
A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth - varunvkrishnan
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/dont-believe-lies-just-people-repeat/
======
gizmo
Repetition makes lies seem true, but repetition also makes truth seem true.
All persuasion (and indoctrination) happens through repetition, whether in a
classroom setting, a forum like this one, or in sales.

This realization is also deeply depressing, because it means you're doomed to
repeat yourself over and over if you want to persuade people.

Let's take Noam Chomsky for instance. He gives more than a hundred talks every
year for the past 50 years. He has written dozens (if not a hundred) books,
given thousands of interviews. His message is always the same. Because after
you've figured out what your best and most persuasive arguments are the only
thing left to do is repeat yourself over and over. Every day is groundhog day.

Startups also have to learn the value of repetition. Long form sales text
works, because of repetition. Long form video demos work, because of
repetition. Drip email campaigns work, because of repetition. It's often
better to give customers one good reason to use your product, repeated three
times than to give three distinct reasons why they should purchase. Counter-
intuitive, perhaps, unless you've heard this argument before.

~~~
CoryG89
I take your point, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say that
_all_ persuasion happens through repetition. Maybe I'm a bit full of myself,
but I like to think that with sound enough logic, I could be persuaded from my
position by hearing an argument only once.

That would probably be the distinction I would draw between persuasion in
general and indoctrination / brainwashing. Of course, generally indoctrination
and brainwashing seem to have a much higher rate of success in changing minds,
which is indeed depressing.

~~~
metaobject
I've read geometric/mathematical proofs that have convinced me immediately.
Just seeing the logical steps flow from step to step was enough to prove the
assertion was true.

~~~
spynxic
I consider this as an object of argument as well, however, axioms seem to be
the underlying structure of repetition for all proofs [as far as I understand
mathematics].

~~~
drdeca
What do you mean "structure of repetition"?

Premises which are already accepted are used to conclude further ones.

------
lacampbell
I wish once people realised this, they had the courage to apply this to their
own dearly held beliefs, particularly political or social ones - how many of
those are just lies repeated ad nauseum that clearly aren't true?

But I think most peoples reaction is just to say "Yeah! that's totally what
those other people do that our side never does because we're right.".

~~~
cryoshon
>But I think most peoples reaction is just to say "Yeah! that's totally what
those other people do that our side never does because we're right.".

to guard against this, as soon as i am aware of a catchphrase or common
talking point, i mentally deconstruct it and find the truth. frighteningly,
the most commonly repeated verbiages are, should we say, misleading.

but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your ear:
the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self
righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation
will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.

~~~
cgriswald
> but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your
> ear: the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought,
> self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical
> evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.

The very fact that both sides are convinced there are two sides suggests this
is a false statement. The "sides", really the false divisions and
classifications, are some of the biggest lies ever told. In any case, any
inequality between them is not the problem. By way of analogy, if two glasses
of water have unequal amounts of fecal matter with neither being even close to
zero, wouldn't it be better not to drink either of them rather than suggest
one is better than the other?

~~~
chillwaves
We have two political parties in the United States. Do you believe the voters
for each side are at parity in their ability to understand reality? Do you
believe it is helpful to suggest people choose neither?

~~~
astrange
We're closer to having one, since the smart people like to convince themselves
not to support the second one through sophistry.

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
If with the second one you mean the non-ruling party, it actually got more
votes in the presidential election than the ruling party.

~~~
astrange
You need to win all the small elections you can, from senator down to county
dogcatcher, and not just win-but-lose the big one. Think of it as promoting
internally.

------
WhitneyLand
What makes some people more vulnerable to accepting things uncritically? Why
is it so hard to admit when they or someone they support makes a mistake?

I have an ego, I don't like being wrong, and I think I'm right a lot. Ok, so
far I get it. But to constantly ignore or avoid objective evidence? How do
people not become ill at the thought?

1) Clinical narcissism or sociopathy? It's all an intentional means to an end.

2) Simple lack of practice in critical thinking? They are acting in good faith
but just not seeing the con.

3) Their morale code does not exclude machiavellian tactics and they just want
to win.

Maybe the population has all three types collaborating both knowingly and
unknowingly across different roles.

