Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies?

[ZiprHead]

An interplay between how all humans think and how conservatives tend to act might actually explain a lot about our current moment.

If “truth” is judged on the basis of Enlightenment ideas of reason and more or less objective “evidence,” many of the substantive positions common on the right seem to border on delusional. The left is certainly not immune to credulity (most commonly about the safety of vaccines, GMO foods, and fracking), but the right seems to specialize in it. “Misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right,” concluded a team of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastern University at a February 2017 conference. A BuzzFeed analysis found that three main hyperconservative Facebook pages were roughly twice as likely as three leading ultraliberal Facebook pages to publish fake or misleading information.

To understand how these differences manifest and what we might do about them, it helps to understand how all humans reason and rationalize: In other words, let’s take a detour into psychology. Freud distinguished between “errors” on the one hand, “illusions” and “delusions” on the other. Errors, he argued, simply reflect lack of knowledge or poor logic; Aristotle’s belief that vermin form out of dung was an error. But illusions and delusions are based on conscious or unconscious wishes; Columbus’s belief that he had found a new route to the Indies was a delusion based on his wish that he had done so.

Although Freud is out of favor with many contemporary psychologists, modern cognitive psychology suggests that he was on the right track. The tenacity of many of the right’s beliefs in the face of evidence, rational arguments, and common sense suggest that these beliefs are not merely alternate interpretations of facts but are instead illusions rooted in unconscious wishes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd love to do a neurological study determining the impact of id driven propaganda affects on conservatives verses liberals. Conservatives seem to be driven more by id related attacks.

 

[PyramidHead]

Though conservatives may be more susceptible to believing lies, liberals are more susceptible to folk psychology-based rationales for political tendencies rather than material ones.

 

[ZiprHead]

Though conservatives may be more susceptible to believing lies, liberals are more susceptible to folk psychology-based rationales for political tendencies rather than material ones.

What the hell does that even mean?

 

[PyramidHead]

Though conservatives may be more susceptible to believing lies, liberals are more susceptible to folk psychology-based rationales for political tendencies rather than material ones.

What the hell does that even mean?

It means we've had threads and articles like these, called "Why Conservatives are More Susceptible to Confirmation Bias, By Noted Harvard Psychologist" for years, and it does nothing except give liberals a sense of mental superiority while distracting them from material conditions (society's mode of production and the interaction between those who control it and those who don't) as a driving factor of political differences. It reinforces the idea that political problems can be solved by addressing the outlook of people who have different views than you, by fixing some mental defect of theirs, rather than by changing the structure of society that is responsible for their attitudes. That's in the extreme, of course, and not all articles in this category totally ignore social causes. But most people just read the headlines and think haha dumb conservatives and their gullible brains, I am very smart

 

[Worldtraveller]

Though conservatives may be more susceptible to believing lies, liberals are more susceptible to folk psychology-based rationales for political tendencies rather than material ones.

What the hell does that even mean?

It means we've had threads and articles like these, called "Why Conservatives are More Susceptible to Confirmation Bias, By Noted Harvard Psychologist" for years, and it does nothing except give liberals a sense of mental superiority while distracting them from material conditions (society's mode of production and the interaction between those who control it and those who don't) as a driving factor of political differences. It reinforces the idea that political problems can be solved by addressing the outlook of people who have different views than you, by fixing some mental defect of theirs, rather than by changing the structure of society that is responsible for their attitudes. That's in the extreme, of course, and not all articles in this category totally ignore social causes. But most people just read the headlines and think haha dumb conservatives and their gullible brains, I am very smart

I think you're completely missing the point. I guess that's ironic in a way.

This research jives very well with the conclusions in The Authoritarians which was specifically about the authoritarian, predominantly right wing mindset. Data is data.

The above goes into explaining (or trying to) why we see what we see. The simple fact of the matter is, though, that the right wing authoritarian mindset is explicitly resistant to change based on observation or data. The fact that there are so many of these type of people in just about every type of society indicates that it's probably at least partially inherent in human psychology, which is at least partially heritable.

You can show people even on the smarter end of the authoritarian spectrum (like Loren here) actual data that shows their position is incorrect, and they won't change their mindset. And there are left leaning authoritarians that are more rare, but exhibit much of the same characteristics.

 

[abaddon]

It means we've had threads and articles like these, called "Why Conservatives are More Susceptible to Confirmation Bias, By Noted Harvard Psychologist" for years, and it does nothing except give liberals a sense of mental superiority while distracting them from material conditions (society's mode of production and the interaction between those who control it and those who don't) as a driving factor of political differences. It reinforces the idea that political problems can be solved by addressing the outlook of people who have different views than you, by fixing some mental defect of theirs, rather than by changing the structure of society that is responsible for their attitudes. That's in the extreme, of course, and not all articles in this category totally ignore social causes. But most people just read the headlines and think haha dumb conservatives and their gullible brains, I am very smart

Not every thread has to be about solving problems.

