Re the Pew Research Center poll on the U.S. perception of the religion of President Obama recording that 18% said that they thought he was a Muslim, compared to 12% who thought he was Muslim back in March 2008:
Chris Green writes: >There is a sense in which I don't really believe these >numbers, which have been widely reported over the >last couple of days. I think that we have reached a (low) >point in terms political discourse in which many people >do not say (to pollsters or anyone else) what they have >come believe on the basis of any evidence (a claim which >I will modify in moment). Instead, they say whatever is >most damaging to the political opposition despite whatever >evidence there might be one way or another. Chris: Do you have any evidence that this is the case? I would have thought that your next point suffices to explain the views expressed to pollsters: >But now, following the example of politicians themselves, >their advertisements, and the splintering of the media into > political conduits (much like the newspapers of the 19th >century), political movements simply make stuff up -- often >stuff that is not particularly plausible on its surface -- that >they deem to be harmful to their opponents, and then repeat >it over and over and over again in concert. On this second point, no doubt there is some truth in this, but I think you underestimate the extent that many of these opinion makers, through selective fixation on items of evidence (or frequently "evidence") are convinced that the notions they are propagating are true. I think you are underestimating the extent that people, including the kind of opinion makers you are referring to (perhaps even *especially* these people) believe what is expedient for them to believe. Back to my initial point, I think one should not underestimate the propensity of people to believe what is consistent with their political/ideological beliefs and/or conspiracy theories. I don't find the figures reported in the Pew poll particularly surprising. Even after all the absurd conspiracy theories on the death of Princess Diana had been comprehensively demolished during her inquest (coroner: "not a shred of evidence"), an opinion poll indicated that around 30 percent of the British public still thought her death was "suspicious". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/diana/1584297/Diana-inquest-William-and-Harry-welcome-verdict-after-jury-blames-paparazzi-and-Paul.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584163/Princess-Diana-coroner-debunks-murder-theories.html Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ----------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher D. Green <chri...@yorku.ca> Subject: Re: U.S. Adults Say The Darnedest Things! Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:48:25 -0400 Mike Palij wrote: > The Christian Science Monitor has an article that reviews the results > of a Pew Research Center poll on the U.S. perception of the religion > of President Obama and 18% said that they thought he was a Muslim, > compared to 12% who thought he was Muslim back in March 2008 > (there was a 7% point jump from March 2009 [11%] to August 2009 > [18%]). The respondents were also asked why they thought he was > Muslim. There is a sense in which I don't really believe these numbers, which have been widely reported over the last couple of days. I think that we have reached a (low) point in terms political discourse in which many people do not say (to pollsters or anyone else) what they have come believe on the basis of any evidence (a claim which I will modify in moment). Instead, they say whatever is most damaging to the political opposition despite whatever evidence there might be one way or another. There was a (perhaps brief) period in the middle of the 20th century (not to idealize the past too much) in which saying things that were flatly contradicted by the public record would bring derision and shame upon one. Even one's political allies would distance themselves from so obvious a fool. But now, following the example of politicians themselves, their advertisements, and the splintering of the media into political conduits (much like the newspapers of the 19th century), political movements simply make stuff up -- often stuff that is not particularly plausible on its surface -- that they deem to be harmful to their opponents, and then repeat it over and over and over again in concert. They are called "talking points." Somehow, because they all say the same ridiculous thing at once, it gives them cover from the public humiliation that they would face if they were on their own. Now, for the modification. I think that these people may indeed believe what they say, not because they have any reason or evidence to believe it, but because the process by which they "fixate beliefs" (as Charles Sanders Peirce put it in 1877) has little to do with reason or evidence. That is simply not how they conceive the process. "Beliefs" are propositions that are presented to them by leaders of movements to which they belong. Leaders and movements are selected, mostly, by the degree to which they relieve their followers of responsibility for all that is perceived the be "wrong" with the world, and blame some other identifiable group. I am reminded of Tetullian's infamously anti-intellectual declaration: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" None of this is entirely new, of course, but it seems to me that it had become much more widespread -- much more the norm -- than it was a couple of decade ago. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4313 or send a blank email to leave-4313-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
