this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
275 points (97.3% liked)

science

15011 readers
85 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
m3t00@lemmy.world
Joleee@lemmy.world
laverabe@lemmy.world
DeadPand@midwest.social
275
Many voters are willing to accept misinformation from political leaders – even when they know it’s factually inaccurate, if they believe the statements evoke a deeper, more important “truth.” (theconversation.com)
submitted 2 months ago by solrize@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Many voters are willing to accept misinformation from political leaders – even when they know it’s factually inaccurate. According to our research, voters often recognize when their parties’ claims are not based on objective evidence. Yet they still respond positively, if they believe these inaccurate statements evoke a deeper, more important “truth.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Isn't that just tribalism or clubism in general?

For example, if one looks at footbal (soccer for Americans) fans, their "judgement" on the validity of faults and sanctions (or lack thereof) is entirelly dependent of whose team they support and almost invariably they side with whatever the important people of "their" team (like the coach, important players and even the club's manager) say with zero logical analysis and if you actually bring logic into it and it goes against "their" team, the biggest fans just get angry and dismiss it all.

People with a strong emotinal bond to a "team" judge messages in that domain based on the messager and which team it favours, rather than on the contents of and supporting evidence for the message itself.