The Illusory Truth Effect is a Universal Bias

Trump's Bottomless Pinocchio lies with number of times he repeated the lies in public

The illusory truth effect is a well-known cognitive bias that at political propagandists and most PR organizations and marketers heavily rely on to make their points to convince people. The effect is elicited by simply repeating a lie. Over time, some people will start believing the lie is truth. Experts believe that fluency with a lie tends to create a sense of familiarity which people can misinterpret as a mental signal that the lie is truth.

A paper by European and American researchers asked if the bias applies roughly among all people with different cognitive styles. Experiments designed to measure how prone different cognitive styles are to the illusory truth effect. The researchers relied groups of people who have (i) high cognitive ability or intelligence, (ii) a high need for cognitive closure, i.e., a strong desire to avoid ambiguity, and a cognitive style of (iii) thinking a rapid and intuitive manner, or (iv) a slower and more analytic approach. The paper is now undergoing peer-review and has not yet published. The researchers conducted a series of seven experiments using a total of about 2,200 participants. Study participants would read a mix of true and false trivia statements or fake and real political headlines. In most of the studies, the participants would then complete various cognitive tests and surveys, and finally they would re-read and judge as true or false the earlier trivia statements, as well as new ones scattered among them.

The Research Digest of the British Psychological Society summarizes the results:

The researchers found the illusory truth effect across all seven studies: participants were more likely to rate trivia statements and headlines as true/real if they’d seen them previously. Crucially, the strength of this effect did not vary according to the participants’ cognitive ability or style, or need for closure. A couple of studies found some small significant associations, but these disappeared when the researchers integrated all the data.

These results suggest that we are all predisposed to believe repeated information regardless of our own particular cognitive profile. And while that might make us all susceptible to advertising and the fabrications of dishonest politicians, the researchers have a more optimistic take. “These novel findings are in line with the assertion that processing fluency is not a judgmental bias and flaw in the individual, but rather a cue to truth that is universal and epistemologically justified in most contexts”, they write. In other words, it’s not that there’s a foolish subgroup of people who are more vulnerable to the “illusory truth” effect, but rather it’s an advantageous and universal bias that’s arisen because most of the time fluency actually is a reliable signal of truth. For example, a statement that is often repeated may tend to be endorsed by more people, which could be a useful cue to its truth.

No big deal or profoundly immoral?: This effect presumably arose during evolution to help people distinguish truth from lies. In the past, politicians, ideologues, propagandists and marketers understood and exploited this trait based on experience. Knowledge of this usually helpful, human cognitive trait and how to exploit it is at least millennia old.

Given that ancient lineage, today one can assess use of the illusory truth effect in politics differently. Some people see it as normal and inescapable and thus consider it to be ‘no big deal’ or something ‘to be expected’. On the other hand, since people who exploit the illusory truth effect know what they are doing, one can see that as profoundly immoral.

Among US Presidents, Trump appears to be unique. He repeats lies so many times that those high-repetition lies were given their own label, Bottomless Pinocchios, by one fact checking group. Those lies have to be repeated at least 20 times to qualify. So far, no other politician has been ‘awarded’ their own Bottomless Pinocchio. President Trump does not know many things. But one thing he does know is how to play on illusory truth effect with no shame or moral qualm whatever. He is thus unique in that regard too.

B&B orig: 7/1/19

The global threat of false information

The April 2017 issue of Scientific American reports on the impact of false information, conspiracy theories and online echo chambers that generate and perpetuate misinformation. For context, the article mentioned a 2013 World Economic Forum study of echo chambers and false information. That study concluded that the viral spread of false information was a dangerous social trend on a footing equal to the spread of terrorism.

Tens of thousands of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube users were analyzed to study the spread of conspiracy theories. The lead researcher writes “Thanks to these studies, we know that humans are not, as has long been assumed, rational. Presented with unfiltered information, people will appropriate that which conforms to their own thinking. This effect, known as confirmation bias, fuels the spread of demonstrably false arguments . . . . And unfortunately, there seems to be no easy way to break this cycle.”

