Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I notice it with young people. They latch onto whatever their favorite person is on tiktok or whatever and believe everything they say. Either it’s an act or they do it on purpose but I see them do it YouTube on talk shows etc. also I think it has to do,with accountability. There is not a lot of it nowadays.
I don't society is in that much disarray tbh. Social media influencers probably shouldn't be anyone's single source of truth.
Of all the sources you could have used, these don't seem like the most reliable. The so-called "listicles" are not something I'd lean into heavily as a source of truth, let alone in an academic setting. I haven't heard of any of these websites before, and I spend a great deal of time crawling the web. If I wanted to know specifically about median household incomes, I'd probably be citing either the census bureau directly or a website that aggregates census bureau data. I think that choosing the right sources to cite is half the battle. Many people don't know what that looks like though.
That's exactly the point.
People who make statements assert "facts" on forums are not readily credible.
People who make statements assert "facts" on forums are not readily credible.
But I think it's incumbent upon the reader to be able to discern reliable sources from unreliable sources. People who post blog posts as credible "news" or data to support their argument already lost the argument and they don't know it. But that's where accountability plays a role. When nobody holds these types of people accountable, then they are enabled to run amok posting fibs, propaganda, and other misinformation. At least in an academic setting, blog posts are not considered reliable citations to support an argument. I know this isn't an online academic forum, but whenever I see people linking to blogs or listicles as support for their argument, I dismiss their arguments altogether in most cases unless the source is historically reliable.
Peer reviewed academic research...reliable.
Op-ed in a newspaper (especially a far leaning news source)...not reliable.
A well-cited newspaper article (from one of the major news outlets)...mostly reliable.
A vlog from an online influencer...not reliable.
An agency that collects data on a subject matter (i.e. Census Bureau, BLS, etc.)...very reliable.
A random comment on a message board...not reliable.
Last edited by digitalUID; 04-10-2023 at 10:44 AM..
People these days - and all ages are guilty - want quick spoon-fed information and "facts". Quickness and ease matters more than quality / accuracy.
With all the conveniences of the "Information Age" - the Internet and smart phones carried everywhere - we've become lazy as to research and actual reading, as was traditionally the approach in the past.
And we've become dumbed-down to the difference b/w something in print such as a book (with references and footnotes), vs something that can quickly and easily be thrown online, with no references / no traceable verifications.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 04-10-2023 at 11:45 AM..
Really not so straightforward - even scholarly articles can and do have a bias and often look to fit the data to a belief or theory rather than follow what the data actually says.
COVID is a perfect example - COVID didn't evolve to an answer - there were many lies told by the officials and was in scholarly articles. The reality was that the lab was always the most likely source and those that said it was from a pandolin, I believe, were just forwarding the bad info. Then there was Twitter and others banning those that had it right and even doctors were threatened with losing their license for stating the data on vaccines.
There was a "study" that looked at the impact of plastic straws on the environment that came up with the figure of 500M straws per day used in the US - that really came from a 9 year olds project.
Another is the oft stated statistic that some 97% of studies support global warming - Ill give you hint, it was not what the data says - the study threw out 66.4% of the papers on climate, all of the ones that said they could find no evidence of AGW - talk about confirmation bias.
Or Schumer that had proof of Trump / Russia collusion that has been proven to not exist.
The reality is that few things are really so black and white to be able to call something absolutely verified.
And there is a lot of scholarly research that someone knowledgeable can look at and figure out it is pure garbage in a few minutes. On the social sciences articles I see referenced in MSM, it often seems like the researchers failed their college statistics course.
And on the internet and in major media organizations, the same lies get repeated over and over.
Its harder to find out what the real facts are these days. There seems to be a tendency towards the belief that "the ends justifies the means." There's also the idea of bubbles. People tend to associate, especially by choice of profession and by choice of friends after school, with people who think like they do. So an idea gets reinforced and alternative possible facts get ignored.
There are certainly a lot of younger people who believe what they read, maybe even the OP, when it is better to be skeptical.
