What's The Solution To Misinformation?

[trastrick]

Misinformation sells!

 

RealClearPolitics

Why Newspapers Refuse to Correct Errors

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/08/why_newspapers_refuse_to_correct_errors_147153.html

 

The subject case matter of his article is currently under Criminal Investigation by Special Prosecutor John Durham.

[Anna B]

The only way to work out misinformation is to research it. weigh up all the different sources, and then decide for yourself where the truth lies. Not easy, but at least you will be better informed all round, and less of a patsy.   

 

And if you want to be heard, be kind but SHOUT! Reasoned argument doesn't seem to work.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

The only way to work out misinformation is to research it. weigh up all the different sources, and then decide for yourself where the truth lies. Not easy, but at least you will be better informed all round, and less of a patsy.   

 

And if you want to be heard, be kind but SHOUT! Reasoned argument doesn't seem to work.

And what if the subject is complex and requires some level of expertise and training to fully understand and to be able to properly interpret the data?  If you're a shop owner, or a hairdresser, or an English teacher, or a sociologist, or an usherette and the subject is immunology, or black holes, or evolution, or organic chemistry, and the last time you studied science was when you got a grade D GCSE in the subject?  You quite literally don't have the knowledge -  the basic ability - to be able to 'decide for yourself where the truth lies'.  What to do?

 

You're a sensible shop owner, or hairdresser, or English teacher or whatever, so you look to those who can best explain the weight of evidence. To the scientific consensus, to views held by countless dull white coats, based on research and peer review and hard slog. 

 

Of course, what actually happens is that many people reject the boring elitists with the Nature papers in favour of those who agree with their already established world views and beliefs: the renegade lone voice in the wilderness, the charismatic struck-off medic on the podcast, the political eccentric, that bloke who used to be in that thing with the other bloke from Inspector Morse. 

 

You won't be better informed, because you're led entirely by your own confirmation bias.

[El Cid]

14 minutes ago, Hecate said:

Of course, what actually happens is that many people reject the boring elitists with the Nature papers in favour of those who agree with their already established world views and beliefs: the renegade lone voice in the wilderness, the charismatic struck-off medic on the podcast, the political eccentric, that bloke who used to be in that thing with the other bloke from Inspector Morse. 

 

You won't be better informed, because you're led entirely by your own confirmation bias.

I entirerly agree.

I have left and right wing friends, their rhetoric is constant. Has anyone on here over-come their own deep beliefs?

The one thing that I can say to 'prove' I am a free thinker, I was always anti-EU, but I came to the conclution that it was better to remain in the EU in the 2016 vote. But I could well have fixed views just like everyone else.

[trastrick]

16 hours ago, Anna B said:

The only way to work out misinformation is to research it. weigh up all the different sources, and then decide for yourself where the truth lies. Not easy, but at least you will be better informed all round, and less of a patsy.   

 

And if you want to be heard, be kind but SHOUT! Reasoned argument doesn't seem to work.

One of the many things evolution has given higher animals is the ability to communicate within their tribe, herd, flock or swarm. This ability to communicate easily is a major element of group survival.

 

One has no trouble navigating the public markets of your community, or indeed the World.

 

The problem today is a crisis of communication between leaders, their "experts", and proponents of this idealogy or that one, in which there is no common language. Meanings of traditionally understood terms, are arbitrarily changed to suit the narrative of one proponent or another. and what should be a simple debate devolves into a word game, a semantic debate about what one says, over what one really means.

 

Which leaves the society at large to choose their sources of information from a huge array of misinformation.

 

A simple perusal of the arguments on these forums illustrates the frustrations of the debate proponents that usually ends with  personal attacks by the losing side.

 

War is peace, freedom is slavery, spending is investment, equality is freedom, conspiracy theories are truth, conspiracy theories are lies.

 

With no shared assumptions, only chaos prevails.

 

A boy cries Wolf, a movie patron cries Fire in a crowded theatre,  a scientist cries Climate Crisis in a crowded planet, , a politician cries end of the World in our time.

 

When shown to be in error, the semantic word game is used by apologists and advocates and PR types, to revise the statement to what he/she actually meant to say. "Better safe than sorry". which of course is a completely different concept to We Must Act NOW.

 

So who or what to believe?

 

The only thing nature gave you in defense is an innate common sense, based on personal experience, to sort through the minefield of claims and counter claims. Is O.J. Really innocent? Hillary? Trump? Which one, if any, has been "exonerated".  All stand innocent before the law, but how many accept the law?

