Trust but verify
Image: iStock/zmina
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
After each of the presidential debates, the media has scrambled to decide, among other things, which of the two candidates was more truthful. The fact-checkers worked hard, attempting to establish if anything President Obama or Governor Romney said was inaccurate. However, it isn’t as if the rest of us waited for the morning paper to make our own judgments. Whether watching the debates, viewing the commercials, or reading campaign literature, we always have a sense for how truthful a politician candidate is. Where does this sense come from?
Late-night television satirist Stephen Colbert urges his audience to rely on their gut for what he has dubbed a feeling of “truthiness.” Truthiness, Merriam-Webster’s 2006 word of the year, is “the quality of seeming to be true according to one’s intuition…without regard to logic [or] factual evidence.” Although Colbert deserves credit for coining the word, psychologists have long known that people rely on their feelings to draw all sorts of conclusions, and a recent paper clarifies one situation that seems to lead us to strong feelings of truthiness – the presence of additional related (but irrelevant) information.
The research finds that a statement in the presence of images or other additional information enhances people’s feelings of truthiness, even when they don’t provide any evidence the statement is true. This is especially important in the context of political campaigns, as it suggests that that the mere presence of a picture next to a candidate’s written claims could lead people to be more likely to believe them. And the work is another demonstration of the ease with which our thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors can be manipulated through relatively innocuous means.
The authors, researchers from Victoria University of Wellington, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and University of Victoria, performed four experiments. In the first three studies, participants viewed names of celebrities, displayed one at a time. Some of the names also had a picture or a short verbal description attached. Finally, half of the participants judged the truth of the statement “this famous person is alive,” while the rest judged the truth of, “this famous person is dead.” The participants were more likely to judge a statement as true when it was accompanied by a picture or by a short description, regardless of whether the statement was that the individual was alive, or that the individual was dead. The effect was stronger for less familiar celebrities.
In a related experiment, the researchers showed the effect was not particular to celebrities. Participants viewed trivia statements, some of which were accompanied by related photos which provided no evidence of the truth of the statement, and indicated whether they thought the statement was true or false. For example, next to the statement “macadamia nuts are in the same evolutionary family as peaches,” a participant might see a picture of macadamia nuts. The photos increased the bias toward rating statements as true.
The fact that irrelevant pictures alter our perceptions of truth is related to a general principle about the way our minds work. Our judgments are based on not only the information we’re considering, but the way in which that information is processed and organized. The ease with which information is processed has long been known to lead to specific biases. The reasoning works as follows: when considering some piece of new information, an individual will attempt to remember other bits of consistent information. The more easily these bits of information are retrieved, the more likely the new information is going to be tagged as true. So, if you are told, “an ostrich’s eye is bigger than it’s brain,” you will attempt to recall all the information you know about ostriches, eyes, and brains. The easier you bring this information to mind, the more likely you are to decide that the statement is true (spoiler: it’s true).
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentThe manipulation of truth is the goal of both religion and politics. Advertising is a close second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are so many potential explanations for these results that they are meaningless - simply fodder for dinner conversations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is very interesting, and apparently unexplored, is why would Colbert and others feel the need to use (invent?) the rather childish word 'truthiness', rather than use the already established word 'truthfulness'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Nicholforest asks:
why would Colbert and others feel the need to use (invent?) the rather childish word 'truthiness', rather than use the already established word 'truthfulness'.....
Because truthfulness refers to a quality of a statement. Truthiness refers to our perception of the statement.
2. Nicholforest:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are so many potential explanations for these results that they are meaningless - simply fodder for dinner conversations.
That's an interesting observation. I'm wondering what aspects of the published paper you thought were weak?
Mind instantly converts any situation or challenge it faces as good or bad.It feels comfortable in this. If the comfort of this conversion is kept at bay-one sees 'what is true'. Action, if any is also relaxed and conscious and not stereotyped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is always amazing to me how readily people buy into the incredibly weak "research" the therapy industry perpetually dreams up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can see in this thread people who have yet to tweak to the fact that one can write off nearly all of the "research" they produce as lightweight poorly thought out self-fulfilling prophecy.
