The misinformation debate splits between tribal-motivated and accuracy-driven accounts of reasoning

Evidence

Broadly speaking, there are two competing camps. One side – including Kahan’s group – argue that people are inherently tribal and motivated to reject inconvenient evidence and that, the smarter you are, the better you can twist the facts to fit your worldview. The other side argues that most people aren’t that political at all and that better critical thinking and reasoning skills make you less likely to fall for fake news and can actually help you control your biases. Dan often quotes the maxim: ‘Many more explanations are plausible than true’, by which he likely means that there can only be one correct account. Yet, I find this to be a rather narrow view of truth as many plausible explanations are not mutually exclusive. Each are pieces of a complex puzzle. My own theory sits somewhere in the middle: people do not mindlessly follow their tribe, but we are not natural-born fact-checkers either. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 136

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sets out the two competing frameworks (cultural/motivated cognition vs. accuracy/thinking-skills account) that anchor this entire chapter’s debate.
• XREF: connects to: Tribal political beliefs function as identity markers validated by repetition, not evidence — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 126; Belief in misinformation ranges from automatic to deliberative along a continuum. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 157; Disagreement over evidence can stem from accuracy motives or identity motives — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 140 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Disagreement over evidence can stem from accuracy motives or identity motives #corroborates (0.90) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 140
• Motivated reasoning is the motive while confirmation bias is the mechanism #expands (0.82) — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 100
• False beliefs often stem from bad sources rather than closed minds #qualifies (0.78) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 143
• Post-truth roots lie in ancient cognitive bias, academic relativism, and media change #expands (0.75)