Lol no that’s not true! If you did that, the teacher or the school nerd about this subject would challenge you. He will come your house, ring your doorbell, and you’ll go together to your city library. Unlike the internet, you could not just source some shit some-nobody made up and spread it online. You had to prove it with hard-text published sourced papers.
We used to pay higher cost in money, time and effort in order to learn any topic. As a result, once you learn it, you hold it for life, and spread it and proudly challenge others about its truth everywhere you go, which pushes you to seek further.
Each room of our house still has a large bookshelf library. I never left any of the books which I personally bought untouched including those large expensive hard-cover multi-series encylopedias about physics, chemistry, mathatics, history, philosophy, language, geology, politics and everything. I had to read them at least once to learn their topics otherwise I would’ve lost that money.
Btw I’m not talking about school textbooks; no those we used to burn in celebration at the end of each year’s graudation outside the parking lots!
Lol we really grew up in different timesWe used to pay higher cost in money, time and effort in order to learn any topic.
Coughs in crippling student loan debt that no prior generation has ever known
lmao… not that type of cost! you’re right dammit
Before there was the Internet there were libraries. Your main reference books were dictionaries for looking up proper definitions of unknown words. Then you had encyclopedias for general topics. To get really specialized you had to consult the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature. That was an index organized by topic of magazine articles, including scientific ones like Nature. Reference librarians were very helpful in finding specific information in a hurry, and there were some books that couldn’t leave the library.
aunt Marge has been replaced by AI now
Most people in my life still don’t fact check. I’m constantly chasing the truth while the convo runs away full of misinfo
I honestly have no idea how people can live like that. Yet I see it so often that I’m convinced it’s the norm.
People like to live within their comfort zones. I remember a study being referenced that claimed to show introducing facts contrary to a person’s existing viewpoint don’t get them to change, it just made them double-down and be more defensive.
Oh look, misinformation, lol. The study was about how science communication is based on outdated ideas and that simply presenting facts is not as effective as whole-person education. The media seems to have just read the title and maybe abstract, and ran with “you can’t change minds, stop trying”, when that’s not what it concluded.
To quote from the conclusion of the study itself:
Facts will not always change minds, but there is promise that other things will, including creating spaces for group dialogue and debate, targeting emotions and embodied knowledge, embracing multiple perspectives, altering environments to create new behaviors, and being strategic about whom we seek to target with our message. We need to provide training for our students in cognitive and behavioral science, as human attitudes and actions are both the primary cause of and the solution to the current conservation crisis (Nielsen et al., 2021).
I remember a study being referenced that claimed to show introducing facts contrary to a person’s existing viewpoint don’t get them to change, it just made them double-down and be more defensive.
To be fair, this is exactly what they said. Facts alone are not enough - you need rhetoric. So, not misinformation.
That is not what the study said though. OP said that introducing facts causes people to double down and doesn’t get them to change, when the study says that introducing facts only works a percentage of the time.
Facts alone sometimes works, but it’s more effective when combined with other strategies. Saying facts alone doesn’t work, is misinfo.
Edit: clarifying pronouns
Fair enough. However, I was under the interpretation that evidence remains the same either way; it is the way it is presented that affects the likelihood of someone changing their mind. Presenting the evidence by itself may have a small chance at a positive effect, while including proper rhetoric lowers the negative and increases positive chance.
Therefore evidence should always be presented “correctly” to avoid setbacks, and the takeaways are thus functionally identical.
I mean I get your point, and I’m sure it’s more nuanced than this and depends on a whole host of other factors like whether it’s a politically charged topic (deoxygenated blood being blue vs HRT actually working), emotional state, connection to other core beliefs (like religious ones), etc. some or all of which are mentioned in the study.
