Why do people lie so much and believe fake information when so much can be verified easily today? (dating, issues)
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.
People just pretty much want to believe what they want to believe, and facts don't matter much these days. And they don't want to give an inch to the any opposing side, so even if they know the truth, they will never admit it.
This. No one age group has the corner on refusal to believe facts.
The point of the list is to provide a general rule of thumb of what is a good source of information and what is not. Based on your comments, we don't really seem to disagree with this.
Generally speaking, an anonymous commenter on a message board is not a reliable source of information whether they are consistent or not. If they wanted to be more reliable, then I suppose they could post their real names and link to any academic research they've conducted that has been peer reviewed. Or, if they are posting peer reviewed research, then that by itself can be reliable. A vlogger who is more than a social media influencer and actually has a demonstrable subject matter expertise on a particular topic can certainly be reliable. But let's face it, most are not and most do not have peer reviewed research credited to their names.
A reliable source of information, generally speaking, is something that has been peer reviewed and validated. Yes, that can mean a well-cited news article or report put out by a non-partisan governmental agency or an academic paper published by researchers.
"A Florida State University professor who focused on racial data and research in the criminal justice system has left his job after years of accusations that claimed his data was dishonest, resulting in many of his studies being retracted....
Without directly commenting on the situation, Pickett told the Florida Standard that there is a "huge monetary incentive to falsify data and there’s no accountability. If you do this, the probability you’ll get caught is so, so low.”
“There’s too much incentive to fake data and too little oversight," he added."
The point of the list is to provide a general rule of thumb of what is a good source of information and what is not. Based on your comments, we don't really seem to disagree with this.
Generally speaking, an anonymous commenter on a message board is not a reliable source of information whether they are consistent or not. If they wanted to be more reliable, then I suppose they could post their real names and link to any academic research they've conducted that has been peer reviewed. Or, if they are posting peer reviewed research, then that by itself can be reliable. A vlogger who is more than a social media influencer and actually has a demonstrable subject matter expertise on a particular topic can certainly be reliable. But let's face it, most are not and most do not have peer reviewed research credited to their names.
A reliable source of information, generally speaking, is something that has been peer reviewed and validated. Yes, that can mean a well-cited news article or report put out by a non-partisan governmental agency or an academic paper published by researchers.
So long as the public looking for these articles understands that peer reviewed does not mean the publication is correct. It only means that it followed accepted standards of practice. It's perfectly acceptable for two (or more) peer reviewed publications to appear in the same journal and yet be diametrically opposed. It's also possible for a publication to be peer reviewed, technically correct, and completely irrelevant. Like the word "theory," the scientific meaning and the general public meaning are two different things.
Look no farther then the people themselves. Many are looking for, even seek out conspiracy's that match their narrative. Facts mean nothing to these people. Misery wants company. Once they find it, they realize they're not alone in their thinking, and they're off and running.
People just pretty much want to believe what they want to believe, and facts don't matter much these days. And they don't want to give an inch to the any opposing side, so even if they know the truth, they will never admit it.
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"?
Do not be so sure about that. By virtue of the fact that we have seen it all, we very much doubt that the son-in-law will ever quit drinking or that the grandkids who have never shown ambition will pull themselves together and find gainful employment. Not that I have either of those, but I'm old and experienced and cynical enough to know that it is rarer for a person to change than not.
There's a difference between fact-finding and deference to experts. If experts were humbler and more ready to admit error, the public would trust them more.
Older people who question the facts as presented by authorities who have ulterior motives -- understand how the game works better than those who simply believe what they are told. It's called life experience which is something you have to earn and can't be given. No trophies, sorry.
Except the information didn't evolve. It was there from the beginning and pointed out by many but shouted down by the "authorities".
That particular issue remains unresolved. The exact origin is dubious.
Quote:
What do scientists think?
The issue is still hotly contested.
A World Health Organization (WHO) investigation was supposed to get to the bottom of it, but many experts believed it produced more questions than answers.
A team of WHO-appointed scientists flew to Wuhan in early 2021 on a mission to investigate the source of the pandemic. After spending 12 days there, which included a visit to the laboratory, the team concluded the lab-leak theory was "extremely unlikely".
Scientists and spy agencies have tried for years to determine where the coronavirus originated. Conclusive evidence is hard to come by, and the nation’s intelligence officials are split.
Many scientists believe that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, spread from animals to humans—known as zoonotic transmission—in late 2019. Some researchers have said the virus originated in bats, like similar coronaviruses. But there are several possibilities: a naturally emerging virus that infected people outside of a laboratory; a naturally emerging virus that was studied inside a lab and leaked; or a virus that was produced as a result of experimentation in a lab.
So long as the public looking for these articles understands that peer reviewed does not mean the publication is correct. It only means that it followed accepted standards of practice. It's perfectly acceptable for two (or more) peer reviewed publications to appear in the same journal and yet be diametrically opposed. It's also possible for a publication to be peer reviewed, technically correct, and completely irrelevant. Like the word "theory," the scientific meaning and the general public meaning are two different things.
Anyone who has read a peer reviewed academic paper knows that there is often a section near the end of the paper, after the conclusion, that specifies areas of weakness in the research and proposed next steps to advance research on the subject. Most research acts as stepping stones in the study and understanding of a subject. I don't believe that any academic paper I've read has claimed omniscience on the subject that was researched.
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.
