> ... our susceptibility to facts. It's key to our non-partisanship. > More fundamentally though, it's a built in geek trait. > We admit when we're wrong.
<troll> Except when we don't, of course. :) What I mean is, I think we'd like to believe we're different but even liberals were affected by the biases discussed in the article... so are you ignoring the facts you don't like? :P </troll> Ultimately, anyone can write any twaddle on the internet. And it's far easier to write 'Obama is a Muslim' than to attempt to prove the negative. Also, I'd disagree with Lewis Carroll: it's not "anything I say three times is true", more "anything I hear three times is true"... even if the source of those three pieces of misinformation all come from the same original source. First stab at relevant studies - not read any of them in detail. 2000 Kulkinski: http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/Misinformation.pdf 2006 Taber and Lodge: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.6811&rep=rep1&type=pdf (or, less likely: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3792452 , no PDF available) 2005/6 Nyhan: He's written a lot on the vague subject, but there's nothing of the right date in Google Scholar. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/health-care-misinformation.pdf , but dated 2010. http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=20xeoGrsJUkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=fritz+keefer+nyhan is also about Iraq lies, but I think more from a 'these are the lies' angle. Dave. _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
