In the abstract of How Mental Systems Believe, Dan Gilbert suggests that "(a) the acceptance of an idea is part of the automatic comprehension of that idea and (b) the rejection of an idea occurs subsequent to, and more effortfully than, its acceptance." Believing is essential to complete the process of comprehension. Disconfirmation is effortful and happens after. This shows how much harder disconfirmation is, even when warranted, and how important it is.
Adam Grant made up something fictional called Sarick Effect in his book Originals to illustrate the impact of exposure effect. Borrowing from Grant, it's a case of familiarity breeds comfort and unfamiliarity breeds contempt.
Perfect timing with this, I just saw it happen in real time on Nextdoor. Someone posted an article from a satire site - but the person didn't realize it was satire. Neither did most of the commenters. The more people cheered the comments, the more they dug in and refused to consider it was false. (It was about a singer supposedly refusing $1 million to sing at the Super Bowl).
Not only did they refuse to admit it was true - but they started turning on previous singers for accepting the money. Yet according to every reference I've found, performers only get expenses and union wages. Perhaps that's wrong, but I couldn't find any evidence to the contrary.
What horrified me most was the comment "I don’t waste my time finding out if it’s a lie or truth. Who cares. I like [the singer] anyway"
I struggle with how to encourage people to examine information and articles like that. Or even WANT to examine to see if they are true - most were like the person I quoted above, they didn't even care if it was true, it matched their expectations so that's all that mattered. While I'm curious how they will react when the actual performers are announced (assuming it's not the person mentioned), I also don't want to stir that hornet's nest again.
What a nutty story that, sadly, sounds about right...especially the person who said they don't waste their time finding out if it's true or not. Sadly, this seems to be the state of affairs, made so much worse by social media. My guess? Even if it is not the actual singer, they will still believe the original. They will just rationalize it away. sigh.
I hear you loud and clear, Elizabeth. Covid bore out this truth time and again. When it comes to things we believe in that don't directly affect us, as you say, it's a question of spending time and effort to verify. When it affects us, as in the case of trying to look for disconfirming evidence, it is a question of setting aside something predictable for something new and uncertain. It is unsettling.
Yep. To be honest, the only reason I was suspicious of the claim was because I remembered reading about the backup dancers not being paid a year or two ago. Then I saw a comment with link to an industry article about how no one gets more than Union wages. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't all that important. BUT, what is more concerning is many of the people who refused to believe it was satire also don't bother fact checking the more important things - and also ignore when presented with clear evidence to the contrary.
The "Repetition interferes with judgments of truth AND our morality" section is very true in these cases too. Things that would have deeply offended them 6 years ago are now not just normal and acceptable, but *right*.
In the abstract of How Mental Systems Believe, Dan Gilbert suggests that "(a) the acceptance of an idea is part of the automatic comprehension of that idea and (b) the rejection of an idea occurs subsequent to, and more effortfully than, its acceptance." Believing is essential to complete the process of comprehension. Disconfirmation is effortful and happens after. This shows how much harder disconfirmation is, even when warranted, and how important it is.
Adam Grant made up something fictional called Sarick Effect in his book Originals to illustrate the impact of exposure effect. Borrowing from Grant, it's a case of familiarity breeds comfort and unfamiliarity breeds contempt.
Perfect timing with this, I just saw it happen in real time on Nextdoor. Someone posted an article from a satire site - but the person didn't realize it was satire. Neither did most of the commenters. The more people cheered the comments, the more they dug in and refused to consider it was false. (It was about a singer supposedly refusing $1 million to sing at the Super Bowl).
Not only did they refuse to admit it was true - but they started turning on previous singers for accepting the money. Yet according to every reference I've found, performers only get expenses and union wages. Perhaps that's wrong, but I couldn't find any evidence to the contrary.
What horrified me most was the comment "I don’t waste my time finding out if it’s a lie or truth. Who cares. I like [the singer] anyway"
I struggle with how to encourage people to examine information and articles like that. Or even WANT to examine to see if they are true - most were like the person I quoted above, they didn't even care if it was true, it matched their expectations so that's all that mattered. While I'm curious how they will react when the actual performers are announced (assuming it's not the person mentioned), I also don't want to stir that hornet's nest again.
What a nutty story that, sadly, sounds about right...especially the person who said they don't waste their time finding out if it's true or not. Sadly, this seems to be the state of affairs, made so much worse by social media. My guess? Even if it is not the actual singer, they will still believe the original. They will just rationalize it away. sigh.
I hear you loud and clear, Elizabeth. Covid bore out this truth time and again. When it comes to things we believe in that don't directly affect us, as you say, it's a question of spending time and effort to verify. When it affects us, as in the case of trying to look for disconfirming evidence, it is a question of setting aside something predictable for something new and uncertain. It is unsettling.
Yep. To be honest, the only reason I was suspicious of the claim was because I remembered reading about the backup dancers not being paid a year or two ago. Then I saw a comment with link to an industry article about how no one gets more than Union wages. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't all that important. BUT, what is more concerning is many of the people who refused to believe it was satire also don't bother fact checking the more important things - and also ignore when presented with clear evidence to the contrary.
The "Repetition interferes with judgments of truth AND our morality" section is very true in these cases too. Things that would have deeply offended them 6 years ago are now not just normal and acceptable, but *right*.