| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Psychology Forum » The Psychology of Gullibility
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Maxie P. Diddy |
 Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/valhouli.html
Cutting down the dissonance: the psychology of gullibility
By Christina Valhouli
Two years ago, 14-year-old Nathan Zohner, a student at Eagle Rock
Junior High in Idaho Falls, announced on the Internet that he had
circulated a petition demanding strict control of a chemical known as
dihydrogen monoxide. This substance, he wrote, caused excessive
sweating and vomiting, can be lethal if accidentally inhaled,
contributes to erosion, and has been found in tumors of cancer
patients. The student asked 50 people whether they supported the ban.
Forty-three said yes, six were undecided, and only one knew that
dihydrogen monoxide was... water.
While embracing a ban on H2O seems more foolish than dangerous, this
anecdote shows how quickly people embrace some kinds of ideas without
subjecting them to critical scrutiny. The human propensity to accept
ideas at face value--no matter how illogical--is the fertile soil in
which pseudoscience grows. Beliefs in UFOs, astrology, extrasensory
perception, palm reading, crystal therapy, or guardian angels do not
meet scientific criteria for rational plausibility (such as
experimental reproducibility or Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability)
and generally rely on anecdotes instead of hard evidence for support,
though they may partake of scientific-sounding terms or rationales;
all such concepts can be safely described as pseudoscience. Why do
people embrace irrational belief systems even after repeated
disconfirmation by scientists?
It is easy to dismiss these ideas as amusing and eccentric, but in
some situations they pose concrete dangers to individuals; they
occasionally even affect society. Former First Lady Nancy Reagan
revealed in her autobiography that she employed a psychic for seven
years to schedule dates for important meetings; more recently, Hillary
Rodham Clinton admitted to having imaginary conversations with Eleanor
Roosevelt on the advice of New Age guru Jean Houston.1 These public
figures are hardly alone in seeking answers from the stars and
soothsayers; the persistence and popularity of such beliefs reflect
the many perceived benefits in pseudoscience. Psychologists agree that
all belief systems--astrology, Objectivism, religion--ease anxiety
about the human condition, and provide the illusion of security,
predictability, control, and hope in an otherwise chaotic world.
Scott Lilienfeld, assistant professor of psychology at Emory
University and consulting editor at the Skeptical Inquirer, identifies
two major catalysts for the prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs:
the information explosion (often a misinformation explosion) and the
low level of scientific literacy in the general population. He cites
poll data indicating that only 7 percent of the population can answer
basic scientific questions like "What is DNA?" or "What is a
molecule?" And when science cannot provide answers, or when people
refuse to accept a scientific explanation (such as when fertility
treatments don't work), pseudoscience often provides highly
individualized explanations. "People believe in things like astrology
because it works for them better than anything else," says Herbert
Gans, the Robert S. Lynd professor of sociology at Columbia. "Your own
system is the most efficient one, whether it's a guardian angel, a
rabbit's foot, or a God watching over you. And if it doesn't work,
there's always an excuse for it."
Another reason people find pseudoscience plausible is a cognitive
ability to "see" relationships that don't exist. "We have an adaptive
reflex to make sense of the world, and there is a strong motivation to
do this," says Lilienfeld. "We need this ability, because the world is
such a complex and chaotic place, but sometimes it can backfire." This
outgrowth of our normal capacity for pattern recognition accounts for
the "face on Mars" (a group of rocks that allegedly resembles a face)
or the belief that a full moon causes an increase in the crime rate.
When people believe in something strongly--whether it is an image on
Mars or a causal interpretation of a chronological association--they
are unlikely to let it go, even if it has been repeatedly discounted.
In some cases, contradictory evidence can even strengthen the belief.