Like I’m sure for topics that aren’t really important, just presenting the correct fact is enough to adjust most people’s view, unless they are particularly stubborn. Like saying “peeing on a jellyfish sting doesn’t really help actually” will usually be met with “oh, huh, I didn’t know that”. But even something as simple as saying “the earth isn’t flat” will make some people very angry. Start listing facts for a more complex topic like climate change, economics, or sociology and people will absolutely double down on whatever black-and-white viewpoint they already hold.
But yeah sure enough, they shouldn’t have used an absolute qualifier I guess.
Therefore evidence should always be presented “correctly” to avoid setbacks, and the takeaways are thus functionally identical.
The problem that you’re running into here, is that there is no “correct” method to avoid setbacks. It is not possible to have a 100% rate of efficacy when dealing with such a diverse group as the entirety of the human race. Even the study mentions that methods will need to vary depending on who you’re talking to, and it’s likely that methods will need to be changed or adapted as demographics change or new knowledge is reached.
deleted by creator
That’s wild to me cos like… We didn’t need internet to tell us this was incorrect.
deleted by creator
It’s not like it doesn’t have some logic to it. Blood is to carries oxygen throughout the body and then cycles back through the lungs to get more oxygen. So when you look at your arms and see the blue veins we just thought that was obviously the deoxygenated blood returning to the heart.
It made basic sense, so no one was running down to the library to check out a medical textbook to disprove it.
My first thought was how ears and noses look red when sunlight shines through them. If blood was blue, wouldn’t they be blue or purple?
Ever see a blood draw? Blood comes out of a vein, into a non-O2 environment.
I think we just don’t do as much critical introspection as we like to think. Its easier to imagine maybe there was a tiny amount of O2 or something than that the thing we were taught was entirely false.
I think we just don’t do as much critical introspection as we like to think.
It’s definitely true, and it shows that the stuff you learn as kids is even more ingrained than we even notice most of the time. Kids don’t normally have blood drawn, so it’s not like elementary schools were filled with a bunch of kids saying “wait a minute, that didn’t happen with my last blood draw.”
deleted by creator
You look when they draw blood?
deleted by creator
Even as a kid I thought that was stupid. If blood is blue in the body and only turns red when it touches oxygen, then why is it red in the water?
I was told that’s only in the movies. In real life it would be blue.
But then again I got a detention for arguing that the moon is visible during the day. The detention was because I pointed out to the window and said look, and she was embarrassed.
The answer is obvious, dissolved oxygen in the water–duh!
The detention was because … she was embarrassed.
Ohh yes, classic detention for proving the teacher wrong. There’s a depressing amount of teachers who rule by their ego instead of by science. It’s why I now consider my school discipline record as a source of pride instead of shame.
Because there’s oxygen in water. That’s what fish breathe!
I remember looking up “dirty” words in the dictionary as a real young one with a gaggle of friends
Now you are permanently overwhelmed by a tsunami of misinformation spewing out of your addictive phone instead. Progress.
If you can’t find the right information from the internet then skill issue
All the people replying to you arguing that you can’t trust the internet because of AI and Algorithims… this too is a skill issue. Stop going to Google or MSN or Yahoo There are search engines that don’t use algorithms or AI, and others that don’t use algorithms and you can turn off the AI.
It also helps to understand WHERE you are getting your information from and use watchdog sites that can tell you if a site is a reputable source or not. Heading over to I’Mright.com isn’t going to help you unless you’re looking for confirmation bias.
Exactly!
Sadly, I gotta disagree. Searching used to be easier, back when search engines prioritized finding useful information. Now they are vehicles for delivering ads and collecting user data.
Google of the early-2000s era was an entirely different site. I used to be able to find almost anything I needed to search for. As far as I’ve seen, there is nothing comparable to that early-Google out there today. (Though I’d be ecstatic to be proven wrong on that!)
