"But we believe that to someone with a symbolic mindset, debunkers merely demonstrate that they're the ones reacting and are therefore weak. The correct information is easily available but is irrelevant to someone who prioritizes a symbolic show of strength. What matters is signaling one isn't listening and won't be swayed. In fact, for symbolic thinkers, nearly any statement should be justifiable."
"The more outlandish or easily disproved something is, the more powerful one might seem when standing by it. Being an edgelord -a contrarian online provocateur-or outright lying can, in their own odd way, appear "authentic." Some people may also view their favorite dissembler's claims as provocative trolling, but, given the link between this mindset and authoritarianism, they want those far-fetched claims acted on anyway."
Direct factual corrections often fail because some individuals prioritize symbolic signals over literal truth. For symbolic thinkers, debunking demonstrates reaction and weakness, making accurate information irrelevant. Outlandish or easily disproved statements can enhance perceived strength or authenticity when steadfastly defended. Supporters may interpret provocative falsehoods as loyalty displays or negotiation tactics and still want those claims enacted. Symbolic beliefs can function as long-term strategies, fake-it-till-you-make-it gambits, or loyalty tests that incentivize action despite flimsy justification. Political actors can exploit symbolism to score points when tangible policy results are scarce, favoring symbolic displays over substantive achievement.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]