Here's a quick quiz for you:
In the biblical story, what was Jonah swallowed by?
How many animals of each kind did Moses take on the Ark?Did you answer "whale" to the first question and "two" to the second? Most people do ... even though they're well aware that it was Noah, not Moses who built the ark in the biblical story.
Psychologists like me call this phenomenon the Moses Illusion. It's just one example of how people are very bad at picking up on factual errors in the world around them. Even when people know the correct information, they often fail to notice errors and will even go on to use that incorrect information in other situations.
Research from cognitive psychology shows that people are naturally poor fact-checkers and it is very difficult for us to compare things we read or hear to what we already know about a topic. In what's been called an era of "fake news," this reality has important implications for how people consume journalism, social media and other public information.
The Moses Illusion has been studied repeatedly since the 1980s. It occurs with a variety of questions and the key finding is that – even though people know the correct information – they don't notice the error and proceed to answer the question.
[...] Detecting and correcting false information is difficult work and requires fighting against the ways our brains like to process information. Critical thinking alone won't save us. Our psychological quirks put us at risk of falling for misinformation, disinformation and propaganda. Professional fact-checkers provide an essential service in hunting out incorrect information in the public view. As such, they are one of our best hopes for zeroing in on errors and correcting them, before the rest of us read or hear the false information and incorporate it into what we know of the world.
https://theconversation.com/why-you-stink-at-fact-checking-93997
[Related]:
[PDF] Moses illusion: Implication for human cognition
Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion
Although the title seems click-baity, this is an interesting article. As most of you are techies, you must have faced a few problems with regard to fact-checking. What do you think about this phenomenon ?
Related Stories
FiveThirtyEight is covering the efficacy of fact-checking and other methods to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Fact-checking, after the fact, is better than nothing, it turns out. There are some common factors in the times when it has been done successfully:
Political scientists Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood conducted an exhaustive battery of surveys on fact-checking, across more than 10,000 participants and 13 studies that covered a range of political, economic and scientific topics. They found that 60 percent of respondents gave accurate answers when presented with a correction, while just 32 percent of respondents who were not given a correction expressed accurate beliefs. That’s pretty solid proof that fact-checking can work.
But Porter and Wood have found, alongside many other fact-checking researchers, some methods of fact-checking are more effective than others. Broadly speaking, the most effective fact checks have this in common:
- They are from highly credible sources (with extra credit for those that are also surprising, like Republicans contradicting other Republicans or Democrats contradicting other Democrats).
- They offer a new frame for thinking about the issue (that is, they don’t simply dismiss a claim as “wrong” or “unsubstantiated”).
- They don’t directly challenge one’s worldview and identity.
- They happen early, before a false narrative gains traction.
It is as much about psychology as actually rebutting the disinformation because factors like partisanship and worldview have strong effects, and it is hard to reach people inside their social control media echo chambers from an accurate source they will accept.
[Though often incorrectly attributed to Mark Twain, one is reminded of the adage: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”. --Ed.]
Previously:
(2020) Nearly Half of Twitter Accounts Pushing to Reopen America May be Bots
(2019) Russians Engaging in Ongoing 'Information Warfare,' FBI Director Says
(2019) How Fake News Spreads Like a Real Virus
(2019) More and More Countries are Mounting Disinformation Campaigns Online
(2019) At Defcon, Teaching Disinformation Campaigns Is Child's Play
(2018) Why You Stink at Fact-Checking
(2017) Americans Are “Under Siege” From Disinformation
(2015) Education Plus Ideology Exaggerates Rejection of Reality
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:07AM (36 children)
Jewish semantic trickery. A whale is not technically a "fish" and there were two (male and female assumed, for reproductive purposes) of each kind of species or whatever on the ark.
I cannot provide any other hints except that the Whale Shark [wikipedia.org] is technically the largest "fish" and that I learned all these biblical passages from the Disney movie Pinnochio.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:20AM (10 children)
Always with the racist or anti-semitic bullshit. This always undermines any salient point you may stumble upon while posting.
