A recent study by UNC and Northwestern sociologists explained why some people still believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 despite the fact that both the 9/11 Commission and former President Bush both admit there was never any connection between the two.
The authors of the study point to what they call "motivated reasoning" -- that is, when we believe something, we tend to seek out evidence that confirms it and ignore contradictory evidence, no matter how strong or matter of fact it may be (this may be the same reason why so many Colbert viewers think he's actually a conservative).
Also of interest, one of the authors of the study, Andrew Perrin, was interviewed a long while back by your humble li'l blogger for the inaugural Contexts podcast. In the interview he discusses how polls of he electorate around political races are a "productive fiction." Interesting stuff, and not just because you get to hear my sonorous voice...
No comments:
Post a Comment