The backfire effect: why we persist in our delusions. In most cases the basis of it in most cases

We tend to consider ourselves open-minded and think that we are ready to accept new information regardless of whether it contradicts our worldview. But the paradox is that when new facts refute our most cherished beliefs, faith in them only strengthens. In psychology, this phenomenon is called the rebound effect. Journalist David McRain examines the phenomenon using scientific research as an example and explains why we selectively perceive the truth and persist in our delusions.

Wired, The New York Times, Backyard Poultry Magazine - it happens to everyone. Sometimes they make mistakes and get the facts wrong. And then, be it a well-known printed newspaper or an online news resource, the editors admit their guilt. If a news publication needs to maintain its good reputation, the editors publish corrections. Most of the time, this technique works, but what news outlets don't consider is that correction can further distance readers from the truth if the false report matches their beliefs. In fact, those pithy notes on the back page of every newspaper draw our attention to one of the most powerful forces influencing the way we think, feel and make decisions - the mechanism that prevents us from believing the truth.

In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler of the University of Michigan and Georgia State University wrote several articles about key political events. The contents of these articles confirmed widespread misconceptions about some controversial issues in American politics. To begin with, the subject was offered a false article, and then another, which refuted the message of the previous one. For example, one of the articles said that the United States had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next one said that the US never found him, which was true. Pacifists or adherents of liberalism generally rejected the first article and agreed with the second. The militarists and conservatives agreed with the first article and categorically did not accept the second. This reaction is not surprising. What was truly unexpected was the reaction of conservatives when they learned the truth. They admitted that after reading the material that in fact no weapons were found, they were even more convinced that in fact there were weapons in Iraq and that their initial beliefs were correct.

“Being confused, you strengthen your beliefs even more, instead of challenging them. When someone tries to correct you, to dispel your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens your confidence."

The experiment was repeated, this time focusing on stem cell research and tax reform, and again it was found that corrections actually reinforced the misconceptions of study participants if the corrections contradicted their beliefs. People on different sides of the political fence read the same articles and the same corrections, and if new information went against their beliefs, they began to defend their point of view with redoubled tenacity. The corrections unexpectedly led to the opposite results.

When a thought becomes part of your worldview, you try to protect it from outside influences. This happens instinctively and unconsciously as soon as the brain encounters information that is incompatible with its attitudes. Just as the mechanisms of justificatory thinking protect you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect protects you when the facts come to you, attacking where you are most vulnerable. In your confusion, you strengthen your beliefs even more, instead of challenging them. When someone tries to correct you, to dispel your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens your confidence. Over time, thanks to the rebound effect, you begin to look less critically at the facts that allow you to continue to consider your beliefs true and legitimate.

In 1976, when Ronald Reagan was on the presidential campaign trail, he often told voters about a Chicago con artist who made her living by scamming insurance companies. Reagan said the woman had 80 names, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards, which she used to receive food stamps and benefits from health insurance companies. The future president said that the woman drove around in a Cadillac, did not work and did not pay taxes. He talked about this woman, whom he never named, in every small town, and the story infuriated his listeners. Thanks to her, the concept of the “Social Security Queen” entered the American political lexicon and influenced not only the political discourse of America for the next 30 years, but also the government’s social policy. But this story was just a canard.

Of course, there have always been people who stole from the government, but no one who fit the description of Ronald Reagan actually existed. The woman who many historians suspect may have served as the model for the presidential heroine was an actress-con artist who used four false names and moved from place to place, changing her appearance each time, not some housewife mother surrounded by a pack of whiners. children.

Despite the fact that the story was publicly refuted and a lot of time has passed, it is still alive. The fictional lady who wallows in luxury and languishes over mountains of meal tickets while hard-working Americans go on strike is still a fixture in online newspapers these days. The mimetic stability of the word is impressive. Some version of the story appears weekly in blogs and magazine articles about legal violations, although it only takes a couple of clicks to find out it's false.

“When evidence confirms beliefs, people tend to see what they expect to see and draw conclusions that are consistent with their expectations.”