So what is it about the structure of society that is responsible for conservative/authoritarian attitudes?

It doesn't matter if the thread might be used for partisan quibbling by some, the question's about an observable difference and wondering "why?" about that difference is reasonable.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Here are some easy & obvious observations about the Conservative movement, at least as it has developed (mutated) since the early 60s:
> an aggressive and surly denunciation of the news media -- I think even Eisenhower indulged in this, appearing at the '64 Convention and making a slighting reference to reporters, which had the conventioneers snarling in agreement and glaring at the press. Then came decades of "exposes" of press bias, culminating in the gas-filled rhetoric of Trump. Result? A solid voting bloc who do not understand the slightest thing about the importance of a free press and how it operates, who accept this lunatic epithet of "enemy of the people" as a sober diagnosis, and who can then be led by pure propaganda.
> the alliance of the GOP with the ultra-religious, which by the late 70s was in overdrive. This leads to craziness in any movement and a denial of modern science whenever science points to inconvenient truths. It leads to an entire panel of GOP presidential primary contenders denying any 'belief' in evolution (I think this was in the '12 season, but it could've been in any GOP primary season in the last quarter century.) It leads to Bush 43 pontificating that intelligent design should be in the schools, because we should "teach both sides of the controversy." It leads to the obnoxious statement made by Limbaugh, Delay, and probably a herd of other hard righties that there's no need to be concerned about climate change, because God will not allow man to destroy His creation.
> the absolute hatred of adverse scientific research by the GOP's donor class when that research challenges a business model, whether it's second hand smoke or carbon emissions (or, as addressed by Trump in the first few days of his reign, dumping mining waste into rivers. Guess which side Trump took?) The Brothers Koch have poured a mint into the climate change denial movement. Notice how the scientists who publish data on climate derangement are characterized by the right as socialists or even Chinese schemers (again, our President.)
> Social media, which has created a new, heated environment and made things crazier than GOP think tanks and politicos ever intended. In this extra-hot setting, all kinds of scurrilous microbes, spores, and pathogens can take off at a moment's notice. And of course we now have a chief exec with a brain full of garbage who is shrewd enough to repost all kinds of rumors and preposterous conspiracies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Though conservatives may be more susceptible to believing lies, liberals are more susceptible to folk psychology-based rationales for political tendencies rather than material ones.

What the hell does that even mean?

It means we've had threads and articles like these, called "Why Conservatives are More Susceptible to Confirmation Bias, By Noted Harvard Psychologist" for years, and it does nothing except give liberals a sense of mental superiority while distracting them from material conditions (society's mode of production and the interaction between those who control it and those who don't) as a driving factor of political differences.

Last time I checked, the conservatives citizens are currently in lockstep with one of the least conservative Republicans in US History. The moral crusaders stand with the immoral fuckwad who ran a fake school. The fiscal conservatives support the $1 trillion annual deficits. The warhawks are supporting his cut and run Syria plan. This is unusual.

It reinforces the idea that political problems can be solved by addressing the outlook of people who have different views than you, by fixing some mental defect of theirs, rather than by changing the structure of society that is responsible for their attitudes. That's in the extreme, of course, and not all articles in this category totally ignore social causes. But most people just read the headlines and think haha dumb conservatives and their gullible brains, I am very smart

Previous neurological studies indicate that people are susceptible to partisan bias when it comes to facts that are inconvenient politically. They have even indicated why the brain decides to internally spin the truth and give a dopamine hit.

 

[ronburgundy]

It means we've had threads and articles like these, called "Why Conservatives are More Susceptible to Confirmation Bias, By Noted Harvard Psychologist" for years, and it does nothing except give liberals a sense of mental superiority while distracting them from material conditions (society's mode of production and the interaction between those who control it and those who don't) as a driving factor of political differences. It reinforces the idea that political problems can be solved by addressing the outlook of people who have different views than you, by fixing some mental defect of theirs, rather than by changing the structure of society that is responsible for their attitudes. That's in the extreme, of course, and not all articles in this category totally ignore social causes. But most people just read the headlines and think haha dumb conservatives and their gullible brains, I am very smart

Not every thread has to be about solving problems.

All threads have to attack Capitalism and promote Communism, or PyramidHead isn't gonna be happy.

When the only things you have are a hammer and sickle, everything looks like class warfare.