~~~
empath75
How important is it for you to know that the world is round? What would change
in your life, if you didn't know that seemingly important fact? How about that
homeopathic medicine is a fraud, or that global warming is man made or that
vaccines don't cause autism? If you were wrong about all of those things, what
changes about your life right away? That's why people don't exercise critical
thinking. It just doesn't matter if you know the truth about things, for most
people, most of the time. (Until it does, of course, and you die of cancer
because you tried to pray it away instead of getting chemo).

~~~
mattnewton
All of those things actively affect others' wellbeing when put into public
policy. And a democracy gives the masses the ability to put those beliefs in
public policy.

Would it affect you tight away? No, but in a Generation our children contract
more disease, less of them go into stem fields because of the distrust and
dissonance that has been spread, and the air your children breath becomes more
polluted.

------
CurtMonash
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried/ As he landed his crew with
care/ Supporting each man on the top of the tide/ By a finger entwined in his
hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice/ That alone should encourage
the crew/ Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice/ What I tell you
three times is true."

------
hoziyw
Did she really mis-spell Hitler's name?

Also, I highly suggest everyone making the Hitler comparison actually read the
definitive work "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi
Germany," so we can perhaps have some more intelligent comparisons than: "You
know who else used repetition? Hitler."

Every article I read seems to have become a fun little exercise in "How can I
put both Trump and Hitler into this seemingly innocuous article about
cognitive fusion?"

It's obnoxious and old. If you want to actually do a Trump-Hitler comparison,
read a book on the topic and write an actual paper about it instead of just
flinging it out willy-nilly so you can fear-monger your readership into
believing that actual dystopian eugeno-fascism is just on the horizon.

------
CuriouslyC
Better than saying it over and over is to imagine the scenario of the lie
repeatedly. Memory is malleable, and this actually creates "false" memories.

------
powertower
The title tries to make it seem as this is completely non-political, yet the
entire body of the article is basically anti-Trump rhetoric.

So here is another human psyche detail - when someone removes the actual
details (such as what these 3 exec orders are and the specifics of the
mentioned crimes), they are doing so to protect the narrative...

I'll give you an example: "Ban of majority Muslim countries" vs. "Iraq, Syria,
Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen".

The reason the media removes the list of countries and replaces them with the
quote, is because when people see the names of these countries, they realize
that they are an open death-sentence destination for Americans, and have a
large public that often chants death threats to America.

And that is a problem for the narrative the media is using (to exploit the
situation). So the details have to be removed.

This is the first step of the manipulation of public opinion. The second step
is the repetition.

------
zaque1213
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
act." \- George Orwell

~~~
Xeoncross
So how do propose we pick "the truth"? This is the problem we now face: Truth
has been labeled relative.

~~~
tunap
Parse the wording of the statement(s) in question. Look for lapses existing
between the actual language of a message and it's intended result. Wordsmith's
are expert at saying nothing substantial while allowing(encouraging) the
audience to perceive or project their biases to said message.