Psychologists call such stories narrative scenarios - these are stories about exactly what we want to hear, confirming our beliefs and giving us the right to adhere to the opinions we have already formed. If belief in safety net queens protects your worldview, you accept the myth and move on with your life. You may have found Reagan's tale disgusting or laughable, but without question you believed stories like these about medical companies interfering with research, or warrantless searches, or the benefits of chocolate. You watched a documentary about the dangers of... something you don't like, and you probably thought it was about the soul. For every Michael Moore "absolutely true" documentary, there are exactly the same documentary with the exact opposite content, in which the champions of the idea argue that their version of the truth is better.

A great example of selective disbelief is Literallyunbelievable.org. Its creators publish comments from Facebook users who believe in articles from the satirical magazine The Onion. Articles about Oprah Winfrey inviting a select few to be buried with her in a luxurious grave, news about the construction of an abortion center for hundreds of millions of dollars, or NASCAR's announcement about awarding bonuses to drivers for homophobic statements - users leave outraged comments on such news in full seriously. Psychologist Thomas Gilovich wrote: “When evidence confirms beliefs, people tend to see what they expect to see and draw conclusions that are consistent with their expectations. If the conclusion matches our attitudes, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe it?”; if the conclusion disappoints us, then we ask ourselves, “Should I believe it?”

That is why particularly ardent critics who believe that Barack Obama was not born in the USA will never believe the hundreds of facts that clearly prove the opposite. When the President's administration released the full text of his birth certificate to the public in April 2011, the reaction of Obama's opponents was exactly what the backfire would suggest. They carefully studied the date of issue of the document, its appearance, its form - and as a result they gathered at the forum and ridiculed it. Their confidence increased even more. This has always been the case and will always be the case when it comes to conspiracy theories or any other incredible facts. A refutation will always only strengthen a person’s belief in the opposite. It is always considered part of a conspiracy, and the lack of facts is attributed to concealment of the truth.

This explains how strange, outdated and downright crazy beliefs survive the fight against science, common sense and facts. However, the truth of the phenomenon lies deeper, because none of us considers ourselves crazy. We do not believe that lightning is sent by a deity who wanted to launch a couple of charges into the ground. You don't wear special underwear to protect your libido from the moonlight. Your beliefs are rational, logical and factual, right?

Fine. Let's talk, for example, about corporal punishment. Is it good or bad? Harmless or harmful? Can corporal punishment be considered a lack of love or, conversely, a manifestation of parental care? Science has its answer, but we'll get to that later. Now try to realize how you feel about this, and you will understand that you yourself want to fall under the influence of others, you passionately want to be enlightened about a great many issues, but you avoid some topics.

The last time you got into or witnessed an online argument with someone who was convinced they knew absolutely everything about health care reform, gun control, gay marriage, sex education, drug wars, Joss Whedon, or whether the number 0.9999, repeated ad infinitum, is equal to zero - remember how it all happened? Have you taught your opponent a valuable lesson? Have you been thanked for helping to understand all the intricacies of a controversial issue after cursing your opponent for his past ignorance? Has a virtual hat been taken off to you for making a better person?

“It is impossible to win an argument on the Internet. When you start throwing around facts and names, hyperlinks and quotes, your opponent actually becomes even more confident that he is right than before you started the argument."

Most likely no. Most online battles unfold according to the same scenario: each side rushes to attack and fishes out more and more evidence from the depths of the Internet to strengthen its position until one of the parties, disappointed, decides to go all in and gets personal . If you are lucky, the comments will be deleted, and you will have time to preserve your honor and dignity, or some third-party commentator will help set a pack of indignants against your opponent.

Research into the backfire effect shows that it is impossible to win an argument online. When you start throwing around facts and names and hyperlinks and quotes, your opponent actually becomes even more confident that he is right than before you started the argument. When he starts contradicting you, the same thing happens in your mind. The reverse effect causes both of you to become even more locked in the belief that you are right.

Have you ever noticed a strange feature: we practically do not pay attention to praise addressed to us, but any criticism strikes us on the spot? Thousands of positive reviews may go unnoticed by us, but one single remark like “sucks” can stick in our heads for several days. One hypothesis to explain why this happens and why the backfire effect works is that we actually spend much more time thinking about information with which we disagree than we do about information that is close to us. Information that confirms our beliefs fades from our consciousness, but when we encounter something that challenges the truth of our beliefs, something that contradicts previously acquired knowledge about how the world works, we stop and Let's take note of this. Some psychologists argue that the explanation for this lies in the theory of evolution. Our ancestors paid more attention to negative stimuli than to positive ones, because negative events need to be responded to somehow. Those who could not adequately respond to a negative stimulus could not survive.

