Persistent Truth-Telling

First, the caveat. Newspaper summaries of academic studies are notoriously difficult to write in language that laypeople like you and I can access. Worse yet, if the reporter has an agenda, what is genuinely useful can easily get lost in the furtherance of that agenda.

Having said that we have to be careful, "Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach," a piece that ran in today's Washington Post, is worth pondering as we think about our message and how it is received.  So please bear with me as I try first to summarize a summary.

It comes as no shock that our brains are not disinterested processors of information/data. "The [academic] research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works," Shankar Vedantam writes. "Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious 'rules of thumb' that can bias it into thinking that false information is true."

The "conventional response" to debunking "political and social myths" is "denials and clarifications." However, for "all their intuitive appeal," Vedantam writes, this can "paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths."

How can that be? You need to know two of the "rules of thumb" regarding how our brain works in order to understand.

One of the rules is that we have great difficulty remembering where and when we learned something, which means we often won't recall whether the source was trustworthy. Another is that "One of the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are true," Vedantam writes.

What follows from this, according to Vedantam's summary of a number of peer-reviewed laboratory experiments, is that "In politics and elsewhere, this means that whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later." And it goes without saying this is even more so if repeated over and over again.

Moreover, "The research also highlights the disturbing reality that once an idea has been implanted in people's minds, it can be difficult to dislodge," Vedantam writes. "Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it."

In other words, saying Joe Blow "is not a crook" can, over time, link Joe Blow with criminal behavior. Okay, is silence the better response? Nope. Assertions not rebutted "are more likely to feel true."

As applied to us, by the time you finish the 1,385-word-long story you realize there are no perfect response to the lies told and myths created about pro-lifers as individuals and the Movement as a whole. But having considered the Post story, I believe what we are already doing is a very productive way of succeeding in a culture whose information-generating outlets–"the Media–are overwhelmingly hostile to us.

We tell the truth, early and often, about what we do. True, repetition is key to spreading misinformation, as Vedantam points out repeatedly, but it no less true that responding truthfully again and again can be unusually effective in overcoming misinformation about us. Why? Because pro-lifers live lives that comport closely with the values they espouse.

Consider: many people have written asking me why I place so much emphasis on grassroots pro-lifers writing letters to the editor. Does a well-thought out, carefully written, point-by-point letter erase whatever pro-abortion myth is circulating?

Of course not. But its presence in one of the best read sections of the newspaper means that lies have not been met with silence nor allowed to congeal.

In addition, those letters often talk about our concern for both the unborn child and her mother. This is a revelation to most people who have been inundated with the most awful stories about "uncaring," "hateful" pro-lifers.

With the enthusiastic support of many major media outlets, pro-abortionists have the advantage of often being able to make what Vedantam describes as "the first assertion." And even when NRLC does open the discussion, as it did with partial-birth abortion, we are met with a barrage of lies and misrepresentations which were uncritically repeated by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the usual suspects.

But we turned the tide on partial-birth abortion, and it was not just constant repetition alone that worked the magic. It was the manner in which NRLC responded--in meticulous detail, often citing the words of abortionists themselves! Even some outlets habitually resistant to anything we said grudgingly gave our unassailably accurate information its due desserts.

Keep telling the truth, keep politely but firmly rebutting untruths, and keep caring about both mother and unborn child. To paraphrase the Washington Post headline, "Persistence of Truth-Telling Will Alter Public Policy Approach."

Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.