We know this now, due to science. This distinction was not known at the time the Bible was written.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:34AM (9 children)
Not even by God?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:14AM (6 children)
Jesus Christ knows everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:49AM (5 children)
Jesus was a Jew. Anti-semitic bastards like the Ethanol killed him. So I say, next progrom, we shadow-ban the Ethanol_fueled. Make him think he is still posting, but only he and Jesus will see it, so on the Final Day of Judgement, when Eth looks at the saviour, and calls him some nasty epithet, being banned with be the least of his problems.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:34AM (4 children)
> Anti-semitic bastards like the Ethanol killed him
"I find no fault in this man" Pontius Pilate
looks like you fail Bible 101...
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday March 31 2018, @11:57AM (2 children)
Pontius Pilate the Roman? Yeah, it's interesting that he garners little blame in the holy text of a religion that was trying to appeal to Roman citizens from the Emperor downwards long before a canon form of those texts was formed. History is written by the winner and all that...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:42PM (1 child)
A text that inherently destroys any emperor's attempt at being considered divine and attempts to be politically correct towards the Romans?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kazzie on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:33PM
You make a good point there, but bear in mind that Emperor Constantine I himself convened the First Council of Nicea [wikipedia.org] to thrash out a universal Christian doctrine, and later decided on his deathbed that he wasn't quite divine enough, and converted to Christianity himself.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday April 02 2018, @01:40PM
And yet, he still let the Jewish leaders carry on with killing Jesus. Pilate even had his wife telling him that Jesus was innocent and that it was revealed to her in a dream. Pilate may / may-not have been anti-semitic, but he definitely aided and abetted in the killing.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:32PM (1 child)
> Not even by God?
Who knows? the fact that a god does not introduce a categorization at the time unknown does not prove much.
Anyway, you have a point. The bible has been undergoing some refinements, the original must have been something like:
- here's your tablets Moses, take care.
- what are these symbols, LORD?
- binary code, obviously, Moses.
- never heard about that.
- never mind, it's for your future masters.
- wait, what?
- never mind, put them somewhere safe, and remember that it's 8 bit ASCII.
- er... thank you LORD
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 03 2018, @04:13PM
What brand, how much memory and battery time for those tablets? (if it's Windows, keep your buggy tablets, God, I'm not interested )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:35AM (17 children)
> male and female assumed, for reproductive purposes
Remind the bible-thumpers and judges, every time: the second generation after Noah's Ark, Every Single land animal had to be committing incest.
God made incest the rule of the land, intentionally.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:47AM (16 children)
>god made incest the rule of the land
Whereas originally life developed from different separate organisms who happened to be sexually compatible huh?
Life starts from a single organism, and the first reproduction was probably not between fully sexually differentiated organisms. So if anything the god made an improvement.
Rule of the land, in a land where parthenogenesis of species that are considered sexually differentiated occurs under extreme conditions.
But at least you came up with some new attack on god. I was tired of the old trite pap.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:50PM (7 children)
...did...did you ever take biology? Ever? Or were you homeschooled?
Look, Bot, "parthenogenesis" is not the name for what life was doing before sex-as-we-know-it came along. The term you're looking for is "asexual reproduction," which may cover binary fission, budding, and even viral replication. Sex as we know it evolved from earlier recombinatorial techniques; it was a fairly obvious next step, after multicellularity, to have the recombination only happen in specialized cells.
"Attack on God," nothing. Theistic evolution is a thing. Why are you so asspained over the idea that someone is "attacking" your genocidal maniac of a God-figure anyway? He's supposed to be omnipotent, so he's invincible.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 03 2018, @09:04AM (6 children)
> Why are you so asspained over the idea that someone is "attacking" your genocidal maniac of a God-figure anyway?
I can't answer, since those attacks are so common to be boring more than infuriating.