 

Are the moderate Democrats opposing adding $trillions to the National Dept, really against "investing in the people/country/planet"?

Edited February 9, 2022 by trastrick

[Anna B]

14 hours ago, Hecate said:

And what if the subject is complex and requires some level of expertise and training to fully understand and to be able to properly interpret the data?  If you're a shop owner, or a hairdresser, or an English teacher, or a sociologist, or an usherette and the subject is immunology, or black holes, or evolution, or organic chemistry, and the last time you studied science was when you got a grade D GCSE in the subject?  You quite literally don't have the knowledge -  the basic ability - to be able to 'decide for yourself where the truth lies'.  What to do?

 

You're a sensible shop owner, or hairdresser, or English teacher or whatever, so you look to those who can best explain the weight of evidence. To the scientific consensus, to views held by countless dull white coats, based on research and peer review and hard slog. 

 

Of course, what actually happens is that many people reject the boring elitists with the Nature papers in favour of those who agree with their already established world views and beliefs: the renegade lone voice in the wilderness, the charismatic struck-off medic on the podcast, the political eccentric, that bloke who used to be in that thing with the other bloke from Inspector Morse. 

 

You won't be better informed, because you're led entirely by your own confirmation bias.

Of course the issues are complex. But you have to do your best. Lived experience is also informative but is often dismissed as 'anecdotal.'

 

I abhore confirmation bias. I think it's ruined easy access to reliable information and open debate.

I want to see the other side of the arguments, I want to know why people see things the way they do. I want to know what they think, so I deliberately seek it out, and it's not always easy. (At least Sheffield Forum has a range of diverse opinions which I always welcome even if I disagree with them.) 

For example one of my grouses with regards to Covid is that a lot of information has been missing. It's not mind blowing or even mind altering information, it's not changed my opinions as to whether people should have the jabs, (IMO on balance they probably should,) but not being open about the arguments has laid a path for all sorts of 'conspiracy theories,' and misinformation. I do understand why some people are refusing to have it and part of the reason is what they've discovered for themselves. The lengths they've had to go to, has probably given it unnecessary added weight.

 

Openness, transparency and honesty are the way to counter misinformation. And government, the BBC etc, should be a reliable sources but no longer are.  

People will forgive mistakes, what they can't  stomach is excuses, lies, and cover-ups to save face. 

People don't like being taken as mugs. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Anna B

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, trastrick said:

... The only thing nature gave you in defense is an innate common sense, based on personal experience, to sort through the minefield of claims and counter claims. ...

And surely that 'innate common sense' also says something like 'blimey, this is a bit of a complicated, specialised subject that's quite outside my own personal and educational experience.  I'd be an arrogant numpty if I started pontificating about something I know precisely nothing about.  I'd better go and see what the collected wisdom is of the folk who've been studying this stuff for decades, before I make a fool of myself and people start pointing and laughing'.   

 

'Innate common sense' tells you how to avoid doing something so catastrophically stupid or dangerous that you end up a bloody heap on the floor.  'Innate common sense' doesn't give you the ability to assess and understand a complicated, multifaceted subject. 'Innate common sense' might give you the ability to see that.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Guest

[trastrick]

11 minutes ago, Hecate said:

And surely that 'innate common sense' also says something like 'blimey, this is a bit of a complicated, specialised subject that's quite outside my own personal and educational experience.  I'd be an arrogant numpty if I started pontificating about something I know precisely nothing about.  I'd better go and see what the collected wisdom is of the folk who've been studying this stuff for decades, before I make a fool of myself and people start pointing and laughing'.   

 

'Innate common sense' tells you how to avoid doing something so catastrophically stupid or dangerous that you end up a bloody heap on the floor.  'Innate common sense' doesn't give you the ability to assess and understand a complicated, multifaceted subject. 'Innate common sense' might give you the ability to see that.

 

My innate common sense (nurtured in Sheffield by my dedicated teachers at Anns Rd and Heeley Bank schools), has served me well in life, I'm not about to sign on to "narratives" from the latest gang of politicians to fight their way to power.

 

Where I live now simply, the locals have that same attitude.

 

They laugh at their politicians (you do need a government) and get on with their lives, with little interaction with the pols, (until they see them building mansions etc.) then they toss them out and replace them with latest bunch who claim to be anti-corruption)

 

But on topic:

 

February 3, 2022

ISIS leader killed in US-led Syria raid, Biden says
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/03/world/syria-us-special-forces-raid-intl-hnk/index.html

 

The world is safer!  The MSM trained seals clap!