In 1992, Peter Ditto and David Lopez conducted an experiment in which subjects had to dip a small strip of paper into a cup of saliva. The paper was completely ordinary, but the psychologists told one half of the participants that it would turn green if a person had serious problems with the pancreas, and the other half that this would happen if they were completely healthy. Both groups were told that the reaction would take about 20 seconds. Typically, people who were told that the piece of paper would turn green if they were healthy waited much longer for the result than the 20 seconds they were warned about. If the color did not change, 52 percent tried again. In another group, where green was supposed to mean bad news, people were mostly content with 20 seconds, with only 18 percent trying to put the paper in the bowl again.

When you read a negative comment, when someone trashes something you love, and when your beliefs are challenged, you scrutinize the information, looking for weaknesses. Cognitive dissonance blocks your thinking until you can cope with the situation. In the process, you form more neutral connections, construct new memories, and generate some effort—and when you finish thinking about the subject, your original beliefs are stronger than ever.

Psychologist and New York Times columnist Dan Gilbert observes the opposite effect in the fight against excess weight: “It happens that the number on the bathroom scale goes off scale. Then we get off and stand back up again to make sure we see the result correctly and don't lean too heavily on one leg. If we are satisfied with the result, we go into the shower with a smile. Without any further questions, we accept on faith the number that we like, and try again and again if we don’t like the result, thereby, as if unobtrusively, tipping the scales on our side.”

The backfire effect continually rearranges your beliefs and memories, swaying you to one side or the other through a process psychologists call assimilation bias. Decades of research into various types of cognitive distortions have shown that people typically perceive the world through a thick lens of faith, clouded by attitudes and worldviews. In 1996, scientists showed a group of subjects the Bob Dole-Bill Clinton debate and found that before the debate, everyone believed their candidate had won. In 2000, when scholars began studying Clinton supporters and opponents through their reactions to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, they found that Clinton supporters tended to view Lewinsky as an untrustworthy home-wrecker and had difficulty believing that Clinton had lied under oath. Of course, the president's opponents experienced exactly the opposite feelings. Fast forward to 2011, when Fox News and MSNBC were vying for cable territory, each promising a message that would never challenge the beliefs of any given segment of the population. That's biased assimilation in action.

Biased assimilation does not only work in relation to modern events. A group of academics conducted a 2004 study asking liberals and conservatives to weigh in on the 1970 Kent State University shooting, in which National Guard soldiers opened fire on anti-Vietnam War demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine. .

As is usually the case with any historical event, the details of what happened at the University of Kent began to become distorted within a few hours. Years later, books, articles, broadcasts and songs wove an impenetrable web of reasons and motivations, conclusions and assumptions, in which every opinion was somehow justified. In the weeks following the shooting, psychologists surveyed Kent State University students who witnessed the events and found that 6% of liberals and 45% of conservatives believed the National Guard had been provoked. Twenty-five years later, they surveyed the then-students again. In 1995, 62% of liberals said that soldiers committed murder, while only 37% of conservatives agreed with this statement. Five years later, students were given the questionnaire again, and the researchers found that conservatives were still inclined to say that protesters had overstepped their bounds in relation to the National Guard, while liberals saw the soldiers as aggressors. Strikingly, the more people surveyed said they knew about events, the stronger the strength of their beliefs. That is, a person supported the National Guard or protesters the more vehemently the more he knew about what happened. People who were only generally aware of what happened were less likely to experience backlash when evaluating events. The same effect caused those more knowledgeable to deliberately ignore controversial details.

“The mind of man does everything to support and agree with what he has once accepted, either because it is an object of faith or because he likes it. Whatever may be the strength and number of facts that testify to the contrary, the mind either does not notice them, or neglects them, or rejects them through distinctions with great prejudice, so that the reliability of those previous conclusions remains unimpaired. Francis Bacon

In 1997, Geoffrey Munrow and Peter Ditto released a series of false articles. One study said that homosexuality is most likely a mental disorder. Another argued that any sexual orientation is natural and normal. The subjects were then divided into two groups: some considered homosexuality a disease, while others did not. Each group was given fake articles with fictitious facts and evidence, claiming that their point of view was incorrect. After both groups read materials that refuted their beliefs, no one said they suddenly saw the light, realizing that they had been wrong all these years. On the contrary, everyone began to argue that the solution to such problems was beyond the reach of science. When the subjects were later given other topics to discuss, such as spanking and astrology, the same people said they no longer trusted science or its ability to establish truth. Instead of reconsidering their beliefs and facing the facts, people chose to dismiss all science altogether.

