Hit or Myth

David Weigel | September 5, 2007

Not as obvious and "duh!"-inspiring as that "hot women are hot" study, but this report on how myth debunkers actually reinforce myths isn't too surprising.

Experiments by Ruth Mayo, a cognitive social psychologist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, also found that for a substantial chunk of people, the "negation tag" of a denial falls off with time. Mayo's findings were published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2004.

"If someone says, 'I did not harass her,' I associate the idea of harassment with this person," said Mayo, explaining why people who are accused of something but are later proved innocent find their reputations remain tarnished. "Even if he is innocent, this is what is activated when I hear this person's name again.

"If you think 9/11 and Iraq, this is your association, this is what comes in your mind," she added. "Even if you say it is not true, you will eventually have this connection with Saddam Hussein and 9/11."

This is basic "don't think of an elephant" stuff, and it's a tough impulse to overcome if you're making a political argument. (Ask Larry "I have never been gay" Craig.) The implications for government-provided guides, manuals, and the like are a little more interesting. You can tell a politician not to say "Saddam Hussein didn't attack the United States" but how do you tell the people designing CDC brochures (the example at the start of this piece) that by mentioning popular myths in their warnings, they're going to make a big chunk of brochure readers confused about what was myth and what wasn't?

Jesse Walker on George Lakoff and "don't think of an elephant" logic here.

Comments

Sandy|9.5.07 @ 8:30AM|#

Presumably a public health brochure could simply reinforce positive associations, such as eating spinach and good health. A politician can just repeat "Osama bin Laden attacked the United States."

But I have my doubts about his doubts. Does anybody associate smoking with health? Presumably the negation on that one has had ample time to wear off.

Then again, this raises entertaining new debunking strategies. "CHELATION THERAPY IS not ASSOCIATED WITH TERRORISM!!"

|9.5.07 @ 9:05AM|#

Ask Larry "I have never been gay" Craig.

Isn't this more along the lines of "I did not have sex with that woman"? In other words, isn't it just lying? That would seem to be a different phenomenon.

|9.5.07 @ 9:06AM|#

This is kind of an aside, but I find it annoying that the word "myth" has come to mean "something untrue that a lot of people believe" as opposed to the more traditional definition (a symbolic or allegorical story).

|9.5.07 @ 9:08AM|#

Dan T.: The old definition of "myth" was too threatening to Christianity.

|9.5.07 @ 9:20AM|#

You're preaching to the choir, Mr. Weigel.

jgray|9.5.07 @ 9:26AM|#

Dan T:
the original meaning of the greek word "mythos" was simply 'speech/things people say' thus the ancient myths were the stories those people were told and retold to others. modern usage ironically is closer to the original meaning than the now academic definition of culturally sacred, symbolic narratives. (this is all incidental, of course)

Lamar: no, the NEW definition is the one that threatens Christianity, as it began to be called a myth in the same vein as the classical mythologies. the Old definition of sacred symbolic narrative holds quite well. Indeed, this banalization of the word 'myth' that Dan T resents should encourage you, since now Christianity is implicity compared with 'myths' as 'we only use 10% of our brain'

|9.5.07 @ 9:29AM|#

I tend to agree, jgray.

Today if you refer to the Genesis creation story as a myth, people will take it to mean that you're disparaging the story as having no value.

But IMO a myth is a story that does have value, it's just not literally true. It's obvious that the creation story in the Bible (as well as every other religion's) is a myth but that doesn't mean that it does not contain symbolic truths.

|9.5.07 @ 9:31AM|#

You can tell a politician not to say "Saddam Hussein didn't attack the United States" but how do you tell the people designing CDC brochures (the example at the start of this piece) that by mentioning popular myths in their warnings, they're going to make a big chunk of brochure readers confused about what was myth and what wasn't?

The missus read those "What to Expect" books while she was preggers with our first.

They tell you every possible thing that can go wrong at each stage of the game in excruciating detail. Then at the end of this, they insert a paragraph that says, "but don't worry, this probably won't happen." The wife's eyes were bugged out for 9 months reading those infernal books and my life was a much bigger hell than it should have been. "Did you READ this? OMFG!"

I hated those fucking books. If there ever were books deserving to be burned, it's these.

jgray|9.5.07 @ 9:35AM|#

exactly.
i think it reflects a general decline in the salience of symbolic truths among the population (as well as shitty education)

Episiarch|9.5.07 @ 9:39AM|#

Maybe the Mythbusters can debunk this "study". After all, if it's true, then what they do on their show is actually reinforce the myths they bust, right?

Watch Jamie's head explode...

|9.5.07 @ 9:46AM|#

Also annoying is when someone (John Stossel comes to mind) takes a widely held opinion, declares it a "myth", and then claims to "debunk" it by offering an equally subjective opinion.

|9.5.07 @ 9:48AM|#

Dan T. and jgray: Re: Christianity and myth.

Maybe you're right about Christianity and myth. Christianity is either a myth, or Christianity is not a myth, but the more I say Christianity and myth together, the more people will associate Christianity and myth.

|9.5.07 @ 9:56AM|#

all right, since nobody else has the balls...