The author overstates the case a bit. What the researchers found (again) in their recent study was documented years ago by social and cognitive scientists who study politics. They uniformly see the fundamentally irrational, heavily biased basis of politics and it's grounding in false information, bogus logic, personal morals and self-identity. The irrationality flows directly from the limited cognitive capacity of the human mind to deal with complex societies and technologies. Social complexity and technology have outstripped human cognitive capacity and that could constitute the seeds of human self-destruction.

Many people are uneasy with the complexity. For better or worse, the human mind is a superb machine that unconsciously makes coherence from complexity, even where there's no rational basis for objective coherence. Simply put, the human mind has vast unconscious power to self-deceive by creating false realities and applying flawed common sense to the false realities it thinks it sees. That is a cognitive “user illusion”, a phenomenon that was documented decades ago based mostly on data from the 1950s through the 1970s (see prior discussion on the user illusion.)

The author goes on to observe that attempts to correct false information usually failed and actually reinforced the false beliefs. “It suggested that confirmation bias plays an important role in the spread of misinformation. . . . despite optimistic talk about “collective intelligence” and the wisdom of crowds, the web has in fact driven the creation of the echo chamber. . . . Conspiracy thinking, on the other hand, arises when people find themselves unable to determine simple causes for complex, adverse circumstances.” In other words, the web is fostering collective ignorance as much or more than it fosters collective intelligence or crowd wisdom.

Honest attempts to communicate rationally tend to fail. “Any attempt at reasoned discussion usually degenerates into a fight between extremists, which ends in polarization.” It also ends in no one changing their minds or what they see as facts or how they apply their common sense to the facts they think they see. We've all seen the fight and polarization scenario many, many times.

The 2016 elections and Russia: If one accepts the degree of threat that misinformation represents to civil society, it is reasonable to take, for example, Russian interference in US elections as a very serious, direct attack on American democracy. It also provides an objective basis to conclude that, for example, the constant stream of lies and misinformation about Hillary Clinton did in fact affect people's votes, e.g., to vote for president Trump or to not vote at all.

Right now, conservatives and republicans argue strenuously that although Russian lies and misinformation were applied to favor Trump's candidacy, but that affected no votes. There's no logic or objective basis to believe that Russian interference was 100% ineffective at accomplishing exactly what it was designed to do. That belief is an example of confirmation bias by the conservative mind. That is an example of how quickly, unconsciously and powerfully personal biases and morals distort fact and logic in politics.

A core reason for the existence of this channel is to try to explain some of the cognitive and social biology that drives human irrationality about politics. If people do not come to understand their own biological humanity (cognitive and social biology) to some extent, they remain significantly more vulnerable to people out to manipulate them for their own ends. The internet is the perfect ecosystem to breed and propagate dark free speech to the detriment of human civilization and maybe even to human existence itself.

B&B orig: 3/25/17

Mind-To-Mind Communication By Wire

In her 2017 book, The Influential Mind neuroscientist Tali Sharot describes several kinds of unusual communication. So far, neuroscientists have been able to demonstrate electronic mind-to-mind information transmission (i) between mice, (ii) from humans to rats, (iii) between humans, and (iv) from humans to machines. Information transfer occurred without any visual, verbal, physical or chemical (pheromone) contact. This represents a different mode(s) of communication compared to how means for communicating are now generally considered.

The information transfer was correlated with altered behavior in the animal or machine that received the information. For the human- and animal-only experiments, the results were interpreted as evidence of a learned behavior in the source mind being able to influence neuronal firing in the recipient mind to elicit the behavior the trained animal had learned.

This area of research and the data are new. It is not the case that scientists believe that mind-to-mind communication has been shown to transmit abstract ideas between minds. Sharot cautions that these are only the first, primitive steps in developing technology to explore and to try to assess the ultimate limits of direct mind-to-mind communication.

