See Inside
Deeply held beliefs make it easy to accept the absurd
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Birth of a Notion."
This article was originally published with the title Birth of a Notion.
See what we're tweeting about
kahoakes We've come a long way since 1940s, but what else needs to be done for equality in physics? http://t.co/flK0MSk7EQ
BoraZ Khalil’s Picks (24 May 2013) http://t.co/HNHNp3HaIN by @notscientific at The SA Incubator at #SciAmBlogs
sciamblogs Khalil’s Picks (24 May 2013) http://t.co/8lp3u32x0j by @notscientific at The SA Incubator at #SciAmBlogs
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
70 Comments
Add CommentVery disappointed in the political tone of this article .This article used science as a guise to make a political statement. I already subscribe to two other magazines of a political nature.I don't need another.Please stick to science as in "Scientific American ".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve Mirsky, in his article, Birth of a Notion, is a victim of his own disorder called "implicit social cognition". He implies that those who believe Obama was not born in the US have found this view because they have a "cognitive dissonance" in having a black president. He further states via a Kos/Research poll that 58 percent of Republicans in the South don't believe or aren't sure Obama is a citizen. In other words, through deductive linking, Republicans have biases against blacks. I can tell Steve is either a liberal or a democrat or both because he suffers from his own "implicit social cognition", also known as a "deep-rooted assumption", that Republicans, by nature of their belief system, hold biases against blacks. Hogwash! He also uses a clever but faulty displacement strategy regarding discrimination suffered by Lena Horne in World War II to imply that the biases held by Americans are just as insidious today as they were 60 years ago. Hogwash again! I'm a Republican. I hold no biases. Many of my best friends are black. I've worked with and for blacks for decades. I live in the south. With only one notable exception, I have not met a Republican or conservative that has a bias against blacks. Millions of blacks are Republicans, to include the leader of the Republican party. I'm proud we elected a black to President, but I completely disagree with his policies and direction. But you see, because I don't like Obama's policies, a liberal social cognition dictates I must then not like blacks. Former President Carter has implied this recently and publically and so has Steve in this article. And because I see Steve's article for what it really is, advocacy of a political agenda (although he may honestly not know he's doing this), I also dismiss his cited data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve Mirsky, in his article, Birth of a Notion, is a victim of his own disorder called "implicit social cognition". He implies that those who believe Obama was not born in the US have found this view because they have a "cognitive dissonance" in having a black president. He further states via a Kos/Research poll that 58 percent of Republicans in the South don't believe or aren't sure Obama is a citizen. In other words, through deductive linking, Republicans have biases against blacks. I can tell Steve is either a liberal or a democrat or both because he suffers from his own "implicit social cognition", also known as a "deep-rooted assumption", that Republicans, by nature of their belief system, hold biases against blacks. Hogwash! He also uses a clever but faulty displacement strategy regarding discrimination suffered by Lena Horne in World War II to imply that the biases held by Americans are just as insidious today as they were 60 years ago. Hogwash again! I'm a Republican. I hold no biases. Many of my best friends are black. I've worked with and for blacks for decades. I live in the south. With only one notable exception, I have not met a Republican or conservative that has a bias against blacks. Millions of blacks are Republicans, to include the leader of the Republican party. I'm proud we elected a black to President, but I completely disagree with his policies and direction. But you see, because I don't like Obama's policies, a liberal social cognition dictates I must then not like blacks. Former President Carter has implied this recently and publically and so has Steve in this article. And because I see Steve's article for what it really is, advocacy of a political agenda (although he may honestly not know he's doing this), I also dismiss his cited data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause you disagree with his politics you are going to dismiss his data? Wow! Yep, you really are a sophisticated thinker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a better idea. Stop yelling, "Hogwash!" and propose an alternate hypothesis. Why is it 58% of southern Republicans are unsure whether or not Obama is a U.S. citizen?
I'm also from the south, and I am familiar with the type of implicit social cognition studies Mirsky references, and while they aren't perfect, they aren't "Hogwash" either.
I've been reading SA since the mid-Sixties, and any sign of political slant makes me uncomfortable. But what the Birthers are saying isn't a political position any more than "The Bible nowhere supports any form of slavery" is a religious position, rather than a plain and simple untruth. We are talking about utter piece of crap from people with verbal diarrhea and mental constipation. And it's one that doesn't even have any innocence to it, unlike the majority of false memes floating around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt isn't intellectually dishonest to research just why people could cheerfully swallow and then spread it. And I don't see it as a matter of inappropriate venue for SA to report on the research.