Would you please repeat that. I mythed it.

grylliade|9.5.07 @ 10:41AM|#

This is kind of an aside, but I find it annoying that the word "myth" has come to mean "something untrue that a lot of people believe" as opposed to the more traditional definition (a symbolic or allegorical story).

Wow, you're right for once, Dan T.! I looked it up in the OED, and the meaning of "symbolic or allegorical story" is first noted in 1830, and the definition "untrue things lots of people believe" is from 1849. If only the meaning of the word "myth" were stable!

|9.5.07 @ 10:46AM|#

Wow, you're right for once, Dan T.! I looked it up in the OED, and the meaning of "symbolic or allegorical story" is first noted in 1830, and the definition "untrue things lots of people believe" is from 1849. If only the meaning of the word "myth" were stable!

Ha. But of course it is a myth that I was suggesting that the meaning of the word changed overnight. Rather I was referring to the way it is more and more commonly used in today's vernacular.

Mike Laursen|9.5.07 @ 11:06AM|#

for a substantial chunk of people, the "negation tag" of a denial falls off with time.

I wonder if that is still true when the debunking was accompanied by really cool explosions caught on high-speed camera.

dhex|9.5.07 @ 11:14AM|#

totally unrelated but i found "women, fire and dangerous things" an interesting book to read if you're interested in lakoff's formal take on the cognitive side of linguistics.

grylliade|9.5.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Rather I was referring to the way it is more and more commonly used in today's vernacular.

I'd still disagree. The "allegorical or symbolic story" meaning was always a technical term, one that only academics would be likely to use. The "commonly believed but untrue story" is probably the only one that 95 % of the population ever used, or were even familiar with.

Maybe it's just me, but I was familiar with the common definition long before I'd ever heard of the academic definition. I'm guessing that "myth" was being commonly used in the popular definition long before anyone who comments on this board was born. I'm not objecting to your being annoyed by the usage; you have every right to be, though I'm mystified by it. I'm annoyed by the misuse of "begging the question," myself. I'm objecting to you characterizing it as more common these days.

And that's all I'll say about it, because I'm not really trying to start a fight. It's pedantry either way, and I like arguing minute, pedantic points, but that would annoy everyone else on here. So I'll just shut up.

highnumber|9.5.07 @ 12:36PM|#

Let me try this:

Padma Lakshmi did not leave Salman Rushdie because she is desperately in love with me.

Ladies, it is not true that I am the world's greatest lover.

These are just myths, rumors, lies.

|9.5.07 @ 12:51PM|#

I was going to use this thread as an opportunity to announce that I am NOT a hugely endowed hyper-energetic love-machine of superhuman stamina ... but highnumber sort of beat me to it, in general theme if not specific content. Darn him.

highnumber|9.5.07 @ 1:02PM|#

It's ok, Stevo. I believe that those are just lies about you, too.

|9.5.07 @ 1:22PM|#

...this report on how myth debunkers actually reinforce myths isn't too surprising.

Maybe that explains the 9/11 Truthers. The more you debunk their silly little fantasies, the louder and shriller they seem to become. It almost seems like debunking one existing Truther "hypothosis" will spontaneous generate two more.

I would try to ignore them, but their penchant for not bathing makes that difficult.

|9.5.07 @ 1:27PM|#

Let's just make sure we're clear on this, highnumber.

highnumber: not amazingly attractive, not the world's greatest lover.

Stevo Darkly: not a hugely endowed love-machine of amazing energy and endurance.

samgrove|9.5.07 @ 2:10PM|#

The way to not think of elephants is to think of something else, and if that doesn't work, then to not think of something else.

|9.5.07 @ 2:23PM|#

So, if I were to say "GWB does it with Karl Rove while both are dressed in Lederhosen" the rumor would stick in peopleis minds even if it were proven untrue?


:)))))

lunchstealer|9.5.07 @ 5:20PM|#

Aresen, you don't even have to say it. All you have to do is deny it, often, and preferably obtusely.

Try this: "Accusations that GWB does it with Karl Rove, whom he lovingly calls 'turdblossom' are generally considered to be unsubstantiated at this time. We also find the elaboration that GWB's and Rove's love trysts are carried out while wearing lederhosen and listening to umpah music played on a tuba by Tony Blair are equally suspect."

|9.5.07 @ 7:36PM|#

highnumber, do you deny that you are amazingly attractive -- so attractive that other men cannot hang onto their supermodel wives when you are around? And that you are the world's greatest lover?

-- Stevo Darkly, not a hugely endowed love-machine of amazing energy and endurance (not to mention creativity and imagination)

highnumber|9.5.07 @ 8:16PM|#

Stevo,

I was just thinking about how you don't really leave every woman who crosses your path panting and begging for more, more, more, shouting "please don't go, I'll never know another man who can please me like you do, Stevo!"
You know, how that's just some stupid myth which has been disproved over and over.

|9.5.07 @ 8:21PM|#

Joe is not a communist

Joe is not a fascists.

|9.6.07 @ 1:12AM|#

That is true, high-"not the world's greatest lover"-number.

To say that every woman I've ever dallied with claimed afterward that I had ruined her for all other men, because of the masterful things I and only I can do to her with a rubber spatuala, jumper cables, a can of EZ-Cheez, and a rolled up copy of WIRED -- this is absurd.