Heretic that I am, I regularly read the Skeptic and the Skeptical Inquirer (2 magazines that regularly attempt to debunk anything that seems to be unscientific). Although I don’t agree with everything in their magazines (much of it is atheistic), I do like a lot of what they print.
The other day I picked up the latest copy of the Skeptical Inquirer and found that the first article I read tied neatly into LDS apologetic efforts. The article is entitled “Difficulty in Debunking Myths Rooted in the Way the Mind Works,” by Shankar Vedantam. Here are some quotes, paraphrases, and summaries of the article.
“The conventional reponse to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new pyscological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.”
One such study, for instance, focused on a flier printed by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that combated several myths about the flu vaccine. A University of Michigan psychologist did a study by having people read the flier and then asked them questions about it later. He found that within 30 minutes of having read the flier, older people “misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.” While younger people did better (and he doesn’t define younger and older), three days later the younger people made as many errors as the older people did after 30 minutes. “Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.”
Another study from the WWII era has shown that “the more often people heard false wartime rumors, the more likely they were to believe them.”
Attempting to understand this phenomenon, some psychologists suggest that “the brain uses subconcious ‘rules of thumb’ that can bias it into thinking that false information is true….. Long-term memories… are the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false
information is true.”
Denials and rebutalls of false information are obviously still usefull, otherwise everyone would believe false information, but “the mind’s bias does affect many people, especially those who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts.”
Research also shows that “once an idea has been implanted in people’s minds, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.” Repetition, it seems, may be a key culprit to the problem. The more the information is repeated, the more accessible it becomes in the brain as one of the “rules of thumb” that is easily recalled as being “true” because the brain remembers that many of the things we recall quickly and easily are true.
“…someone trying to manipulate public opinion can take advantage of this aspect of brain functioning. In politics and elsewhere, this means that whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later.”
Furthermore, another study suggests that hearing the same thing over and over from the same source can have the same effect as hearing the thing from different sources. “…the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not.” The mind “is not good at remembering when and where a person first learned something. People are not good at keeping track of which information came from credible sources and which came from less trustworthy ones, or even remembering that some information came from the same untrustworthy source over and over again.”
According to some studies: “…for a substantial number of people, the ‘negation tag’ of denial falls off with time. ‘If someone says, “I did not harass her,” I associate the idea of harassment with this person,'” which is why “people who are accused of something but later proved innocent find their reputations remain tarnished. ‘Even if he is innocent, this is what is activated when I hear this person’s name again.'”
How do we work around this problem? One researcher suggests that “rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth. Rather than say[ing]…. ‘Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States [on 9-11]; Osama bin Laden did, [a common myth]’ …it would be better to say something like, ‘Osama bin Laden was the only person responsible for the September 11 attacks.'” While this statement isn’t entirely accurate either, it avoids repeating the incorrect information.
What about not saying anything? Is it better not to respond with a denial or rebuttal? This doesn’t help either. At least one study printed in a peer-reviewed psychology journal “found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true.”
Vedantam closes with this: “Mythbusters, in other words, have the odds against them.”
Hopefully my mind is not so warped that I’m not the only who sees LDS apologetic endeavors– and the challenges we face– in the foregoing article.
Mike Ash
If i were the LDS Church i would have produced a sensationalism type DVD. I would have the 50,000 LDS missionaries give them out. I would make it a precise hardhitting response to the popular Anti-Mormon trivia. But i would make sure t’s geared towar’s Bible only believer’s. I would answer them verse by verse when necessary. I think it would be a fun and worthwhile possible future FAIR film.
It would get the public talking about the issue’s. I have felt FAIR made the mistake of not publishing something like it’s review’s of Mormonism 101 by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson. With some modification’s to keep in mind MRM’s online response to FAIR it would be a good book for LDS book store’s. To my knowledge only the Truth About The Godmaker’s by Gilbertt Schwarff’s hit’s anti-Mormon trivia in trivia fashion.
To me it’s a propeganda war. The Anti-Mormon’s have released thousand’s of cheap tract’s. But only Mormon Miscellaneous has done any LDS tract’s that i know of. FAIR did a few printable brochure’s, but that’s not going to flood the non-LDS audience with information.
If possible FAIR might consider doing some tract’s. I would sell them in pack’s of 10 on miscellaneou’s tough subject’s. I would only sell the set together by the bundle on miscellaneous topic’s in pack’s of 10. I would do some on the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon issue’s, top polygamy issue’s,ect I know of tract by IRR on the Book of Mormon FAIR might benifit from responding to in it’s own brochure. I know i would pay $20.00 for a set of tract’s that are as tough as what critic’s put out.
I am RLDS, so some LDS material’s would not be quite my point of view. But it benifit’s me by being able to give the LDS side to my people. But i felt the FAIR brochure’s on the Book of Mormon issue’s were bery worthwhile. I like access to short as possible summary answer’s.
It all cost’s money. It is also an uphill battle trying to educate the public. A answering anti-Mormon history, doctrine and practice trivia CD, cheap tract’s are the cheapest way’s i can think to do it. I once listened to the Mormon Divide talk by Hank Hanegraff and his witnessing trivia need’s to be hit hard. FAIR might even do a FAIR newspaper once or twice a year people can purchase. Even a printable paper would be fun.
FAIR conference’s are good.
My interest in apologetic’s is self defense. And it’s to help people. I have been reading a section out of Mormonism Shadow and Reality on polygamy the last few day’s. Idea’s pop into my head that sometime’s favor’s LDS. The Tanner’s list certain New Testament scripture’s against polygamy.(1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:5,6) And Deut. 17:17. (Mormonism Shadow or Reality pg. 206) Some of my people have used these and Deut. 17:17 against polygamy also.
As i read Deut. 17:17 it allow’s a king to have some wive’s, some gold, and some horse’s. Deut. 21 if i recall right as FAIR has pointed out give’s rule’s for treatment of plural wive’s. Such king’s polygamist’s or other polygamist’s would be as blameless as Bishop’s or elder’s that were the husband’s of one wife. I get the sense that Jacob 2 only singled out David and Solomon because they wickedly multiplied wive’s to themselve’s. I get the sense it was greed and not merely polygamy that made them guilty. Other polygamist’s were not so condemned.
The public think’s the Bible is a totally Anti-all polygamist book which it isn’t. Any polygamist operating within the law would not be guilty of adultury, or the Lord would have pro-hibited it not permitted it. Some of my people would not want to hear that, and think me a heretic for challenging a common myth.
Great post Mike. And something to consider. I think far too often we don’t worry enough about our rhetoric in terms of how we combat falsehoods.
“Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.”
Most troubling indeed. Great post.
I think the more interesting question for a reader of The Skeptical Inquirer is how we can see those troubling behaviors in our own minds. Everyone has biases/beliefs that are rooted more in myth than anything else and research like that mentioned above continually shows that our minds are protective of those beliefs/biases to the point of rejecting discomfiting information out of hand – even to the point of enhancing our belief in the myth. IOW, since the mind is where beliefs are contained AND protected it is not easy to recognize when we are the ones defending myth as reality, whether Mormon or anti-Mormon.