 

[PyramidHead]

It means we've had threads and articles like these, called "Why Conservatives are More Susceptible to Confirmation Bias, By Noted Harvard Psychologist" for years, and it does nothing except give liberals a sense of mental superiority while distracting them from material conditions (society's mode of production and the interaction between those who control it and those who don't) as a driving factor of political differences. It reinforces the idea that political problems can be solved by addressing the outlook of people who have different views than you, by fixing some mental defect of theirs, rather than by changing the structure of society that is responsible for their attitudes. That's in the extreme, of course, and not all articles in this category totally ignore social causes. But most people just read the headlines and think haha dumb conservatives and their gullible brains, I am very smart

I think you're completely missing the point. I guess that's ironic in a way.

This research jives very well with the conclusions in The Authoritarians which was specifically about the authoritarian, predominantly right wing mindset. Data is data.

The above goes into explaining (or trying to) why we see what we see. The simple fact of the matter is, though, that the right wing authoritarian mindset is explicitly resistant to change based on observation or data. The fact that there are so many of these type of people in just about every type of society indicates that it's probably at least partially inherent in human psychology, which is at least partially heritable.

You can show people even on the smarter end of the authoritarian spectrum (like Loren here) actual data that shows their position is incorrect, and they won't change their mindset. And there are left leaning authoritarians that are more rare, but exhibit much of the same characteristics.

I actually don't think the word "authoritarian" is very useful or means anything. All societies with power structures are authoritarian to some degree, as all involve the subjugation of one group of people by another. Some of this is baked into the way the government is set up, some is part of the cultural makeup of society, and some is in the workplace, but submission to authority is a part of human civilization that has no clear dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable--not, anyway, without the benefit of class analysis.

All threads have to attack Capitalism and promote Communism, or PyramidHead isn't gonna be happy.

When the only things you have are a hammer and sickle, everything looks like class warfare.

I'm a communist, so I think that class is important and explains the things liberals try to explain in terms of psychology, and conservatives frame as culture-war bullshit. To me, class is to politics as evolution is to biology; maybe I bring it up all the time because it's an unusually significant factor in all political conflicts that is simultaneously always completely ignored unless I do.

 

[Gun Nut]

It means we've had threads and articles like these, called "Why Conservatives are More Susceptible to Confirmation Bias, By Noted Harvard Psychologist" for years, and it does nothing except give liberals a sense of mental superiority while distracting them from material conditions (society's mode of production and the interaction between those who control it and those who don't) as a driving factor of political differences. It reinforces the idea that political problems can be solved by addressing the outlook of people who have different views than you, by fixing some mental defect of theirs, rather than by changing the structure of society that is responsible for their attitudes. That's in the extreme, of course, and not all articles in this category totally ignore social causes. But most people just read the headlines and think haha dumb conservatives and their gullible brains, I am very smart

Not every thread has to be about solving problems.

All threads have to attack Capitalism and promote Communism, or PyramidHead isn't gonna be happy.

When the only things you have are a hammer and sickle, everything looks like class warfare.

It's also exactly the behavior described in the article that PH is criticizing... so, fucking hilarious, actually.

Why is being ignorant about something viewed as such a bad thing? I am ignorant about what you, the reader, ate for breakfast today. I just don't know... and I am OK with that. If you tell me what you ate, then I will know and will no longer be ignorant on that topic. Simple solution, if it's a problem for me.

Embrace your ignorance! Admit it, and own it. Who is the better person.. one who now knows everything they will ever know, or one who seeks knowledge?
There is a cure for ignorance... but missing that point is stupid... for which there is no cure.

 

[ronburgundy]

All threads have to attack Capitalism and promote Communism, or PyramidHead isn't gonna be happy.

When the only things you have are a hammer and sickle, everything looks like class warfare.

I'm a communist, so I think that class is important and explains the things liberals try to explain in terms of psychology, and conservatives frame as culture-war bullshit. To me, class is to politics as evolution is to biology; maybe I bring it up all the time because it's an unusually significant factor in all political conflicts that is simultaneously always completely ignored unless I do.

You're a communist, so you are an anti-science dogmatist that dismisses actual data in favor of your data-free narrative in the same way that right wingers do. The only difference is you prefer a different narrative.
Accepting behavioral science isn't "liberal", it's rational.
The research the OP refers to shows that there are natural variations on psychological tendencies when it comes to reasoning and the type of conclusions that people prefer, and that this variation accounts for some of the variation in political leanings. Importantly, it can account for why many lower class people favor right wing politics even when doing so is against their own economic interests. Something which simplistic notions of class cannot do without lots of convoluted rationalizations.

 

[PyramidHead]

All threads have to attack Capitalism and promote Communism, or PyramidHead isn't gonna be happy.

When the only things you have are a hammer and sickle, everything looks like class warfare.

I'm a communist, so I think that class is important and explains the things liberals try to explain in terms of psychology, and conservatives frame as culture-war bullshit. To me, class is to politics as evolution is to biology; maybe I bring it up all the time because it's an unusually significant factor in all political conflicts that is simultaneously always completely ignored unless I do.