Mouse-to-mouse: Transfer of information was shown by connecting electrodes implanted in mouse brains with the electrodes being connected by wires to a computer. Transfer of learning by a trained mouse in one cage led to an untrained mouse in another, separate cage engaging in behavior that mimicked what the trained mouse had been taught. For the physically connected mouse brains, the recipient brain learned directly from electrical signals the source brain generated.

For the mouse-to-mouse experiments, Sharot writes: “It took Homer [the untrained mouse] some time, but after about 45 hours of playing this game (with lots of breaks in between) he had a eureka moment, ‘Hey, the answer is in my head!’ Seven times out of ten Homer got the answer right and was rewarded with a large sip of cool refreshing water. . . . . every time Homer got the answer right, Einstein [the trained mouse] received bonus water, which motivated him to send out an even clearer signal to Homer. . . . . It was the bare essentials of communication that caused a reaction - a firing cell [cells?] in one brain altering the firing of cells in another brain. This, in turn, led to a change in behavior.”

Variants of the experiment included working with Homer and Einstein being in the same lab to having them in different countries with the mind-to-mind connection via internet.

Human-to-rat: Communication from a human to a rat was demonstrated in, what to this observer, seems like a bizarre protocol. Standard electroencephalograph electrodes attached to a human's head were recorded to a computer and then transmitted from the computer to the rat's brain via ultrasound. The human was looking at images of either circles or squares on a computer screen. Information transmission to the rat involved converting human 'circle' and 'square' electrical brain signals in a computer to ultrasound signals as the mode mode of information transmission. The ultrasound transmission to the rat led to lift or drop it's tail depending on the signal.

Sharot comments: “There is nothing special about circles and squares; you could use images of unicorns and burgers, if you prefer. In fact, just thinking of unicorns and burgers can suffice.” This research is part of US military research looking to see if it is possible to develop ‘fighter rats’ that are controlled by human thought. “With this goal in mind (no pun intended), the group of researchers at Harvard set out to show that a person's thoughts could control the movement of a rat's tail.”

Again, these are primitive, early stage results based on (i) limited data sets, and (ii) primitive, early stage protocols and technology.

Human-to-human: Sharot: “Here, again, EEG [electroencephalograph] was used to record signals from a volunteer -- this time, while the volunteer thought about moving his hand. This signal was then transmitted to a computer and transmitted across the internet. Once it arrived at its destination, it was converted to a magnetic signal. Small magnetic pulses were transmitted to a second person through his scalp with a machine called TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation).[1] These magnetic pulses triggered a neural reaction and viola -- the person's finger instantaneously moved, without the person consciously desiring it. What we can learn . . . . is that changing behavior is about altering the pattern of neural firing inside a person's brain.”

Regarding human-to-machine communication, a paralyzed volunteer was capable of successfully of using her mind with a surgically implanted electrode to control sophisticated flight simulators for a single engine Cessna airplane and the US military's new F-35 fighter jet. Commenting on the volunteer's capacity to fly sophisticated war jets, a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) director commented: “We can now see the future where we can free the brain from the limitations of the human body.”

Questions: Assuming the experiments and results described here replicate, are these results merely parlor tricks or do they have any real world implications for problems such as the mind-body problem, the nature of mind or consciousness or warfare? Since the physical human brain is considered by many people to be different from the 'intangible' human mind, is this line of experimentation a demonstration of brain-to-brain communication and not mind-to-mind communication, assuming such a distinction makes sense?

Footnote:
1. A prior B&B discussion discussed recent results showing the capacity of magnetic pulses to assess degrees of human consciousness, with results closely mirroring clinical assessments of degrees of consciousness.

