You.
Me.
All of us.
We’re being turned into conspiracy theorists. Okay, that’s a stretch. But the mass media is influencing us covertly to believe things that aren’t true and it is very subtly shifting us toward extremism.
I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy. The effect is just the net result of advertisers, politicians, social media, TV channels, and other social actors who have developed a sophisticated understanding of how to leverage our blind spots and weaknesses to get us to spend, click, and vote in their favor.
Let’s see how it works.
Is Jamie Dimon Supporting Trump?
Last week, famed JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon was interviewed by CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland. He made some provocative comments that drove headlines like these:
“Jamie Dimon Joins the Trump Normalizers—The Bulwark
“Trump 2.0? JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon shocks Davos elites and says bring it on”—Fox News
“Jamie Dimon thinks Trump was ‘kind of right’ about a lot of things. What?—The Guardian
“Jamie Dimon praises Trump, warns MAGA criticism could hurt Biden”—CNBC
You can see that depending on the orientation of the publication, Mr. Dimon’s comments about the former President are made to sound either a) alarming or b) affirming support for a Trump candidacy. In fact, the comments should not be considered as either.
First off, much was made out of a few statements, which were:
“Take a step back, be honest. He was kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Trade tax reform worked. He was right about some of China.”
No explanation. No insinuation that he was endorsing Trump.
Secondly, these statements were not intended to explain his thinking but rather the mind of a Trump voter. He was calling for Democrats to stop calling MAGA people “racists,” “deplorables,” and “idiots.” He proposed it would be more productive to align on core issues that are important to everyone.
He said:
“I wish the Democrats would think a little more carefully when they talk about MAGA.”
And he has a point. If we want to heal as a nation, we must stop belittling the other party and listen to each other. Antagonistic language creates resistance, not compliance or agreement. Of course, it goes both ways. Trump himself has said a lot of negative things about people, and there is no shortage of conservatives calling progressives “libtards” and “stupid.” But I digress.
From a behavioral standpoint, what the publications are doing with these headlines is purposely triggering negativity and confirmation biases.
Negativity Bias is a cognitive tendency where individuals give greater weight and importance to negative information compared to neutral or positive information. This bias influences perception, decision-making, and memory, leading individuals to be more attentive to, affected by, and likely to remember negative experiences or information. When a more liberal news outlet says an influential, left-leaning CEO appears to be siding with Trump, it creates fear among liberal readers and catches their attention.
Confirmation Bias is the inclination to seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms preexisting beliefs or hypotheses while avoiding or discounting information that contradicts them. This bias can reinforce existing beliefs, contribute to the formation of echo chambers, and hinder objective evaluation of evidence. It plays a role in shaping attitudes, influencing decision-making, and contributing to the polarization of perspectives. When Fox News makes it look like Mr. Dimon is jumping on the Trump train, it confirms the viewer’s beliefs in Trump’s far-reaching appeal.
Nikki Haley’s (Allegedly) Ill-Gotten Gains
In a second example, I saw the post below last month on the Platform of All Truth, X (formerly known as Twitter).
The poster’s assumption here is that while serving as Governor of South Carolina, Ms. Haley was not making enough to afford such a home. Thus, something illicit must have happened. The poster asserts:
Must be a new trick where only politicians know how to turn a 6 figure salary into a 7 or a 8 in short bursts of time. Haley's net worth reportedly increased from less than $1 million to $8 million since leaving her position in the Trump administration.
Indeed, the Haleys were not wealthy during the years she was in office. According to the Washington Post,
She continued to live relatively modestly by the standards of a state’s chief executive. She and her husband, a businessman and Army National Guardsman, made just under $200,000 in 2014, including her state salary of about $106,000, according to tax returns released in line with gubernatorial custom. Their income fell the following year to about $170,000, as Haley’s husband transitioned to a part-time role with the reserve force. They had two teenage children.
And the place she bought was a swanky 5,774 square feet. Here’s a shot of the front.
