(no subject)

[unbibium]

I used to think that veracity played no part in an idea's propagation. A false idea can spread as far as a true idea; if they conflict, whichever one is stickier will gain the most ground.

Except, a truth can be independently discovered many times, whereas a lie must be either repeated, or reinvented. So the truth has an advantage, after all.

Comments

[halfabee.livejournal.com]

Yep. It's the same reason it's easier to tell the truth than to tell a lie - you don't have to work as hard to remember a lie. Nor will the truth conflict with other evidence.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

True, but there are false ideas that seem to lend themselves to independent reinvention many times over.

One of my favorites is the "Marching Morons"/Idiocracy fear, which was also a major justification for eugenic policies in the 20th century: "oh no, high intelligence is reproductively selected against, so we're getting dumber!" It always keeps coming back no matter how little evidence supports it, and I think part of the reason is that unpopular, smart teenagers come up with it independently. The interesting thing about it is that it selectively infects highly educated people.

For a wrong idea to really catch on, there has to be either some kind of motive for spreading it, or a self-reinforcing aspect (the kind of thing Dawkins riffed on) or some misleading data in the world that give it the illusion of being true. Often the wrong idea is a simpler interpretation of some data than the correct one, so Ockham-like heuristics will make it appealing.