• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion and delusion determine fake news belief

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And if it were not for the utter catastrophic failure of the so-called "left" to get its message out none of that would be happening.

Your over stating the issues on the left and ignoring the middle and most definitely ignoring:

. . . the specific evangelical and right wing agenda. For example; The desire for a religious conservative Supreme Court nomination would justify anyone for President including the Devil himself, which they may have got in spades.

Your also neglecting the rejection of evolution, and global warming impacts science and public school funding, and environmental funding and legislation.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I doubt that extreme religious beliefs, accepted naively, restricted anything. It seems me almost obvious that the people who accepted those beliefs would likely accept other baloney as well.

Extreme religious beliefs rejecting evolution and global warming do indeed do indeed impact many things in our lives, including funding science and public schools, and environmental funding and policies.


As for belief in the paranormal, that's probably an area that these scientists should have avoided in their study because the scientists who have not had a paranormal experience are likely to hold a bias against it. (If it hasn't happened to wonderful me, it's not possible)

Not long ago, more than 100 scientists signed a petition to end the prejudice against the study of precognition and telepathy in science.

This actually not the subject, nor the problem I wanted to address. I do not have any objections to researching the paranormal. I believe different scientists do that, but as for your petition 100 scientists isn't much. Let them do as much research as they want.
 
Last edited:

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Your over stating the issues on the left and ignoring the middle and most definitely ignoring:

. . . the specific evangelical and right wing agenda. For example; The desire for a religious conservative Supreme Court nomination would justify anyone for President including the Devil himself, which they may have got in spades.

Your also neglecting the rejection of evolution, and global warming impacts science and public school funding, and environmental funding and legislation.
Mmmm, whataboutisms...
 

Kartari

Active Member
Hi Shunyadragon,

From: https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/religion-and-delusion-determine-fake-news-belief

"One of the more mystifying aspects of Donald Trump’s presidency may have been explained, by a team of economists and psychologists from Yale University in the US.

Throughout the latter period of his election campaign and during his incumbency, Mr Trump has enjoyed consistent support from the US evangelical community – a religious and socially conservative group who should, on the face of it, be repulsed by the president’s admissions of extra-marital affairs and lewd conduct.

In a paper posted on the university’s Social Science Research Network (SSRN), and still awaiting peer-review, researchers led Michael Bronstein from Yale’s Department of Psychology present evidence to suggest that people prone to delusion, dogmatists and religious fundamentalists all share a propensity to believe fake news.

The three, sometimes overlapping, communities are also more willing than the general public to accept absurd explanations for events, to entertain conspiracy theories, and to believe in paranormal phenomena.

The researchers suggest that “individuals who endorse delusion-like ideas … as well as dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists” believe untrue things because they exhibit “reduced engagement” with two methods of thinking.

Bronstein and colleagues define the first of these as “active open-minded thinking”, which involves the search for alternative explanations to explain phenomena and the use of evidence to revise conclusions. The second is “analytic thinking”, which, they write, “involves deliberate thought processes that consume memory resources”.

“Reduced engagement in these forms of thinking … fully explained increased belief in fake news among dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists,” the researchers conclude.

Study finds conservatives can change their minds
SOCIAL SCIENCES

To make the findings, Bronstein’s team used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk system to recruit two cohorts, each containing 500 volunteers.

Each volunteer was first shown 12 fake news stories, constructed to look like social media posts, and asked to assess whether they were accurate, dodgy, or a load of bull-pucky.

After that, the participants undertook a battery of psychological questionnaires, designed to measure dogmatism, depth of religious belief, and delusion. In the last category, they were asked also whether any delusion they experienced was regarded as convincing, and whether it caused distress.

In two final tests, volunteers undertook a range of “cognitive reflection” tasks (in which intuitively obvious possible answers to questions needed to be set aside in favour of reason-derived alternatives) and were assessed for “postdiction” habits – the tendency to revise a prediction once the evidence is in, without acknowledging the fact.