One of the universal features of "research" of this sort is that it disintegrates into mere speculation when you look at the original research methods and techniques.
Self-delusion is one of the primary ailments we can see that plagues the psych-industry endemically and in epidemic proportions.
There is a naive and foolish willingness to take a trivial and barely significant observation and desperately try to transform it into some universal and profound truth.
Sadly... the class of people drawn to the field are predominantly people who have not a particle of ability to understand their own psyche much less anyone else's.
The likelihood of a study like this being actually valid is extremely low... virtually none of the research done by the psych industry stands up to rigorous examination of any sort.
We see poets and novelist.. speculators on the human condition... trying to clothe their speculations in scientific-seeming clothing.
It is quite funny to see this class of being rattling on about how a sense "truthiness" is aided with props and illustrations.
They, themselves, pretend to practice science, when they do nothing of the sort, and do so in order to (ultimately and usually falsely) give their speculations more weight in public discourse than the ideas deserve.
Were these people to practice the art of the poet or writer or artist or philosopher we could respect their efforts at describing and understanding the human condition... but noooooo... they have to pretend to be dealing in science.
It is funny indeed to see people who are so gullible and clueless rattling on about how gullible and clueless everyone else is.
Read the original article upon which this short piece is based. Go to the link at the foot of the article... and then go from the abstract to the full article at the "Springer" link, for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at this bit of lightweight Sunday supplement amusement all dressed up like it was science.
There is not a single thing about the "experiment" that would lead anyone honest and rational to conclude it was even barely science of any sort.
This is an exercise in amusement.... one that might give one pause to think about people and how they understand things...but it is not even close to anything that could be called rational, careful scientifically valid activity.
We see the symbols of a scientific paper... which give a false sense of "truthiness" to this scientifically meaningless exercise.
It is just a toooooo perfectly ironic and wonderful thing to see.
Here is an article about how the irrelevant imagery and impressions may cause people to irrationally evaluate the "truthiness" of statements made. Yet, the article itself is a perfect illustration of how a totally bogus and scientifically worthless activity can be clothed in a white lab coat and presented as "science" when it quite plainly and objectively is nothing of the sort.
And... as an aside.... let us stop pretending the psyche-industry constitutes "scientists".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are no more scientists than are Creation Scientists.
The two superstitious belief systems map perfectly onto each other. It is what happens when people who are incapable of understanding science and the scientific method try desperately to use tools far beyond their ability.
We see silly, goofy people who are in awe of science but, sadly, are unable to make much use of it due to intellectual deficits that prevent them from doing so.
Why is this article published under Scientfic American auspice? Not seeing an article exposing 'truth' by how or what is examined, and what subjects are avoided. Want a true false issue on the next and greatest human calamity? In fifty years this planet will have 9 1/2 billion humans; in one hundred years, twelve billion. The United States has existed for only 237 years, and at this vector [not rate] in another 237 years the population will try to reach twenty-five billion. As for truthfulness or truthiness... why is this truth ignored by Scientific American? This is the most obvious "great human catastrophe" facing our species and in the very near future. Why the cross-eyed silence and such silly distraction as this? How can this be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, a bit of Sunday fluff, to be sure....but I would also be suspicious of anyone who condemns/rejects an entire academic/intellectual field or discipline, such as the commenter 'Caroline'...experience informs me that blanket rejections/condemnations of psychology/psychiatry (and/or psychotherapy) tend to come from Scientologists...who, of course, see their "philosophy" as competing with mainstream psychiatry, as well as being superior to it....speaking of 'truthiness'...perhaps an article analyzing how fringe philosophies/psychological theories adopt the appearance of truth (e.g., through scientific jargon, logical forms, fancy gizmos, etc.) in order to con people into "buying in" to said theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe you because there is no picture in your post!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really, I actually agree with you completely. I just couldn't resist the impulse to over dramatize the authors point.
