Klein, Ezra. 6 April 2014. How politics makes us stupid. Vox.com.








Political disagreements increase as information increases
The commonly held science comprehension thesis is incorrect
Math and science skills don’t matter so much when ideology is what is truly behind
the issue
People resist factual information if it does not align with their ideology and will
usually try to interpret the data in a way that supports their line of thinking
Our social standing in the tribe is one major reason why we ignore evidence if it
opposes our tribe’s ideology
There is no debate about whether drinking impairs driving ability or other issues that
do not have any ideology behind them
Science needs a communication strategy
People can convince themselves of anything if it supports their ideology or their
tribe’s ideology
Discussion questions:
1. What other debates can you think of that are fueled by ideology rather than
facts?
2. What is most likely to change people’s minds about climate change when they
already have a strong ideology?
3. Do you think politicians really ignore facts because of their ideology, or is it more
likely that they dismiss them so as to not anger the other members of their
political party?
Konnikova, M. (2014, May 16). I Don’t Want to Be Right. The New Yorker.



Factual information is ineffective at changing people’s misperceptions and false
beliefs
Not all false beliefs are difficult to correct and not all false information goes on to
become a false belief
Self affirmation seems to make people more resilient and even perform better, even
on things like standardized tests



When given factual information about vaccines, parents who were vaccine-doubters
to begin with actually ended up with even more reservations about giving their child
vaccines. The author calls this the “backfire effect”
The campaign against smoking is one of the biggest public fact-checking campaigns
in history
Article claims that vaccinations aren’t inherently linked to ideology
Discussion questions:
1. Do you agree with the above claim – or could vaccines in fact be related to
2.
ideology if people were not trusting of anything produced by Big Pharma, for
instance?
Do you feel that recalling a time you felt good about yourself would make you
more open minded during political disagreements?
Kloor, K. (2014, July 18). RFK Jr’s belief in the autism-vaccination connection, and
its political peril. The Washington Post Sunday Magazine.

Robert Kennedy Jr. claims that there is a harmful neurotoxin in vaccines and it needs to
be removed because it can harm human health

The CDC found no evidence to support that Kennedy is correct, but urged vaccine makes
to remove the potentially toxic ingredient, just in case


Many people saw this as the CDC admitting it is harmful
RFK lost many of his close friends and allies who told him to drop the vaccine
conspiracy ideas


RFK ignored his friend’s advice and continued to promulgate his message
RFK claims no study shows thimerosal is safe, except the ones funded by the vaccine
makers, and the CDC…


Nobody listens to RFK’s evidence and tells him to drop it before he wrecks his career
RFK is confident the truth will prevail and one day Americans will be convinced that he
is correct
Question:

Since it is possible to prove a substance’s harm, but very difficult to prove empirically
that something is not harmful or toxic, could RFK possibly be correct? If so,
hypothetically speaking, do you feel that the enormous benefits of the vaccine for the
majority of people (herd immunity, preventing disease, etc.) outweighs a (potential) risk
of a small percentage of children getting neurotoxic effects from the vaccine’s
preservative? Could the vaccine debate actually be more about societal ethics and
individual morality than we currently are aware of? Is this a “for the greater good”
debate?