After analysis, the researchers found that people who whose worldview involves delusions were more likely than average to believe fake news. The same conclusion was reached regarding “dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists”.

“The vulnerability of these individuals to belief in fake news was fully explained by their tendency to engage in less analytic and actively open-minded thinking,” Bronstein and colleagues concluded.

The team strongly recommended further investigations into “potential interventions” to encourage analytic and active thinking, thereby reducing the likelihood of susceptible individuals falling for fake news. Such an approach may bring important social benefits, the researchers noted, among them the reduced likelihood of false information inciting violence (or, perhaps, emboldening presidents)."

Thanks for this. I've considered the same conclusions myself, actually, so I am not surprised by the findings. It's good to see research formally being conducted into this phenomenon nonetheless.

Whether religious or political, delusions and the underpinning desire to mold reality to fit those delusions is why we tend not to have calm religious or political debates between friends and family. Confirmation bias can have many forms, religious being just one among an array.

In essence, then, we've got some evidence (pending peer review, granted) that shows conservatives to be more misinformed than liberals regarding climate change, at least. No surprise there. And that conservatives are more prone to believing in conspiracy theories and other falsehoods prior to being informed of the scientific consensus, which of course explains Trump's election (i.e. his absurdly ignorant statements, like "Global warming is a Chinese hoax," and the consequences of this ignorant foundation for his environmental "philosophy" - Scott Pruit's EPA's broad undermining of environmental policy, expediting environmental degradation and climate change). And how educated conservatives use confirmation bias moreso than liberals to further cement their wrong beliefs, rather than change their minds, even after being presented with scientific consensus on global warming. I imagine their education, rather than fully exercising their critically thinking skills, they instead become all the more confident about their false beliefs and are more prone to selectively picking what they've learned, and ignoring contrary information. All to support their false preconceptions while being better able to (falsely) present the appearance of being authoritative on the subject. I know a few of them personally...

Notably, while liberals showed less change in their views after being presented with scientific consensus, one of your articles points out this is due to the fact that they already are more aware and accepting of the scientific consensus as far as climate change to begin with. Hence, the lesser degree of mind changing among liberals (i.e. they already came into the study knowing about and agreeing with the scientific consensus stated about climate change).

What keeps me up at night is wondering how to get conservatives less prone to fake news and more interested in real news, fact checking, and dare I say independent research. We can't afford to have this travesty of a "presidency" recur.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
I think many voted for him even though they were repulsed by him because he was perceived to be the lessor of the two evils.
Exactly. Because many who voted for him were tricked/duped/conned into believing fake news stations/sites/tweets that he was the better choice.....because they (Trump voters) are easier marks for the fake news.
That’s the whole crux of the issue. You nailed it.

Considering the behavior of the GOP since at least the 1980s, I think that is far less clear a fit for Democrats. Or for non-Republicans in general, come to think of it.
Agreed. And again this agrees with the research findings.
 

Starbuck

New Member
Given this seems to be more of a political post than that of an actually religious debate I have to question the other side of the coin. Is someone more likely to be misled by propaganda because of religious beliefs or just dogmatic beliefs in general pertaining to political affiliation? Given that what we consider to be the "right" is more traditionally religious they base their views on religious stances. Would someone of the "left" side be lead by different wording in propaganda based upon their devotion to their current belief systems and their moralities? Therefore is it more of what they actually believe or their likelihood to follow what others have already predefined and they do not question themselves?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
What consequences?
A weakened social contract in the USA, serious and growing damage to its credibility and reputation abroad, general decay in the behavior and ethical parameters of political positions of power, to mention what comes to mind right now.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Exactly. Because many who voted for him were tricked/duped/conned into believing fake news stations/sites/tweets that he was the better choice.....because they (Trump voters) are easier marks for the fake news.
That’s the whole crux of the issue. You nailed it.

