Feb 07 2011
How Gullible Are You?
Have you heard of the tree octopus? This is an endangered cephalopod that lives in the trees of the pacific northwest. Of course, the tree octopus does not exist – it is a famous internet “hoax” beloved by skeptics as a common example of human gullibility. It is right up there with dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) – a component of acid rain, a chemical so deadly that if you breath it in you can die, and in gaseous form it can cause severe burns. DHMO is otherwise known as water – but it is easy to get people to sign petitions banning its use.
The inherent gullibility of humanity is a lesson important to the skeptical outlook for it speaks to the need to have a skeptical filter in place – a bullshit-detecting filter or baloney detector. But how gullible are people, generally?
Research at the University of Connecticut uses the tree octopus to test school children for their tendency to believe what they read on the internet. Subjects were chosen for their already demonstrated reading aptitude and this age group is generally considered to be internet savvy. And yet, when exposed to the tree octopus website virtually every student believed the content – unless they were already exposed to the information that it is a hoax.
But this is not a new internet phenomenon, although it is reported as kids believing everything they read on the internet. Social psychologists have been studying belief for years. What they have found is that kids believe virtually everything they hear. Belief seems to be the default reaction to new information – not doubt or even neutrality.
Adults do have a greater tendency toward doubt and disbelief, but this is not necessarily due to the lack of child-like gullibility. Rather, people will tend to believe anything they hear as long as it does not conflict with something they already believe. Adults come with a larger set of pre-existing beliefs than children, and so there is a greater chance that new information will conflict with an existing belief.
Even more disturbing is the evidence that people will maintain a belief once it is formed (a phenomenon called belief perseverance) even in the face of later disconfirming evidence. In fact, when people are told that the scientific evidence contradicts their beliefs they simply distrust the science, and in fact will distrust science in general.
But we can develop skeptical skills and habits. It takes conscious effort, however – which itself is evidence that skepticism is not the default mode of human behavior. For example, in experimental conditions people who are given a cognitive task (like remembering a phone number) are more likely to believe something they are told than someone who is not so distracted. A cognitive task uses up limited mental resources, which are then not available for the demanding task of skepticism.
It is important to recognize that we humans have a tendency to believe easily and to maintain beliefs against the evidence – we are all naturally gullible. Further that skepticism is a learned and cognitively demanding task. This realization should motivate us to systematically engage our skeptical thinking whenever we hear a new claim – it requires a conscious effort. Further it speaks to the need to teach critical thinking skills even to young children. The UCONN research confirms that natural gullibility extends to the internet, where there will not always be a teacher or parent available to help filter information. Therefore schools (and parents) should specifically teach children how to develop their own skepticism and to make a habit of consciously engaging their skepticism whenever they encounter new claims or information – whether from their friends, on the internet, or even from authority figures like parents and teachers themselves.
__________________________
This post was referenced on a Newsy report here: http://www.newsy.com/videos/tree-octopus-story-dupes-the-gullible/
43 Responses to “How Gullible Are You?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I tend to alienate myself from people when I get too skeptical. My friends get annoyed and like to point out that not everyone wants their beliefs or claims challenged. Not everyone wants to be a skeptic, they say.
My counter argument is a brilliant point that Carl Sagan wrote about in the Demon Haunted World. Almost all of us have some degree of skepticism as adults, particularly when it comes to things like buying a used car. Rarely are we gullible in that situation. So why is it so hard to apply this critical thinking to claims we read about on the internet?
A somewhat scary example is that several of my medical school classmates wear Power Balance bands. I could understand this as a fashion statement since so many athletes wear them, but at least one of my classmates insists that it helps her balance. My first reaction was to facetiously inquire if she has a vestibular problem. Is balance really all that crucial in a day-to-day med student’s life? Regardless, I challenged her on the ludicrous nature of the bands. Rather than concede that the holograms made little sense, she insisted that it worked. I find it so bizarre that a person can abandon all reason in favor of a cheap rubber band with a kid’s cereal box type hologram on it.
