Podcast Summary: You Are Not So Smart – Episode 332

Title: Concordance Over Truth Bias (rebroadcast)
Host: David McRaney
Guests: Samuel Woolley, Katie Joseph, Michael Schwab
Date: February 2, 2026

Overview

This episode explores the newly coined cognitive distortion called the Concordance Over Truth Bias: the tendency to believe and share information that aligns with one’s existing beliefs and political affiliation, even when that information isn't true—while rejecting factual information that runs counter to those beliefs. Through discussion with three leading researchers—Samuel Woolley, Katie Joseph, and Michael Schwab—the episode breaks down the psychological mechanisms behind why people fall for fake news and propaganda, how partisanship and information silos affect our perception of truth, and what can be done to address the problem in a world increasingly shaped by social media and algorithmically-driven content.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Nature and Spread of Fake News

• Social media has transformed the news landscape, allowing not just legitimate outlets but also satirical and outright fake news to spread rapidly.
• Early examples, like people believing and sharing articles from The Onion as real, show how quickly digital media bypasses skepticism and encourages engagement through arousal—mainly when headlines provoke anger, fear, or reinforce group identities.
• Disconfirmation bias is highlighted: people heavily scrutinize information that challenges their worldview but accept supporting evidence without much thought.
• The emotions most likely to drive sharing are humor that mocks out-groups, pride in one’s in-group, or negative emotions like fear and anger.

Key Research Findings: Concordance Over Truth Bias

• Study Design:

  • 1,000+ Americans—both Trump supporters and opponents—were presented with a mixture of true and fake headlines (including neutral ones) and asked how likely they were to believe and share them.
  • Headlines varied from “less fake” (just plausible) to “outlandishly fake,” with true headlines sourced and fact-checked from reputable outlets.
  • Participants rated belief in truth, likelihood to share, and also completed reflective thinking tests.

• Major Results:

  • Political concordance (“does this fit my side?”) outweighed actual truth in determining both belief in and sharing of news headlines—sometimes as much as double the influence of factual accuracy.
    • “This effect of political concordance was stronger than the effect of headline truth, up to kind of around two times the size of the effect.” —Michael Schwab [41:57]
  • This applied even to wildly implausible fake headlines if they supported the participant’s political views (“Trump beats Grandmaster chess champion Magnus Carlsen”).
  • Conversely, true headlines that conflicted with a person's political stance were more likely to be discounted, not believed, or ignored.

• Resilience Across Education/Analysis:

  • The bias persisted regardless of analytical reasoning skills or education level—even people with advanced degrees were not less susceptible.

• Predictors of the Bias:

  • The “objectivity illusion” (believing oneself or one’s side to be uniquely unbiased and objective) was most strongly linked to this bias.
    • “The people who... believed they were the most objective and least biased... were the most biased and least objective.” —Michael Schwab [47:04]
  • One-sided media consumption worsened the effect.

Impact and Broader Context

• Algorithmic, Surveillance-driven Media:
  • Platforms profit by feeding users content that maximizes attention and concordance—not accuracy, which deepens silos and polarization.
    • “We have built this surveillance system that does rival countries like China... but for targeted advertising. And...[it's] built on a lie.” —Katie Joseph [25:48]
• Affective polarization (strong negative feelings toward political opponents) is now society’s primary divide, exceeding race, gender, or other differences.
  • “Partisanship is now the number one cleavage in terms of what's dividing people, what's causing animosity.” —Michael Schwab [28:37]
• Old models—where truth “wins out”—are being upended by both the study and real-world events.

