Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
-
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
“Winning” means prioritizing independence from outside influence over being right.
Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
Reverse cargo cult.
-
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
“Winning” means prioritizing independence from outside influence over being right.
Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
This paper makes an assumption that there are no known risks with the covid-19 vaccinations, which is factually incorrect, and thus it’s engaging in the same type of misinformation reinforcement that it laments
Much of the misinformation is the lack of nuance, or willingness to engage with details…
-
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
“Winning” means prioritizing independence from outside influence over being right.
Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
that is conservatives, antivaxxers, flat earthers conspiracy theorist of debunked theories in a nutshell.
-
Really hope this starts to sink in with people more. We really gotta evolve past trying to appeal to everyone’s reason and morality all the time.
The people trying to destroy public education dgaf if they look stupid or if you have a news article that proves they’re a hypocrite
covid misinformation really broke peoples brain everything else.
-
This paper makes an assumption that there are no known risks with the covid-19 vaccinations, which is factually incorrect, and thus it’s engaging in the same type of misinformation reinforcement that it laments
Much of the misinformation is the lack of nuance, or willingness to engage with details…
Funny that when reading “covid-19 prevention” you forgot anti-maskers - which is actually a very visible “I win” statement - but instead went for not being vaccinated, which is not at all a visible thing hence nowhere as much a “I win” statement.
-
Funny that when reading “covid-19 prevention” you forgot anti-maskers - which is actually a very visible “I win” statement - but instead went for not being vaccinated, which is not at all a visible thing hence nowhere as much a “I win” statement.
The article indicates multiple instances of what it considers to be misinformation, I illustrated one point that isn’t absolute misinformation, which is ironic given what they are trying to say…
-
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
“Winning” means prioritizing independence from outside influence over being right.
Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
the easier a statement is to disprove, the more of a power move it is to say it, as it symbolizes how far you’re willing to go. - ie “faith” in religion.
-
Do you have links to more effective strategies?
As uncomfortable as it may be, research suggests adopting an empathetic, non judgemental, but firm attitude, without any expectation to actually change their mind.
This is an attitude broadly similar to that of a professional providing advice (e.g. accountants or lawyers).
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01771-z
Unpaywall:
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://archive.is/1gn2g
-
As uncomfortable as it may be, research suggests adopting an empathetic, non judgemental, but firm attitude, without any expectation to actually change their mind.
This is an attitude broadly similar to that of a professional providing advice (e.g. accountants or lawyers).
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01771-z
Unpaywall:
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://archive.is/1gn2g
It’s not just uncomfortable though, it’s hugely time consuming. And like, I think we’re getting to the point where more collective time has been spent explaining the world is not flat than the human hours it took to find out the world is round. If the person happens to be knowledgeable then they can kill a lot of time through out “what about X?” arguments (like missing links for evolution) and that requires someone with a lot of knowledge to slowly explain, so the approach also biases towards locking up the most knowledgeable people instead of them being more free to do other things (in the evolution example, maybe biology research).
I guess I’m not arguing against the empathy first communication, just lamenting how effective the flood the zone strategy is.
-
yeah, metaphorically punching them in the face.
people like this tend to only respond well visceral reality right in front of their faces. just think of how addicts have to ‘bottom’ before they seek recovery… it’s basically the same issue. they have to visible see the horrible negative consequences of what they are doing to themselves. you can’t ‘win’ these people over by appealing to them… shock therapy is really the only think.
and a lot of them will tell you how they were ‘shocked’ at some point into their lives out of their previous beliefs.
Can you you give an example?
