风流怀珠之乾隆操晴儿:谎言，该死的谎言，我们该信什么呢？

然而，相当多的人仍坚持相信那些错误信息，例如，巴拉克奥巴马是一个穆斯林，尽管没有证据??来支持这种说法。再比如说，在美国医疗保健改革的辩论中，“死亡小组”有权拒绝病人和老人利益的观念深深扎根，并在某种意识形态群体之间因为阻力相对较小而增长。

为什么这种虚假信息和误解会出现呢？还能纠正过来吗？根据最近的一份报告，问题的第二部分的前景是很不乐观的。

The report, titled When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions, is based on four experiments designed to test whether false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics can be corrected. Participants in the experiments read mock news articles about politically charged issues like stem cell research, tax cuts, and the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. Each article contained content that could be misleading or deceptive. For a random set of participants, however, the articles also contained a factual correction of the misleading content at a later point in the article.Participants’ reactions to what they read were correlated with their ideological beliefs.

这篇报告题为 矫正失败：持续的政治误解。报告基于四个实验，这些实验旨在测试是否可以纠正有关政治的那些错误或无事实根据的信念。实验的参与者阅读了关于带有政治色彩的事件的模拟新闻，像干细胞研究，减税，伊拉克的大规模杀伤性武器（简写为WMDs）的存在。每篇文章中都包含了可能是误导性或欺骗性的内容。然而，对于任意一组参与者，这些文章后面的部分也包含了对误导性内容的事实矫正。参与者对他们读到的信息作何反应是与他们自己的思想信念紧密联系的。

Here’s one of the major findings, as stated by the report’s authors:

以下是该报告的作者们得出的主要结果之一：

In each of the four experiments, which were conducted in fall 2005 and spring 2006, ideological subgroups failed to update their beliefs when presented with corrective information that runs counter to their predispositions. Indeed, in several cases, we find that corrections actually strengthened misperceptions among the most strongly committed subjects.

这四个实验是2005年秋天和2006年春天进行的，在其中每一个试验中，当意识形态的小群体读到与前面读到的信息相反的纠正信息时，未能及时修正自己的观点。事实上，在一些例子中，我们发现纠正信息实际上加强了对于最真实的主题的误解 

For example, participants in one of the experiments were given a mock article that contained a statement George W. Bush actually made: “There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.” For a random subset of participants, the article also contained corrective information from the official report that established there were no WMD stock piles or any evidence of production in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion.

Liberal and moderate participants who received the corrective information were less likely than their counterparts who did not receive this information to believe there were WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. The impact on conservative participants, however, was just the opposite: the corrective information actuallystrengthened theirview that there were WMDs.

例如，其中一个实验的参与者读的虚拟文章包含了乔治W布什真正做过的一篇演讲：“有这样一种危险，一个真正的危险，那就是萨达姆侯赛因会向恐怖分子的网络传播武器，原料或者信息，而且在911事件以后，我们是冒不起这个险的。”对于任意一组参与者来说，这篇文章也包含了来自官方报告的纠正信息，指出在美国入侵伊拉克之前并无证据证明伊拉克大量存储或生产大规模杀伤性武器。

比起那些接收到矫正信息的宽容温和的参与者，未接收到矫正信息的实验参与者更容易相信在美国入侵前伊拉克拥有大规模杀伤性武器。然而对于那些保守的参与者来说恰恰相反：矫正信息实际上加强了他们认为伊拉克有大规模杀伤性武器的这种想法。
Liberals have little reason to be smug, however. In a different round of experiments, participants were asked to read an article with potentially misleading information about stem cell research and were then asked about their level of agreement with the statement “President Bush has banned stem cell research in the United States.” Again, some participants received a version of the article that contained clarifying information – namely, that Bush’s policies limited only government funded stem cell research, not privately funded research.

Conservative and moderate readers who received the corrective information were less likely to agree with the statement about a ban on research than their counterparts who did not receive this information. But liberal readers were significantly less likely to be impacted by the corrective information – they stuck to their belief that Bush had banned all stem cell research.

然而自由派没什么理由沾沾自喜。在不同的一轮实验中，研究者会要求参与者读一篇关于干细胞研究的文章，文章中包含了潜在的误导性信息，然后询问他们对于“布什总统已下令禁止在美国进行干细胞研究”这个声明的相信程度。同样的，参与者会收到一个含有澄清信息的文章版本，指出布什的政策只是限制政府资助的干细胞研究，而不是限制个人投资的研究。

对于禁止研究的这项错误声明，比起那些收到纠正信息的保守和温和的读者，没有收到纠正信息的读者更容易相信。但自由派读者更加不太可能受到纠正信息的影响 - 他们坚持自己“布什已经禁止所有的干细胞研究”这个信念。

So, how do you change beliefs that are deeply held but factually incorrect? The reports authors’ reference other studies suggesting that, over time, bombarding people with a “sufficient”amount of clear, correct information can work. But I find it hard to place much faith in that approach given how fragmented our information channels have become. We no longer live in a world with three major news channels and one or two local newspapers to which everyone in a community subscribes. Instead, we tend to pick and choose among a wide variety of information sources that support what we already believe.

所以，你怎么去改变那些根深蒂固却与事实不符的信念呢？报告的作者引用的其他研究表明，随着时间的推移，大力宣传“足够”多的清楚，正确的信息应该能起作用。不过，考虑到现在我们的信息通道已经变得相当分散，我对这种做法没有多少信心。我们不再生活在一个只有三大新闻频道和一或两个当地每个人都会订购的地方报纸的世界里了。相反，我们倾向于选择多种信息来源来支持我们已经相信的东西。

Game environments – the subject of my previous two posts (here and here)– may, in fact, be among the better choices for bringing together people of diverse beliefs and helping them form a common, accurate understanding of major issues.  More fundamentally, we need to place more emphasize than ever ondeveloping and practicing good learning habits – like critical thinking and reflection –that prevent misinformation from making inroads in the first place.  Asthe report suggests, once the truth gets twisted, straightening it back out isno easy matter.

游戏环境-也就是我以前两份工作的主题（ 这里和这里 ）-事实上，可能是一个更好的选择，它可以团结不同信仰的人并帮助他们形成对重大问题的统一准确的理解。更根本的是，我们需要比以往更加强调培养和锻炼良好的学习习惯 -比如批判性思维和反思-进军摆在首位，以此来首先防止误传。正如报告指出的，一旦真相被扭曲，想要将它校正就不容易了。