 

February 8, 2022

United States offers $10M for information leading to capture of ISIS leader
https://torontosun.com/news/world/united-states-offers-10m-for-information-leading-to-capture-of-isis-leader

 

Oh crap!

 

Aside from a Reuters wire report, no MSM mention.

 

Apparently the subtle nuance is how they report "ISIS" Leader, and not "THE ISIS Leader".

 

How many of the great unwashed contemplate the semantic difference?

 

Lol

 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Of course the issues are complex. But you have to do your best. Lived experience is also informative but is often dismissed as 'anecdotal.'

Of course it's anecdotal.  And that might be useful, depending on the context.  Or it might be unhelpful, at best, or even dangerous if it's given  equivalent weight in an area where specialised knowledge is absolutely, undeniably essential. 

 

Here's an innocuous example:  I'm absolutely convinced I saw a ghost standing next to the window last night.  It was an old monk in a cloak.  I saw his face.  I took a photo.  You can't see the ghost, but you can see orb lights (the physical manifestation of the ghost's departed soul).

 

That's a spooky anecdote that those who believe in the paranormal will cite as evidence for the existence of ghosts.  Someone with specialised knowledge will talk to you about innate pattern  recognition, making meaningful sense out of white noise so we can avoid danger;  about artefacts of digital photography.

 

Will the true believer adapt their belief system to accommodate new to them, well-established information that challenges their beliefs?  Of course not.  Confirmation bias. 

 

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I abhore confirmation bias. I think it's ruined easy access to reliable information and open debate.

I want to see the other side of the arguments, I want to know why people see things the way they do. I want to know what they think, so I deliberately seek it out, and it's not always easy. (At least Sheffield Forum has a range of diverse opinions which I always welcome even if I disagree with them.) 

But on what basis do you disagree?  I can say Elvis Costello is the best singer-songwriter of all time.  You might say he has a voice that would strip paint from the woodwork.  Fair enough.  No harm done.  Different opinion based on musical taste and everyone moves on.

 

Or I could say that the MMR vaccine categorically does not cause autism, and to support my position I could link to something like the Oxford Vaccine Knowledge Project that outlines all the evidence clearly and simply.  Someone else might say that, based on their own personal experience, the MMR vaccine does cause autism, because their child was diagnosed soon after the vaccination.  Should that anecdotal, explainable correlation be given equivalent weight to the vast wealth of evidence that conclusively contradicts that view? 

 

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

For example one of my grouses with regards to Covid is that a lot of information has been missing. It's not mind blowing or even mind altering information, it's not changed my opinions as to whether people should have the jabs, (IMO on balance they probably should,) but not being open about the arguments has laid a path for all sorts of 'conspiracy theories,' and misinformation. I do understand why some people are refusing to have it and part of the reason is what they've discovered for themselves. The lengths they've had to go to, has probably given it unnecessary added weight.

But that's my point: people are 'doing their own research' based on absolutely nothing other than rock solid, unwavering self-belief, a bloated ego and 'common sense'.  

 

The situation was and is novel and fast evolving.  People with knowledge and experience are using that knowledge and experience to try to make sense of that novel and fast-evolving situation.  Positions shift with new, emerging evidence, and that's either consolidated or it has to be rejected because the weight of emerging evidence points elsewhere.  Because that's how science works.    People don't like uncertainty; they want absolutes and they want them now so they look to those who'll happily fill the void (with nonsense, of course, but at least it's comforting nonsense, said with absolute certainty by a nice man in a nice suit on that podcast that other nice bloke is getting paid millions of dollars to host, so it must be a good source).

 

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Openness, transparency and honesty are the way to counter misinformation. And government, the BBC etc, should be a reliable sources but no longer are.  

People will forgive mistakes, what they can't  stomach is excuses, lies, and cover-ups to save face. 

People don't like being taken as mugs. 

This government is a steaming pile of excrement led by a liar who would sell several body parts of several family members to stay in power.  It's beyond unfortunate.  But that doesn't negate the fact that people are seeking information based on their own unwavering beliefs and biases, which leads to the rejection of sound sources because they don't meet their requirements.  Snake oil salesmen and related grifters and charlatans are chuckling while they rake in the attention and the cash.

 

 

[Dromedary]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Openness, transparency and honesty are the way to counter misinformation. And government, the BBC etc, should be a reliable sources but no longer are.  

People will forgive mistakes, what they can't  stomach is excuses, lies, and cover-ups to save face. 

People don't like being taken as mugs. 

Now tell me of any government anywhere in the world that does any of the above?