Reply With Quote
Go peddle your George Soros funded weaponised propaganda “studies” to someone stupid enough to
listen.
SOCIAL/SOFT science is rarely definitive.
Go peddle your George Soros funded weaponised propaganda “studies” to someone stupid enough to
listen.
I was gonna say the same thing.
“This study was funded by the Open Society Foundations U.S. Programs.”
wow
Soros
The problem with politically motivated studies is that I could easily find a Koch brothers funded study that says the exact opposite, this entire thread isn’t a waste of everyone’s time. Don’t post George Soros and expect to get a different response.
Please do; I'd like to see that study.
Something something jew
Don’t make me call that Turk poster in here.
go ahead if that floats ur boat
So now Harvard = Soros = Koch Bros.
The conspiratorial delusions of white trash on display here are affirmation of the OP.
Part of the problem is widespread su ion of facts—any facts. Both mistrust of scientists and other “experts” and mistrust of the mass media that reports what scientists and experts believe have increased among conservatives (but not among liberals) since the early ’80s.
Thanks again.
https://link.springer.com/article/10...109-010-9112-2
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
So let's go through the slate articles' peer reviewed papers, because they form the basis of his thesis.An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also do ent several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.
Feel free to actually address the studies and their flaws as you see it at any time. Let me know how the scientists got it wrong.
So the first article here says that people often dig in when presented with information that contradicts what they think is true.
Here we have conservatives doing exactly what the scientific paper predicts they would.
One thing that one has to get over is "motivated reasoning". It is a useful concept to understand if the subject is how human beings process information.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/in...-kahan-answers
1. To begin, motivated cognition refers to the unconscious tendency of individuals to fit their processing of information to conclusions that suit some end or goal. Consider a classic example. In the 1950s, psychologists asked experimental subjects, students from two Ivy League colleges, to watch a film that featured a set of controversial officiating calls made during a football game between teams from their respective schools. The students from each school were more likely to see the referees’ calls as correct when it favored their school than when it favored their rival. The researchers concluded that the emotional stake the students had in affirming their loyalty to their respective ins utions shaped what they saw on the tape.
The end or goal motivates the cognition in the sense that it directs mental operations—in this case, sensory perceptions; in others, assessments of the weight and credibility of empirical evidence, or performance of mathematical or logical computation—that we expect to function independently of that goal or end. But the normal connotation of “motive” as a conscious goal or reason for acting is actually out of place here and can be a source of confusion. The students wanted to experience solidarity with their ins utions, but they didn’t treat that as a conscious reason for seeing what they saw. They had no idea (or so we are to believe; one needs a good experimental design to be sure this is so) that their perceptions were being bent in this way.
Whole argument is stupid, nuh uh you’re biased these numbers say so cmon dude it’s science! Peer reviewed by GEORGE SOROS and my liberal buddies. Like, conservative bias! Yeah you bet your ass I’m going to attack a biased source. It’d be like me posting infowars as proof and then saying see, I knew these liberals would attack the source just as I said they would. You’re not very intelligent if you can’t see the game being played here. It’s an attempt to monopolize reality when in fact everyone has a different perspective of reality. Some more correct than others but none are 100%. Don’t link a study funded by a billionaire with a track record of pushing an agenda and use it as a basis to attack me when I scoff at it.
Have you found one yet?
The whole idea of quantifying fake news is stupid because the very nature of fake news itself is subjective, we can’t agree on what’s fake news and what’s real news. Numbers can be massaged it’s done in polling all the time. Any attempt at quantifying the subjective is always going to be biased.
stories that are totally fabricated such as "hillary clinton indictment imminent" or "pope endorses donald trump" are pretty blatant fake news. the term was popularized to describe just that. or when people attributed that quote to trump where he said "if i ever ran for president i would run republican because their voters are stupid" or something along those lines. blatant fake news. totally fabricated with no redeeming quality. no sources, not even anonymous ones. meant purely to attract clicks and sway opinions. demonstrably false, ie crowd sizes
sometimes you have articles where the source is unreliable, or there are conflicting sources telling different stories. this is always something that will happen in washington, where various players want to use the media as a tool to their benefit. reporters know that risk, and it's also why there tends to be a little more skepticism when you have unnamed sources. i think it would be really odd to call something fake news, if a reporter is admittedly passing along what he was told by a source. good example would be the hole thing. did he really say it? who knows. you have people in the room saying he did say it, other people in the room saying they never heard it. a reporter who gives one of those sources an outlet is passing alone the word of the source, not fabricating the quote
and other times you have people giving opinions. agree or disagree, they're not "fake news" if they're just giving some shmuck's opinion. granted, sometimes they rely on spotty evidence to base their opinions from
essentially, the entire MSM is guilty, and has been for decades, of what Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman called "manufacturing consent".
That is where the rubber meets the road in differentiating sophistry and science.
And youre guilty of subscribing to the marketed groupthink categorization of MSM as opposed to the right wing outlets who peddle the notion.
Chomsky and Herman talk about "the mass media" which includes both political biases. It is interesting you regurgitate the marketing though.
a) infowars is not peer reviewed, so no, it wouldn't be like that
b) the study is not peer reviewed by george soros or his liberal buddies. they may provide funding (and yes, that gives reason for skepticism... but not to discredit wholesale), but you know how peer review works (assuming this is BUMP. tbh i have no idea who you claim to be anymore)
i didn't even realize i made a premise about the right. but i guess i can't stop you from inferring whatever you care to even though i never even mentioned the right one way or the other. why should i? the right wing so called media doesn't even deserve to be considered in the conversation. it's pure lunatic fringe.
Feeling is mutual tbh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions