Why smart people may be more likely to fall for fake news

One might suspect scientists of belaboring the obvious with the recent study called Belief in Fake News Is Associated With Delusionality, Dogmatism, Religious Fundamentalism and Reduced Analytical Thinking. The conclusion that some people are more gullible than others is the understanding in popular culture - but in the scientific world it's pitted against another widely believed paradigm, shaped by several counterintuitive studies that indicate we're all equally biased, irrational and likely to fall for propaganda, sales pitches and general nonsense.

Experts have told us that consistent irrationality is a universal human trait. Jonathan Haidt has written and lectured extensively about how bad humans are at evidence-based reasoning. The classic 2013 book Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman described how we're ruled more by tribes, affiliations and instincts than by evidence. But isn't it possible this applies to some people more than others? Is it reasonable to believe that we are all equally bad at reasoning? Luckily some scientists seem to think that they are capable of evidence-based reasoning and they have investigated the questions.

article continues below

Canadian psychologist Gordon Pennycook, an author on the delusionality paper and a leader in the camp promoting the idea that some are more gullible than others, concedes that it is a little weird that one can get published demonstrating that "smarter people are better at not believing stupid things." That's essentially the conclusion in a newer paper not yet officially published, Rethinking the Link Between Cognitive Sophistication and Identity-Protective Bias in Political Belief Formation, which he co-wrote with Ben Tappan and David Rand.

They question the idea that smarter people are, if anything, more likely to believe false things, because their mental agility helps them rationalize. It's a school of thought that became popular partly because it is a bit loopy, and partly because views that lump us all together have a ring of political correctness.

The roots of it trace back, in part, to Yale researcher Dan Kahan, who has done some widely respected experiments showing that peoples' views on technical subjects such as climate change and nuclear power depended almost entirely on political affiliation.

I wrote about Kahan's work, citing a study that "showed that the better people are at math and reasoning, the more likely they are to align their views with ideology, even if those views included creationism or other unscientific stances."

Pennycook said he agrees with Kahan on this to an extent; it's not incompatible with his findings, but it applies only in special cases, such as climate change, where the subject matter is technical and complex. On television, complete charlatans who know the right buzzwords can sound as erudite to the lay public as the world's true experts would.

But Pennycook and his colleagues questioned whether this counterintuitive finding applied more generally. To put it to the test, they showed subjects a mix of fake and real news stories and asked them to rate their plausibility. They found some people were bad at this and some were good, and that the best predictor of news discernment was something called the Cognitive Reflection Test. Low scores are correlated with religious dogmatism, superstition and belief in conspiracy theories as well as a type of fake aphorism that Pennycook called "pseudoprofound."

This is not to say that people who are good at picking out fake news and score well on the Cognitive Reflection Test are smarter than other people in other ways. As Michael Shermer argued long ago in his classic Why People Believe Weird Things, very creative people - even famous scientists - can be subject to delusions and occasionally believe in astrology or conspiracy theories.

Pennycook agreed this is not just a cognitive issue but could encompass elements of personality and mental health. Just as Shermer showed there creative delusional people, there also are those smart but narcissistic types - the people who insist all climate scientists are idiots, for example.

-- Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute

of Technology.

Read Related Topics


NOTE: To post a comment you must have an account with at least one of the following services: Disqus, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ You may then login using your account credentials for that service. If you do not already have an account you may register a new profile with Disqus by first clicking the "Post as" button and then the link: "Don't have one? Register a new profile".

The Prince George Citizen welcomes your opinions and comments. We do not allow personal attacks, offensive language or unsubstantiated allegations. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. Comments that contain external links will not be permitted. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher, or see our Terms and Conditions.

comments powered by Disqus

ID tagging garbage cans POLL

Are you in favour of the city adding radio frequency identification tags to garbage cans?

or  view results

Sign Up For Our e-Newsletter!
  • 97/16

    Prince George's Weekly News

Popular Citizen

Community Event Calendar

Find out what's happening in your community and submit your own local events.

Lowest Gas Prices in Prince George
Prince George Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com