Our brains don’t let piddling little facts get in the way of a good story, allowing lies to infect the mind with surprising ease.

If you ever need proof of human gullibility, cast your mind back to the attack of the flesh-eating bananas. In January 2000, a series of chain emails began reporting that imported bananas were infecting people with “necrotizing fasciitis” – a rare disease in which the skin erupts into livid purple boils before disintegrating and peeling away from muscle and bone.
According to the email chain, the FDA was trying to cover up the epidemic to avoid panic. Faced with the threat, readers were encouraged to spread the word to their friends and family.
The threat was pure nonsense, of course. But by 28 January, the concern was great enough for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a statement decrying the rumour.
Did it help? Did it heck. Rather than quelling the rumour, they had only poured fuel on its flames. Within weeks, the CDC was hearing from so many distressed callers it had to set up a banana hotline. The facts became so distorted that people eventually started to quote the CDC as the source of the rumour. Even today, new variants of the myth have occasionally reignited those old fears.

We may laugh at these far-fetched urban myths – as ridiculous as the ongoing theory that Paul McCartney, Miley Cyrus and Megan Fox have all been killed and replaced with lookalikes. But the same cracks in our logic allow the propagation of far more dangerous ideas, such as the belief that HIV is harmless and vitamin supplements can cure AIDS, that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ by the US government, or that a tinfoil hat will stop the FBI from reading your thoughts.

Why do so many false beliefs persist in the face of hard evidence? And why do attempts to deny them only add grist to the rumour mill? It's not a question of intelligence – even Nobel Prize winners have fallen for some bizarre and baseless theories. But a series of recent psychological advances may offer some answers, showing how easy it is to construct a rumour that bypasses the brain’s deception filters.

One, somewhat humbling, explanation is that we are all “cognitive misers” – to save time and energy, our brains use intuition rather than analysis......

....Consider the questions of whether others believe a statement or not, and whether the source is credible. We tend to trust people who are familiar to us, meaning that the more we see a talking head, the more we will begrudgingly start to believe what they say. “The fact that they aren’t an expert won’t even come into our judgement of the truth,” says Newman. What’s more, we fail to keep count of the number of people supporting a view; when that talking head repeats their idea on endless news programmes, it creates the illusion that the opinion is more popular and pervasive than it really is. Again, the result is that we tend to accept it as the truth....
....Lab experiments confirm that offering counter-evidence only strengthens someone’s conviction....
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160323-why-are-people-so-incredibly-gullible

the irony of you posting about" Why are people so incredibly gullible?" yet still believing in man-made climate change

:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, to live a life inside an echo chamber.....

It's been said that the causal link between humans and global warming in the last half century or so is stronger the link between HIV & AIDS. Never mind the thousands of peer reviewed papers....

Or just let people be.

-PB

This thread is so fucking sad. 3 people already thinking that they know more than [size=8]an entire scientific consensus[/size]?

Wake the fuck up guys.

LOL

What scientific qualifications do you have mister?

Two masters' degrees, why?

Anyway, yet another shitty multi. I'm all for multis that are actually decent, but this place has just gone to shit because there are so many and because there are for real actual morons on here that think there are scientific conspiracies and "marxist" conspiracies about global warming and immigration while they sit around calling people "lefties", without having read a single scientific paper in their lives.

It's really just embarrassing. I actually feel sorry for you that you grew up in a developed western country only to actually reduce yourself to thinking that would barely fit in in the 16th century.

I have better things to do than socialise with you.

I'm out.

Yep this is the inevitable end game for anyone with any semblance of maturity and intelligence.

Two masters' degrees, why?

Anyway, yet another shitty multi. I'm all for multis that are actually decent, but this place has just gone to shit because there are so many and because there are for real actual morons on here that think there are scientific conspiracies and "marxist" conspiracies about global warming and immigration while they sit around calling people "lefties", without having read a single scientific paper in their lives.

