The Supreme Court recently lifted limits on private organizations creating campaign ads, and argued that such restrictions infringed on the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations.
Much of the ruling’s rationale is based on the idea that humans do much or all of their thinking consciously. At a conscious level, it makes sense that more information is better, because if we are fed an erroenous piece of information, having access to a wide variety of ads/info is likely to provide us with information that can set the misinformation to rest. Good information, in other words, can drive bad information out of circulation.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not seem to realize that we do most (or at least much) of our thinking unconsciously. As I was quoted saying in this USA Today article, the more-information-is-always-better rule breaks down dramatically in the hidden brain. Better information not only does not always drive bad information out of circulation, it sometimes amplifies the effects of bad information. Partisans who see dearly-held facts questioned — such as the widespread belief among Republicans that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the recent war was launched, for example – see their pre-existing beliefs strengthened after being provided information that Iraq did not have such weapons. (In their minds, these partisans argued back with the new information, and thereby strengthened their prior beliefs.)
And even when good information “wins” at a conscious level, it often does little or nothing to correct the attitudes created by bad information. Democrats given misinformation about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts — to the effect that Roberts supported the bombing of abortion clinics — immediately developed extremely negative views about Roiberts (who was of course nominated by a Republican president.) When the misinformation was corrected in an extremely convincing manner, leaving no doubt that the original claim was false, the partisans conceded the information was inaccurate, but their attitudes toward Roberts remained extremely negative.