Nonetheless, just assuming something nefarious happened is wildly overlooking what Ms. Haley, a well-known, influential person as well as a trained accountant, could have legally done. As the Washington Post explains, she took decisive action to improve her finances after leaving office.
In short order, she improved her financial position dramatically, making millions from private consulting, paid speeches and spots on corporate boards.
And…
The public profile Haley, 51, cultivated as a Republican official — melding deregulatory policies with interventionist and adamantly pro-Israel positions — created lucrative private opportunities. In an 11-month period ending January 2023, she earned about $2.5 million from paid speeches alone, delivered to banks, other businesses and advocacy groups, according to her disclosure. That’s more than she earned in combined salary during the eight years she spent as governor and then a presidential Cabinet member.
I’m not saying this proves everything she did was above board, but it certainly could be. Yet, those possibilities were omitted from the post. Instead, to get attention, the original poster triggered the confirmation bias of people who were subconsciously gathering reasons to support their beliefs that politicians, or at least Republican politicians, are corrupt.
Hunter Biden Gives Half of His Salary to Dad
In a final example, the House Republicans launched an impeachment inquiry against President Biden last December. In a hearing on the evidence, Representative Byron Donalds presented a text message from Hunter Biden to his sister Naomi, which was:
"I hope you all do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It's really hard. But don't worry, unlike pop, I won't make you give me half your salary."
Representative Donalds alleged this note indicated that Hunter was sharing a portion of his salary from the Ukrainian company Burisma with then Vice-President Biden in some kind of illicit transaction. Donalds then asked a forensic accountant in the room if he would want to investigate that. The accountant said “Yes.”
At face value, it’s kind of a stretch to interpret the text message as saying what was claimed anyway. The wording is just not what a person would naturally say. As it turns out, a little investigation was sufficient to confirm my suspicions. As the New York Times reports, Hunter Biden made that kind of comment throughout his adult life. The specific case arose from his father’s lifelong insistence that the children earn their way.
His roommate at the time recalled Hunter telling him and his twin brother “a million times” that then-Senator Biden encouraged him to work, saying, “You can keep half of the paycheck, but you have to hand over the other half for ‘room and board.’”
Hunter told close friends that he was worried that his daughters had become spoiled. According to family members, he would frequently tell them the story about how he had to work in college and pay half of his salary to his father, in hopes of encouraging them to be more self-sufficient.
That story makes a lot more sense. But, this is the game played by politicians on both sides, to cherry-pick and misconstrue bits of data, twisting them to mean something that triggers the confirmation bias of their constituents.
Defending Yourself from Mind Viruses
These examples highlighted just a few of the ways that publications, advertisers, lawyers, and politicians try to confuse the logic of the situation for their gain. These methods seek to activate subconscious biases that cloud our rationality. Sadly, the side effect of these methods is to embed more polarized and extreme views in society.
One way to be less influenced by misinformation is to develop the habit of asking ourselves the following questions when we see headlines, especially those that are inflammatory or shocking:
Who’s making the statement? What are they trying to gain?
What verifiable facts is the statement based on? What did a referenced person literally say? What are the credible records or reports that back up the statement?
In what context were the statements made? What’s the rest of the story?
What’s the other side? How would people with an opposing position justify their view?
If you want positive change, Jamie Dimon’s advice makes sense. The constructive way to build a better future is more like this:
Assume people are generally rational and have good intentions
Find common values. What do we agree is a needed change?
Understand the perspectives of others. Why do they think the way they do? What’s important to them?
Harness the “Power of How.” Reduce the tendency to ask “why” they believe something. Instead ask “how” things would work in their view, or how a situation came to be. Research has shown this method is less confrontational and more thought-provoking.
So rather than gathering statements that support our view—even though it’s more fun to bash political rivals—don’t fall into the trap of arguing over unproven statements or calling people derogatory names. Shift to seeing the other side and building on common ground.