Delphiki wrote:
Pretty much just what I asked, I don't understand why people still think that.
For some reason a lot of people like to cling to sentiments based on misconceptions, rather than truth. From a neurological stand point, it might be because those sentiments were their initial sentiments, and reflected a concept they found threatening, thus the misconception became truth in the more primitive part of the brain. Even intelligent individuals can have a difficult time ridding themselves of sentiments based on threatening concepts they know or not true.
For example, Mel Gibson's famous anti-semetic rant might be a manifestation of this phenomena. Mel Gibson's father was an out spoken anti-semite and Mel was likely exposed to negative perceptions of jews and the threat they were said to represent from a young age. Over the course of his career, he no doubt worked with and befriended many jews who did not meet the stereotypes he was taught were true, and likely eventually consciously acknowledged those stereotypes were not true....but yet somewhere embedded in his brain, he really just can't shake the feeling that jews (though none he knows) are bad. So when he gets drunk, he rants about these imaginary jews, as they have become a focal point for his frustrations and aggressions.
Some of these individuals who believe that Obama is a muslim likely actually like to believe this. I suppose because it makes them feel justified. But still I am left wondering what is the evolutionary advantage of harboring such beliefs? Is it an advantage at all or is it just a side effect? A vestige of more primitive neurology?
Additionally, there are situations where you present people with truth, or highlight a rather obvious flaw in their reasoning, and this somehow becomes irrelevant. The situation is no longer a matter of right or wrong but dominance, and they assert their dominance by refusing to listen to reason, and at this point the logical individual might be subject to a type of bullying, especially if they are out numbered. In these situations, one has to ask, was the truth ever relevant?