Science and literature once painted the future in which we now live. Books, movies and comics of the past depicted cyberpunks surfing the endless expanses of information, and personal communications devices enveloping a person in a cloud of beeps and calls. The stories and midnight chatter on the radio predicted a time when the sum of human knowledge and artistic production would be continuously available on demand and millions of human lives would be interconnected and visible to all who wanted to be seen. And now the very future has arrived, in which we are surrounded by computers that can tell us everything that humanity knows, explain how to perform any task, teach us anything and reveal the essence of any phenomenon on earth. So one day a fictional life became everyday life for us.

And if this promised future has already arrived, why don’t we live in the kingdom of science and reason? Where is the most socio-political and technical utopia, empirical nirvana, the abode of the gods of analytical thought (only without overalls and neon headbands), where everyone knows the truth?

Among the many prejudices and misconceptions that block our path to the realm of microprocessors and skinny jeans, lives a huge monster of our psyche - the reverse effect. He was always there, always influenced the way we and our ancestors saw the world, but the Internet unleashed the beast, greatly increased its persuasiveness, and over the years we have not become any wiser.

As social media and advertising evolve, it will become increasingly difficult for us to overcome people's desire to confirm information that aligns with their beliefs and the counterproductive effect. A person will have more opportunities to choose from the general flow exactly the information that fits into his vision of the world, and, in his opinion, reliable sources that will supply him with such information. To top it off, advertisers will continue to adapt, not only by creating ads based on what they know about a person, but by generating advertising strategies based on data about what has or has not already worked for a person. The advertising of the future will be distributed not only based on your preferences, but also on who you voted for, where you grew up, what mood you're in, what day or year it is - any information about you that can be measured. In a world where everything you want is available, your beliefs will never be questioned.

Three thousand spoilers were tweeted hours before Barack Obama ascended to his presidential pulpit and told the world that Osama bin Laden was dead. A Facebook page, get-rich-quick sites, and millions of emails, text messages, and instant messages announcing the terrorist's death preceded the official announcement on May 1, 2011. Stories and comments poured in one after another, search engines went white-hot. Between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. on the first day, Google searches for bin Laden increased by 1 million percent compared to the previous day. Videos of Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood performing on YouTube took the leading positions in the ranking. Unprepared news sites were scrambling to write news at full speed to supply the insatiable public with more and more informational food.

“In a world where new knowledge flourishes, where scientific discoveries are made every day, illuminating seemingly all aspects of human life, we, like most people, still perceive information very selectively”

It was a stunning demonstration of how the world of information exchange has changed since September 2001, but one thing was predictable and, apparently, inevitable. Within a few minutes after the publication of the first materials about the Seal Team Six special forces, tweets about the shooting of bin Laden and the hasty burial of his body at sea, conspiracy theories bloomed in full bloom in the fertile soil of our prejudices. A few years later, when it became clear that photographic evidence of the incident would not be provided, the conspiracy theories took shape into complete and irrefutable facts.

And although information technology does not stand still, the behavioral patterns that a person uses when it comes to faith, indisputable facts, politics and ideology seem to remain the same. In a world where new knowledge flourishes, where every day scientific discoveries are made that illuminate seemingly every aspect of human life, we, like most people, still perceive information very selectively, even if the fact is supported by scientific data and is based on centuries of research.

Well, what about corporal punishment? After you've read all this, do you think you're ready to find out what science has to say about this topic? A secret source reports that psychologists are still studying this phenomenon, but it is already known that regular spanking makes children under seven years of age more docile if it is not done in public and only by hand. And now attention - a small correction: other ways of influencing behavior: positive reinforcement, symbolic savings, free time, and so on - can also be effective and do not require cruelty.

So, you read these lines and they most likely evoked a strong emotional response in you. Has your opinion changed now that you know the truth?

MAJORITY, ah, cf. Most of who what n. B. those present. B. votes. Overwhelming b. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

Adverb, number of synonyms: 3 mostly (22) in most cases (22) ... Synonym dictionary

CHILDREN- CHILDREN. Contents: I. Definition of the concept. Changes in the body during R. Causes of R.................................................. 109 II. Clinical course of physiological R. 132 Sh. Mechanics R. ................. 152 IV. Maintaining R......................... 169 V …

PNEUMONIA- PNEUMONIA. Contents: I. Croupous pneumonia Etiology.................................. and Epidemiology.................................. 615. Pat. anatomy...... ............ 622 Pathogenesis.................... 628 Clinic. .................... 6S1 II. Bronchopneumonia... ... Great Medical Encyclopedia

UTERUS- (uterus), the organ that is the source of menstrual blood (see Menstruation) and the site of development of the fertilized egg (see Pregnancy, Childbirth), occupies a central position in the woman’s reproductive apparatus and in the pelvic cavity; lies at the geometric center... ... Great Medical Encyclopedia

RHEUMATISM ACUTE- ACUTE RHEUMATISM. Contents: Geographical distribution and statistics. 460 Etiology and pathogenesis...... 470 Pathological anatomy............... 478 Symptoms and course......... ....... 484 Prognosis...................... 515 Diagnosis ... Great Medical Encyclopedia

STOMACH- STOMACH. (gaster, ventriculus), an expanded section of the intestine, which, due to the presence of special glands, has the significance of a particularly important digestive organ. Clearly differentiated “stomachs” of many invertebrates, especially arthropods and... ... Great Medical Encyclopedia

PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS- PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS. Contents: I. Pathological anatomy...........110 II. Classification of pulmonary tuberculosis.... 124 III. Clinic.........................128 IV. Diagnostics.........................160 V. Prognosis.............................. 190 VI. Treatment … Great Medical Encyclopedia

SEPSIS- (sepsis, septicaemia), a general infectious disease determined by the body’s peculiar reaction to constant or periodic blood infection with various microorganisms and their toxins, not accompanied by any specific... ... Great Medical Encyclopedia

HEART- HEART. Contents: I. Comparative anatomy........... 162 II. Anatomy and histology........... 167 III. Comparative Physiology......... 183 IV. Physiology................... 188 V. Pathophysiology................ 207 VI. Physiology, pat.... ... Great Medical Encyclopedia

Books

, Rudy Mair, Patrick Nairz. "How could this happen?" - this is usually the first question that is asked after an avalanche accident. Experience shows that almost identical situations arise in different winters and in...
Avalanches. 10 most important types of danger. How to recognize them, Rudy Mayr, Patrick Nairz. `How could this happen?` - this is usually the first question that is asked after an avalanche accident. Experience shows that almost identical situations arise in different winters and in...

We repeat the rules of the Russian language together with the online school of Total Dictation

Text: Natalya Lebedeva/RG
Photo: totaldict.ru

When should you use introductory words?

And then, as luck would have it, as if on purpose, the words appeared in the dictation: firstly and secondly. Unfortunately, all sorts of things cannot be avoided, in my opinion, probably to annoyance and without exaggeration. When introductory words need to be separated with commas, the editor-in-chief of the Gramota.ru portal, candidate of philological sciences Vladimir Pakhomov, knows exactly.

Everything you need to know about punctuation for introductory words in simple diagrams.

Punctuation for introductory words and combinations

Me, like everyone else, more than once, not twice
Introductory words saved
And more often than others among them
The words “firstly, secondly.”
They, starting from afar,
They gave a reason slowly
Collect your thoughts for now
God knows where the soul was.
A. Kushner

Introductory words really help us gather our thoughts and help us express our attitude towards our own words. You can name several meanings conveyed by introductory words.

Firstly, this is an indication of the degree of reliability of what is being reported: without a doubt, certainly, indisputably, must be, seems, maybe, probably, undoubtedly, obviously, in all likelihood etc.
Secondly, this is an indication of the degree of commonality of what is being said: happens, happened, as usual, as always, as usual, as usual, happens etc.
Thirdly, introductory words express an emotional assessment of what is being reported: a sinful thing, as luck would have it, oddly enough, to chagrin, to amazement, fortunately, unfortunately, a strange thing, what good etc.
Fourthly, introductory words contain an indication of the source of the message: they say, I think it is known, in my opinion, in your opinion, according to, from the point of view, apparently etc.
The fifth meaning of introductory words is that with their help the speaker comments on the way of expressing thoughts: or rather, he is guilty, in short, one can say, to put it mildly, on the contrary, in one word, if I may say so, so to speak, what is called etc.
Sixthly, introductory words can help the speaker himself indicate the expressive nature of the statement: All jokes aside, between us, I must admit, it won’t be said by night, to tell the truth, I assure you, to be honest etc.
The seventh meaning of introductory words is that they comment on the logic of presentation: in general, firstly, secondly, thirdly, mainly, means, as indicated, for example, I repeat, I emphasize, on the one hand, on the other hand etc.
Introductory words - and this is their eighth meaning - call the addressee to attention: believe, see, see, imagine, you understand, imagine, pray for mercy, agree.
Finally, introductory words can express a limitation or clarify a statement: without exaggeration, to one degree or another, at least, at least.

The following words and combinations of words are not introductory and, therefore, are not separated by commas: perhaps, as if, literally, in addition, suddenly, after all, ultimately, ultimately, as a last resort, at best, in any case, in general terms, it seems, in general, often, exclusively, meanwhile, for sure , just in case, finally, one day, first of all, practically, approximately, decisively, absolutely, sort of, in the meantime, in fact, allegedly.

Introductory words are separated by commas: Evgeny Fedorovich, although bad manners,just between you and me , but knowledgeable, you can completely rely on him. A. Chekhov, “Ward No. 6”. As for me , in poetry everything should be out of place, // Not like people. A. Akhmatova, I have no need for Odic armies... But they left without delay // The next morning,As always , // “Izvestia”, and “Pravda”, // And “Red Star”. K. Simonov, “Song about a cheerful reporter.” In our regiment there was a lieutenant... who did not let his pipe out of his mouth not only at the table, but evenif I may say so , in all other places. N. Gogol, “Dead Souls”.

It is necessary to pay attention to two difficulties associated with punctuation in introductory words.

First difficulty is that among the introductory words and combinations there are very few that are used only as introductory ones and, therefore, are always isolated (for example, firstly, in my opinion, if I may say so). In most cases, the same words can be used both as introductory words and as members of a sentence (usually predicates or adverbials) or function words (conjunctions, particles). The differences between them appear in context.

For example, the word however can be an introductory, or maybe an adversative conjunction - the same as But. Here it is important to remember this rule: introductory word however cannot appear at the beginning of a sentence, but can only be in its middle or end: It should behowever , say a few words about Sanin himself. I. Turgenev, Spring Waters. At the beginning of a sentence or part of a complex sentence, as well as between homogeneous members however - conjunction meaning “but”, a comma is not placed after it: The fog was thickeninghowever the roofs of the houses were still visible. Only an interjection is separated by a comma at the beginning of a sentence. however, expressing surprise, bewilderment, indignation, etc.: However what a wind!

Word finally is introductory if it indicates that the word (expression) that follows concludes what was said earlier or is the last: One laughed, followed by the second, the tenth, the hundredth, andfinally , last. F. Krivin, “The Tail of a Peacock.” Also an introductory word finally expresses dissatisfaction, impatience, annoyance: Yes, leave me alonefinally !

In the meaning “ultimately, finally, as a result” the word finally is not introductory and is not distinguished by punctuation: ...It seemed that the road led to heaven, because as far as the eye could see, it kept rising andfinally disappeared in the cloud... M. Lermontov, “Hero of Our Time.”

Second difficulty is that the punctuation of words that are introductory also depends on their environment. Let's name 4 cases that you need to pay attention to.

Case one. Meeting of two introductory words

This is the simplest situation. When two introductory words (introductory combinations, sentences) meet, a comma is placed between them.

He's the sameunfortunately, as you can see , handsome, that is, ruddy, smooth, tall... I. Goncharov, “Ordinary History.” And here,as if on purpose, as if on purpose , Uncle Misha arrives. A. Rybakov, “Heavy Sand.” ...This visit took up the entire evening and completely destroyed the feeling of loneliness he loved so much.After all, maybe , and it’s good that he destroyed... V. Bykov, “Poor People.”