Where is the explanation for the conclusion that the poll results can only be explained by respondents having a "cognitive dissonance" about having a black president? It seems that is an assumption which went into the formulation of the politically motivated question, rather then a conclusion which can be derived from the results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American writers can't tell the difference between an assumption and a conclusion? Race is not the only possible explanation for this yet there was no effort here at all to actually understand why the poll turned out the way it did. Just go with your "deep-rooted assumptions" instead. Ironic
Questionit,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't have time to post this earlier, but I will give you two other interpretations of the data Mirsky cites.
One, white people are still the majority in the U.S. If the response criteria was speed (typical in this type of experiment), then it might be as simple as people being quicker to identify with someone who looks like them.
Two, the use of famous people might have skewed the response times...especially if some of the subjects didn't recognize some of the famous people as famous people.
Now, if I can think of these two complications off the top of my head I'm sure the researchers thought of them as well and controlled for these factors in their study. The point is, without seeing the actual study, it's hard to assess the relevance of the data.
What everyone needs to keep in mind is that Mirsky's column is essentially an opinion editorial. His opinion here is that the leaders of the "birther movement" have some cognitive dissonance issues...not that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. However, I don't think his anecdote featuring Lena Horne and some Nazis supports his point.
As for why 58% of southern republicans doubt Obama's pedigree, I'd guess it's because they watch a lot of FOX News.
Great article! It should not surprise anyone that Conservatives might find the scientific method problematic where social interactions are concerned. Many Conservatives do not believe in environmental science and find evolution suspect. If it doesn't improve their satellite signal, it ain't science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut science touches everything, it examines everything . . . or at least it should. It's one thing to dismiss the science as being wrong, it's another thing to say it's not science.
But don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Conservatives! I've worked with Conservatives for decades and (what was the other thing?) . . . .
When will people understand that saying you're not prejudiced is not the same thing as not BEING prejudiced. Most people live their lives in, what was it, cognitive dissonance? One can firmly believe that one is not prejudiced while at the same time actually being quite prejudiced in many subtle ways and some not so subtle. I think it goes without saying that most prejudiced persons don't believe themselves to be prejudiced. The point of the article I was not that Republicans hate Obama, it was that many don't think he's an American and then made the case for why that is. I agree that the writer is probably a bit left of center. A Republican scientist might find that Democrats are lazy and here's the science . . . but that's for another study!
It's a hard row, being a person in this world. I'm glad science is here to help us understand it and our place in it.
JoeL
Atlanta
This article by Steve Mirsky exposes the absurd side of racism, bias, politics and ideology in America and, by extension, the world. However, Mr. Mirsky, paradoxically, exposes himself as a prime example of those he sees as the problem. Mirsky says that although America may have come a long way in electing a black president, for some it has caused great “cognitive dissonance”. Mirsky goes on to point out that a Daily Kos/Research poll indicates that a majority of mostly southern Republicans, “either don’t believe or aren’t sure Obama is a citizen” of the United States. I won’t go deeply into that statement except to say that the poll was, after all, executed by the Daily Kos which is entirely ideologically driven, and further, that I have met “northerners” and people of color of unknown party affiliation who also have their own racial issues. The main issue that I have with Mr. Mirsky’s statement, however, is that the emotion over whether a President is a citizen, is more than just an issue of birth certification, and far more than an issue of race. It is an issue of political ideological alienation that we have seen in America since Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were elected. Race, or the manipulation of race in America, has become more of an issue with the media and professional “race baiters” than as an issue with the color of a president.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMirsky goes on to “jab” Dan Quayle as an example of intellectually challenged conservatives and then indicates how we treat John McCain vs. Barack Obama or Tara Lipinski vs. Michelle Kwan, as further examples of cognitive dissonance-challenged Americans which, at least obvious to him, would be conservative Republicans. When in 1998, the headline “American Beats Out Kwan”, the implication was that American Tara Lipinski ( a Polish connotation) was more American than an Asian-American Michelle Kwan. Yet, I, a conservative, recall pulling for Michelle Kwan to win over Lipinski. Uh-oh, as a conservative Republican at the time, that would have made me anti-Polish. Oh, how absurd! Thus, Mr. Mirsky, in displaying himself as a “flaming liberal” has set himself up as a prime example of what he detests. “I’m ok, you’re not ok”.
Another article with a political agenda in SA posing as science or reporting on science. Shame on you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Mirsky suffers from the very same "social cognitive dissonnace" of which he speaks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor starters, Obama is not "black", he is mulatto. He is no more black than white; and, in addition, the "social" argument can easily be made that, if anything, Obama is "51% white" and "49% black", because during his formative years, he was raised by white family members.
All of this, of course, is willfully overlooked by the agenda-driven, guilt-obsessed, MainStreamMedia, in which Mr. Mirsky is self-evidently and incontrovertably immersed.
This thus proves how his "Deeply held beliefs make it easy (for him) to accept the absurd."
