#backfire effect

To protect the beliefs and that sense of identity, rationalization takes place. What’s interesting is that once the rationalization has occurred, dopamine is released, rewarding that rationalization and in many ways reinforcing it. The beliefs are re-affirmed and the threat to personal identity averted.

You know how I said I have a couple of boys in my Block 2 World class who like to make as much noise as possible? Today, after they got their work done, they started typing silly things into Translate in order to have the program say them out loud. So one of the other boys turned up his volume and typed in “shut the f*ck up.”

Yeah. That happened.

Did I want to laugh? Yes. Did I manage to keep a straight face and tell everyone to mute their Chromebooks because I didn’t want anymore Translate outbursts? Also yes. Zen-like calm is going to be a necessity with this class, I can tell. 

But anyways. 

My lesson went pretty well in both classes. I showed a graphic of the “cultural iceberg,” and we discussed visible and invisible culture. Then I played Chimamanda Adichie’s TED Talk, “The Danger of a Single Story” and The Oatmeal’s “Backfire Effect” because I want students to understand that when we study the world we should be mindful of stereotypes and assumptions we might hold, and be aware of how we react to new information, especially information that challenges our core beliefs. Aaaand then I went and assigned an analysis of Warsan Shire’s “Home.” 

Most students got the point. They dove into the poem, and really thought about the idea that there’s a “single story” about the border, and that we might have incomplete or inaccurate ideas about why people flee from certain places. A couple students refused to do the assignment, but I have all semester to challenge them to engage with texts that they might find intimidating or uncomfortable, so I wasn’t too fazed. 

Best article opening of 2017:

“Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither.”

When facts threaten one’s worldview or self-concept, facts become “the enemy to be sla[in].” This “power of belief over evidence” results from two factors:

Cognitive dissonance: “The uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts simultaneously.” In other words, if I already have an idea fixed in my head, hearing evidence that conflicts with that idea will automatically cause me distress--which I will then associate with the new evidence, not with my original idea.

The backfire effect: “Corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.” In other words, people are far more likely to “spin-doctor facts to fit preconceived beliefs” than to consider changing their comfortable long-held beliefs to fit the uncomfortable new facts. Example:

“Subjects were given fake newspaper articles that confirmed widespread misconceptions, such as that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When subjects were then given a corrective article that WMD were never found, liberals who opposed the war accepted the new article and rejected the old, whereas conservatives who supported the war did the opposite ... and more: they reported being even more convinced there were WMD after the correction, arguing that this only proved that Saddam Hussein hid or destroyed them.”