election, polarization People in a voting booth.via Canva/Photos

The good news is that the study found that those who have little contact with people from the other side are more likely to become political narcissists. That means that the more we interact with people we disagree with, the more humanity we will begin to see in one another. The study also notes that many times, when people adopt extreme views, it can be more of a symptom of their insecurities than their feelings about the other party.

“It’s crucial to recognize the role of psychological factors in shaping political attitudes and behaviors,” Marchlewska told PsyPost. “By acknowledging our biases and understanding the motivations behind our political identities, we can foster healthier dialogues. I encourage readers to reflect on their identification with political groups and how it might influence their perceptions of others. This awareness could lead to more empathetic interactions, even amidst differing viewpoints.”

To prevent this partisan animosity from escalating, people must step out of their bubbles and engage with those on the other side of the aisle. You don’t have to talk about your thoughts on abortion, immigration, or how much the rich should pay in taxes. But socializing with people with whom you disagree exposes you to each other’s common humanity, which can help bridge the gap on the current divide. Once America's major political parties devolve to the point where their supporters become blind to the opposition's humanity, they open the door to committing the worst atrocities.

From Your Site Articles
2024 election
Democracy

Fox News viewers changed their minds after getting paid to watch CNN for a month

Some hope we can bridge the political divide.

Greg Gutfeld and Anderson Cooper images via Wikicommons

Fox viewers changed their minds after watching CNN

The prevailing logic in today’s political world is that polarization is worsening because people live in media echo chambers where they are only exposed to outlets that mirror their views.

People who live in echo chambers come to distrust any opinions that exist outside of their bubbles and when they're not exposed to any conflicting information. This creates a scenario where the person becomes increasingly entrenched in their worldview.

One would assume that after a person becomes fully entrenched in an echo chamber they have little chance of changing their views. However, a new working paper by researchers at Stanford and Yale universities has found that when people are removed from their bubbles there’s a chance they’ll change their minds.

David Broockman of Stanford and Joshua Kalla of Yale conducted a study in 2022 where they paid regular Fox News viewers $15 an hour to watch CNN for around seven hours a week for a month. The researchers then surveyed them about their political beliefs and knowledge of current events.

The study is titled “The manifold effects of partisan media on viewers’ beliefs and attitudes: A field experiment with Fox News viewers.” The research was done in fall 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and lead-up to the presidential election.

When the participants were polled, researchers found that they were 5 percentage points more likely to believe that people suffer from long COVID, 6 points more likely to believe that other countries did a better job of controlling the virus and 7 points more likely to support voting by mail.

“CNN provided extensive coverage of COVID-19, which included information about the severity of the COVID-19 crisis and poor aspects of Trump’s performance handling COVID-19. Fox News covered COVID-19 much less,” said the study.

​After the Fox viewers switched to CNN, it changed their opinions on the social justice protests happening at the time as well. The switchers were 10 points less likely to think that Biden supporters were happy when police got shot and 13 points less likely to believe that if Biden gets elected “we’ll see many more police get shot by Black Lives Matter activists.”

Many of the participants also realized that when it came to Trump, they weren’t getting the whole story. After switching to a steady diet of CNN they were less likely to agree that “if Donald Trump did something bad, Fox News would discuss it.”

“Despite regular Fox viewers being largely strong partisans, we found manifold effects of changing the slant of their media diets on their factual beliefs, attitudes, perceptions of issues’ importance, and overall political views,” the authors of the study said.

The study shows that Fox News isn’t just a media outlet that affirms its viewers' worldviews, it also feeds them a distorted version of reality that pushes them toward more extreme opinions. The good news is that some of these people can be changed when exposed to better information.

It should also be noted that Fox News viewers aren’t the only ones living in information bubbles and that there are plenty of ideological traps that ensnare people on the left as well.

The study should give everyone hope that all is not lost and that America’s political divide may not be impossible to bridge.

From Your Site Articles
politics
Democracy

Ohio dad begs politicians not to use his son's death to demonize Haitian migrants

Nathan Clark didn't mince words at a city commission meeting.

Photo by chris robert on Unsplash

11-year-old Aiden Clark was killed in a school bus accident in August of 2023.

Stoking fear about immigrants for political gain is nothing new, but a particularly heinous wave of fear-mongering over Haitian immigrants in Ohio has prompted one grieving family to speak out in a powerful way.

