Some Australians fall into West Papua separatists’ deceptions

West Papua separatists’ deceptions

When a friend of West Papua Blog from Australia sent more than dozens of videos about West Papua, I think it is worth to put some of the videos in this blog with possibility of some implications. As long as the videos depict an objective story on West Papua separatists evil campaign, I believe the videos are consistent with the mission of this blog to disclose lies, hoaxes, and fake news from Free West Papua campaign and their supporters.

Please watch the following video about a small number of Australian who were deceived by West Papua separatists campaign to maintain conflict.

Free West Papua’s deception

Free West Papua mislead themselves every day. They tell themselves that they’re smarter and more true than their fellow Papuans, that their political campaign can do no wrong. In 1976, in the foreword to Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene, the biologist Robert Trivers explained: “We dupe ourselves in order to deceive others, creating social advantage”. Trivers explanation is not only applicable in Free West Papua case, but also can be proved in many of Free West Papua deceptions.

Free West Papua deception can successfully be accepted by Australian due to initial biased information-gathering, biased reasoning and biased recollections by some Australians. The way Australians seek information is merely to supports what they want to believe and avoid that which does not. For example, acknowledging that Free West Papua is a producer of fake news is difficult to accept.

Quoted from Living a Lie:

In one experiment Trivers and his team asked 306 online participants to write a persuasive speech about a fictional man named Mark. They were told they would receive a bonus depending on how effective it was. Some were told to present Mark as likable, others were instructed to depict him as unlikable, the remaining subjects were directed to convey whatever impression they formed. To gather information about Mark, the participants watched a series of short videos, which they could stop observing at any intermission. For some viewers, most of the early videos presented Mark in a good light (recycling, returning a wallet), and they grew gradually darker (catcalling, punching a friend). For others, the videos went from dark to light.

When incentivized to present Mark as likable, people who watched the likable videos first stopped watching sooner than those who saw unlikable videos first. The former did not wait for a complete picture as long as they got the information they needed to convince themselves, and others, of Mark’s goodness. In turn, their own opinions about Mark were more positive, which led their essays about his good nature to be more convincing, as rated by other participants. (A complementary process occurred for those paid to present Mark as bad.) “What’s so interesting is that we seem to intuitively understand that if we can get ourselves to believe something first, we’ll be more effective at getting others to believe it,” says William von Hippel, a psychologist at The University of Queensland, who co-authored the study. “So we process information in a biased fashion, we convince ourselves, and we convince others. The beauty is, those are the steps Trivers outlined—and they all lined up in one study.”

The scientific experiment above can explain why a small number of Australians fall into West Papua separatists’ deceptions.