Why do people so easily believe lies when they are in print?

[donttread]

Your average American knows that both politicians and the government as a whole lie. But yet those same people constantly quote government statistics to make "points" in arguments.
How about you ? Do you believe the government always tells the truth on paper? Like the Monsanto driven falty food pyramaid for example? Really believe that if the big banks and auto makers went down ( which was never going to happen to begin with) that demand would not have dictated someone to fill the role without destroying the world economy? We don't care who owns the production of cars we care where those factories are. But the politicans care ... differently.
I could go on but the real point is this. If you, like most Americans don't think the government that spied on you without warrant , warning or reason is all that truthful then stop using government generated stats in arguments. I'm sure I've done it myself, but I don't believe I have done so lately and I am certainly trying not to as it is ridiculous for someone as skeptical of government as I am , and not without good reason, to use thier lies on paper in a discussion. Unless I do so to mock them

[Adelaide]

People actually simply do not believe anything that does not match their existing political beliefs. People want confirmation bias. Science has more or less proved this (and it can be replicated). Posted an article sort of on this topic last week.

[Refugee]

I think some probably do have a bias, but if you wanted stats on say, how many were unemployed last year where else would you get them than from government sources? Having got them, you’d then try to find numbers on welfare. If the two have a leeway of -+ 10%, it’s about the nearest you’re likely to get. If however you have the government saying 5% unemployment and you find that 46 million are on food stamps, poverty is massively increasing from independent sources and the GDP figure from government stats say it’s stagnant at around 2%, you’d probably be right to say someone is telling lies.

All governments lie, it’s part of the job. No government in power is going to admit that they made a mess of things. It is possible to be objective, but rather more difficult in the US because of partisan politics in which there are only two mass-media versions of ‘facts’.
I too have a go at liberals, most of it tongue in cheek, but I also see some of their points and that would rarely happen on an American forum.

[donttread]

I think some probably do have a bias, but if you wanted stats on say, how many were unemployed last year where else would you get them than from government sources? Having got them, you’d then try to find numbers on welfare. If the two have a leeway of -+ 10%, it’s about the nearest you’re likely to get. If however you have the government saying 5% unemployment and you find that 46 million are on food stamps, poverty is massively increasing from independent sources and the GDP figure from government stats say it’s stagnant at around 2%, you’d probably be right to say someone is telling lies.

All governments lie, it’s part of the job. No government in power is going to admit that they made a mess of things. It is possible to be objective, but rather more difficult in the US because of partisan politics in which there are only two mass-media versions of ‘facts’.
I too have a go at liberals, most of it tongue in cheek, but I also see some of their points and that would rarely happen on an American forum.

Unemployment numbers werechanged years ago to exclude "discouraged workers" as if anyone out of work is "encouraged". But today they are even more deceptive. They see a kid with a college degree flipping burgers 30 hours a week as "employed" I see him as less that 50% appropriately employed.

[donttread]

People actually simply do not believe anything that does not match their existing political beliefs. People want confirmation bias. Science has more or less proved this (and it can be replicated). Posted an article sort of on this topic last week.

Studies show that studies show, pretty much what the people funding the study want them to.

[Captain Obvious]

People believe what they want to believe.

[Crepitus]

With sufficient massaging statistics can be made to show pretty much anything you want, and don't get me started on polling.

[Refugee]

Unemployment numbers werechanged years ago to exclude "discouraged workers" as if anyone out of work is "encouraged". But today they are even more deceptive. They see a kid with a college degree flipping burgers 30 hours a week as "employed" I see him as less that 50% appropriately employed.

Yes, that’s all pretty true, but that’s where knowledge comes into it. Looking at other variables and the correlations and not relying on just one set of stats, which is what the biased mass-media often does. As many do rely on the mass-media, this is where the partisanship stems from.

My two favourites come from the UK.

1. Years ago the UK reduced the unemployment rate to zero by renaming the unemployed ‘job seekers’. Overnight the unemployed went to zero, but lots of people were looking for work.

2. When it was found that a nuclear facility called Windscale was responsible for leaking radioactive waste into the Irish sea and there was a lot of environmental damage, it was renamed Sellafield. The waste was still there, but it no longer came from a place called Windscale as that no longer existed.

Running close behind is this one from the European Union.

3. Claude-Junker, the President of the European Union, who stated that he is in touch with leaders from other planets and they told him that it would be foolish for Britain to leave the European Union, in an effort to persuade the electorate to vote ‘No’ in the recent leave the European Union referendum!

4. The US? Has to be Pelosi, with her statement that increased welfare creates wealth.

[donttread]

Yes, that’s all pretty true, but that’s where knowledge comes into it. Looking at other variables and the correlations and not relying on just one set of stats, which is what the biased mass-media often does. As many do rely on the mass-media, this is where the partisanship stems from.

My two favourites come from the UK.

1. Years ago the UK reduced the unemployment rate to zero by renaming the unemployed ‘job seekers’. Overnight the unemployed went to zero, but lots of people were looking for work.

2. When it was found that a nuclear facility called Windscale was responsible for leaking radioactive waste into the Irish sea and there was a lot of environmental damage, it was renamed Sellafield. The waste was still there, but it no longer came from a place called Windscale as that no longer existed.

Running close behind is this one from the European Union.

3. Claude-Junker, the President of the European Union, who stated that he is in touch with leaders from other planets and they told him that it would be foolish for Britain to leave the European Union, in an effort to persuade the electorate to vote ‘No’ in the recent leave the European Union referendum!

4. The US? Has to be Pelosi, with her statement that increased welfare creates wealth.

We should teach rrsearch evaluation in every year of high school. But given who dictates the course work that ain't gonna happen.

[Standing Wolf]

We should teach rrsearch evaluation in every year of high school. But given who dictates the course work that ain't gonna happen.

Classes in basic Logic should begin in elementary school...but given the ubiquity and influence of those whose oxen would be gored by such a program - from politicians to advertisers to religionists - that will never happen, either.

As for the question posed in the OP, as Adelaide wrote, "People want confirmation bias"...and as C.O. noted, "People believe what they want to believe". Whether it's in the reporting of news or the solicitation of advice, too many people simply hear what they want to hear and either filter out or dismiss what they don't.