~~~
Xeoncross
I'm curious now, mind dissecting this quote?

~~~
tunap
Ambiguous, leading statements allow a listener to assume the content in lieu
of specifics.

In the spirit of the MSM's "Fake News" news lately, I submit a seemingly
innocuous example: Of all of the "Supermoon" articles back in December(and
priors), how many mention the fact that the closest full moonrise is
indiscernable in size to the naked eye as the furthest full moonrise? Besides
Phil Platt, I believe the answer is approaching 0. Yet, every MSM news
site/channel promoted it as "the biggest in ~100 years", many webizens clicked
the links, some even went out to watch it live and most now believe it
appeared physically larger than any other full moonrise in ~100 years.

edit:added "in" to discernable.

swapped ~ for +/-.

------
danbruc
Almost a bit ironically I am really surprised by the amount of agreement in
this discussion. How is this a glitch in the human psyche oder something like
that? Everything you remember is something you believe to be true and
repetition makes you remember things, really no surprise or glitch here.

You tell me Mount Everest is 5742 meters high, seems a reasonable size for the
largest mountain on earth. A year later you tell me Mount Everest is 6488
meters high. Seems reasonable and I have long forgotten that you claimed a
different height last year. For whatever reason you keep telling me Mount
Everest is 6488 meters high every Sunday afternoon, week after week.

I have no reason to doubt that what you are telling me is true and after a
couple of weeks I will start to know and remember that Mount Everest is 6488
meters high. But then a couple of years later someone else tells me that Mount
Everest is actually 8893 meters high. I object. To settle the issue we decide
to look it up on Wikipedia and lo and behold the official height of Mount
Everest is indeed 8893 meters.

This may or may not make me remember that Mount Everest is 8893 meters high
but it is very likely that I will remember that 6488 meters is not the correct
height and it might make me trust you less with regard to mountain related
facts. Even without any repetition.

If you want me to accept a statement, the statement must be believable based
on what I already know and believe to be true. And I have to have some trust
that you are telling me a true statement. Repetition is only secondary, only
required if you or I want that I remember the statement in the long term.

And if something is surprising or exciting or whatever, then one might
remember something easily without a lot of repetition. The height of Mount
Everest was never really interesting to me and learning the wrong height took
some repetition. But then learning that Mount Everest is actually 8893 meters
high and that I remembered the wrong height for years, that came as a surprise
and may not take much if any repetition to remember.

------
scotty79
Repetition not only feels like truth but also like beauty.

If you create art, even if it's primitive or ugly, if you can repeat something
within one artwork or across multiple works, the works suddenly gain some
merit, feel more like art, less like random doodle, just due to repetition.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that's the only way to invoke perception of
truth or perception of beauty. It's just something I observed while trying to
appreciate some contemporary art.

------
AlexisDT
This article completely misrepresents why introducing false facts is
effective.

Repetition, in itself, does not persuade anyone of anything. Repetition, as
others have noted, simply makes the thing being repeated easier to remember.
The true "persuasion" \-- i.e., the misinterpreting of the false fact as true
-- occurs because we forget the /source/ of a statement quicker than we forget
the /content/.

So, for example, if you happen from your friend Joe (whom you know to be a
compulsive liar) that "Priuses are actually less environmentally friendly than
Hummers, because manufacturing the batteries for Priuses actually releases
more greenhouse gases than a Hummer releases over its average lifespan,"
you'll likely remember that statement for far longer than you remember that it
came from Joe, the compulsive liar. And if you find yourself in an argument
with a pretentious Prius driver two years down the road and you search your
memory banks for relevant facts to throw in his face, you may well pull out
the "Prius battery" statement, without ever remembering that it is almost
certainly bunk. You have, in essence, adopted a false belief due to having an
imperfect/poorly configured memory.

To take it a step further: If you then make the "Prius battery" statement to
the Prius driver, presenting it as fact, you have _repeated_ it (thus making
it more firmly entrenched in your mind) and you have replaced the (previously
empty) "Spoken By" metadata field with one that now reads "Me [trust score:
100%]." Speaking the false fact is not necessary to make the false-belief-
adoption effect appear, but if you do happen to speak the false fact, it only
serves to strengthen the effect and further entrench the false fact.

This effect, of course, only works with facts that are not absurd or plainly
wrong on your face. If you hear 2+2=5, you don't need to remember the source
to know that's wrong. But there's a whole class of facts out there that exist
in a gray area -- where they are wholly falsifiable on their face, and would
require some serious digging to validate/disprove -- where this effect can
lead to serious confusion. To the extent the repetitive blasting of falsehoods
works, it works because of this and this alone. Wired here is doing us (and
the fools who paid for the "HeadOn" advertising campaign) a disservice by
implying otherwise.

------
coldcode
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a
fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never
leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a
time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big
lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people
will sooner or later believe it." Hitler's rules sound vaguely familiar.

~~~
Shubley
Bear in mind that this is contemporary writing. They likely wrote it in such a
way with the goal of forming this comparison in your mind.

I think one needs to look at older writings to get a take that isn't designed
to reinforce the constructed media narrative du jour.

Even then its hard to get decent info on this topic because its always been so
morally charged. Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns.

Edit: I think you can also apply that description to several parties in the
modern media environment.

~~~
wwweston
And yet they didn't single out a specific figure, nor did the poster above. As
you say, there may well be more than one party someone might apply this
description to.

Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some
mysterious reason.

Probably just "constructed media narrative du jour," right? Certainly not
because the person might actually be a quintessential example that stands out
from everyone else so well that you _already knew who people were likely
talking about without anyone being named_ (yet, strangely, apparently want to
deny that person should be considered for such a comparison at all).

> Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns.

It's not really clear that it's possible to separate human concerns from moral
concerns, and I can only imagine someone arriving at the conclusion that
"nothing obscures reality worse" by searching a pretty narrow set of reality-
obscuring hazards.

~~~
furyofantares
> Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some
> mysterious reason.

Doesn't seem mysterious. The claim you are responding to is that, intentional
or not, the author described Trump but said they were describing Hitler. That
Trump came to mind is unsurprising.

