In fact, the idea that autistic individuals are immune to propaganda is, itself, media propaganda. The study that those articles report on was a single study that found that autistic individuals show less of a framing effect on their own preferences. It’s much more easily explained by autistic individuals having strong, internal preferences for their own likes/dislikes than it is by autistic individuals being immune to propaganda.
Is that because the information is truly factual and logical, or because the aesthetics of fact and logic are satisfying? E.g. (Early, before true craziness manifested) Jordan Peterson came across as an arbiter of truth to many simply because he spoke well, held status and had confidence in his convictions
Edit: [continued…] despite providing no real evidence to back up many of his claims. Andrew Huberman is another example that springs to mind.
but to clarify: i am easely manipulated by lies and people pretending to be nice, i was convinced countless times to do something to my detriment and their profit.
i had a small buisness selling car parts. i couldnt do that anymore, since people were talking me into all kinds of bad deals. i only realized hours or days later.
Lol, I’m the autistic where I just believe other people. Shockingly, it’s worked out poorly.
i am really naive. i hate that. i made many mistakes by trusting people.
You’re normal in that respect:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aur.1962
In fact, the idea that autistic individuals are immune to propaganda is, itself, media propaganda. The study that those articles report on was a single study that found that autistic individuals show less of a framing effect on their own preferences. It’s much more easily explained by autistic individuals having strong, internal preferences for their own likes/dislikes than it is by autistic individuals being immune to propaganda.
Speaking from experience here, too.
i believe we are much morer prone to complöetely change an opinion when someone presents facts and arguments, like, logical ones.
Is that because the information is truly factual and logical, or because the aesthetics of fact and logic are satisfying? E.g. (Early, before true craziness manifested) Jordan Peterson came across as an arbiter of truth to many simply because he spoke well, held status and had confidence in his convictions
Edit: [continued…] despite providing no real evidence to back up many of his claims. Andrew Huberman is another example that springs to mind.
but to clarify: i am easely manipulated by lies and people pretending to be nice, i was convinced countless times to do something to my detriment and their profit.
i had a small buisness selling car parts. i couldnt do that anymore, since people were talking me into all kinds of bad deals. i only realized hours or days later.
Same. If it wasn’t true, why would they say it?
I am… Not smart lol.