Do you mean e_Caroline, exactly the same as the clueless way you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your preconceived bias? After all you offered nothing at all to back up your claims. Where are the studies that substantiate your point of view?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep it simple. Colbert is a satirist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to question my "truthiness" on the validity of this study. You are limiting the study when you give your participants only the options of "true" or "false." On many of the questions used in the study, I am sure many people "didn't know" but still had to pick an answer. Not a good study. More research needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOriginal Query from NicholForest is basically, "why would Colbert invent a term like 'truthiness'?" Indeed, why, if a perfectly adequate word like 'truthfulness' has existed for a Century or two does some comedian feel so compelled? Answer is easy and clear! For FUN, PROFIT & VANITY. Let me explain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a longtime SA reader, I'm neither a Scientist nor an Academic, although I've been an Adjunct Faculty for half my adult lifetime, at Illinois, Delaware & Drexel, since the mid-1970s. I work at the intersection of the Social Sciences, the synthesis of the applied behavioral sciences, in Strategic Communications, Behavioral Communications, Public Affairs, Marketing, Reputation & Relationship Management, etc. In fact, akin to someone on this list who might have headed her or his professional society, I served as the elected global / national president of my industry's professional society in 1999.
In our industry, we learn early to "frame the issues" to benefit our client(s) or employer. The more we can define the terms of semantic engagement, the better in an advocacy / adversarial situation we improve our chances of "winning," whatever that is. That's the reason you'll regularly see new terms invented in political debates. It happens all the time. And sometimes we'll become known for those. My longtime neighbor Joe Biden, who lives just a block from me, came up with the best phrase of the 2012 campaign, "Osama Bin Laden is Dead and General Motors is Alive!" I don't know that it won Obama-Biden any votes in the long run, but it's a great contributor to political narrative.
If you are a Celebrity, like Mr. Colbert, who profits at the expense of American civic life by ridiculing politicians and political behavior for entertainment, to create a Brand and great Wealth for himself, then this is one of the tools in his arsenal. Invent a word, and "claim" it, much as a biologist might discover a new specie and name it. It builds his Brand as COLBERT THE COMEDIAN and pundit, it's something he has fun with it (as hopefully each of us finds satisfaction in our work), and it's a tool for increasing his income.
Sam Waltz, APR, Fellow PRSA
Greenville, Wilmington, DE 19807
All of us - me included - are apt to judge a statement as true, if it concurs with our existing prejudices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is generally true, but you can train yourself to be much more disciplined in evaluating the reliability of statements or information. I have instant reactions all the time, but if the subject is important I go through my own process of fact-checking and analyzing the arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a political sense there is a simple device that helps sort out issues and that's to read "opposition" journals and try to understand their arguments. When you do this consistently you will learn that political issues are a lot more equivocal than they initially seem, and that there are good arguments on both sides.
I've found myself changing my mind on more than one occasion. Generally speaking, I think the more calming and self-righteous we feel by viscerally accepting a point of view the more likely it is distorted or accepted by reasons other than its veracity, primarily because it makes us feel good about ourselves to believe it.
I think a lot of today's social movements exist for that reason. They don't solve root problems and are always redefining things to require more sacrifice, but they sure do boost our image of ourselves for being so altruistic. There’s a kind of “evangelism” in strong political opinions.
The more disquieting a fact is that we feel obliged to accept on hard evidence, the more likely it is to have some basis in fact. It's amazing the contortions people will go through to avoid this, however, especially when they have social or ego investments in the original beliefs or attachments. Activists all across the political spectrum are prone to this. Leftists usually attack the motives and character of the bearer of contrary views and right-wingers dispute the facts.
Nevertheless, feelings usually triumph over reality and that bodes ill for us all.