That is interesting! I’ve always thought it was the education process (and even the natural process of parenting) that made us less critical in our thinking. That we are conditioned to think that authority is right. Your teacher and parents are always providing you with information that is “true”. Our brains categorize things and so we conflate certain traits of teachers and parents with other sources of information and begin to assume that they are also authority. (ie – news pundits, book authors, anyone who speaks with authority, even a website that speaks with authority) And its hard to break that cycle. To assume that authority is wrong.
@bluedevilRA,
Personally, I find that the best approach when advocating a “skeptical” tack with friends or colleagues is the Socratic method. If you come out immediately calling things “illogical, implausible, nonsense,” you’re going to create a situation where battle lines have been drawn and the other party feels obligated to hold their position, even if they are wrong. If instead you politely ask questions like, “how does this work, what is the evidence, how do we know that Power Balance is telling the truth, etc,” you’re inviting the other party to try and convince you of their position; and if it’s logically ill-founded, then the right line of questioning should reveal that pretty quickly. Just a suggestion.
That is a very good point. I try not to be immediately dismissive to avoid offending people. I could certainly improve my strategy, but it is hard when faced with someone saying “the plastic hologram resonates with my energy field and that makes me stronger and more balanced.” My skeptical eyebrow instinctively raises on its own. It is hard to control.
I can’t help being a little skeptical of the study, though. There’s a difference between someone coming across something like this online and being handed it by adults in a research setting, for which one was hand-picked (“most proficient online readers” seems a tad vulnerable to selection effects too), for “review”.
Am I the only one?
If there was an energy field, and if that energy field did resonate with a plastic hologram worn on the wrist, it seems to me that the resonant absorption of energy in an asymmetric way would decrease the symmetry of the energy field and would impair balance.
Unless it was acting via hormesis
@Timmyson I had the same thought. were the students simply given a URL and a web browser? or what?
it would be depressing if the first instinct isn’t to google it. even if young children are naturally credulous they can certainly be taught to double check wikipedia.
and yea the “guy in lab coat tells me to shock people so it must be ok” effect.
I just don’t believe anything Novella says any more.
That is a good point – basically what was the observer effect of this study. The kids were asked to rate the website for trustworthiness – so they were asked to assess its content.
It’s quite possible that there are climbing octopi somewhere in the bushes, however, just as in the Australian bush there are sand dwelling squid.
http://australianmuseum.net.au/image/Squid-Loligo/
It’s pretty easy (and moderately fun) to point out other people’s faulty baloney detectors, but it gets pretty interesting when I realize mine sucks too. These posts lend no small assistance to assessing and reassessing my filters. Keep it up!
cwfong,
“It’s quite possible that there are climbing octopi somewhere in the bushes”
That may well be, but we are talking here about the specific climbing octopus hoax, not the possible existence of a climbing octopus.
Read the link and see if your bullshit meter isn’t tickled.
Okay, the website states that the Tree Octopus’ natural predator is the Sasquatch. It’s possible that children have never heard of this less common name for Bigfoot, so I suppose they’d be particularly vulnerable to accepting this information as fact. Nonetheless, interesting study, albeit methodologically flawed (as pointed out above).
I’m not sure it’s directly linked to the water petition study, though. The water petition seemed to be more about misusing the layperson’s scientific naivety and ergo seems to highlight the need for more rigorous scientific research before accepting a purportedly science-backed claim. However, this study doesn’t seem to be using science as the driving mechanism, but rather social norms. The ‘green’ phenomenon is in vogue right now and claims related to environmentalism could be accepted for any number of reasons such as guilt, adherence to social norms/desire to maintain in-group behaviour or the resultant feeling of unwarranted accomplishment.
Both highlight the need for skepticism, but in the face of very different threats.
What would really be interesting, is to find out what websites that the authors of this study, read and accept as good sources,before they are allowed to design a program for teaching students how to be more critical.What if it were discovered that one or more of them followed anti-vaccine or conspiracy sites for example.Just because they think that tree octopi are silly,doesn’t mean that they aren’t creationists,or climate change deniers.
There are no sand dwelling squid in the Australian bush. Which shows that even after reading about one kind of cephalopod hoax, some people easily fall for another one.
Skepticism can be skin deep, but gullible goes to the bone.