Oh, and regarding the obligatory "racist" picture that accompanied Mr. Mirsky's article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is (of course) a depiction of a sullen, pudgy, caucasian dullard, "simplisitically" judging all things as either "Good" or "Bad".
Who exactly is it, Mr. Mirsky, that is engaging in "pre-concevied notions", hmmmm?
Never mind, rhetorical question. One of these eons, the Professional Victicrats of the Left will realize that the presidency is about caliber, temperment, stamina, and policy, rather than either ethnicity, or the perpetual yearning for a "feel good" surrogate father figure.
In an opinion piece he can say whatever he wants. My problem is that he floats anecdotes and mentions scientific studies which have nothing to do with the flawed point he is making. His central point was that southern Republicans have preconceived notions about the President, based on race, which override contrary evidence. The only real evidence of his point is a Daily Kos poll, for which other factors could explain the result. For example, polls show confidence in the media at all time low. What if the result had more to do with lack of faith of proper media vetting? What about the actual fact that he is the first President to spend a significant portion of his childhood outside of the country. What do either of those actually have to do with race? Alternate possibilities were not even explored. The results are assumed to be that respondents are so racists they are experiencing cognitive dissonance. The only reason to even mention the Mahzarin Banaji work is because he already assumed ahead of time that was the relevant angle. Based on what? The Daily Kos assertions about what the poll results meant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must say that I am heartened to see that the majority of comments to this article are negative. Several of you have expressed the exact sentiment that I experienced upon reading this piece. To Clyde, Stan, Pixel: bravo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way Mr. Mirsky summarily dismisses the arguments of the so-called "birthers" without examining their merits demonstrates the same sort of deeply held beliefs that he seeks to warn us about!
Someone with a more scientific slant and a smaller political agenda would first seek to analyze and dissect the claims of the "birthers" as untrue. If this were accomplished, and the "birthers" still held fast to those beliefs, then I would accept Mr. Mirsky's conclusion.
More easily, he could replace every instance of "birther" in the article with "truther" and I would agree with every sentence. The "truther" movement is a great example of people blindly clinging to their beliefs even in the face of absurdity.
As a Southerner, I am not surprised to see further proof of "cognitive dissonance" when it comes to the perceptions that non-Southerners have concerning those residents originally from the South. Mr. Mirsky evidently has an unconscious bias that shows when he speaks of Southerners, Conservatives, and Republicans. I mention those three groups because they are, as he pointed out, more numerous in the South. What I do not understand (besides his belief that the Daily Kos is an unbiased source) is why that behavior is acceptable, as demonstrated also in various media sources from print to movies, while the behavior he describes in his opinion piece is the one that is more deplorable? I thought the idea was to remove ALL prejudice and preconceptions from our society. One has to ask, however, in regards to that lofty goal, is such a utopia possible among obviously flawed human beings?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStan VanderWerf / PixelEye
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi'd appreciate your reaction to this...
http://www.theroot.com/views/jimmy-carter-true-son-south-hits-nail-head
(seriously - no sarcasm intended)
(this is good too...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
including/especially the responses from Sam Harris and co)
Nigel
An other non-Scientific American article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder how high a percentage of democrats are racists as all the racists I've met are democrats.
I always find discussion of this topic more interesting after reviewing the comments. I do agree with jbriant29 - replace "Birther" with "Truther" and it's still implicit social cognition. Plug in any buzzword social classification and blame it all on cognitive dissonance and it’s still true. That’s sort of how it works…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that it's funny that everyone seems to miss the irony - that this sort of cognitive dissonance is commonplace in all of us, even the writer of the opinion piece about cognitive dissonance. Liberal or conservative, we all have preconceived perceptions for any situation. The point is to overcome these prejudices and give value to each person according to their actions… or something like that. In any case, I find reactions here never disappoint in proving the theory correct. Take that for science!
I think that I know that Hawaii has two "birth certificate" forms. A short simple form and a longer form with hospital and physician's name. The Obama camp has refused to release the long form. I have read that there are no records of Obama's birth or his mother's maternity hospital stay. I have not read of anyone finding and producing these. Releasing the long form certificate would clarify this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read that Obama's paternal grandmother has claimed that he was born in Kenya. I have read that the hospital records there have been closed. Publishing the details of his mother's trip to Kenya and the return path would shed details on this issue.
Why has the Obama camp not published any of these easy to produce items? And instead fallen back on the position that it is not obliged to do this, the State Department has already given him a passport as an American.