The parents of 11-year-old Aiden Clark, who was killed in a school bus accident in August of 2023, stood together at the podium at a Springfield City Commission meeting on September 10, 2024, begging people to stop invoking their son's name to spread hate. The driver of the minivan, 36-year-old Haitian immigrant Hermanio Joseph, crossed the centerline, colliding with the school bus carrying Aiden and around 50 other students and causing the crash. Aiden was killed and around 20 other students were injured in the accident.

Aiden Clark's father says he wasn't murdered

Along with spreading unfounded accusations of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, stealing and eating pets, some Republican politicians have used Aiden's death to support anti-immigrant rhetoric. Even vice presidential candidate JD Vance posted on X that "a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant," appearing to refer to the accident that killed Aiden.

"My son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered," Aiden's father, Nathan Clark, said at the meeting. "He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti. This tragedy is felt all over this community, this state and even the nation. But don’t spin this towards hate."

Clark didn't mince words sharing his feelings about how "reprehensible" it is that people would use his son's death as "a political tool."

"You know, I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man. I bet you never thought anyone would ever say something so blunt. But if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone," Clark said.

"The last thing that we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces. But even that’s not good enough for them," he continued. "They take it one step further. They make it seem as though our wonderful Aiden appreciates your hate. That we should follow their hate. And look what you’ve done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop."

Nathan clark asks people to "live like Aiden"

Clark pointed to specific politicians who have invoked his son's name "for political gain" and called for such rhetoric to end.

"This needs to stop now," he said. "They can vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis, and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members. However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio. I will listen to them one more time to hear their apologies."

Clark said that Aiden "researched different cultures to better appreciate and understand people he interacted with." He said he told his son he would try to make a difference in his honor and invited people to "live like Aiden."

"In order to live like Aiden, you need to accept everyone," he said. "Choose to shine. Make the difference. Lead the way and be the inspiration. What many people in this community and state and nation are doing is the opposite of what you should be doing."

Springfield, Ohio, has seen an influx of Haitian immigrants over the past several years, with approximately 15,000 Haitians making their way to work in the struggling industrial town of nearly 60,000. The swift population growth has come with growing pains including rising rents due to increased demand and an increase in welfare and federal assistance. But contrary to the fear-mongering rhetoric, violent crime and property crime have not increased, according to Reuters.

Others in Springfield speak out against hate for Haitian migrants

The Clarks are not the only Springfield residents to come to the defense of Haitian immigrants in the wake of hateful allegations about them. Springfield metal factory owner Jamie McGregor told PBS NewsHour that he has hired 30 Haitians, about 10% of his workforce, and he wished he had 30 more.

"Our Haitian associates come to work every day," McGregor said. "They don't have a drug problem. They'll stay at their machine, they'll achieve their numbers. They are here to work."

The United Farm Workers labor union also spoke out about the baseless, disgusting allegations against Haitian migrant workers in a post on X.

"We organize with Haitian-origin farm workers in NY. They’re as American as the apple pie their work makes possible, but right wing racists are spreading dehumanizing lies. Haitians are not eating pets. They’re feeding America. The anti-Haitian bigotry we’re seeing is repulsive," the union wrote. "(Cannot believe this is something we need to say.)" they added.

And yet, the rumors about the Haitian population in Springfield persist in right-wing circles on social media.To be extra clear, a spokesperson for the Springfield police issued a statement saying, "In response to recent rumors alleging criminal activity by the immigrant population in our city, we wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community."

Unfortunately, using fear and prejudice against immigrants—or anyone easily deemed an "other"—has proven for decades to be an effective political strategy. Fueling our most primal instincts of self-preservation and fear of the unknown is the playbook dictators and autocrats have used time and again to rise to power and successfully commit atrocities. Especially when coupled with economic anxiety and times of uncertainty, scapegoating immigrants works. It may be an unjust and hateful strategy, but it works.

The more voices like Nathan Clark and Jamie McGregor and the United Farm Workers we have to counter the purposeful fear-mongering about specific populations, the better. There are legitimate conversations to be had about managing immigration and ensuring migration is handled in a sustainable way, but equating a car accident with murder and claiming without evidence that people are eating people's pets are not it.

From Your Site Articles
immigration
Trending Stories