GooberTheHat wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Why do 'misinformation' campaigns appear to be more effective than 'factual' ones?

I posted about that last week. 2 secs.

The human mind is a pretty stupid thing. Here's a few reasons why just discussing crazy things, without a counter argument, can be dangerous;

When it comes to believing something of which you personally have no way of verifying:

• Multiple sources are more persuasive than a single source, especially if those sources contain different arguments that point to the same conclusion.
• Receiving the same or similar message from multiple sources is more persuasive.
• People assume that information from multiple sources is likely to be based on different perspectives and as such worth greater consideration.
• Communications from groups to which the recipient belongs are more likely to be perceived as credible. The same applies when the source is perceived as similar to the recipient.

Now, let's talk about just talking about stuff:

• Repeated exposure to a statement has been shown to increase its acceptance as true.
• The “illusory truth effect” is well documented, whereby people rate statements as more truthful, valid, and believable when they have encountered those statements previously than when they are new statements.
• When people are less interested in a topic, they are more likely to accept familiarity brought about by repetition as an indicator that the information (repeated to the point of familiarity) is correct.
• When processing information, people often save time and energy by using a frequency heuristic (favoring information they have heard more frequently).
• Even with preposterous stories and urban legends, those who have heard them multiple times are more likely to believe that they are true.
• If an individual is already familiar with an argument or claim (has seen it before, for example), they process it less carefully, often failing to discriminate weak arguments from strong arguments.

But we all know its bollocks right? It's just a bit of fun, no one really believes the crazy stuff, right? :

• In a phenomenon known as the “sleeper effect,” low- credibility sources manifest greater persuasive impact with the passage of time. While people make initial assessments of the credibility of a source, in remembering, information is often dissociated from its source. Thus, information from a questionable source may be remembered as true, with the source forgotten.
• Information that is initially assumed valid but is later retracted or proven false can continue to shape people’s memory and influence their reasoning.
• Even when people are aware that some sources have the potential to contain misinformation, they still show a poor ability to discriminate between information that is false and information that is correct.

Yeah, but we have evidence, and expert witnesses!" There's a reason why people who are trying to convince you of a conspiracy theory claim they have 'evidence' when they don't, and that people are 'experts' when thay aren't:

• The presence of evidence can override the effects of source credibility on perceived veracity of statements.
• In courtroom simulations, witnesses who provide more details—even trivial details—are judged to be more credible.
• Peripheral cues, such as the appearance of expertise or the format of information, lead people to accept—with little reflection—that the information comes from a credible source.
• Expertise and trustworthiness are the two primary dimensions of credibility, and these qualities may be evaluated based on visual cues, such as format, appearance, or simple claims of expertise.

Paul the sparky wrote:

My short take on that. They work by playing on things that trigger the strongest emotional response, anger and fear.

dynamiteReady wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

Why do 'misinformation' campaigns appear to be more effective than 'factual' ones?

It's pretty much because those pushing disinformation do so repeatedly, and from multiple channels. It's designed to hit emotional trigger points (anger being the most effective). It then gets picked up and pushed as misinformation by those it triggers, and as a result seems even more credible to the secondary audience, because its coming from someone in their group, who is like them, and who they presumably know, like or respect.

These quote landed on my lap recently:

Joseph Gobbels wrote:

There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyways always yield to the stronger, and this will always be ‘the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character.

The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitive. In the long run basic results in influencing public opinion will be achieved only by the man who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form, despite the objections of the intellectuals.

What you want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.

This is the thing.

What's so complicated about 'Boris Johnson is a liar, a racist, and he will sell your mum'?

LivDiv wrote:

My concern for Long-Bailey is she will already be associated with Corbyn by the public. It isn't an insurmountable hurdle but a hurdle none the less and Labour don't need more of those.
But yeah, let's wait and see what happens once things actually get started.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

monkey wrote:

I honestly think that if RLB wins and Milne stays, much of the party will go and form a new one. They’ve got 5 years to establish themselves. Whether it will work is another matter. But they’re not going to go through this again.

Milne is finished. Let's not associate Long Bailey with Corbyn without hearing her out first, eh.

LivDiv wrote:

My concern for Long-Bailey is she will already be associated with Corbyn by the public. It isn't an insurmountable hurdle but a hurdle none the less and Labour don't need more of those. But yeah, let's wait and see what happens once things actually get started.

GooberTheHat wrote:

Saying Boris Johnson is any of those things doesn't get enough people angry though.

"He's a liar" - yeah, but all politicians are.

"He's racist" - he just says it how it is.

"he will sell your mum" - he's got a good grasp on the economy.