I am now afraid of this tree octopus. I hope I never encounter one of these
Aboriginal octopus on a walkabout:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwUW1inDCs&feature=related
cwfong,
“There are no sand dwelling squid in the Australian bush. Which shows that even after reading about one kind of cephalopod hoax, some people easily fall for another one.”
Please point to where anyone fell for this one.
…as opposed to following your link, finding no information of relevance (hey, what’s new
) and therefore simply deciding to ignore it. 
I’d think that part of the credulousness of kids owes something to the fact that their brains are still developing, no?
Although, of course life experience plays a part as well; for example, if, as in my case, you have had more than one orthopedic surgeon obfuscate about the results of operations they’d performed (long story, details available on request, if I feel like it), you’ll be less likely to reflexively trust them (let along equate their every word with “science”).
Very good article but I doubt anyone will draw a correct conclusion from it. Stop believing or at least, question any authority. Then learn how to choose legitimate authority (real scientists, like Novella for example) with your critical thinking skills and start thinking for yourself, not what parents or teachers and politicians say.
Kids believe everything they hear and that’s the reason, why forced education is so useful for state authorities that want to control people and so damaging for kids later in life. We see it eveyrday, but we always blame the victim.
It my sound banal, but public schools are partly the source of the evil. Why schools do not teach critical thinking, questioning authority? Because it is higly regulated by the state, there is no room for competition, evry school has to comply to some ridiculous standard chosen by the state, there is no “opting out” even and that what should be first noticed by all skeptics. They praise their bullshit detectors, but when are exposed to the bullshit in front of their eyes that happens everyday in school, they shut it down. Why is that?
Skepticism lead me to what I am now and that’s only the begining. I like learning, but not, what other people forced me to do in school against my will, but what I choose myself.
Forcing kids to memorize lot of stupid data, numbers and information doesn’t help them develop critical thinking skills. It shuts them down. It shuts their creativity and passion for learning. Kids are only concerned about what authority says to them and what the minimum requirament is to pass the stupid test. And they only do this subjective minimum, never at full capacity.
School sucks and so all public education.
Do not intentionally disregard (IOW ignore) the appearance of a tree octopus. It could be a sand squid out to get you. Or vice versa.
This is an interesting study but, due to the method of selecting the subjects, it has little value as a statistical artifact. If one were using it to update a la Bayesian- this merits the weighting of a good anecdote.
Of course given that kids believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy, we could view this as another brick in the wall.
sonic, good point. I suppose then the lesson is that all kids are gullible and we need to make sure to see that they grow out of it. And not just in Australia.
Believe only in those things for which there is evidence, and in proportion to that evidence. Ignore those things for which there is no evidence unless and untill that evidence is found or provided.
Ignorance is bliss and then you die.
Don’t quite get how the tree octopus tests gullibility. It seems to me that if you don’t know that octopuses are not amphibious, and a lot of children probably don’t, it is entirely plausible. The authors go out of their way to counter the obvious objections.
Let us not pretend that anyone has the time to check every fact that passes their way. A sensible person takes the time to verify “facts” that seem implausible, that contradicts what they already know, or which are not provided by a trustworthy source, and accepts everything else. (My husband told me that the Packers won the Superbowl; should I check the NY Times and msnbc rather than just believe him?)
I don’t think these kids are particularly gullible; I think they don’t know enough science to realize that a tree octopus is unlikely and haven’t figured out that a random website is not a trustworthy source of info. Both are fairly simple problems that can be fixed with a bit of education, and not a reason to deplore the gullibility of the human race.
Diane, I think it means that kids need to learn to look for evidence that may be lacking (i.e., missing or absent) in addition to understanding the evidential nature of the obvious.
Diane,
There is a body of evidence to show that the human default mode is to believe any new information, as long as it does not contradict existing beliefs. This is not a good default mode – a better one would be critical thinking, but that is a learned behavior.
These kids were asked to rate the website for trustworthiness – they were tasked to consider its plausibility. That is not analogous to questioning mundane facts happened upon in everyday life.
You are right that a modicum of science factual knowledge is required. But it is not a stretch to assume for the purpose of this study that most people know that octopuses live in the sea. They should never have seen an octopus in any other setting, because they don’t exist outside of the water (not alive, anyway). If you think about the notion of an octopus living in a tree it should seem at least odd, if not highly implausible. It is certainly not a claim that should be accepted at face value.