B&B orig: 12/22/17

Breitbart's Rare Moment of Candor

“There cannot a greater judgment befall a country than a dreadful spirit of division as rends a government into two distinct people, and makes them greater strangers, and more averse to one another, than if they were actually two different nations. The effects of such a division are pernicious to the last degree, not only with regard to those advantages which they give the common enemy, but to those private evils which they produce in the heart of almost every particular person. This influence is very fatal both to men’s morals and their understandings; it sinks the virtue of a nation, and not only so, but destroys even common sense. A furious party spirit, when it rages in its full violence, exerts itself in civil war and bloodshed; and when it is under its greatest restraints, naturally breaks out in falsehood, detraction, calumny, and a partial administration of justice. In a word, it fills a nation with spleen and rancor, and extinguishes all the seeds of good nature, compassion and humanity.” -- President George Washington

For hard core partisans, candor is rare. A recent article in The Atlantic reports on several such moments in recent years.

Rush Limbaugh: Limbaugh “responded to GOP losses in Congress by admitting that he hadn’t been leveling with his listeners about their political party. He declared, “I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, ‘Well, why have you been doing it?’ Because the stakes are high! Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country’s than the Democrat Party does.””

Morals and beliefs: Note the mindset and morality that led a person like Limbaugh who was followed and believed by millions of Americans to hold his political ideology and values in higher esteem that facts and logic or conscious reason (Washington's ‘common sense’). This is another example of why political ideology poisons reality and reason, a point this channel repeatedly makes. Truth and reason get in the way of sacred ideological beliefs* of people who elevate their political, religious, economic or other beliefs above both truth and reason.

* A sacred ideological belief mindset is defined here as a mind that elevates personal ideological and morals beliefs above both truth and reason such that lying, deceit, unwarranted emotional manipulation, and/or flawed reason are acceptable. In other words, the ends justify the means for the sacred belief mindset, at least to the extent of engaging in lying, deceit, etc. For some such mindsets, it extends to accept and engage in violence in the name of defending sacred belief.

Glenn Beck: “Then it was Glenn Beck, looking back on his stint as one of the right’s most popular cable-news hosts, admitting to Megyn Kelly in 2014, ‘I played a role, unfortunately, in helping tear the country apart,’ a reference to his rise to national fame fueled by scrawling unhinged conspiracy theories on chalkboards.”

In this example, one can see how easily the sacred belief mindset can slide into social discord and even edge a society toward violence.

Breitbart's moment of candor: “The latest cynical purveyor of misinformation to confess his sins is Alex Marlow, editor of Breitbart, one of the most highly trafficked news and analysis website on the right. He told CNN last week that the publication he runs, reporting to Steve Bannon, wasn’t honest in its coverage of Roy Moore’s Senate campaign. Rather than letting the merits of the race dictate coverage, Breitbart skewed its work and cast doubt on Moore’s accusers to protect President Trump: Marlow said he had no regrets about Breitbart's coverage of the race and stressed that the nationalist, populist website will not be changing course as a result of it… Until Election Day, Breitbart seemingly did everything in its power to try to discredit Moore's accusers.”

Marlow's reasoning reveals yet another sacred belief mindset. According to The Atlantic article, Marlow believes the news media was trying set a purely allegation-based sexual misconduct standard that President Trump could never meet. Marlow commented: “I think that's the playbook here. And I think it's part of the reason why it was so important for Breitbart to continue our coverage of the way we covered it ... and for Steve in particular to hold the line -- it's not just about Judge Moore, it is not even just about establishment, anti-establishment. It's about what's coming next for President Trump.”

Although Marlow claimed Breitbart has been “much more careful”, which he claims requires a “certain level of detail ” in sex misconduct allegations. Despite those claims, and whatever that standard amounted to in practice, it didn't impede Breitbart from relentlessly pursuing sacred goal of protecting Trump: “Marlow also stressed that he was personally uncomfortable with the behavior attributed by The Post to Moore, and noted that he did believe the accusations from [Moore accuser] Leigh Corfman had ‘a lot of credibility.’”

This is how partisan politics and partisan morals work in practice, at least for modern conservatives and populists. Ideological and personal goals talk and truth and reason walk.

It is unfortunate that there are so few moments of candor that reveal the moral basis of partisanship and ideology, or the lack thereof.