Produce the long form birth certificate and the arguement is over. The ID offered by Obama is not even accepted for purposes of obtaining a drivers license in Hawaii. Until this legally accepted document is produced the birther opinion will continue to exist. His race doesn't have a darn thing to do with it. Following the constitution has everything to do with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis isnt a political article. It is highlighting why people hold to patently incorrect ideas such as these "birthers".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIm really fed up with people with lack of critical reasoning skills. I am a mechanical engineer, and as a citizen of the United States, I will say what is on my mind. The reason United States is doing so poorly in science and technology is lack of reading comprehension and critical reasoning. And this is not a political statement.
So all you implicit birthers, please continue. You are doing a service for foreign nations.
Why are 58% of southern republicans unsure? I am waiting for an alternative answer because it seems plausible that deeply held beliefs make it easy to accept the absurd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen Scientific American cites The Daily Kos in an article it should show everyone their political agenda. Shameful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuess what, epistemologist. I read in the Bible that the earth was created in six days! It must be true, because I read it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that many Americans think Mr. Obama is not one of us has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Obama appears black (he is half white as well, so a judgement that he is a "black" president is of itself racist). As someone whose father was NOT an American a question can be raised about his citizenship in light of the lack of a Hospital produced birth certificate. What the public has been shown by Mr. Obama'a representatives is a Hawaiian document that is issued to parents whose children are born off the island. It is issue if a parent "swears" their child was born in Hawaii. Mr. Obama's grandmother says he was born in Africa. If she is correct, he is not a Native Born American, and not qualified constitutionally to be president. The solution is simple. Show an original hospital issued birth certificate. I have mine from 1956, most people have theirs. But this has nothing to do with the "race" of Mr. Obama, which is a mix, as are many Americans. Those who think Mr. Obama shares a culture and lineage with Mr. Jesse Jackson and others who are descended from slaves are the people who are suffering from “cognitive dissonance”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough I am cognizant of the redundant implication of my hopeless condition I find no evidence that it actually exists. And by the way, thank God those evil racists that warned of a communist leaning black leadership were so wrong! To be an American is to have a right to interpret, and the responsibility to protect the right of interpretation of the word itself. A great deal of subtle beauty has been beaten out of that standard, along with a lot of the credibility of the notion of the American civil liberties movement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not an Obama supporter, but I do fully support SA in publishing this article. I think it is a reasonable and clearly relevant scientific topic to discuss why masses of people are willing to accept provably incorrect and frankly wild theories. I don't imagine we would see so many readers objecting to this article if, instead, it had been focused on why people still believe in the story of Noah's Ark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm also from the south, and I am familiar with the type of implicit social cognition studies Mirsky references, and while they aren't perfect, they aren't "Hogwash" either."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am also from the south and to say many southerners especially generational southerners are not predudiced against blacks and other minorities is definitely hogwash.
Joeldm: way to go! Equate questioning the connection between the results of a poll from ideologically-driven source and racism as its only explanation (supported by the Horne example of 60 years ago) with questioning the evolution - and all the problems solved! Yay!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in the south now. I never thought myself a racist. Then again, I could count the number of black people I knew in my life on one hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I came south, I had to literally peel back the racism I had inadvertantly been raised with. It was a cleansing, for sure, although I never considered myself racist. For sure, I was!
The South still harbors a lot of racists, who miss the good old days. That's only a part of it. Most people are good people, just like they are up North, and do the best they can to live and let live. Blacks enjoy more equality among people here than in the north, mainly because they deserve it. There aren't many closet racists here, like little miss goody-two -shoes used to be. You either are, or you're not.
Well, anyhow, I wouldn't believe anything Daily Kos (my favorite political blog) said about the southerners without a grain of salt. The politicians from the south are infamously racists, and hopefully are a dying breed. But the day to day people you meet, it's a little trickier to decide. It's complicated, and I would love to figure it out. The South is a puzzle to me still, after 10 years.
I live in the south now. I never thought myself a racist. Then again, I could count the number of black people I knew in my life on one hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I came south, I had to literally peel back the racism I had inadvertantly been raised with. It was a cleansing, for sure, although I never considered myself racist. For sure, I was!
The South still harbors a lot of racists, who miss the good old days. That's only a part of it. Most people are good people, just like they are up North, and do the best they can to live and let live. Blacks enjoy more equality among people here than in the north, mainly because they deserve it. There aren't many closet racists here, like little miss goody-two -shoes used to be. You either are, or you're not.
Well, anyhow, I wouldn't believe anything Daily Kos (my favorite political blog) said about the southerners without a grain of salt. The politicians from the south are infamously racists, and hopefully are a dying breed. But the day to day people you meet, it's a little trickier to decide. It's complicated, and I would love to figure it out. The South is a puzzle to me still, after 10 years.
I live in the south now. I never thought myself a racist. Then again, I could count the number of black people I knew in my life on one hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I came south, I had to literally peel back the racism I had inadvertantly been raised with. It was a cleansing, for sure, although I never considered myself racist. For sure, I was!
