MPAI ...

.
... and this tends to prove it:

About half of the participants did not detect the changes, and 69% accepted at least one of the altered statements.

People were even willing to argue in favour of the reversed statements: A full 53% of participants argued unequivocally for the opposite of their original attitude in at least one of the manipulated statements, the authors write. Hall and his colleagues have previously reported this effect, called 'choice blindness', in other areas, including taste and smell² and aesthetic choice³.

This article is about a 'survey' in which a deliberate trick is used to get people to answer questions and then have it revealed that they've answered the exact opposite .

And 53% are willing to argue against themselves.


This reminds me of the Great Foggy Interstate Wreck on 75S around Calhoun, TN (there's a big paper plant there that is generally considered to 'cause' the heavy fog in the area). I was selected to be surveyed by (it turns out) a legal firm that was considering legal action against the paper company. During the survey, I noticed that I was asked the same question with different nuances several times, and when I answered differently on a set of questions, it was pointed out that maybe I did consider the company at fault for the crash. I told the surveyor that no matter how many times she asked me the same question different ways, I would not believe the company to have caused the accident.

She promptly hung up.

pm