It’s difficult these days to determine what is objective and truthful, from false information. Experts in communication use scientifically established findings to their advantage to encourage adoption of their views.

How do we know what is accurate and authentic, versus fake information in print, social media and radio/television broadcasts? Agricultural producers – actually, all of us – need accurate information to reach sound decisions and informed opinions. This is the first of two columns about determining the accuracy of information.

President Trump has ushered in a new era of skillful use of proven marketing and psychology principles about how to reach people and influence opinions, from that all of us can learn. Today we look at some of the principles he and others apply in their communications.

President Trump has exceptional capacity to detect and exploit the vulnerabilities of people and opinions he disagrees with. He issues rebuttals, sometimes profane, sometimes with remarkable sense of alternative ways of interpreting matters, and almost always with appealing interest to people who pay attention to his tweets and utterances.

Mr. Trump relies more on his emotional intelligence than on cognitive intelligence to gauge what is accurate. He is changing the way some people determine what is accurate.

His approach to selling his ideas demonstrate application of the established maxim: “People remember how you make them feel, not what you say.” This principle has a degree of survival value, but it can lead to false conclusions.

It is experienced when one feels at a gut-level that something is dangerous, such as behaving cautiously when around a disheveled person who makes us feel queasy. We often feel fearful until we correct our impressions, even though it’s likely the disheveled person is harmless, poor or doesn’t care about stylish clothing.

President Trump is skillful also in his use of promises that life will be better when we agree with what he proposes. Marketing advertisers use promises of positive outcomes for accepting what they promote.

Many people engaged in opinion formation seek agreement with the products and ideas they are promoting, and not necessarily what is the truth. For instance, in the 1950s the tobacco industry sought to convince people that smoking cigarettes would make them feel “cool” and attractive.

It was already established by the British investigator Dr. Richard Doll, and other researchers before then, that smoking cigarettes was linked to the development of lung cancer. Several major cigarette manufacturers composed an advertisement strategy to convince smokers that filtered cigarettes provided a measure of safety and enhanced the enjoyment of smoking.

Scientific studies of cigarette smoking said any exposure to inhaled tobacco smoke, whether filtered or unfiltered, increased the chances of lung cancer. Epidemiological studies later indicated that exposures to tobacco by smoking or as passive inhalers of other people’s tobacco smoke increased the risk of cancer, cardiovascular problems and a variety of other health compromises, including shorter lives.

Consequently, smoking has now been banned from most public places in the United States and in many other countries. Smoking tobacco has decreased nationwide, but only after a concerted campaign to warn people of its dangers.

Should we base our decisions on findings from science, our beliefs, others’ opinions, something else or all these inputs, as we make decisions? Let’s take a look first at what science says.

The behavioral sciences of psychology, sociology and related academic disciplines have all confirmed that people accept as accurate what our brains say is correct. Think of our brains as computers with memory of what to rely on most.

To illustrate, a person with a detached retina that has been reattached surgically might experience wavy and erroneous lines of visual images that would be straight if the retinal cells were lined up perfectly with nerve endings during the reattachment process. Initially, our inaccurate perceptions seem real, and we make missteps.

Our brains compensate during the following days after reattachment and arrange our initially inaccurate perceptions into correct images. I can testify to this myself, having experienced repairs to several retinal detachments.

The conclusion that is warranted is: We perceive what we want to think is most correct. And, what we want to think isn’t always the most correct.

Should farmers and others base decisions on what we feel and believe? Probably not. Even though we may want to use advertised products that promise weed- and pest-free fields and faster-growing livestock and to support governmental policies that are consistent with our beliefs, we also must rely on objectively developed information, such as conclusions from scientific research.

We should especially take into consideration reported information that disagrees with what we would like to believe. Divergent information opens up our minds and increases the likelihood that we will eventually reach the most correct decisions.

Next week we will follow up with elucidation of additional principles that have been established by science and practice as important in opinion formation.

Dr. Mike Rosmann is a psychologist and farmer in western Iowa. Readers may contact him at mike@agbehavioralhealth.com