Question: Do the means of lying and deceit justify the ends of defending sacred political, economic, religious or philosophical ideological beliefs? Is violence justified under circumstances of domestic political disagreement?

B&B orig: 12/30/17

Global Warming: What They Don't Tell You

Deer in the meadow

The discomforting news: A lead essay in the Economist magazine reports that assumptions under the 2015 Paris climate accord include not just reducing CO2 emissions. The proposed temperature target of trying to limit temperature increase to less than 2ᵒ C includes removing about 890 billion tons of atmospheric CO2 by 2100. In scientific terms, that's a lot. That point is not well-reported.

The Economist sums it up: “Stopping the flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not enough. It has to be sucked out, too. . . . Unless policymakers take negative emissions seriously, the promise of Paris will ring ever more hollow.”

The good news: In summarizing promising technology advances for 2017, Scientific American reports on progress in technology that removes CO2 from air and converts it to fuel. Scientists have been working for decades on an artificial ‘leaf’ that uses sunlight, water and CO2 in the air to make alcohol fuels. In a significant advance, scientists at Harvard reported an artificial leaf that was much more efficient in converting CO2 and water to alcohol fuels than plant leaves are at converting CO2 and water to sugars (biological fuels).

In using sunlight for energy production, a plant uses about 1% of the energy in sunlight to make glucose (a carbohydrate or sugar). By contrast, the artificial leaf operated at 10% sunlight efficiency in converting CO2 in air to fuel. That system pulled 6.3 oz of CO2 from air per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.

The scientists are in talks with industry to prototype large scale facilities to generate tons of fuels.

The technology includes (i) a non-toxic, biocompatible catalyst that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight, and (ii) genetically engineered bacteria that use CO2 and the hydrogen to make fuel. The lead scientist envisions also using genetically engineered bacteria in soil to take CO2 and nitrogen from air to make fertilizers for plants.

So long as climate change deniers don't decide to intervene to stop or impede research,[1] there are developing technologies that can potentially have an impact on CO2 emissions. Presumably this technology an also be used to achieve at least some of the negative CO2 emissions that are believed necessary to stabilize the climate.

The unknown: Whether this and other developing technologies can be scaled up and still be economically competitive in time to make any difference is unknowable. It is possible that humans have already set in motion biological-geological processes that could lead to human extinction, e.g., anoxic oceans leading to a toxic atmosphere. The timescales and odds for very bad outcomes are impossible to know with any degree of certainty.

Footnote:
1. In the case of gun control research, gun advocates and political conservatives have successfully blocked funding for research on the public health impacts of gun ownership since 1996. Conservatives in congress today want to cut funding for Earth and climate science research to block research and new information that reveals the scope and nature of climate change. In this case, conservatives and/or economic interest who feel threatened by this new source of energy cold stop research and or development of this new technology. Much of the effort to stop science and new knowledge is well-funded and operating in as much secrecy as possible.

Where does this path lead, survival or extinction?

B&B orig: 12/31/17

Essentially Contested Concepts: What is Hate?

Essentially contested concepts involve widespread agreement on a concept (e.g., hate, fairness, constitutional, legal, moral, good, evil, etc.), but not on the best realization or definition thereof. They are concepts the proper definition or use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper definitions or uses on the part of their users. These disputes cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone. The disputes are unresolvable, but unfortunately are quite common in politics. Disputes over essentially contested concepts cannot be resolved by anything other than compromise, an imperfect resolution, because the definitions are heavily influenced by personal cognitive and social factors such as morals, political ideology, and social- and self-identity.

A Washington Post article discusses whether the hate group list that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has compiled is fair, dangerous or otherwise detrimental. The article starts with a member of the Family Research Council (FRC) pointing out the bullet holes in the group's lobby. The FRC, a conservative Christian anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage advocacy and political lobbying group, is listed by the SPLC as a hate group. A deranged man with a gun came to kill people in the FRC because the FRC was on the SPLC hate list.

