Print

[Diane James]

I suspect the History Channel actually did Fred and Amelia a favor. 

Twice in the last couple of days I've overheard strangers discussing the disappearance. In both cases they were young people who probably had not ever been previously exposed to anything but the blunt historical fact that the flight went missing. The controversy that the HC program and TIGHAR's swift rebuttal has stirred up has brought new public awareness to the issue.

Has anyone else heard fresh discussion about the matter?
Diane

[Greg Daspit]

I was with a large group having lunch. Some were strangers to me. One of the strangers said she saw the show and found the photo to be convincing. I pointed out that it had been debunked because it came from a 1935 book and they went missing in 1937. The response I got was "No, it is definitely the man that was with her in that photo".
I'm afraid more people saw the History Channel show than any rebuttal of it, and some won't change their minds upon hearing the photo was debunked.

[Bill Mangus]

I had nearly the same experience yesterday while checking out at the grocery store.  I was wearing my Tighar ball cap and the person checking me out asked if I had seen the History Channel show.  I said yes, but the photo had been proven to come from a book published in 1935.  He didn't believe me.  "I know what I know, don't confuse me with the facts". 

[Bruce Thomas]

He didn't believe me.  "I know what I know, don't confuse me with the facts".

A scholarly article from the field of psychology, Making The Truth Stick and The Myths Fade: Lessons from Cognitive Psychology, that I found after reading the preceding two posts, helps to explain the phenomenon of "gullibility" -- even among those with high intelligence -- but it also suggests a better approach to helping debunk false rumors. It begins with this summary:

Erroneous beliefs are difficult to correct. Worse, popular correction strategies, such as the myth-versus-fact article format, may backfire because they subtly reinforce the myths through repetition and further increase the spread and acceptance of misinformation. Here we identify five key criteria people employ as they evaluate the truth of a statement: They assess general acceptance by others, gauge the amount of supporting evidence, determine its compatibility with their beliefs, assess the general coherence of the statement, and judge the credibility of the source of the information. In assessing these five criteria, people can actively seek additional information (an effortful analytic strategy) or attend to the subjective experience of easy mental processing—what psychologists call fluent processing — and simply draw conclusions on the basis of what feels right (a less effortful intuitive strategy). Throughout this truth-evaluation effort, fluent processing can facilitate acceptance of the statement: When thoughts flow smoothly, people nod along. Unfortunately, many correction strategies inadvertently make the false information more easily acceptable by, for example, repeating it or illustrating it with anecdotes and pictures. This, ironically, increases the likelihood that the false information the communicator wanted to debunk will be believed later. A more promising correction strategy is to focus on making the true information as easy to process as possible. We review recent research and offer recommendations for more effective presentation and correction strategies.

[Ted G Campbell]

Ric,

Hence or telcon of the other day!
Ted Campbell