The South still harbors a lot of racists, who miss the good old days. That's only a part of it. Most people are good people, just like they are up North, and do the best they can to live and let live. Blacks enjoy more equality among people here than in the north, mainly because they deserve it. There aren't many closet racists here, like little miss goody-two -shoes used to be. You either are, or you're not.
Well, anyhow, I wouldn't believe anything Daily Kos (my favorite political blog) said about the southerners without a grain of salt. The politicians from the south are infamously racists, and hopefully are a dying breed. But the day to day people you meet, it's a little trickier to decide. It's complicated, and I would love to figure it out. The South is a puzzle to me still, after 10 years.
shoot, I HATE it when that happens!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThree points: 1. Mirsky could have easily included the "Truthers" as data supporting his position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. The Constitution requires the President to be a U.S. citizen, and Obama is fighting an expensive battle to prevent the truth from being known. Anyone with a spine would want to know why.
3. I cannot believe the editors of Scientific American allowed this article to be published here. It belongs on MSNBC or the New York Times.
While many Republicans and conservatives aren't racist, they can't just flat out deny that some in their ranks are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm tired of this being turned into a personal attack every time. You must own up to the fact that some of your members are motivated by reasons other than disagreeing with policy.
The true hogwash is you pretending it doesn't exist, like so many decades past.
YOU may not have met one, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, it doesn't even mean that the ones you do know aren't. Maybe they know you well enough to not mention it around you.
While many Republicans and conservatives aren't racist, they can't just flat out deny that some in their ranks are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm tired of this being turned into a personal attack every time. You must own up to the fact that some of your members are motivated by reasons other than disagreeing with policy.
The true hogwash is you pretending it doesn't exist, like so many decades past.
" Yet, I, a conservative, recall pulling for Michelle Kwan to win over Lipinski. Uh-oh, as a conservative Republican at the time, that would have made me anti-Polish. Oh, how absurd!"
Regardless who you were pulling for, the article's headline said American beats Kwan, you can't really argue with that. Minorities aren't Americans by default, when you describe someone that's 'an American' more often than not they will be disappointed when you present someone non-white.
I haven't really followed along closely on this so-called "birther" issue to know the details. I assume, based on the discussion above, that Obama has never produced a his birth certificate. If that is a fact, it seems to me that those who doubt that Obama was born in the US are following the scientific method. They want to prove the hypothesis that he was born in Hawaii with an authentic document known as a birth certificate. Seems reasonable in my book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's really no question about the birth certificate. See, for example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
This author might have been on to something in 1998 but in a post 9/11 world maybe he's just rationalizing those left behind. No doubt some Republicans and Democrats, feel this implicit social cognition, which involves the deep-rooted assumptions we all carry around and even act on without realizing it but I believe you cannot go backward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author forgets that many Democrats carried the same recognition towards Obama when Hillary was running against him in the Primary. It is more of a matter of people having to catch up. I find his use of 90's examples as poor and limited.
In todays more politically charged world, I suspect the "birther" movement is much more simply explained by Obama's politcs (reasonably liberal democrat), than his race. It is a shame that as many tin-foil hatted people abound, but maybe that is fodder for another article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, a couple of posts made me laugh. They deny being racists... by claming Obama is more white than black, or by their friendships to other black people. If these people could only read these words objecively, they might just see how contraditory these statements make them sound.
I guess the last thing I would like to say, is that even if we could determine that racism was both rampant and the root cause of things like the birther movement (and I suspect this is not even possible to determine), it serves not one constructive purpose. Obama knew that going into this, he would need to overcome prejudice, to his name, history, politics and color. Let's give him a chance to show his mettle.
Reading these responses are a good social science study of denial and defense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading these comments are a good social science study of denial and defense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading these comments is a good social science study of denial and defense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe got it the first time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I accept the proposition that Obama was born in Hawaii, probably. I don't accept the proposition that it is automatically absurd to even question the truth of proposition one, and that anyone who wanders down that skeptical road must automatically be guilty of wild prejudices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are always two sides to every story. The birthers fell in love with the spectacular possibilities raised by the fact that a certificate of life birth in Hawaii in the 1960's might not mean much as evidence of a fact. Go read their arguments in this regard if you want. To me the best evidence of Obama being born where he claims he was born was the newspaper birth announcement of the time, plus the fact that a particular hospital finally produced some type of documentation.
A similar controversy might be why a Christian bishop in the mid 19th century would conclude that his Biblical scholarship proved the world had been created around maybe 5000 BCE. A good many scientists of Usher's day were willing to accept this conclusion for a very logical scientific reason--they could not understand how the sun could possibly still be burning and giving off the enormous energy it obviously does if it were made out of coal, were the sun more than a few thousand years old.
