The Washington Post has an interesting article considering the durability of myths (may require free registration to view) (I discovered in a Slashdot post). Don’t be put off by the word myth – most of the examples in the article concern disputed political positions.
The research also highlights the disturbing reality 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.
It turns out that people are not good at learning what information comes from credible sources and that we tend to forget labels/tags we attach to memories indicating that the information is not credible.
What are the implications of such findings in the Internet age and the related issue of information credibility? I am guessing the concerns expressed in this article are not relevant to biased information one might encounter on occasion. The capacity to critically evaluate such information as received might be productive. The situation described in these studies seems to concern information that we encounter repeatedly and followed by an explanation of why the repeated position is false/biased. For example, what might be the consequences of viewing/listening to a station/program with a consistent bias even if we also receive and accept an explanation of the bias that is present?
Does this mean it is pointless to address myths? The article claims silence is not the best course of action. However, dwelling on the falsehood may be counter-productive.
… it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth.