Unfortunately Google is still the king of search engines. Try searching for most technical facts or most common issues or anything else on most search engines and you really can’t find it. You might find some things but you won’t find the amount of information you can find on Google. The problem with the internet nowadays is not that searching has gotten worse, it’s that there is such a plethora of information out there that you have to have the right skill set to be able to go through it. The reason you were able to find everything in the olden days was that there was so few websites out there that it was very very simple to search all of them. And the counterpoint to saying that there is a plethora of misinformation now when you’re looking at your phone simply means that you’re visiting websites and looking at sources that have a plethora of misinformation. It is very very simple to cross reference and find the correct information pretty much anywhere.
Said like someone that only looks at the “sponsored” results and thinks search doesn’t work. Exercise that scroll finger some more
Yeah I would agree with the other person 20 years ago. If you couldn’t find it online it probably didn’t exist
Searx is my way to go when i need to do research, it’s a search engine, that takes results from others
deleted by creator
Just disable AI slop from you search engine or stop using google and such, learn how to make un-biased searches, start to understand how to spot a fake information and start questioning what you read
deleted by creator
I never said that it’s a justification lol, anyway, biased search is when you search something like “Is X better than Y” or something like this, which is wrong to do because it’s biased and so it will give biased results too
Example:
If i search “is tomato more healty than potatoes?” Instead of “The pros and cons of eating tomatoes and potatoes” i will get biased results that will mostly say “you should eat only tomatos!!!”
deleted by creator
This is called a bias query because it will give you biased results
You say this as though AI is only poisoning search tools.
What do you mean? Just use alternatives like Searx or remove AI from duckduckgo, for results just read, AIs are easy to spot
Right, those are all search tools.
Who defines the “right information”? The algorithms? The information conforms to what your peer group is saying is the “right information”? It’s consistent with what government agencies are saying?
We really aren’t any better off than just believing what aunt Marge said since you can find the exact same thing she said and things the exact opposite and which one you believe is just down to what feels right. It’s just believing what aunt Marge said with more steps.
ultimately, every individual is responsible for what they choose to take as truth. this is why there has been such an aggressive assault on critical thinking in favor of “parental authority”-- just believe what you’re told and stop asking questions.
it’s not that hard to separate the plausible from the questionable, from the obvious bullshit.
as an example, dr. fauci is a doctor. he’s been a doctor for decades, has risen to high positions in the field, has been producing research, also for decades, which has been cited by other experts in the field frequently. and, prior to bullshit claims by trump and the entire GOP, was never the subject of any controversy.
so the discerning mind has no trouble concluding that it’s reasonable to assume that fauci, who knows what he’s talking about and has no apparent reason to mislead the entire world, is a credible source of information, while trump, a notorious conman who told 30,000 verifiable lies in his first term alone is absolutely NOT. so the GOP preaches “vaccines are bad,” and the “patriotic” american says “vaccines are bad”
yes it’s fucking mind-bogglingly stupid, but the problem isn’t a lack of availability of information, the problem is information literacy–the skill (yes skill) to separate truth (even if only “likely” truth) from fiction (even if comically obviously fiction). which the GOP is actively, deliberately, visciously undermining, while no one says a thing, because we’re preoccupied by nazi gestapo trump cultists rounding up innocent citizens because they’re brown
We only use 10% of our brains.
Even that is a common misconception. Our brains are working fully, all the time.
Our brains are working fully, all the time.
Hey, speak for yourself
Not if you’re MAGA.
Yep. The rebuttal that stuck with me was “We only use 33% of traffic lights.”
Tbf, they might have been right about themselves at the time they thought that.
My theory is they were sitting at around 5% usage.
At a time? Because using 100% of your brain is called a seizure.
Source: Once used 100% of my brain.
Or a really good orgasm.
Or a really bad shit.
Dad: “I don’t want to be in a club that would have me as its member”, Karl Marx said that
Fun fact: You can still order a current print volume of World Book Encyclopedia for the low price of $1,349.00
My parents got me this set of the Childcraft children’s encyclopaedias when I was like 6? I inhaled those things for knowledge back in the pre-internet days!
Am considering getting one for my own kiddo when they get old enough, but like most things from my childhood - they look to have been discontinued.