Today we know how, but this is today. Usher had picked selectively in his own reading of the Bible, because the story in Genesis clearly says that when Adam and Eve had children, those children were able to find mates among pre-existing humans. This all implies that Adam and Eve were not the first of all humans, but the first humans to achieve a higher plain of understanding (which strangely enough does scientifically and geographically coincide with the development of written language.)
It is true that McCain has a Canal Zone birth certificate and if he was if fact born within the Zone he would be an American citizen. At closer examination of that birth certificate issued by the Canal Zone you will see that he was born in the Colon Hospital which is not in the Canal Zone , It is in the Republic of Panama. http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/mccains-bc.jpg Click on birth certificate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI lived next to that Naval station in 1962 and do not recall a hospital in that location. There was an infermery on the base and there was a Canal Zone hospital near by in the Zone. How he was given a Canal Zone birth certificate is a good question that needs to be answered. Perhaps because his father was the Naval Commander there. My daughter was born at a NATO base in Belgium which made here a U.S. Citizen . Had she been born in the hospital outside the NATO Base she would not have U.S. Citizen Status . Someone please explain the discrepancy.
It is true that McCain has a Canal Zone birth certificate and if he was if fact born within the Zone he would be an American citizen. At closer examination of that birth certificate issued by the Canal Zone you will see that he was born in the Colon Hospital which is not in the Canal Zone , It is in the Republic of Panama. http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/mccains-bc.jpg Click on birth certificate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI lived next to that Naval station in 1962 and do not recall a hospital in that location. There was an infermery on the base and there was a Canal Zone hospital near by in the Zone. How he was given a Canal Zone birth certificate is a good question that needs to be answered. Perhaps because his father was the Naval Commander there. My daughter was born at a NATO base in Belgium which made here a U.S. Citizen . Had she been born in the hospital outside the NATO Base she would not have U.S. Citizen Status . Someone please explain the discrepancy.
Do you really believe Sen. John McCain would have had the same issue if he had been elected president? And he was born in Panama. Interesting thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Steve VanderWerf: Nothing in Mirsky's article has anything to do with your, or anyone else's, disagreement with Obama's policies. His point was about those who believe Obama is not an American. You don't mention that you subscribe to this clearly irrational belief. I'd say you suffer not from cognitive dissonance regarding Obama's blackness, but rather from a reading comprehension deficit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor reader Stan VanderWerf above to claim that he's conservative, lives in the South and knows only one conservative acquaintance who is biased against blacks beautifully demonstrates the cognitive dissonance that author Steve Mirsky is talking about. VanderWerf can't spot the bigots because he either A) doesn't understand the definition of the word or B) chooses not to see them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in the Midwest. I live among many conservatives. Plenty of them are bigots. Most of them don't think they are.
And as to the charge that liberals believe that all criticism of the president is racism, hogwash. Take a trip on over to the liberal websites and publications. Progressives are very critical of many of this president's policies.
one of the many reasons that McCain is perceived as "more American" is his years of service to the country , his prisoner of war status, and being a recipient of the Navy Cross, one of the highest awards granted by the military. Whereas obumma does not talk of America nor Americans in a positive light-- hence sounding more foreign.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there something in the comments that is about if i do not agree with a views i must trivialise them rather than engage and perhaps hold a position that might suggest a capacity to think and perhaps acknowledge that there might be other ways of looking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI canceled my subscription to this magazine for just such political bias veiled as science. You failed to mention that Democrats claimed McCain wasn't a citizen because he was born in Panama, or that there are those questioning whether or not Palin was born in Alaska before or after it was a state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems your own deep seated beliefs have caused you to join the stereotype bandwagon and assume that only basis for a birther movement could be racism. You "cleverly" left out the fact that Obama's own step-grandmother has sworn she witnessed his birth in Kenya (did you not know about that?) You also overlooked the fact that millions have been spent keeping his records (including birth certificate) sealed. Does that not seem strange to you? The very fact that something like this could even be a "movement" should tell you something. If there were absolutely no basis for it, the birth certificate would be presented and the movement would die before it ever started. Why not simply present the proof and be done with it?
You seem to have let your own biases, veiled as science, make you take the typical road of bashing non-liberals as racists whose views are all based on conditioned ideas without thought. It would seem you, in this article, are very guilty of that yourself.
Could you imagine a Republican whose family member swore he was born in another country and whose supporters spent millions keeping his records sealed? It would be all over the news. You'd probably be writing an article attacking him and asking what he's hiding. But, in this case, it's easier to just fall back on "Republicans are racists" and shroud it in a scientifically-sounding article that would seem to be based on psychology.
Again, if you could explain why you left out so much information, I'd be open to hearing it.