Trump is commanding an absurd proportion of the media and social media's
attention. Readers and authors are overprepared to see Trump everywhere in a
world where it's hard to load a web page without seeing his name and face on
it. Sometimes I go to a news site and load each section one by one to see if
there is a single section that doesn't feature him prominently -- sometimes
the sports or entertainment sections manage to avoid Trump, but not always.

I personally find the Hitler comparisons to be about as absurd as the birther
movement was. And yet when I read the word "Hitler", my first thought is
"Trump" and not "holocaust" or "tiny moustache". That isn't because I find the
comparison apt -- I find it absurd. It's because Trump is so prominent in my
attention and because absurd comparisons to Hitler have been made so many
times that it's becoming expected.

~~~
pavlov
It's worth reading this article by Ron Rosenbaum, author of _Explaining
Hitler_ :

[https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-
mun...](https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/)

He agrees that "to compare Trump’s feckless racism and compulsive lying was
inevitably to trivialize Hitler’s crime and the victims of genocide", but also
explains in substantial detail how Trump's playbook closely follows Hitler's.

------
kevinwuhoo
There was a related article posted a few months ago from the BBC on "How liars
create the ‘illusion of truth’".

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829781](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829781)

[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-
th...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-
of-truth)

------
igouy
The structure of discussion threads can be used to achieve repetition:

\-- early false statements are seen by many

\-- later corrections down-thread are seen by few

\-- popular promoted, true but unpopular hidden

[https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5queq5/how_high_perfo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5queq5/how_high_performance_is_rust/dd29td5/?st=iz1g4c97&sh=345d7e9e)

------
return0
Why does the article not mention the russia-hysteria as another prime example
of baseless repetitive untruth of the current news cycle? It's also
surprisingly light on its facts and logic: in the american left-right debate
is there really excessive repetition from one side more than the other?

Is it really a matter of repetition or a matter of trust? Does it matter that
fact-checkers point out the errors in trumps tweets? He has gained the trust
of his followers, while the fact-checkers have a bad reputation and shady
relationships with establishment. Even if they get the facts right, people
don't trust them to make _decisions_ right. It's more about what you plan to
do with the facts than who has the most facts, and policy decisions are not
deterministic, no matter how many facts you throw at them.

Same goes for establishing scientific facts indeed. Peer review is based on a
few, reputable reviewers, rather on a crowd of anonymous but trust-less fact-
checkers.

~~~
makomk
Indeed. It's astounding how many of the Trump-Russia claims simply fell apart:
the supposed lifting of sanctions on selling IT equipment to the FSB that in
fact specifically forbade that, the secret communications link with Russia
that turned out to be a sub-sub-subcontractor sending marketing emails for
Trump hotels, the fake Clinton email that Trump could only have got from
Russian outlet Sputnik... or from the Trump supporter on Twitter whose
misreading of a real email went viral and lead to that article, the supposed
pro-Russian change to Republican foreign policy that left almost all the anti-
Russian parts intact but matched up neatly with Trump's long-stated foreign
policy views, and so on ad nauseam. Despite this, the endless repetition
turned it into something that everyone simply knows is true.

------
ghufran_syed
I find it amusing that this article quotes a single research study, doesn't
really describe _why_ you should find it compelling, but just repeats its
claims multiple times.

------
narrator
Some religious books are extremely repetitive. So repetitive that it seemed to
me to be a form of intellectual violence against the reader.

~~~
novalis78
Buddhist sermons are an excellent example for that.

~~~
ino
Mantras, christian chants, and others. Repeat ad infinitum.

~~~
ralfd
I think this is simply survivors bias for every information transmitted
orally. It had to be repetitive, or people couldnt remember it. See here for
the Ilyad:

[http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Read_Iliad.htm](http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Read_Iliad.htm)

> For an oral poet, however, such repetition is not a fault, but a vital
> technique (Lord 3–67). Repetition is a psychological necessity in oral
> discourse, which vanishes as soon as it is uttered

~~~
ino
It's also useful when the text makes no sense, is offensive, outdated and/or
just plain wrong, so with repetition they can always say "that's how we always
did it so it's right" to shun off the people who grow up, think for themselves
and start questioning the texts.

------
te_platt
I've heard that many times but I wonder if it's true. The article cites
studies but I didn't bother to check the studies themselves. It cites some
contemporary anecdotes but I didn't bother to check if they were accurate. It
seems to confirm my experience so I'll accept it as reasonable.