Case two. Introductory word and isolated phrase

An introductory word or combination can appear at the beginning or end of a separate member of a sentence, as well as be inside it. Punctuation marks in these cases are placed as follows:

A) If the introductory word is at the beginning of a separate phrase, commas are placed before the introductory word and after the entire separate phrase. There is no comma after the introductory word (in other words, the comma that was supposed to “close” the introductory word is moved to the end of the separate phrase).

...Vera Nikolaevna felt awe in love before her master - in general, not at all like Ivan the Terrible,May be even the admiration of a loyal subject. V. Kataev, “The Grass of Oblivion.” The comma that should have come after the introductory words May be, falls. Similar example: I, too, am used to writing down my thoughts on anything,in particular on cigarette boxes. K. Paustovsky, “Golden Rose”.

B) If the introductory word is inside a separate phrase, it is separated by commas on both sides, while the characters at the beginning and end of the separate phrase are preserved.

This is my essay - or,or rather , lecture - has neither a specific form nor a chronological structure, which I do not recognize... V. Kataev, “My Diamond Crown.”

C) If the introductory word is at the end of a separate phrase, commas are placed before and after the separate phrase. There is no comma before the introductory word.

And instead of a speck, another road appeared ahead, that is, not exactly a road, a scratch on the ground, more like a furrow. V. Astafiev, “This is how I want to live.”

But it is important to remember: if a phrase is enclosed in brackets, then the introductory word at the beginning or end of it is separated by a comma according to the general rule: Two are alive (as long as their promissory note is extended), // the third (the extra one, probably) is buried in heaven... B. Okudzhava, The black raven will look through the white cloud...

When should you put a comma before the conjunction HOW?

In order not to make a mistake in placing punctuation marks before the conjunction HOW, you need to learn only three simple rules. Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Philology, Faculty of Humanitarian Education, Novosibirsk State Technical University Tatyana Permyakova talks about this

All the rules are in simple diagrams.

Placing a comma before the conjunction HOW

A comma is placed before the conjunction HOW in three cases:

1. If this conjunction connects parts of a complex sentence, for example: We thought for a long time, How spell the word correctly.

2. If the sentence contains a circumstance expressed by a comparative phrase that begins with a conjunction HOW, For example: Her voice rang, How the smallest bell.

3. If this conjunction is included in phrases that are close in their role in the sentence to the introductory words, for example: AS A RULE, AS AN EXCEPTION, AS A CONSEQUENCE, AS ALWAYS, AS NOW, AS ON PURPOSE, AS FOR EXAMPLE, AS NOW: In the morning, as if on purpose, it started to rain.

Please note: if the sentence continues after the conjunction HOW, then you need to put another comma at the end of the turn. For example: At the bottomlike a mirror the water glistened; We looked for a long timelike the coals of a fire smoldering, unable to tear myself away from this spectacle.

The phrases with the conjunction HOW are not isolated in five cases:

1. If the turnover is with a union HOW is part of the predicate and a sentence without such a phrase does not have a complete meaning, for example: She's holding onlike a mistress or Lakelike a mirror ; Pay attention to the last example - here is a conjunction CA K stands between the subject and the predicate (without this conjunction, a dash would be required there).

2. If the turnover is with a union HOW is part of a phraseological unit, for example: I know Russianlike the back of my hand or I feel like I’m at the Total Dictationlike a fish in de.

3. If the comparative phrase is preceded by a negation NOT or particles AT ALL, COMPLETELY, ALMOST, LIKE, EXACTLY, EXACTLY, SIMPLY, for example: They do everythingnot like neighbours or U there are mistakes in his dictationexactly like at the neighbor's.

Is there a rule governing the choice of two- or two-X in compound words? How can you guess that bilingual is written without an X, and bilingual, for example, with an X? Thank you very much.

It is difficult to guess this without a dictionary. In most cases options with the first part two- And two- are equal, but a check against a dictionary is still required (for example, against the “Russian Spelling Dictionary” in “Word Check” on our portal).


	Question No. 235966

I always thought that German surnames declined. For example, in Hitler, about Hitler, etc. However, I have Russian German acquaintances who assure that their surname is not inclined. What should I do? Thank you in advance.