Critical Thinking & Information Literacy—Not Enough Alone

• Standard approaches like fact-checking or promoting analytic thinking are likely insufficient because the illusion of objectivity and selective siloed consumption are potent drivers of bias.
  • “If it's true that the people who think they're the least likely to fall for these kinds of this kind of stuff are actually some of the most likely, then what does that mean for...how we train people?” —Samuel Woolley [56:53]
• People who most pride themselves on being critical thinkers (or most believe they're objective) may be most vulnerable.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The more you believe that you're not going to do this, the more likely you are to do this.” —Samuel Woolley [09:19]
• “The people who...believed they were the most objective and least biased...were the most biased and least objective.” —Michael Schwab [10:44 and 47:04]
• “Partisans were more resistant to information that was true that did not line up with their perspective...than they were to content that was...clearly fake.” —Samuel Woolley [43:25]
• “The political concordance of news headlines determine people's belief in and intention to share news stories more than the actual truth.” —David McRaney [49:43]
• “It's not just about being critical of the news, but also being critical of our own minds.” —Michael Schwab [54:51]
• “We resonate with the reasons why people consume conspiracies, even if I don't agree with their ultimate outcome.” —Katie Joseph [58:53]
• “People need to be made aware of the existence of the bias. But they also crucially have to accept that they're vulnerable to the bias....It’s good to have intellectual humility.” —Michael Schwab [57:52]
• “You are more likely to be skeptical of true news that makes your side look bad than you are to believe fake news that makes your side look good.” —David McRaney [49:43]

Important Segments & Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | Highlights | |-----------|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:30 | Host Intro & Context | The pervasiveness of fake news and confirmation/disconfirmation bias in action | | 09:19 | Samuel Woolley’s key observation | “The more you believe that you’re not going to do this, the more likely you are to do this.” | | 10:07 | Katie Joseph on information silos | Siloed consumption increases perception of objectivity | | 10:44 | Michael Schwab on objectivity illusion | “Most objective” = most biased | | 17:27 | Guest Introductions | Researchers’ backgrounds and perspectives | | 20:16 | Why this research? | The real-world stakes of propaganda, motives behind manipulation| | 25:48 | Katie Joseph critique of the surveillance advertising economy | “This whole infrastructure we built around surveillance...is built on a lie.” | | 28:37 | Michael Schwab on polarization | Affective polarization as the core societal divide | | 32:23 | Study explanation | Study design, headline examples, approach to “masking” | | 41:01 | Main result discussed | Truth is inconsequential to sharing compared with concordance | | 42:24 | Naming the Concordance Over Truth Bias | And operationalizing the measurement | | 47:04 | Predictors of bias | Education & analytic reasoning don’t reduce it; objectivity illusion does | | 53:38 | Big takeaways | What can/should be done? Why critical thinking and fact-checking are insufficient alone | | 56:53 | Reimagining media literacy | The need for humility and community-led solutions | | 58:53 | Value of “maybe” | Importance of uncertainty, discourse, and shared humanity | | 63:54 | Final thoughts | Dual realities: corporate media control AND good journalism; the noise economy |

Main Takeaways

• Concordance beats truth: When it comes to news, people (on both sides, regardless of education or critical thinking skills) are more influenced by political alignment than by accuracy.
• The objectivity illusion is hazardous: Those who most strongly believe in their own objectivity are the most susceptible to the bias.
• Supply-side focus (fighting fake news) is only half the battle: Demand-side issues, where people reject “inconvenient truths,” are equally (if not more) important.
• Media literacy must include humility: Traditional efforts like fact-checking and teaching analytical skills must be paired with cultivating awareness of personal bias and limits of objectivity—ideally tailored to communities and their contexts.
• Complex solutions needed: Addressing misinformation and polarization requires more than “setting the record straight”—it requires addressing identities, discourse, compassion, and the structure of digital attention ecosystems themselves.

Conclusion

This episode is a deep dive into the psychological mechanisms that drive our resistance to uncomfortable truths and our eagerness to accept “facts” that flatter our group identities. The Concordance Over Truth Bias is pervasive, robust, and not easily debunked by education or self-perceived rationality. For progress, society must not just fight fake news but foster humility, community-based interventions, and more nuanced understandings of how digital media shape beliefs.

For more information, episode references, and ways to support the podcast, see show notes or visit YouAreNotSoSmart.com.