This may be one of the most genuinely scary pieces of research I've seen in a long time. The implications are far-reaching in many fields, not just politics.
Unfortunately it's a classic example of the "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
Those who are inclined to believe the original claims tend to react with a "Well there's no smoke without fire" attitude or the even more ridiculous "If it wasn't true, why did they try to deny it so much?"
Extremely interesting. Now, the question is, if I show this article to the marketing team in the organisation where I work, will their own prejudices cause them to read the article in a way that reinforces those prejudices? A kind of meta-prejudicial-reinforcement?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Those who are inclined to believe the original claims tend to react with a "Well there's no smoke without fire" attitude or the even more ridiculous "If it wasn't true, why did they try to deny it so much?"
Sometimes you just can't win.
no subject