It's really just embarrassing. I actually feel sorry for you that you grew up in a developed western country only to actually reduce yourself to thinking that would barely fit in in the 16th century.

I have better things to do than socialise with you.

I'm out.

Edited by Draupnir: 25/3/2016 08:10:49 PM

This thread is so fucking sad. 3 people already thinking that they know more than an entire scientific consensus?

Wake the fuck up guys.

What does that even mean?

I'm confused, are there genuine climate change deniers here?

Two masters degrees in what field?
I note you left out that minor detail.

Means why do you give a fuck?

-PB

Yet even a moderate volcano can release more pollution than all of mankind throughout history. Why are you so gullible? I blame your stupid Gaia religion.

[youtube]CAPfwwb59uY[/youtube]

hello Maldives

Sea levels are actually falling, but some islands are receding because of ocean sand dredging.
You dredge the sand, the sand on land erodes into the sea and the island disappears.

The scientific method is based on disbelieving any consensus, and all great advances have come from ignoring the consensus. There is only a media consensus.

I'm confused, are there genuine climate change deniers here?

Do you mean in why do I care about gullibility?
I am purely referencing an article with its underlying psychological & sociological science.
Reactions to said science, are typically because people hate their lazy worldview being threatened or shattered

What would be worth investigating is whether gullibility correlates more with right or left wing ideology.

Don't get me wrong im not a right wing nut

I take your posts to imply that unless one has a specific field of education, they cannot express their opinion on a specific body of knowledge in said field.]

I have legit seen you on numerous occasions belittle someone for expressing an opinion on a scientific topic without a science degree.

:lol:

The scientific method is based on disbelieving any consensus, and all great advances have come from ignoring the consensus. There is only a media consensus.

What would be worth investigating is whether gullibility correlates more with right or left wing ideology.

I think you have misunderstood my post

When it comes to GMO scaremongering, it is "the left" that deny the science.

In my experience, the basis given for GMO rejection is typically misrepresented, even by those in academia (which is disappointing)

Many who reject GMO is not because of the food itself (the misrepresentation) - plenty of food is genetically modified already - it is to do with the unknown long term potential for ecological balance.

To be blunt and put it in terms of 'left v right' and simplify it somewhat,

it's the right that want to plough ahead with GMO because they are driven by greed & there's money to be made

they will misrepresent the left's view that they are 'pro' world hunger to manipulate society into action; when deep down the right couldn't give a shit if millions of people die, so long as money can be made.

History is littered with examples of money at the expense of the environment - just look at the mining industry.

it is to do with the unknown long term potential for ecological balance.

Again nonsense. Pure speculation. Unsubstantiated nonsense.

You have absolutely nothing to back this up.

This is just a cover-all to compensate for the fact that the evidence of the safety of GMO crops is now unassailable.

What evidence is there of ecological damage?

Denial, denial, denial; like with global warming. Tobacco industry, oil industry, coal industry - protect at all cost. Worth trillions

You don't get away with it that easy.

Stop deflecting and back yourself up. You've made a claim, support it or shut up.

So I have to do a brain scan on every 'environmental exploiter' to check their real motives?

I don't know. All you've done is present speculation filled with your own bias.

You've always harped on about anecdotal evidence.

Maybe try to be less of a hypocrite Ricey.

You seem to struggle with differentiating informed v uninformed opinions
Garbage in, garbage out...

Your opinion is not informed. Get off your high horse.

Still waiting for something substantial to back up your anecdotal evidence regarding right wingers not caring about millions dying.

Just a thought - do right wingers deny global warming because a more fucked up planet provides more 'fertile' ideological grounds for GMO....?
Oops, now I'm giving them ideas, cause they wouldn't be that clever in the first place....:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just a thought - do right wingers deny global warming because a more fucked up planet provides more 'fertile' ideological grounds for GMO....?
Oops, now I'm giving them ideas, cause they wouldn't be that clever in the first place....:lol: :lol: :lol: