Why do some people insist on defending falsehoods?

No this is not political ... and sorry that it's long. I just need a safe space to vent.

I'm just after some conversation and clarity as to why, even when presented with facts, some people still continue to peddle their mis-information ... and when they are "pointed towards/linked to" the easily google-able facts, they then don't acknowledge they were wrong, but instead change their argument to yet another easily provable falsehood.

To give perspective:

I am currently involved (along with the rest of the community) re the erosion of Stockton Peninsula/Beach, an issue that the State and Local governments have both declared a crisis (yet nothing happens to fix it) - and has been proven scientifically, and acknowledged by government, to be caused 100% by State government built infrastructure. The infrastructure is two breakwalls and a very deep, blasted and dredged entry channel for large coal shipping. The solution has been costed to be a pittance of what the government makes in fees from the Port (let alone royalties) - they are aware that if the Peninsula is breached then the Port is in major trouble - the necessary equipment has indicated they are ready to go - yet the government won't pull the trigger and, instead, ordered yet another report.

This issue is getting a lot of local coverage and support of the local media - yet - on social media there are still people out there who insist it's natural erosion and we're idiots to buy near the beach (the beach was 100m further away 30 years ago) - claiming we'll insist the government pay any costs incurred by the community (we crowdfunded) - and just generally spouting BS without reading the articles themselves.

One in particular seems to like to stalk me ... don't worry, I'm very good at keeping my cool and simply repeating the facts/links over and over (we had a run in re the climate marches and again all his claims then were proven false). This goose insists Stockton beach is man made when it's actually been there thousand of years ... the beach on the total opposite side of the two breakwalls is man made (he's still denying this) - he claims the erosion was prevent by a shipwreck that is now gone so we should put another shipwreck there (seriously, one shipwreck affected the sand movement of 32km of beach?) - then accuses the community of wanting to shut down the Port, which we're not, but rather we're attempting to save it (see above)

Every time his weird accusations and claims are proven false, after he demands they are true for several posts, he trots out another claim even weirder and falser (is that a word?) ... why do otherwise normal people do that, when the facts are so easily accessible by googling reliable and unbiased sources?

I've been reading this sort of thing 'Alternative facts': A psychiatrist’s guide to twisted relationships to truth but still struggle to wrap my head around "why"

 

Are you starting this thread to convince yourself you are right?

Whats the purpose of this thread really?

Side note, I dont believe everything google tells me either. Sometimes you have to think and find out the facts yourself and not rely on google.

 

Not trying to convince myself of anything - I honestly don't understand. I'm trying to understand why others, when faced with the facts (ie, from peer reviewed scientific reports and/or government department directives etc) continue to insist their misguided "opinion" is the truth.

I am more than happy to be educated if accused of being wrong and will read at length, from multiple sources, to garner what is actually going on.

It's more an embracing by some to continue with their mis-information even when blind Freddy and dumb Murphy know what they are insisting on in incorrect.

Been reading some interesting articles on how, with the advent of social media and sensationalism, there has been a loss in the knowledge of, and ability to distinguish, what is factual as people don't take the time to research (or even read past the headline) before posting a nonfactual opinion, ie:

Declining trust in facts, institutions imposes real-world costs on US society, report finds

The Dark Psychology of Social Networks

 

Yep - both are correct but I'm not talking about abstract viewpoints, but rather information that is back in factual research.

More like a "9" (note the line underneath determining it as a 9) being publicaly disputed as a "6"

 

Fact check. The new world phrase.
Perception of "facts" is wide and varied.

I wont go on because I feel an argument coming on and you will post up all the "facts" to say Im wrong.
have fun.

 

was going to delete this bit, but too late. I really don't care if they acknowledge or not - just don't understand why they keep insisting on peddling their misinformation

 

Only "wide and varied" depending on the source - sources where opinions are often touted as "facts".

A fact - to me - is when someone is recorded (or written by a the person) saying something and then denies they said/wrote it ... or when numerous, independent and peer reviewed scientific studies all come to the same conclusion from difference perspectives (ie, the earth is round) ... or when the legislation of the government (ie, RMS P-Plates cannot use mobile phones while operating a car regardless of whether it's in a cradle or bluetooth) clearly stating on their official website that something is legal (or not)

To me - this is a fact " has been proven scientifically, and acknowledged by government, to be caused 100% by State government built infrastructure" because the scientific reports and government acknowledgement are easily available to verify it as a truthful statement

Not after an argument. Genuinely wanting to understand the "why" ... and I don't understand why some think this is a contentious subject

 

Humans simply don't like to be wrong.

It starts early on as kids as we are raised where we are chastised when we are wrong (I have no problem with this but you see my point), it then goes on to schooling where we are graded and what we are lead to believe our entire future is mapped out by a single number representing how much we were right.

This would carry with us in our psyche for the rest of our lives.

As we age, we come to realize that being right isn't enough anymore but shouting out to the world that we are right gets us that satisfaction. This is when we start getting a thrill that we made a good investment, got a promotion for work well done or even got taken our for an evening by our spouse to show us they appreciate us. We are literally being bombarded with thrill opportunities so we seek more excitement on a bigger scale.

Every risk has a cost as all of us on here know, the down feeling when you get schooled hits you harder, you feel "wronger" and "dumber" than you should and it blocks you from wanting to learn what the correct person is trying to explain. **This is where that guy is stuck, you made him feel dumb so he has to do you one better somehow.

Once we age even more we settle into "I know I am right but I just don't care if you believe me"

I think I am somewhere between the last 2, I don't have as much desire to be the soap box guy any longer but occasionally I slip back up there, as time goes on I try to be triggered less and just take comfort in the fact that when i'm right, it's enough for me to just know that .

There are of course plenty of exceptions to this, I am merely penning my own thoughts here.

Hope that helps in some way, he sounds like he is stuck in the early stages, as such it probably isn't even worth your time to engage him, no one judges your silence and silence is in no way an admission that you are incorrect .

 

Why does it matter?

You can only present the facts as you see them - whether the other person acknowledges or agrees is up to them. You can’t change someone else’s mind unless they allow it.

 

It really shouldn't - but this is an important issue where community action/opinions could sway government from their inaction and misinformation could hamper ... bit like taking a stance on asbestos or Vietnam ...

 

People are inherently flawed and have their own biases formed from all sorts of personal life experiences.

Talking in absolutes is also a recipe for argument. Very few things in this world are actually 100% certain facts. Rather most things are on a spectrum of probability. The human brain hasn’t really evolved to operate dealing with uncertainty so tries to force things to be black or white, and then goes a step further in seeking out and giving higher weighting to any data that supports their position.

 

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

 

All true. I am also bemused why some people ... usually the aggressive ones ... feel a need to comment in a derogatory manner on topics they know nothing about.

The older I get, the less I seem to understand people

 

"Conspicuous opining may the new conspicuous consumption"

Snappy way of putting it I thought, in this article Why do we argue online?

I do very much sympathise with you, Lizzie, when it's a real local issue you're trying to get a result on. I think we can all expect to be for ever challenged by broader debates like climate change - but your Stockton thing - so specific and concrete (pun not intended).

Soldier on. I think you'll get there.

 

It can matter because politicians often listen to the loudest voice when they shouldn't. Sometimes policy should not be dictated by public opinion.

Did you know when they were deciding on banning CFCs they were going to hold a plebiscite, but they came to the conclusion that it was too important a decision, so the politicians did their job and held a vote in parliament?

Cheers,
Inertia.

 

playing devils advocate, I always laugh at those people that think the earth is flat, which obviously is proven beyond a doubt is not the case

then there is the ones that say the holoccaust didnt happen, or the moon landing was fake,

ive read some of the fake moon landing evidence and it is very convincing

at the end of the day, how do we know that anything did or didnt happen unless we were there or have very convincing unedited video evidence

but these consipracy theorists seem to just disagree with everyone for the sake of it, and once they have the idea or small piece of evidence disproving common knowledge, they get all worked up and become very biased

very hard to argue with these people! and are rarely objective

 

Well, I disagree with that.

 

@Phar Lap, why? Can u elaborate?

 

you have absolutely nailed it