The link between cancer and smoking.
Scientific studies have been clear since the 1950's that clearly established the link between cancer and smoking. In fact, the tobacco industry thought that their business was in big trouble. However, the tobacco industry managed to avoid government regulation for decades. They also managed to successfully resist the image of smoking as unhealthy in the minds of the general
1) The Tobacco Industry Case: How do you think they were able to do this? Why didn't the "facts" about smoking and cancer manage to bring the end of the cigarette industry? Can you think about and discuss another example of when the "facts" didn't seem to matter? What happened?
2) Lies, truth, and what to believe: Are people easy to fool? Do we have a tendency to believe the things that we want to believe? If so, why? What strategies are used to distract people's attention?
Sample Solution
The Tobacco Industry Case: The tobacco industry was able to resist the facts about smoking and cancer due to their ability to craft a persuasive message, exploit people’s vulnerabilities, and influence public officials. They crafted a persuasive message by creating doubt in the public mind that there was not enough evidence to prove the link between smoking and cancer.
This allowed them to delay government regulation of their products for decades. They also exploited people’s vulnerabilities such as their desire for personal freedom and need for social acceptance by marketing cigarettes as symbols of sophistication or glamour. Finally, they were able to influence public officials through lobbying activities or political donations.
Lies, truth, and what to believe: People are indeed easy to fool because we have a tendency to believe things that align with our preconceived notions or interests. We also tend to rely on confirmation bias when seeking information; meaning that we look only at sources that support our current beliefs while avoiding ones which contradict them. This leads us into an echo chamber where we hear only one side of an argument and make decisions based on this limited perspective.
Strategies used distract attention can include providing false assurances (e.g., “Everything is fine”), deflecting blame (e.g., “It’s not my fault”), making up stories (e.g., “I didn't do it"), or reframing facts in a favorable context (e.g., “This isn't so bad"). Some politicians use these strategies extensively when trying convince people of certain ideas even if those ideas may be false or exaggerated - unfortunately, some people fall for it due their own biases and lack of critical thinking skills necessary evaluate each situation objectively before forming an opinion regarding it .