This is the reason I canceled my subscription to this magazine years ago: The use of the facade of science for writiers to vent their personal politics. I'm really suprised at all the information that was left out. It would seem that even those with minds capable of objective reason when it comes to science are still capable of all the irrationality and bias of politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Obama wants it to go away why doesn'the just produce the original long form certificate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was born in 1959 and my birth certificate is handwritten, contains all kinds of information regarding my birth which is not on the certificate of live birth computer regenerated form. I have absolutely no issue with anyone looking at it.
Seriously what on that form is worth hiding and enduring all of this controversy? His mom, his dad, his birth weight? What the heck is the reason to be so secrective?
Why does Obama have a problem? It definitely makes it seem he is hiding something.
That's the crux of the issue. It has nothing to do with racism or psychological disorder. Those arguments are just dfense mechanisms to avoid answering a very simple question. Whay not just show the certificate?
Obama may not have do to this by law. But it will never go away unless he does show it.
In fact, the "birthers" are lying about whether or not Obama has produced a birth certificate. He produced an official, sealed original, which has been inspected by independent fact-checking organizations like Fact-Check.org, certified by the Secretary of State of Hawaii, and endorsed by the Governor of Hawaii. Faced with this incontrovertible proof, the "Birthers" invented new demands of "authenticity", such as the demand for a "long form birth certificate" that may not even exist. And BTW, news organizations have found reports of Barack Obama's birth matching the birth certificate in the local Hawaiian papers. This is still not good enough for the Birthers, for reasons that I have never heard explained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, Birthers are either delusional or intentionally lying. The article explains the delusional ones; the ones that actually know better but are intentionally lying deserve only our scorn.
Get your facts straight. The records aren't "sealed" at Obama's discretion or direction. The record produced by Hawaii officials is an original, bears a raised seal, has been certified authentic by the Hawaiian Secretary of State, and vouched for by the Governor. The "long form" certificate does not always exist, according to Hawaiian officials. There is no rational reason for anyone to suppose that the original birth certificate produced by Hawaiian officials is a fake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, contemporaneous news reports mention the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii, matching the birth certificate. I'm still waiting for a Birther to explain how the birth announcement made it into the local paper if Obama was really born in Kenya. I'm also still waiting for someone to explain why Obama's mother would go to Kenya to have a baby. But I'm not holding my breath.
Chuck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat computer generated certificate of Live Birth is not his original birth certificate. If you believe this then you are the crazy one. Fact-Check.Org is not unbiased. It was founded by the Annenburg Foundation (ie Bill Ayers). His constitutional eligibility needs to be determined in court. Like any other defendent he needs to produce evidence of his eligibility. Just like you do when you visit the DMV.
The COLB which is online was originally generated in 2007 with explicit intent of being used to support Obama's presidential run. Then it was recenly edited to append his birthplace as Honolulu. All could be avoided by just showing the original. .
These are the type of evasive, lame arguments that don't hold water. Just show your real birth certificate. The computerized summary form is not it. If the original is lost then state that.
And all of this hoopla could be over by just showing a simple 1961 document. He may have been born in Hawaii but he is definitely hiding something. You don't go to that much trouble to hide something that normally is so benign.
It won't go away.
Is this personal politics wrapped in the facade of psychology in order to vent some form of anger? Ironically, I picked up this edition wondering if I might start a subscription once again. I canceled long ago because of this very abuse of a science magazine as a platform for editorials and political agenda hidden under a thin veil of science. I can see nothing has changed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one "cleverly" decided that he's not our president as though it was some convenient, racially-based delusion concocted by those filled with hate. (Perhaps your own conditioning allowed you to adopt such an absurd view?) The issue arose during the capaign as liberals question McCain's eligibility for being born in Panama. That quickly died as it became evident that he was born on a military base and that is considered US soil. A similar question was then raised regarding Obama since his own step-grandmother had sworn she witnessed his birth in Kenya. Certainly this would be just as easy to remedy. Had it been me, I'd have walked straight to city hall with all those who questioned my status and asked for a copy of my birth certificate. Problem Solved. Not so with Obama. To date, millions of dollars and great legal action has been taken to keep his records private and his birth certificate sealed. Even the scientific curiosity in you should wonder why that is so? You stated, as though proven, that he was born in Hawaii, but that is the very question. In science that would be considered a hypothesis. We then seek proof to support that hypothesis. Proof, though, is being withheld. You don't seem to require any proof. You just decided, perhaps based on bias or cultural conditioning of your own, that his eligibility is beyond question and that anyone who does question it must be a bunch of silly racists who are holding on to some cultural conditioning from the past. Actually, even now many are beginning to question Sarah Palin's eligibility just in case she decides to run in a few years. They're suggesting she was born in Alaska before it became a state. That too should be easy enough to deflate as an issue. I noticed you didn't mention any of these facts or the actual conditions under which this "birther movement" began. You instead just claim that it was cleverly invented to cater to personal bias. Where did that conclusion come from? Did you not know the history of the issue? Did you intentionally leave it out of your article in order to support your bias?