And there is a lot of scholarly research that someone knowledgeable can look at and figure out it is pure garbage in a few minutes. On the social sciences articles I see referenced in MSM, it often seems like the researchers failed their college statistics course.
And on the internet and in major media organizations, the same lies get repeated over and over.
Its harder to find out what the real facts are these days. There seems to be a tendency towards the belief that "the ends justifies the means." There's also the idea of bubbles. People tend to associate, especially by choice of profession and by choice of friends after school, with people who think like they do. So an idea gets reinforced and alternative possible facts get ignored.
There are certainly a lot of younger people who believe what they read, maybe even the OP, when it is better to be skeptical.
I'd love to see some of your first hand examples of the scholarly research where "researchers failed their college statistics course".
Last edited by digitalUID; 04-10-2023 at 01:03 PM..
You will be forced to reject it as "CCP propaganda" since you now believe that it is "widely accepted" that it came from a lab leak. These types of findings indicate that we still don't know the answer but people feel compelled to pick a side based on their political leanings.
Some people do choose on political leanings. Others assume everyone picks based on political leanings.
Not your example, but another recent example on the same topic brings out what I said in my earlier post. They claimed their study proved it came from animal transmission in the wet market since early cases were scattered around the market. Of course, they didn't consider the possibility that an infected researcher went into the crowded wet market and spread the disease around. This type of peer reviewed study appears in all sorts of fields. Just really lazy analysis.
I notice this quite a bit, and especially with older people. I think they lived during a period when you could easily BS your way through life and it was hard to verify facts in a pinch. But today, so much information is easily accessible and can be found in 2 minutes! Even when corrected with links and evidence proving the contrary, so many of them double down instead of taking a step back, re-evaluating their previously held views, and admitting ignorance. Why is there not more shame and embarrassment from this behavior?
OK, so this is in Psychology and not P&OC. Interesting.
I think "older people" want to believe their grandkids will get a job, will get over that phase, will get married, that their daughter's husband will really quit drinking this time, etc.
On the political side, why would "older folks" worry about details? I can easily find a "study" that says 90% of X is Y and another study that says 90% of Y is X. What's the point of "facts" when most people only care about facts that match their feelings and ignore the other facts? Masks don;t work, masks are mandatory, get the shot it's foolproof, wait get the booster because the shot's not foolproof, wait get two or three more boosters, wait nevermind if you got Covid you're immune but only for a while, wait get a booster just to be sure, and on and on ad nauseum.
And do you have "facts" that prove only "older people" tend to notice this about "facts"?
Some people do choose on political leanings. Others assume everyone picks based on political leanings.
Not your example, but another recent example on the same topic brings out what I said in my earlier post. They claimed their study proved it came from animal transmission in the wet market since early cases were scattered around the market. Of course, they didn't consider the possibility that an infected researcher went into the crowded wet market and spread the disease around. This type of peer reviewed study appears in all sorts of fields. Just really lazy analysis.
Information evolving through research isn't a sign the process is broken, it's a sign that it's working. It'd be far more concerning if conclusions remained static in spite of new evidence. I often observe people pointing to faulty or incorrect conclusions, arguing that is why none of it can be trusted. But that's how the scientific research method works. They do the research and reach conclusions based on what is known. Once new information presents itself, it's normal that the formerly held conclusions be amended to account for the new evidence. That's science in a nutshell. What we know to be objectively true today through scientific research was not often discovered over the course of one finite study but through many studies that took place over time and questioned conventional wisdom. Washing your hands was once controversial medical advice.
Last edited by digitalUID; 04-10-2023 at 01:37 PM..
Op-ed in a newspaper (especially a far leaning news source)...not reliable.
A well-cited newspaper article (from one of the major news outlets)...mostly reliable.
A vlog from an online influencer...not reliable.
An agency that collects data on a subject matter (i.e. Census Bureau, BLS, etc.)...very reliable.
A random comment on a message board...not reliable.
This is interesting.
What if the newspaper article is presenting a lie/with the intention to deceive the masses? What if the vlog online influencer is ...let's say...in Paris, where French people are protesting for x cause? And he can see/live the events in real time?
etc. etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
