Why do people believe nutty crap?

Although my headline may seem terribly unscientific, my purpose is to direct your attention to this research paper. A study at Duke university concentrated on those who hold to the view that Barack Obama is a Muslim, despite his protestations to the contrary.

(My own suspicion is that he is not, never has been, and probably never will be particularly religious. That's one of the few things I like about him.)

The implications of the study go beyond that specific issue, of course. The data indicate that once a person chomps into the dripping hamburger of Strange Belief, he becomes addicted to the taste and will do anything for another bite.

Those who believe that Obama is a Muslim will not allow mere fact to dislodge that concept from their craniums. No amount of counter-evidence will suffice. The proposition thus becomes non-falsifiable -- and as you know, any non-falsifiable proposition is beyond the realms of science and logic.

(I'm reminded of the maker of Loose Change, who proudly announced that he considered the "controlled demolition" theory to be non-falsifiable. He thus confessed that he was in the religion business.)

The students applied argumentative strategies which, they felt, would have an improved success rate in reversing the conviction that Obama is a Muslim. Those strategies did not work.

Only one approach proved successful, and it had nothing to do with logic. A test subject would admit that his or her belief in the "Muslim" rumor might be wrong-headed only if the following two conditions were met:

1. The subject had to self-identify as a Republican, and

2. Non-white administrators had to be present.

When only white administrators were in the room during the presentation of corrective material, the belief that Obama is a Muslim actually firmed up. If a black person stepped into the room, the test subject became rather more likely to admit "Maybe I've been wrong."

One can only guess as to why the race of the administrator had an impact. I suspect that most people wedded to a strange belief know, on some level, that the belief is backed by insufficient evidence. The belief is born of emotion. A person may feel guilty about those emotions when confronted, face to face, with someone who might feel personally insulted by those feelings.

Two questions:

1. How would the Duke students categorize me? In their study, those who do not take Obama at his word are categorized as believers in the "Muslim" rumor. I've always considered that rumor inane. On the other hand, I scoff at the idea that Obama is the "committed Christian" he claims to be. Being a cynic, I think that most politicians lie about the depth of their religious commitment. The nature of the American electorate is such that any political candidate who thinks that man is alone in the universe must either fib about his views or seek other forms of employment.

(For years, I wondered out loud: "Is Dubya faking it?" I've finally concluded that his gonzo version of Christianity is genuinely felt -- and God help us all.)

2. Why do people become so firmly wedded to a strange belief that alienates them from large segments of polite society? I would argue that alienation strengthens the belief.

Although I cannot provide a citation at the moment, I recall reading an observation about the experimental utopian communities that popped up in America during the mid-19th century. Those communities which forced the participants to undergo enormous sacrifice (through the imposition of celibacy, dietary laws, a strict dress code, etc.) stayed cohesive for a longer time. Those communities which allowed the greatest freedom fell apart rapidly.

If you announce to the world that you favor a strange belief -- Obama is a Muslim, your father came to Earth in a flying saucer, the Illuminati controls everything, space lasers blew up the twin towers, evolution is a big conspiracy -- many people will sneer at your views. They will laugh at you and shun you. You will become something of an outcast.

That outcast status constitutes a form of social sacrifice.

Having made such a sacrifice, you will now hold onto your strange belief with even greater ferocity; suspicion will solidify into conviction. You do not want to admit that you underwent ridicule for a foolish cause. Thus, the mere presentation of fact will not dislodge a goofy idea that has well and truly taken hold of your imagination.

Would reducing the social stigma surrounding unusual beliefs have the paradoxical effect of decreasing the prevalence of those ideas?