| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSDid you know that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the hijackers were Iraqi?
Of course, I'm joking. Saddam Hussein was not directly involved in planning the Sept 11, terrorist attacks, and most of the hijackers were not Iraqi. The problem with this counter of accurate information, however, is that denials and clarifications can actually contribute to the resilience of popular myths. This paradox is according to Shankar Vedantam at the Washington Post, who recently published a fascinating analysis of several recent psychological studies on falsehoods.
Here are highlights from his roundup:
What's Most Easily Recalled Is Perceived As True
Referencing a University of Michigan study, Vedantam notes that contrary to conventional wisdom that people accept information in a deliberate manner, the brain actually uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. In experiments probing the difference between believing falsehoods immediately and then days after receiving correct information, long-term memories prove the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false information is true. Moreover, Vedantam adds, the mind's bias affects many people "who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts."
The Mind Is Not Good At Remembering Sources
Vedantam highlights other research, including from Virginia Polytechnic Institute, showing that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people. By extension, people are not good at remembering which information came from credible sources, or that information came from the same untrustworthy source over and over again.
Negations Disappear Over Time
Citing experiments at Hebrew University, Vedantam points out that a substantial number of people drop the "negation tag" of a denial over time -- ultimately enforcing association with what one was trying to dissociate with. This could explain why rumors or accusations continue to tarnish people or brands even after such rumors are proven false. Consider an exonerated man who always claimed he "did not rape," but forever is associated with rape anyway.
Conclusions For All Of Us In Marketing And Advertising
Aside from my foundational interest in these psychological phenomena of falsehoods, they have massive ramifications for marketing and advertising practitioners. For one, they are important mental principles to consider when strategizing communications and crafting messaging.
But they also force a question with ethical implications: Should we market and communicate to fellow humans as logical, intelligent beings, or as irrational and emotional mental sponges that often fail to grasp reality?
Without a doubt, we can spot everyday attempts to manipulate and play to these mental principles around falsehoods. We often encounter them in political messaging, or among sly public relations spokespeople, or in highly competitive advertising scenarios. They typically are rife with agendas and, successful or not, often have the unfortunate consequence of leaving people feeling disgruntled or manipulated.
To be sure, these principles are not absolute rules. If they were, our world would be overflowing with falsehoods. Rational and linear mental processing is prevalent.
Finally, I have to ask: Will the Internet, over time, have any bearing on how humans process falsehoods and counters of correct information? Surely, our irrational human tendencies will not disappear; they're part of our DNA and there's likely a good instinctual reason for them. But won't the Internet's driving transparency, perpetual record of sources, sophisticated systems of rating reputation, and easy access to information leave citizens less room to fall for falsehoods? Or does the information age only equal more information sources, ambiguity and confusion in which our mental biases toward falsehoods will live on? Which case is it not?
RSS FEEDS
"The 4th law of the 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing is the Law of Perception. ‘We analyze a situation to make sure that truth is on our side. But it is an illusion. There is no objective reality. There are no real facts. All that exists in the world of marketing are perceptions in the minds of the customer or prospect…your mind. The perception is the reality, everything else is just an illusion.’ My name is Mitch Banks…Advertising is my job, Sales is my life. My ultimate goal?…to manipulate your perception of what is your perceived reality.�
And Josh, yes, Made To Stick is a great book, and I recommend it to everyone.
Max
The internet just allows those people that have a latent urge towards critical thinking. So in that respect, I think that it definitely will raise the amount of critical thinkers. Unfortunately, most of the population will go along their merry way, being used and persuaded by slick PR and marketing personnel.
That leaves me with the ethics question... I think that everybody has their own judgement on what they consider ethical - unfortunately. A great take on it is The Irresistible offer by Mark Joyner.
And then, to out-do himself. Of all things, damned if Max Kalehoff doesn't test our recall and past mind images by mis-informing us of who has been saying the 9/ll attackers were from Iraq. The Bush administration has never said that. And no one has ever believed they said that until recently.
So who actually said it was the Iraqis who committed the 9/11 attack? The half-wit pundits and those who hate Bush. In their attempts to distort the reasons Bush gave for entering Iraq, this has been one of their most faithful, fear-mongering tactics since almost no one had ever said that until the past couple of years.
Very clever trick Mr. Kalehoff. Always testing. Presidents Clinton and Bush are both known heterosexuals. Now that's going to shake'em-up at Foggy Bottom. Don't repeat this. It will go into the public mind as a bad thing. And that's not fair to homosexuals.
Let's see how that would be remembered.
Sadly, many lack the will or the mindset to pursue truth. See the answer you want on page one of Google? Great! I can stop now. Read a factoid in a magazine or the newspaper? It's gospel.
Today, the web's 2% influencers hold the same power over truth that sit-com writers and broadcast news anchor once had. Until we teach children that there are six sides to every story, not much will every change.
While that might sound slimy, I meant it in the best of ways. After all, incredibly bright people who never speak up won't be recognized unless their brilliance is so overwhelming it can't be hidden (and these type of people are exceptionally rare). For most, you have to say it or nobody will hear it.
Regarding the internet's influence on truth I think it's massive.LonelyGirl15 is a fine examples of mass-gullibility, and subsequently it also serves as example of community-driven detective work that ultimately exposed the facade. For those who want to be fooled there's more opportunity than ever, just as there's far more ability for the average Joe to research and locate information to disprove falsehoods.
Politics aside, this is terrific insight into how people think. A great example of how this can be used in advertising and marketing is Joe Isuzu. The fact that he used lies to sell a car is almost a natural attempt to take advantage of this human trait.
My father once told me the least reliable source of information is an eyewitness, and I could not really get my hands around the reasons why that would be true. When I read this, I realized that it's a perfect explanation of his viewpoint.
Remember that recent summer blockbuster, Pearl Harbor? There was a scene in there which had FDR inspiring those at a meeting by standing up out of his wheelchair; something about, "If I can do this, by golly, we can lick this enemy." Of course this never happened, but I couldn't help think when I saw the film that the scene could easily pass into popular consciousness as recalled history.
I have more to say, but right now I have to track dowen those bastards who harvested my kidneys...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/8/80447.shtml