Agreed. And again this agrees with the research findings.
Aside from the simple fact that Hillary was a horrible candidate, who has accomplished little, of any merit, in all her years in the political arena. ...and that she managed to blow what should have been a cakewalk because people were duped by fake nudes? The echo chamber is getting very tinny sounding.

What disturbs me, and I have seen this worded in different ways over the last eon, but the whole idea is predicated on the idea that intelligent voters chose Hillary and that if you did not choose Saint Hillary - there MUST be something wrong with you. This is almost the definition of "echo chamber analysis".

Personally, I think a far more interesting study would be to canvas the 42% of eligible voters on why they chose to sit this election out? Obviously, that mass of Americans was not moved enough to do their civic duty and the reasons for that might be quite compelling.

Just to push back a little against the idea of deluded masses falling for a malignant message I'll cite my own local media coverage during the last few months of the election. Here in Western Canada, the media was always hushed, hopeful, expectant and unbridled in their support of Saint Hillary. I don't think I ever heard a negative word about her even when covering her latest email obfuscations. Meanwhile, Trump was covered completely differently and was always with a belligerent edge to the reporting, if not outright contempt. These stories usually ended with the hosts saying how thankful they were that Trump had no chance of getting elected.
 
Last edited:

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
ne of the more mystifying aspects of Donald Trump’s presidency may have been explained, by a team of economists and psychologists from Yale University in the US.

'mystifying'?

Throughout the latter period of his election campaign and during his incumbency, Mr Trump has enjoyed consistent support from the US evangelical community – a religious and socially conservative group who should, on the face of it, be repulsed by the president’s admissions of extra-marital affairs and lewd conduct.

Yeah, yeah, and Jesus defended a whore. But let's indulge this, because some people obviously didn't get the memo.

still awaiting peer-review

Wait what?!? Well, never-mind that, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt, right? I mean if it turns out they are wrong at least they won't be accused of being 'fake news' themselves right?

Reduced engagement in these forms of thinking … fully explained increased belief in fake news among dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists,” the researchers conclude

Wow. 'fully explained'... 'no alternative explanations'? They must have used their 'deliberate thought processes that consume memory resources' to reach that conclusion... I hope.

Each volunteer was first shown 12 fake news stories, constructed to look like social media posts, and asked to assess whether they were accurate, dodgy, or a load of bull-pucky.

So what exactly were these 'fake news' stories? Where did they get them? What was the criteria for the stories? Hmm.

The team strongly recommended further investigations into “potential interventions” to encourage analytic and active thinking, thereby reducing the likelihood of susceptible individuals falling for fake news. Such an approach may bring important social benefits, the researchers noted, among them the reduced likelihood of false information inciting violence (or, perhaps, emboldening presidents)."

Ah, there it is: 'fake information' is 'inciting violence' and 'emboldening presidents'. Got it. They didn't actually say it was ... they just suggested it. A+ for technique.:thumbsup:


Hey, you know, maybe they got it right and maybe they got it wrong. But what did you see when you read these articles? Crit-Think-Hat time...:gradcap:
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
'mystifying'?



Yeah, yeah, and Jesus defended a whore. But let's indulge this, because some people obviously didn't get the memo.



Wait what?!? Well, never-mind that, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt, right? I mean if it turns out they are wrong at least they won't be accused of being 'fake news' themselves right?



Wow. 'fully explained'... 'no alternative explanations'? They must have used their 'deliberate thought processes that consume memory resources' to reach that conclusion... I hope.



So what exactly were these 'fake news' stories? Where did they get them? What was the criteria for the stories? Hmm.



Ah, there it is: 'fake information' is 'inciting violence' and 'emboldening presidents'. Got it. They didn't actually say it was ... they just suggested it. A+ for technique.:thumbsup:


Hey, you know, maybe they got it right and maybe they got it wrong. But what did you see when you read these articles? Crit-Think-Hat time...:gradcap:
Zippo on constructive response. If you do not know the 'fake news,' and ah . . . the 'fake science,' floating in the tRump swamp you have been living in Plato's cave.
 
Top