Could it be true?

I follow several social media sites, FB, X, Threads even Truth Social.

What people post, believe and forward is incredible.

Can these media be a reflection of the real thinking and intelligence of the American people or are the cognitive challenged concentrated on these sites? I hope the latter is the case because if not, we are in big trouble.

Some posts are so outrageous it’s hard to believe they even pass a basic common sense test.

Others have been circulating for years, debunked or easily disproven yet are still believed.

Congress stole the Social Security trust money is a favorite.

Recently I read a post that claimed SS was in trouble because the government hadn’t contributed a penny. Think about that😳

These days there are many anti-tax posts. Why should anyone 65 and older pay income tax or property taxes? Humm, let me see.

The lack of basic health insurance understanding is incredible. No connection between the cost and use of healthcare and insurance premiums is made-or accepted.

I like the posts CEO pay takes from worker pay and if they were paid less, workers would get more. Most CEO pay is equity, not cash. In any case divide their pay by the number of workers and see what you get.

In Colonial times such junk circulated in newspapers intentionally trying to mislead and inflame. It took weeks even months to circulate, not seconds. Besides it’s estimated that in 1776 around 60% of men and 50% of women were able to read.

This post could go on forever, but there is no point.

How are humans so easily influenced and manipulated? I know we tend to believe what we want to believe, but why no effort to check a few facts which these days is not hard?

Why do people believe what is not true 

There are many complex reasons why people believe things that aren’t true. It’s not always a matter of being unintelligent or ill-informed. Here are some key factors:

Psychological Factors:

  • Confirmation Bias:
    • People tend to seek out and interpret information that confirms their existing beliefs, while ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence.
  • Emotional Reasoning:
    • Emotions can heavily influence beliefs. If something feels right, people may accept it as true, even without solid evidence.
  • Cognitive Biases:
    • These are mental shortcuts that can lead to errors in judgment. For example, the “illusory truth effect” means that repeated exposure to a false statement can make it seem true.
  • Motivated Reasoning:
    • This involves processing information in a way that supports a desired conclusion. People may rationalize false beliefs to protect their sense of self or belonging.
  • Trust and Authority:
    • People often place trust in figures of authority or in sources they perceive as credible, even if those sources are spreading misinformation.
  • Social Influence:
    • People are influenced by the beliefs of their social groups. A desire to fit in can lead to the acceptance of false information.

Sociological Factors:

  • Misinformation and Disinformation:
    • The deliberate spread of false information, whether intentional or not, can have a significant impact on public belief.
  • Echo Chambers:
    • Online and offline communities can reinforce existing beliefs, creating echo chambers where people are only exposed to information that confirms their views.
  • Mistrust:
    • When people mistrust established institutions, or sources of information, they are more likely to seek alternative, and sometimes false, information sources.

Other Factors:

  • Lack of Critical Thinking:
    • Not everyone has developed strong critical thinking skills, which are essential for evaluating information.
  • Complexity of Information:
    • Some issues are complex and difficult to understand. People may rely on simplified or misleading explanations.

In essence, the human mind is susceptible to a variety of influences that can lead to the acceptance of false beliefs. Understanding these factors is crucial for combating the spread of misinformation and promoting critical thinking.

9 comments

  1. ” I know we tend to believe what we want to believe, but why no effort to check a few facts which these days is not hard?”

    It is, kinda. Who do you believe?

    Who pays for tariffs? “Trump says tariffs will make America so rich, ‘you won’t know where to spend it’”

    One prominent example on TV… An American orders a pickup for $80,000.* By the time it arrives at the dealer, tariffs raised the cost to $100,000. Who’s getting rich off that? Especially since it’s still sitting on the lot, unsold.

    Just kidding, there’s no. 2

    *My last pickup cost $9,000, and I drove it for 25 years. My grandson drives it now.

    Like

  2. Seems to me, people who are not happy with their position in life look for someone or something to blame, rather then accept responsibility for decisions they’ve made. The truth does not support their reasoning so they deny it and seek alternatives. People need to accept responsibility for their actions.

    Like

  3. I agree that social media spreads all kinds of misinformation. I do have a question on the SS deduction. Why do we pay 6% on the first $160K but not on anything above that? Someone making $160K pays 6% while some one making $320K in essence is only paying only 3%. If SS is in trouble, why not have employees pay 6% of all their errand income? Not continuing it on the employer, just the employee. I know it was initially set up that way because benefits are paid based on income up to $160 but the benefits are higher for low income worker than higher income workers.

    Like

    1. Only earnings that are taxed for SS are counted for SS benefits so it’s quite fair unless you want a welfare program.

      Like

      1. It already is a progressive payment system or welfare as you call it. Recipients receive 90% of the first $14,088 of their annual calculated income over 35 years. Then 32% from $14,088 to $84,936. Then 15% for $84,926 up to the max of $168,000 (+/-). Why not 0% for anything over $168,000. This would only affect the very well off. Also they should eliminate the carve outs for special pension funds so that everyone puts into the SS program and collects from it instead of special programs that presently don’t.

        Like

  4. Al Lindquist

    Well, there are folks who tell us that Social Security is funded by contributions from employer and employee–the Feds raided the trust fund and pay back SS, but with such a convoluted system why wouldn’t folks be susceptible to phony stories–if you teach in NJ you know there is a pension and any contributions you make to the 403-B–simple/easy/ brainless & painless.

    Add to that IRA and savings all without government entities borrowing and maybe repaying and you are told Social Security is in dire need of restructure to pay full benefits.

    When you have so many people now plugged into the internet–blogs–and social media, of course you will have all types of stories and so called facts all over the place. There is a price for democracy and free speech.

    Remember when we were told the border was closed? Or that Ukraine invaded Russia. A little common sense and various views from various sources might be enlightening.

    Like

    1. SS is quite simple and with one exception funded the same way since 1936. FICA taxes, interest paid on the bonds held by the trust and since 1983, income taxes paid on SS benefits. Nobody raided the trust, the trust invested in bonds when there was excess revenue just like countries and investors around the world do.

      Like

      1. Al Lindquist

        Is there an excess in revenue now? if there is an excess in revenue and it is being invested in T-Bonds then why do we hear major changes need to be considered as benefits could be in danger in 8-years or so ?

        Yes, as you say SS has been funded in a simple fashion since inception but it looks like benefits have been added along the way which might have contributed to its problems–the program has added benefits like the COLA–disability payments–payments to youth who lose a parent–extra payment to a parent collecting SS who has a child under 18.

        Sounds like your typical government program that grows beyond the original purpose–has financial issues–becomes a hot potato for the politicians–and when the crisis occurs is when a commission is established for a temporary fix.

        Like

      2. There is no excess revenue now. Yes, bendfuts have been added and demographics have changed. The trustee reports have been warning for years that action must be taken sooner rather than later and Congress has ignored it.

        Like

Leave a Reply