And you're telling your readers to "Think"?
People should take a close look at that Canal Zone Birth Certificate of John McCain. It clearly states that he was born at Colon Hospital in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama not anywhere in the canal Zone or military base. Not only that The military hospital he claims he was born in was not built until several years after his birth. The only thing remotely close to a hospital was an infirmary. I doubt that the base commanders son would have been born there. I would really like for someone to explain this discrepancy. War hero or not, was he or was he not born on a military base . His birth certificate says NO!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought Dan Quayle was a bit simple. And then along came Sarah Palin ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou , Mr. VanderWerf, could not have possibly lived in the South and met only one Republican (one!?) who is prejudiced against blacks. To suggest such is an insult to the intelligence of those who have been exposed to the Southern RedNeck Republican Mentality ... a mentality that takes pride in it's ignorance and it's prejudice!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this article had appeared in a Psychology journal, would it have been condemned as an excuse to pose a political agenda?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this article had appeared in a Psychology journal, would it have been considered an excuse for a political statement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMecharine: "So all you implicit birthers, please continue. You are doing a service for foreign nations."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse me for not having my nose in the whole of national and international affairs and what the Birthers are up to, but would you give me some background on the basis for this comment, please? (Note: I'm not a Birther, thank goodness!)
PhilM: "Never mind, rhetorical question. One of these eons, the Professional Victicrats of the Left will realize that the presidency is about caliber, temperment, stamina, and policy, rather than either ethnicity, or the perpetual yearning for a "feel good" surrogate father figure."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you insinuating that Obama does not have the qualities of "caliber, temperament...", etc., and also possibly insinuating that Obama is a "'feel good' surrogate father figure"? It's hard to tell what you intend to get across here. Then, if my suspicions are right, what is your evidence? Or is your view supported solely by the aforementioned deeply held beliefs of your upbringing and culture? Of course I can't expect more than a review of your beliefs anymore than you can expect me to understand your views because of my deeply rooted beliefs.
So, as long as we debate the evidence of our views without examining the basis of our beliefs, we will do nothing better than to create a chasm between us. The most difficult thing for a person to do is to challenge/question his/her own beliefs. If your beliefs are wrong, does that mean you "have" to go to the other side? Is recognizing that your beliefs are incoherent at best mean that you are less of a person?
I think this article merits at least the acknowledgement that our long-standing beliefs are suspect for the reason of our long-standing problems and dissention among us, and as such it is an excellent article for any kind of science journal.
Actually the COLB offered not only is accepted for a Drivers License in Hawaii, but it's also accepted in the other 49 states as well. In addition, the US state department, Department of Defense, and all other US Government agencies accept it for purposes of identity and establishing US citizenship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe's submitted a legally valid document. The fact that some conspiracy buffs refuse to accept it doesn't change that fact.
If you're going to claim the COLB shown on-line is a forgery (even though the State of Hawaii has, repeatedly, confirmed that it's valid), you might want to also point out that the two people making the forgery claim - "Polarik" and "TechDude" are two nameless, faceless internet "experts" who have never provided any evidence to back their claims, their identity, their training, their background, or anything else about themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn short, there's more credible evidence to support the belief that President Obama was born in Hawaii, then there is to support the theory that the COLB that was imaged and shown on-line is a forgery.
Mr. Mirshy, I understand to point here too well. I was in New Orleans years ago, it was late, we were waiting on a cable car. Another fellow, waiting also, started to casually talk with us. He identified himself as being from the northeast. Next thing we knew, he was professing his deep bigotry to us southerners. We could not get away from him fast enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne cannot leave the South without consistently being bombarded with self-righteous condescension and prejudice based on the assumption we all are bigots.
I would be interested to know how native Americans faired, in the perception as “American.”
The statements that birthers think being born in Hawaii does not make one an American is truly insulting to birthers and to your readers. We all know Hawaii is part of the U.S.A.; I was 9 years old when it becaome our 50th state The question is whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii. If he was, all he had to do was provide his birth certificate. He did not. His father is not American; perhaps Obama was born in his father's native country. If so, Obama is not a native-born
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican, and cannot constitutionally be the president. It's really quite simple. Those supervising the election should have insisted on a birth certificate. The nonsense about McCain is just that - he was born to American parents; that makes him an natural-born American citizen. I am truly disappointed that Scientific American would even print a blatant piece of propoganda like this. You bring your credibility into question.