Donald Trump’s outrageous claims about immigrants, election fraud, and more seem absurd to many of us, especially those on the left; outright fabrications that no reasonable person could believe. However new research Our research with colleagues reveals something troubling: Naivety and delusion are not limited to Trump supporters, opponents, or any one group. The fight for truth is about recognizing that anyone, including the educated and informed, can fall prey to misinformation. This is especially important now because voters’ false beliefs can play a decisive role in the election.

That’s why we must be aware of the power of misinformation and know how to combat it. But our research shows that our understanding of the attack on truth and the strategies to counter it are hindered by three blind spots.

Surprising as it may seem, there are doubts about the extent of the impact of misinformation on the general population. A lot scientists believeThe problem is relatively minor, and most errors in judgment are logical errors that do not arise from partisanship. This means misinformation may not deepen political divisions.

Our research tells a different story.

We served American voters with accurate and fake news that supported or challenged their political allegiances. We found a sharp party bias over reality: Participants were twice as likely to believe and share false stories that supported their political views than to share news that was factually correct but challenged their ideology. This bias persisted even when the headlines were clearly false. For example, conservative voters were more willing to accept a made-up story titled “Donald Trump is a ‘Serious Contender’ for the Nobel Prize in Economics,” while liberal voters were more willing to accept a made-up story titled “Trump Attended Special Halloween Gala with Sex.” Revelers dressed like the Pope.” Political loyalty clouded the truth.

We fail to see not only the power of misinformation but also its broad appeal. Many of us tend to believe that others are more gullible due to partisan tendencies or lack of education or intelligence. But our research shows that anyone, regardless of party affiliation, education level or cognitive ability, can easily fall victim to misinformation. Even people with advanced degrees and strong reasoning skills exhibited party bias rather than reality. In fact, participants who were good at reasoning often used this skill selectively, examining fake stories only when they contradicted their political beliefs. When misinformation aligned with their own views (such as supporting their preferred presidential candidate), they stopped thinking critically and accepted the lie as truth.

The third blind spot is the misconception that the attack on truth comes only from external misinformation. Many people wrongly believe that the problem can be solved by controlling the flow of misinformation by checking facts and creating policies to block fake news. While these measures are helpful, they are insufficient because our own minds also contribute to the problem. Even if all misinformation in traditional and social media were eliminated, our cognitive filters would still lead us to resist facts that challenge our beliefs.

In fact, our research found that the tendency to disbelieve and avoid sharing accurate news that contradicts our political views is stronger than the tendency to accept and spread fake news that confirms our views. In other words, the problem is not just belief in misinformation. It is resistance against the truth.

This means the problem goes beyond the supply of lies. This also stems from our willingness to believe them and our reluctance to accept inconvenient truths. We often seek news that reassures us that we are right, and this need for confirmation lies at the root of our contributions to the misinformation machine.

So what can be done? Intellectual humility is an antidote. The few participants in our study who put truth over politics were more likely to agree that their political side was just as vulnerable to misinformation and propaganda as the other side. Recognizing this danger seemed to allow them to question their perceptions and check their biases. Our research also found that those who prioritize truth consume less politically one-sided media.

The real divide seems to be between those who believe they know the truth and those who are open to the possibility of being wrong. To address our role in the problem, we can encourage people to become critical consumers of media, starting with the practice of critiquing their own thoughts. An important part of this is diversifying our news consumption and breaking away from the media echo chamber.

Another solution is to improve society. When people feel connected to each other in some way other than partisanship, they are less likely to accept false political narratives, even those that confirm their beliefs, and are more open to information that challenges long-held ideas.

It’s ironic that common needs for certainty and tribal connection divide us. Recognizing and addressing these needs and the biases they trigger will help us close the divides that our own minds conspire to create.

Geoffrey Cohen is the author of “Belonging: The Science of Creating Connections and Bridging Divides,” professor of organizational studies in education and business and professor of psychology at Stanford University. Michael Schwalbe is a postdoctoral researcher in Stanford’s department of psychology.