You're a communist, so you are an anti-science dogmatist that dismisses actual data in favor of your data-free narrative in the same way that right wingers do.

lol ok.

Accepting behavioral science isn't "liberal", it's rational.

Insisting that science is ever politically neutral and can thus be applied neutrally to politics, however, is liberal.

The research the OP refers to shows that there are natural variations on psychological tendencies when it comes to reasoning and the type of conclusions that people prefer, and that this variation accounts for some of the variation in political leanings. Importantly, it can account for why many lower class people favor right wing politics even when doing so is against their own economic interests. Something which simplistic notions of class cannot do without lots of convoluted rationalizations.

I don't doubt that there are differences in psychological tendencies, I just disagree that those differences ultimately account for anything; what accounts for the differences? Are these "natural variations" just given, encountered fully-formed in the wild, like created forms in pre-Darwin biology?

 

[Worldtraveller]

I actually don't think the word "authoritarian" is very useful or means anything. All societies with power structures are authoritarian to some degree, as all involve the subjugation of one group of people by another. Some of this is baked into the way the government is set up, some is part of the cultural makeup of society, and some is in the workplace, but submission to authority is a part of human civilization that has no clear dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable--not, anyway, without the benefit of class analysis.

Have you read it? (I linked to the actual paper/book in my post.) It has a very specific and fairly narrow meaning. And it is very useful, and apt in this situation.

 

[Trausti]

An interplay between how all humans think and how conservatives tend to act might actually explain a lot about our current moment.

If “truth” is judged on the basis of Enlightenment ideas of reason and more or less objective “evidence,” many of the substantive positions common on the right seem to border on delusional. The left is certainly not immune to credulity (most commonly about the safety of vaccines, GMO foods, and fracking), but the right seems to specialize in it. “Misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right,” concluded a team of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastern University at a February 2017 conference. A BuzzFeed analysis found that three main hyperconservative Facebook pages were roughly twice as likely as three leading ultraliberal Facebook pages to publish fake or misleading information.

To understand how these differences manifest and what we might do about them, it helps to understand how all humans reason and rationalize: In other words, let’s take a detour into psychology. Freud distinguished between “errors” on the one hand, “illusions” and “delusions” on the other. Errors, he argued, simply reflect lack of knowledge or poor logic; Aristotle’s belief that vermin form out of dung was an error. But illusions and delusions are based on conscious or unconscious wishes; Columbus’s belief that he had found a new route to the Indies was a delusion based on his wish that he had done so.

Although Freud is out of favor with many contemporary psychologists, modern cognitive psychology suggests that he was on the right track. The tenacity of many of the right’s beliefs in the face of evidence, rational arguments, and common sense suggest that these beliefs are not merely alternate interpretations of facts but are instead illusions rooted in unconscious wishes.

Heh, for three years conservatives belived in the Russia colusion hoax and Muslim travel ban. Stupid conservatives.

 

[zorq]

An interplay between how all humans think and how conservatives tend to act might actually explain a lot about our current moment.

Heh, for three years conservatives belived in the Russia colusion hoax and Muslim travel ban. Stupid conservatives.

You are so smug, but you can't hear the people reading your words laughing.

 

[Trausti]

An interplay between how all humans think and how conservatives tend to act might actually explain a lot about our current moment.

Heh, for three years conservatives belived in the Russia colusion hoax and Muslim travel ban. Stupid conservatives.

You are so smug, but you can't hear the people reading your words laughing.

I know. There was Russia collusion, we just need more time, millions more spent, and three or four additional special prosecutors to find the truth. Otherwise, Rachael Maddow is a complete idiot.

 

[Angry Floof]

Conservatism is rooted in fear and focus on the negative, a survival trait maladaptive in the modern world. A tribe of seven billion will never know peace and well being as long as fear produces widespread conservative ideologies. If you're not afraid of everyone outside of your in-group, it's easy to hold a genuine desire for everyone's peace and well being. As it turns out, that's all it takes to make that a reality; a majority of people simply wanting peace and well being for everyone and not just for themselves and punishment for out-groups actually serves to produce just that.

When you make conservatives feel safe, their views become more liberal: A Yale psychologist's simple thought experiment temporarily turned conservatives into liberals

It's a nice thought, but just try to get them to turn off the fear and hate mongering TV and radio.

 

[lpetrich]

Inside the Macedonian Fake-News Complex | WIRED It was much more successful with the Right than with the Left.

Trump groups seemed to have hundreds of thousands more members than Clinton groups, which made it simpler to propel an article into virality. (For a week in July, he experimented with fake news extolling Bernie Sanders. “Bernie Sanders supporters are among the smartest people I’ve seen,” he says. “They don’t believe anything. The post must have proof for them to believe it.”)

So that's additional evidence for greater rationality on the Left than on the Right.