As Leon Festinger and colleagues discussed in When Prophecy Fails,2
holding two contradictory beliefs leads to cognitive dissonance, a
state few minds find tolerable. A believer may then selectively
reinterpret data, reinforcing one of the beliefs regardless of the
strength of the contradictory case. Festinger infiltrated a doomsday
cult whose members were convinced the earth was going to blow up; when
the date passed and the earth didn't explode, the cult attributed the
planet's survival to the power of their prayers. "When people can't
reconcile scientific data with their own beliefs, they minimize one of
them--science--and escape into mysticism, which is more reliable to
them," says Dr. Jeffrey Schaler, adjunct professor of psychology at
American University.
Belief systems tend to respond to challenges according to this
pattern, says Lilienfeld. When researching a cherished belief or
coming across information about it, a person may process the data as
if wearing blinders, registering only the affirming information. The
malleability of memory compounds this effect. "Once you have a belief,
the way you look at evidence changes," says Tory Higgins, chair of the
psychology department at Columbia, whose research specialty is
mechanisms of cognition. "When you search your memory, you are more
likely to retrieve information that will support it and avoid exposure
to information that will disconfirm it. If you fail to avoid it, you
attack the validity and credibility of the source, or categorize it as
an exception."
Dr. Robert Glick, head of the Columbia Center for Psychoanalytic
Training and Research, calls belief systems "societal pain relievers."
"People will recruit anything from their environment that will ensure
and protect their safety," he says. "It gives you a sense that you're
not alone, and helps ease feelings of being powerless." Power--whether
an increase in a person's perceived power or an abdication of it--is a
major component of pseudoscience, and Glick explains people's
relations to power in Freudian terms. He describes belief systems as a
metaphoric representation of our parents, providing a release from
authority and responsibility. "People have a built-in predilection
that wishes for assistance and support. This is an extension of
childhood, where there were always people around us who control our
life. Beliefs like astrology and even religion are a projection that
there are forces in the heavens that are like your parents."
While it may be fun to read horoscopes in the newspaper, can real harm
come from believing strongly in pseudoscience? Lilienfeld advises
citizens to consider how pseudosciences pose concrete threats by
weakening critical thinking and minimizing a person's sense of control
and responsibility. For individuals, this phenomenon can translate
into thousands of dollars wasted on quack remedies--not to mention the
medical danger to patients who forgo more reliable treatments. The
risks extend to the societal level. "We need to be able to sift
through the information overload we're presented with each day and
make sound judgments on everything from advertising to voting for
politicians," Lilienfeld says.
Gans offers a more forgiving point of view. "If someone believes
strongly in something like guardian angels, and they're not in a
mental hospital, and we haven't provided a better answer, why not?"
says Gans. "But if you're just sitting inside your house all day and
say, 'Well, my guardian angel is going to take care of everything,'
then that's bad." And perhaps not too far from supporting a ban on
dihydrogen monoxide.
---------------------------
1. Reagan, Nancy, with William Novak. My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy
Reagan (NY: Random House, 1989. Clinton anecdote is from Woodward,
Bob, The Choice: How Clinton Won (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996). Clinton
admitted this herself in her syndicated column on June 4, 1996.
2. Festinger, Leon; Riecken, Henry W.; Schachter, Stanley. When
Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group
that Predicted the Destruction of the World (NY: Harper & Row, 1964).
---------------------------
Related links...
James K. Glassman, "Dihydrogen Monoxide: Unrecognized Killer,"
reprinted from Washington Post at Stephen Milloy's junkscience.com
ESP information, Psych Infobank, David Myers, Hope College Dept. of
Psychology
Skeptic's Dictionary: extrasensory perception
Mysterium ("A Wonderful Internet Resource For All Things Spiritual,
Supernatural, and Sublime")
Nicholas Dykes, "A Tangled Web of Guesses: A Critical Assessment of
the Philosophy of Karl Popper," Libertarian Alliance Philosophical
Notes
Jack Germond, "Hillary's Guru: An indicator of the quality of American
political debate," Baltimore Sun
---------------------------
CHRISTINA VALHOULI is a New York-based freelance writer and a recent
graduate of Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. Her work has
appeared in Salon, New York, Odyssey, the Hellenic Chronicle, and
other publications. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:48 pm
|
|