The article is clearly trying to put Trump in a bad light and other comments
here are applying it to other politicians and corporations. I think the
important point is that repetition doesn't discriminate truth but can be
dangerous because it can seem like it does. On important issues there is no
substitute for research and accurate methods to interpret new data.

~~~
tgb
How many times have you heard it? If a lot of times, then I guess it isn't
true.

------
koolba
All the best salesmen know this innately.

~~~
losteverything
And the best parents

~~~
koolba
" _You love asparagus! It 's your favorite!_"

~~~
acchow
I've used this on myself rather effectively.

------
rawnlq
See also the problem of induction from philosophy:
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-
problem/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/).

Here induction refers to inductive reasoning rather than mathematical
induction. For example if you see a billion white swans you might conclude
that "swans are white". It's not "true" but it's not wrong either from a
bayesian point of view. We really don't have any other way of doing
experimental science.

------
kmote00
I didn't believe the premise of this article the first time I heard about it.
But now that I've encountered it a number of times on the internet, I'm
beginning to think it might be true.

------
m-i-l
More on the "big lie" propaganda technique at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie)
.

------
pasbesoin
I only read the headline, but this seems a very obvious part of empirical
observation and learning that sits at the center of human existence. Perhaps
with one layer of indirection, where you are observing a
message/interpretation as opposed to direct physical events. (Or, you're
observing those events but in concert with a in incorrect but repeated
interpretation.)

Basically, we learn patterns real well. Doesn't matter the nature of the
pattern, if we have no counter-example of significant or equivalent weight.

------
lngnmn
That's, of course, by design. If you are an animal then repetition is the only
way to learn and make sense of the environment. One could learn what usually
happened and what to do, but not, obviously, how it works.

Humans are the only beings who has language and hence reason to understand how
everything works, unless they engage in producing dogmas and chimeras out of
words and abstract concepts, which is what they usually do.

------
vu3rdd
Reminds me of the ancient Indian parable in Panchatantra -
[http://panchatantra.org/of-crows-and-owls/the-brahmin-and-
th...](http://panchatantra.org/of-crows-and-owls/the-brahmin-and-the-
crooks-1.html)

------
leeoniya
> Eating carrots improves your eyesight

it doesn't improve your visual acuity, but it can have a positive effect on
your overall eye health [1]. there's vastly more to eyesight than
sharpness/clarity. my wife is an optometrist.

[1] [http://yoursightmatters.com/carrots-really-improve-
eyesight/](http://yoursightmatters.com/carrots-really-improve-eyesight/)

------
espeed
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and
over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." ―
George W. Bush (2005)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnegxNEDAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnegxNEDAc)

------
BrailleHunting
Marketing 101: bullshit repeated consistently enough with a large reach wins a
broadcast-modality "contest of wills" where consent/attitudes/preferences can
be manufactured to accomplish almost any aim, from the sinister, public good
or prank.

------
yarou
I'm reminded of the initial "processing" scene in The Master between Phillip
Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix.

Hoffman's character repeatedly asks questions to Phoenix's character, inducing
a hypnotic state. Repetition can also be used as a form of mind control.

------
draw_down
There are people who understand this, and there are people who think you can
just debate everything forever, and that the one with the most supporting
points and references to Latin names of argumentative fallacies wins.

------
RichardHeart
You're better off making all the arguments you can, and letting the medium do
the repeating for you. The people you reach in person are a very small set of
the people you reach in total.

------
davesque
Truth seems more like a matter of frequency and consistency. Repetition is an
essential part of that equation. From an abstract point of view, I don't think
there's any getting around that.

------
umberway
Having heard this idea many times I remain unpersuaded so far (!) because I
haven't heard an explanation for it. Anyone know one?

------
rokhayakebe
This works mostly/only for the undecided.

------
avenoir
I was hoping for an interesting read. Instead it was another politically-
fueled piece on HN.

------
dmitrybrant
"It's not a lie if you believe it." \--George Costanza

------
logingone
Religion, worship.

------
programminggeek
If you think that this is something limited to what evil Trump is doing, you
are a fool and you don't understand yourself or the world around you at all.

~~~
r00fus
Of course it isn't just him, he's just the most visible and powerful such
example.

~~~
weberc2
When the media constantly focuses on him as the target, it starts to feel as
though they don't really care about the story they're pushing, they only want
you to notice how many of these bad things are associated with Trump. It seems
dishonest. Personally, I think a better example would have been the wage gap
myth; the author could have even noted that Obama was guilty of promoting it.
(Disclaimer: I voted for Obama and I did not vote for Trump).

------
notadoc
Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't
matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts
don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter.
Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter.

