A Future for Late Night TV

by Ali-Asad

The Leno-Conan saga may have caught our attention but it distracts from the the real long term shift in late night TV. Yes, I have seen the future of late night TV and it is Craig Ferguson. Whether he's eulogizing his father, flirting with Sandra Bullock or having an entertaining, spiritual conversation with the Archbishop Desmond Tutu (and don't forget the puppets and the snake cup), Ferguson is right at home on the Late Late Show.

I'm no TV critic but it's easy to recognize someone who's having fun and taking his audience along with him. Originally from Scotland, Ferguson tangled with serious substance and alcohol abuse well into adulthood. Always a comic at heart, Ferguson moved to America to pursue comedy; he wrote some movies, starred on the Drew Carey show, and eventually landed his 12:30am spot hosting The Late Late show following Letterman. What makes Craig Ferguson special is how he channels his life experience into almost every situation and yet but still keeps his comedic touch. Unlike most talk show hosts, he makes substantial contributions when interviewing his guests and avoids the predictable routine of guests promoting their latest movie/book/show etc; Ferguson rips up his note cards at the beginning of every interview as if to deliberately scorn the conventional talk-show interview.

After the Leno-Conan bust up, Ferguson stands to gain considerably since he appears the most likely successor to Letterman on the Late Show. But will his sense of humor translate in the more mainstream 11:30pm time slot? On the more mainstream and prestigious Late Show, he would not be able to mock CBS for his leaking studio, or faulty lights and hosting as a puppet may not fly. And while it may challenging to take quirky humor mainstream, this wee lad from Scotland has a real shot at it.

And that's the tip.

PS. Here's the 2 min. intro from the Desmond Tutu episode:

“There must be a Reason”: How we cling to mistaken beliefs

by Ali-Asad

We believe what we want to believe. Or do we? At least, it seems that way to me sometimes. But it’s a more complicated issue than simple desire and bias. This fact is the conclusion of a study recently concluded published in May 2009’s Sociological Inquiry, where psychologists and sociologists attempted to study how people respond when faced with overwhelming evidence that contradicts their beliefs. In the study, the researchers studied the link between the attacks on 9/11 and Saddam. During the 2004 presidential election, many Americans believed that Saddam was at least partially responsible for the terrorist attacks. People with these beliefs tended more to vote for Bush than Kerry. But no evidence for this link has ever been found.

The researchers presented two pieces of evidence to those interviewees who held this false belief. These were 1) A conclusion from the 9/11 Commission Report that stated Saddam was not involved, and 2) A statement from President Bush himself stating that there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Then, the researchers studied the responses to their evidence; the evidence was provided in a conversational manner- non-confrontationally but firmly.

Scholars have explained this common false link through a model called ‘Bayesian Updating’, which assumes people come to decisions by “incrementally and rationally changing their opinions” in light of new evidence. Most researchers determined that the Bush administration and the media had persuaded the general public that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 by modifying the ‘information environment’. Therefore, these researchers concluded that had the American public possessed the correct information, they would have reached the true conclusion. But this recent study concludes that a different socio-psychological phenomenon is at work; it was not the disinformation that caused their misunderstanding.

Social psychologists have a well- developed understanding of people’s use of heuristics –“decision making shortcuts” that allow people to avoid using up a lot of time and brainpower considering every single decision they make. Political psychologists have shown that identifiers such as party, ideology etc. provide simple heuristics for people. The authors of this study argue that the ongoing War in Iraq and War on Terror provided powerful situational heuristics or cues for decisions-making ordinary citizens.

But how did the authors of this study conclude that disinformation did not cause the widespread misunderstanding of the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Because, when challenged, most interviewees either neglected to consider the evidence or used other tactics to maintain their current, and mistaken, point of view. These “strategies for resisting information” and persuasion have been identified by psychologists. They are: 1) counter-arguing (rebutting the contradictory information), 2) attitude bolstering (using facts that support one’s position without addressing the counter-evidence), 3) selective exposure (ignoring the information completely without addressing it at all).

This study also found 2 new strategies, which were 1) disputing rationality (arguing that one’s opinions do not need to be factual or based on evidence) and, most interesting of all, 2) inferred justification (inferring or creating evidence that would support one’s belief).
The study paid particular attention to this last, most creative, strategy. People who used the ‘inferred justification’ strategy always used the one spoken line: “There must be a reason”. Basically, these people took the event of the Iraq war first, and then inferred that there must be a reason to justify such a drastic action. (We invaded Iraq. Saddam is Iraq’s dictator. Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks).

Some people also appealed to authority by either showing trust in President Bush, or arguing the he must know more, and so better able to make the judgment to go to war.
(George Bush decided to invade Iraq. George Bush is our President. Hence, Bush knows things I don’t. So, only Bush would know that Saddam was involved in 9/11 for sure.)

Why does this all matter? The study point to democracy’s reliance on the ability and capacity of on most people either being well informed, or being able to make good decisions when presented with all reasonable information.

Here, the researchers found that some people were psychologically pre-disposed to certain ways of thinking regardless of information or evidence. But why is this? What underpins this need to ignore contradictory information and seek out confirmational evidence? The study authors point to ‘motivated reasoning’ – a model of reasoning which proposes that people have an “unconscious impulse” to relieve cognitive dissonance – the very uncomfortable feeling of holding two contradictory ideas in mind simultaneously - when faced with information that goes against pre-existing beliefs and understandings. Here, people respond to information defensively; they accept and seek out confirming evidence and while ignoring or arguing against evidence contrary evidence in order to relieve and avoid cognitive dissonance.

It’s important to realize that these strategies of persuasion avoidance are not limited to working-class conservative Americans who voted for Bush and link Saddam with the 9/11 attacks. The authors of the study make it quite clear that they would expect the same kinds of responses from people across the socio-economic and political spectrum.

It seems like we’re all willing to go to great lengths to protect our mental well-being, whatever the cost.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Reference: Prasad et all. "There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification." Sociological Inquiry, 2009: 142-162.