Many voters are willing to accept misinformation from political leaders – even when they know it’s factually inaccurate, if they believe the statements evoke a deeper, more important “truth.”
Many voters are willing to accept misinformation from political leaders – even when they know it’s factually inaccurate, if they believe the statements evoke a deeper, more important “truth.”
In a series of surveys, researchers studied when and why voters put up with inaccurate statements from their leaders.
Many voters are willing to accept misinformation from political leaders – even when they know it’s factually inaccurate. According to our research, voters often recognize when their parties’ claims are not based on objective evidence. Yet they still respond positively, if they believe these inaccurate statements evoke a deeper, more important “truth.”
You're viewing a single thread.
I haven't read the article or study yet. But I wonder if the observation is one of "probably approximately correct learning" (PAC learning) in action. There's a book of that title by Les Valiant proposing that all biological learning works that way.
to me this is just ex-post-facto justification for motivational reasoning or confirmation bias. people just look for the easiest possible way to resolve cognitive dissonance.
Why do you post an article you haven't even read?
It looked interesting and that was good enough.
Because even if it winds up being a bad study, it still evokes a deeper, more important “truth.”
I'm being sarcastic but that's actually what's going on here.