The kids mostly treated the hoax website as an authoritative source. Given the hit rate of random websites, this is not a good practice. That was the point of the study – kids should be taught to systematically doubt websites as sources of information.
Gee, doc, it seems that I was wrong and kids (and the occasional Australian) don’t need to learn to look for evidence that may be lacking.
“This is not a good default mode – a better one would be critical thinking, but that is a learned behavior.”
I mostly agree, but I’m not sure that this default mode is really that detrimental upon close inspection. (apparently it was not that detrimental for the species – we have flourished) There is a certain efficiency to this way of thinking, and for many things it really doesn’t matter all that much.
I say this assuming that an individual has had a life of education regarding the things that matter for survival among other things, and experience has taught the individual something about how the world around operates (thus creating the basis for the “beliefs” that the new information could contradict). Also I say this with some skepticism that this is some type of universal default. It must be very topic specific for each individual, and I suspect a high interindividual variability. I have to go out of my way not to be skeptical of new information, and I’m not sure that this was all taught to me. Hyperskepticism is not particularly great either. I have noticed some people who do lean towards the other end of the spectrum, but it is not clear to me why that is.
My brother-in-law fell for an April fool’s joke a few years back. A TV station announced the development of “smellavision”, TV you can smell. Being a very techno dude, he fell for it hook, line and sinker, came in to work and told everyone all about it. And then we reminded him of the date. Turned bright red!
Still, I must admit to being gullible. But I have developed my bullshitometer over the years. I feel that my responsibility as a scientist is to examine new information, but to do so with a skeptical eye.
And don’t believe in smellavision just because it sounds good! After all, if you believe in that, you might even believe in homeopathy.
Stuart
“…ignore…”
“…ignorance…”
A poster whose name rhymes with ‘wrong’ needs a lesson in a particular type of cognitive error. Of course, if evidence of past behaviour is anything to go by, he will disingenuously claim that he did this deliberately.
cfwrong,
“I’m not sure that this default mode [believe new information] is really that detrimental upon close inspection. (apparently it was not that detrimental for the species – we have flourished)”
Yes, well, we are no longer fighting tooth and claw in the jungle.
“There is a certain efficiency to this way of thinking, and for many things it really doesn’t matter all that much.”
In the distant past, it was decisions on the run when split seconds were the difference between life and death. And the information to be believed came from parents who had their progeny’s best interest at heart. Today we have breathing room. Time to think. And idiots and hucksters providing all sorts of false information for their, rather than our, gain.
“I have to go out of my way not to be skeptical of new information”
This from someone who has sucked in by quantum consciousness and teleological evolution!
“Hyperskepticism is not particularly great either. I have noticed some people who do lean towards the other end of the spectrum, but it is not clear to me why that is.”
Being a little bit sceptical is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.
Who was it that sandsquid Billy was just quoting there? It wasn’t me. The poor sod just can’t admit that he got taken in and just makes it worse in the bargain. “Oh well.”
You remind me of the driver of a new car I saw yesterday looking at mine as if to say, “Shit, I should have bought one of those”.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arimoore/184331755/lightbox/
I enjoyed BJ’s mistake that I was cwfong. I was trying a forced contrarian view there to see if there were any insightful reactions. I can see how cwfong was projected on the comments, particularly the part about an individual’s experience.
Obviously, gullibility can be detrimental, particularly on an individual level and at the level of society. In order for democracies to work well (for those of us who claim to live in one), the people have to be both knowledgeable and skeptical. Unfortunately we have too little of either in the U.S. at this time. Gullibility is directly contributing to this, and it is manifesting itself within ideologies, through people who realize how gullible their followers are.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”
- usually attributed to Mark Twain
Would that mistake mean BJ’s not only gullible but self-gullible?
@Steven Novella
I am not really objecting to the overall point of your blogpost, which seems reasonable to me. I am specifically objecting to calling the tree octopus experiment an experiment in “gullibility.” To me, “gullible” is not a neutral word; it *always* has negative connotations, and saying that kids who fall for the tree octopus hoax are “gullible” is unnecessarily disparaging.
Better to say, as you do, that we would all be better off with explicit training in critical thinking.