Just print all of Wikipedia
I’m willing to bet it’s cheaper than ever, (inflation adjusted)
Honestly surprisingly inexpensive given that about what a set of encyclopedias would cost you 35+ years ago. Not sure about World Book specifically but I know Britannicas were over $1k in 1990 because I remember a door-to-door salesmen trying to sell them to me. Can’t imagine anyone other than a library buying these now, and even there they’re probably all collecting dust.
“breakfast is the most important meal of the day!”
https://marketingmadeclear.com/kelloggs-marketing-lie/
tl;dr: it’s fucking not.
related: you’re not going to 100% die (or even get sick. yes really) if you skip a meal (or even 2), fatass.
edit: i have to add another thing
diamond engagement rings are absolute 100% bullshit, which, as a genXer, i only learned later in life. i wouldn’t be adding this if there weren’t still way too many people who are completely bamboozled by this fake “tradition” invented solely to make obscenely wealthy people even more obscenely wealthy.
Regarding to the diamond ring thing: Most “old traditions” or “old traditional things” aren’t actually old at all. In most cases, something that has been done for longer than you are alive counts as “old tradition”, because we don’t experience the past through history books and facts, but through our experience and through what adults told us when we grew up.
There have definitely been studies linking breakfast to various positive lifestyle outcomes, but that doesn’t mean you need 9 grapefruits and 4 bowls of kelloggs flakes. I don’t eat breakfast much myself but most of what I’ve run across has shown that it’s beneficial.
for kids i would agree, it makes sense that it’s better to have breakfast than not–their brains and bodies are actively under construction and need all the macros. but for the remaining 60+ years of life, there are studies supporting the notion that breakfast is optional: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-skipping-breakfast-bad#TOC_TITLE_HDR_2 all claims are cited
ultimately everyone should do what they want, but be skeptical of the “you must eat breakfast” claims bombarding everything everywhere, made by industries that have much to gain from everyone eating breakfast, and almost as much to lose from not everyone eating breakfast.
A reminder of https://yourschoolgotwrong.com/
Originally posted by https://lemmy.world/u/MiraLazineI had people arguing with me about blue blood long after the internet was available to everyone. I wouldn’t ever tell them they were stupid, but I would say, “I don’t think that’s right” and they would usually say they learned it in biology or a science class in high school and I would say, “that still doesn’t sound right. We should look that up later when get home to our computers” and then They would look at me like I was the idiot for suggesting they were misinformed in school… because you know… school teachers NEVER misinform their students… like ever 🙄
Speaking of misinforming your students; shout out to Miss O’Leary for saying Russia could Invade Canada with Tanks because we were landlocked during the colder months via the arctic.
Speaking of misinforming your students; shout out to Miss O’Leary for saying Russia could Invade Canada with Tanks because we were landlocked during the colder months via the arctic.
For anyone wondering, no it doesn’t freeze over in winter but there are chunks of ice you can hop across that might eventually get you to the firmer ice along the respective shores:
https://angusadventures.com/adventurer-handbook/beringstrait/
Fuuuuck. I need to have a look online. I still thought that was true.
45 - UK - sometimes acts like an adult. Obviously has a lot of garbage stuck in my brain.
Edit. FUCK. Yup, not blue. Optical illusion.
And don’t even ask us where we found porn.
We got it from Reggie. Don’t ask us where Reggie got it
We found it in the woods, naturally
Why is this such a common thing!? Who were these woods porn fairies? Mine was just a few ripped pages me and a friend found while digging randomly in the woods as kids, but still - boobs.
Same here! In hindsight, it’s so incredibly random to stumble across hustler and some other more hard-core magazines in the woods. My 8-9 year old brain wasn’t able to process all that very well…
“Why is the sky blue?”
“Because it’s reflecting the colour of the ocean.”
Removed by mod
Because it’s reflecting the colour of the sky.
why does it hurt when i pee?
It’s reflecting the colour of life.
Red pee means you have sinned.
Damn
