Could you cite at least something in the article that you are referring to? What you say doesn't match what I read. It becomes misinformation itself otherwise.

Could you cite at least something in the article that you are referring to? What you say doesn't match what I read. It becomes misinformation itself otherwise. > "Oh but it feels true!" Where is that said or implied? They did research and described it. > attributing "authoritarian" psychology to people who want to believe, e.g., what trump says -- you're only making a partisan political statement. This hypothesis is one amongst an infinite number, and has nothing to do with their study. They did indeed study that and discussed the research. We need to study partisan behavior without being dismissed as partisan ourselves - otherwise, we just operate in the dark, shut down by partisan attacks. > One can find in every government in the world so-called "misinformation", and find in people who support those governments, credulity about this misinformation. There is precipitation everywhere, but some places are deserts and some are rainforests and there is everything in between, and there are many patterns and causes, from monsoons to mist from SF Bay. To dismiss all precipitation research because 'rain is everywhere' is meaningless. You're making many claims, but have nothing to back it up. > They did not study Trump, nor his political strategies They didn't talk about Trump.