Why some of us refuse to face facts (yes, 'birthers,' that includes you)

John Moore / Getty Images
Even state records aren't enough to deter some in their beliefs, as evidenced by this billboard.

By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor
Here’s the delicious irony of this post: Some of you will disagree with the content. Strongly. Vehemently. Passionately.
Angrily.
You are wrong, according to the facts. Yet you maintain a death-grip mental hold on some untrue myths. And you refuse to surrender your unshakable belief – even when evidence is presented to the contrary. Why? Well, it’s basically how our brains work when it comes to persuasive urban legends and fabrications that perfectly suit our worldviews, according to a new report published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal for the Association for Psychological Science. Simply put: it’s cognitively easier for our minds to trust a lie – if it supports our deepest convictions – than it is to reject information that requires some mental sweat to assess.
Advertise | AdChoices


The report, which explains why some pieces of misinformation are so “sticky,” was authored by a cognitive scientist and three psychology professors.
Let’s jump right in, shall we?
President Barack Obama was born in the United States.
We don’t have to take Obama’s word for this. In late May, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett – who has served on Republican Mitt Romney’s campaign – received state records from Hawaii. The information verified that on Aug. 4, 1961, a young woman gave birth to a baby boy in a hospital at 1611 Bingham St. in Honolulu, and that boy grew up to be elected the 44th president. The documentation, in turn, convinced Bennett to allow the president’s name to be placed on the November ballot in Arizona.
But the doubters – “birthers” – still call it crap. This is the authors' first example of misinformation that, for some, cannot be unstuck.
“You can look at it from the point of view of the people that first raised the question: They want something that would invalidate this candidate,” said Colleen Seifert, an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, and one of the report’s authors. “So if it were true, they say it would be so great because it would solve this problem for them. But it’s really not true. So they keep clinging to it because they don’t have an alternative that is equally damning or that equally would change the playing field.”
Unbelievers: We are not nearly finished grinding your gears.
The report next cites two more pieces of information as incontrovertible facts: climate change is occurring and vaccines do not cause autism.
Some parents of autistic children are sure that childhood shots changed their kids’ brains. That has led other parents to become wary of inoculations.
“You can imagine (vaccines) as a cause and it fits really well with the situation because that’s when they had the shots and that’s when you started noticing your child was different,” Seifert said. “It all kind of makes sense. It’s a great package.
“But if they look at the statistics and ask themselves: Well, every child gets a vaccine, why is it only some of them would get autism from it? That has got to cause some cognitive conflict in order for those parents to recognize that and believe it’s not true,” Seifert said. “But it’s so good, it should be true. And they don’t have an alternative that would completely fit it so well."
Her research has shown that unless you can give people an alternative fact “that fills that causal hole,” they will cling to the old belief.
Sometimes, however, even cold facts won’t budge some folks off their stubborn perch. Earth is warming – and we’re doing it. Need confirmation? In late June, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is heating the planet. If an oil guy is going to own it, well, it seems sort of tough to keep your head buried in the oil shale on this issue.
Skeptics, however, call all this hot-and-bothered talk “junk science.”
According to the authors of the “sticky misinformation” report, that’s partly because the doubters all get around in vehicles.
“As you can imagine,” Seifert said, “there would be inconsistencies in their own lives: I drive a combustion car so I don’t want to admit that what we’re doing is causing harm to the earth. It’s the maintaining of this inconsistency internally – if my value is that I want to keep doing what I’m doing then anything that threatens that world view, I reject.”
Now back to even more delicate ground, the election, where this past summer Romney used Obama’s birth heritage as a stump speech quip.
Advertise | AdChoices


If hospital records won’t quell the “birthers” – won’t, as the psychologists like to say, “fill the hole” of truth – what in the name of science will it take to satisfy them?
What will allow the president’s opponents to say, in Seifert’s words: “Now, we’ve got something on him; he’s caught cold and it fits our view of him that he’s not fit for the presidency.”
What would that be? You already know one answer.
“A blue dress,” Seifert said, “hanging in some intern’s office.”

mitt didn't say it right but it doesn't mean what the media and others are implying.there are people dependent upon government who like it like that.not only the retired,the disabled,college kids,etc.we need a safety net but it shouldn't be a way of life.

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/tell-us-how-mitt-romney-has-destroyed-your-life-t9436.html

Tell Us How Mitt Romney Has Destroyed Your Life!

Generally when you quote someone you respond to what was said.
I have no idea how that relates to anything in this thread.

this is his quote
There are 47% of the country who will vote for the president no matter what.” And this 47% were people, he added, “who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. It is not my job to worry about these people.”


now , either one of two things is true

1. he believes that the 47 percent (the exact percentage of americans reciving SOME TYPE Of government assistance) believe they are victims

(see "THIS 47%", thats an all inclusive statement)

who feel entitled


or else

2. HE believes 47 percent of the voting public will choose Obama and THIS 47 percent will do so only because they feel like entitled victims


in either case, that is not consistent with a message of loving neighbor and charity,,, charity is not supposed to be based upon political affiliation or whether or not the recipient is a 'victim'

It is with 100% unadulterated glee that I say NO! I will; however,check his name in a vote AGAINST Premier King Ayatollah Barack Hussein Obama A$$ahola

I hope all who are able will use their vote,,,,Good luck

That 47 percent comment is not big deal. Obama's comment you did not build that no big deal. How about you vote for the candidate who has stuck with his positions on the issues.

Romney I am for the stimulus, now against it. Romney I am against the auto bailout, now for it. Romney against universal health care, but has Massachusetts have healthcare mandate.

Obama Voted against increasing the debt limit; then supported raising it. Campaigned against the Bush tax cuts; then extended all of them. Voted against the Patriot Act, but then supported its extension.

Gary Johnson 2012.

I won't be voting for Mitt Romney even though I am a registered Republican. Anyone with common sense should be able to see that my party has become an advocacy group for corporate entitlement.
Damn the people, full steam ahead...

anyone ever told you Folks that Politicians are Consistently Inconsistent?

I agree, comments are often disected to create controversy during political campaigns.

As far as 'sticking' to positions, I think as circumstances and needs change so too should positions. It just depends upon the issue and how MUCH change has occurred on that one issue.


budgets change as do budgetary needs, so a vote for a certain budget initiative in one year doesnt mean it should still be supported in another budget.


stubborn isnt necessarily an admirable trait, so IM not sure how much 'sticking' to a view sways me

I think its more the logic and consistency of the views that impresses me,,,

Senate, House of Representatives, and President all have Green and Libertarian candidates. Make that vote count.

Lack of trust in our leaders, lack of quality education for too many citizens, lack of civic education again for too many citizens, information (not facts) that becomes fragmented because technology makes it possible to grind it out at breakneck speed without missing a single morsel, negative campaign ads and tactics that only tell you why NOT to vote for the other guy...
The majority of those saying they will not vote are liberals and two thirds of these same unlikely voters say they voted Obama four years ago...This says as much about the current administration as it says about American citizens who refuse to exercise their right to vote...Both depict a failed or failing system...
I think just the opposite..I think my vote will count more than ever this year...

I studied the "47%" remark in great detail. What it means to me, in context (as opposed what the Democrat's spin machine keeps saying) is that 47% of the population will vote for the President no matter what. Therefore he does not care about [trying to get their votes] them. He will therefore concentrate on the other 53% of the population to win the election.


God, I hate the spin!!!

I agree. I will also be voting against Obama. It just happens to mean that that person is Romney.

You are voting FOR Romney...

I'm doing the same thing.

Brilliant...voting for someone because you dislike another.

I am voting Romney/Ryan. I think they are the best choice.