Is it fair or safe to identify groups like the FRC with the same language, hate group, as the Klu Klux Klan? What is the definition of hate in the context of politics?

The WaPo writes: “‘Labeling people hate groups is an effort to hold them accountable for their rhetoric and the ideas they are pushing. Obviously the hate label is a blunt one,’ Cohen concedes when I ask whether advocates like the FRC, or proponents of less immigration like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), or conservative legal stalwarts like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), really have so much in common with neo-Nazis and the Klan that they belong in the same bucket of shame. “It’s one of the things that gives it power, and it’s one of the things that can make it controversial. Someone might say, ‘Oh, it’s without nuance.’ … But we’ve always thought that hate in the mainstream is much more dangerous than hate outside of it. The fact that a group like the FRC or a group like FAIR can have congressional allies and can testify before congressional committees, the fact that a group like ADF can get in front of the Supreme Court — to me that makes them more dangerous, not less so. … It’s the hate in the business suit that is a greater danger to our country than the hate in a Klan robe.’”

Context: For context, the FRC operates ‘crisis pregnancy centers’, which are set up in poor neighborhoods. From the outside, they appear to be medical centers that provide professional medical access to abortion services. These centers have been called unethical for deceiving pregnant women by applying pressure tactics that range from lying about abortion options, e.g., falsely telling a woman that abortion is illegal or unavailable, to exerting intense psychological pressure to prevent a woman from having an abortion. These centers often seek to delay long enough so that a woman is forced by law to give birth. People running crisis pregnancy centers typically have no formal medical training at all and instead are Christian activists in white lab coats trying to prevent abortions by any means possible short of illegal actions such as threats of physical violence.

In view of lies, deceit and misery that crisis pregnancy centers were inflicting on low income women who were being tricked into bearing a child, California passed a law “intended to compel crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to offer factual information about all options available to pregnant women and to disclose if a facility is unlicensed. . . . . NPCC asserts that 91% of unlicensed CPCs provided defective medical information such as a false link between abortion and breast cancer or suicide.”

What is hate? Do deceit-driven tactics related to abortion, like what the FRC and other groups engage in, amount to hate? Do other activities such as lobbying congress and mounting legal challenges to abortion or same-sex marriage amount to hate?

Hate (verb): to feel intense or passionate dislike for someone, a concept, e.g., the idea of abortion, or something.
Hate (noun): an intense or passionate dislike or loathing for someone, a concept or something.

Clearly, lobbying congress and mounting legal challenges are legal political activities. Can legal activities amount to hate? If it isn't hate, what can it more reasonably be called? Aggressive conservative or Christian activism? Immorality or unethical?

It appears that much or most of the activities the groups on the SPLC’s hate list amount to mostly legal activism infused with a rigid unwillingness to compromise. If one believes that, for politics in a liberal democracy, compromise is a core moral value and necessary for democracy to function properly (a concept or belief advocated here), then a refusal to compromise can be seen as immoral.

Is immorality the same as hate? If the definitions of hate given above are generally accepted as maybe incomplete but generally accurate enough, then it would logically seem that refusal to compromise alone will often or usually include a component of hate in it. Is that reasoning sound or flawed? Is compromise the only or best form of resolution for disputes over contested concepts?

The WaPo is right to raise this issue. A deranged man with a gun used the SPLC hate list to find a target for murder. That would seem to be no different than president Trump continually referring to journalists as ‘the enemy of the people’, thereby inciting a few people to begin to act to kill journalists. Is that hate?

If nothing else, one can see from the foregoing why essentially contested concepts lead to intractable disputes and how the disputed concepts can foster actions that lead to misery or even social conflict and outright murder. Essentially contested concepts can be dangerous because of the heavy cognitive (moral) and social (identity and social context) loads they carry. From that point of view, it is easy to see why (i) disagreements over essentially contested concepts are not resolvable, and (ii) compromise must necessarily be a pillar of peaceful, non-tyrant, democratic society.

B&B orig: 11/15/18