For example, your rebuttal was an ad-bot on the term parthenogenesis, while I was speaking about... parthenogenesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Facultative [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Obligate [wikipedia.org]
But, by all means, you are free to better articulate your thought about how building arks makes incest the rule of the land, overriding a ccouple of other explicit instructions found elsewhere among the same books.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:48PM (5 children)
This isn't difficult.
If you have only 2 of every unclean animal and 7 pairs of every clean one (and you sacrifice a bunch of those, because your God is just another Bronze-age holdover who loves him some burning fat, and says so in his holy scripture...) then you have, shall we say, a rather shallow gene pool. Not so much a genetic bottleneck as a genetic micropipette-neck, one might say. And if you have only one human family, well...I hope I don't need to draw you a picture. Especially because that would take way more pink and peach and tan crayons than I've ever seen in one place.
So yes, the Noah's Ark situation, were it even physically possible, *would* make incest the law of not just the land but also the air...not sure about the sea, since drowning fish is about as effective as, well, as your proselytizing, but still...
Besides, your "i'm not angry, i'm bored" response belies itself. Were you truly just bored, you'd simply not reply. Truth is, you're another autofellating triumphalist who hasn't actually got the philosophical, logical, or historical chops he thinks he does and wants everyone else to think he does. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, and you and your demonic God can both go to Hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Bot on Wednesday April 04 2018, @12:22PM (4 children)
If I didn't reply you people would believe there is no reply to be made.
Sorry, whatever reasoning you are making on the ark it cannot deny the reality of today, where we have enough genetic variation. If you were right we would have been extinct or diseased.
Whether this is compatible with a truly all earth disaster or not, I dunno. It is funny that before the flood, lives were described as longer. Going to full blown speculation, what if days were shorter because the rotation speed of the earth was faster, then something like this [youtu.be] happened, as it was a common myth to many ancient civilizations, so it's not a religion problem.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 04 2018, @07:45PM (3 children)
In re: the Ark...read this, read it well: https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark [ncse.com]
This isn't even a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" question at this point, since we can't actually disprove angels or celestials, but this puts paid to the Ark story. And I'm...what's the anti-particle as it were of "impressed?" Whatever it is, I'm *that* at the glib, worthless "well stuff works TODAY" non-sequitur you just shat.
Okay, I get it, you're a fideist, and no amount of evidence or facts will change your mind, such as it is. Well, it's a free country, so feel free to keep being an idiot, but I'm going to keep kicking your ass up and down the aisle as you do in the interest of vaccinating people against your stupidity, even if you're too dumb to see it...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 04 2018, @10:48PM (2 children)
I am reading:
> An immense storage area for food, fresh water, and waste was needed
waste?
Kidding me, right?
This fairy tale is not worthy of my attention.
(Just using the typical fedora metric to judge books. Now go play my side, convince me that these irregularities notwithstanding the pulp of the matter is valid)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 05 2018, @02:16AM (1 child)
You didn't read the entire thing, did you? You're making yourself look absolutely pathetic here. What is it that motivates you to cling to, it appears, a literal acceptance of the Ark and Flood narratives?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 05 2018, @09:15AM
Why should read it all? It spends a paragraph telling the ark was difficult to do without considering you have a god speaking to you. It does not consider that part of the bible was orally transmitted, so it may contain symbols. It does not consider the flood is recounted in other ancient cultures so that part of the book is history other than theology.
Oh wait I read it all. Basically, god can't save a teeny weeny ark after flooding the earth.
Fairy tale, as I told you.
(yes, the skeptics side is easier)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 02 2018, @05:03AM (7 children)
> new attack on god
I don't have a beef with any fairy tale character (ok, maybe the guy who assaults Sleeping Beauty in her sleep, or the Stockholm Syndrome other Beauty). I just love to point out the contradictions to those who attack millions (figuratively, or physically) based on a selective reading of their own sacred book.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 03 2018, @09:06AM (6 children)
I am eagerly reading the Bible looking for a justification to physically attack unbelievers, but I ran into huge problems since the Son and some obscure catholic canon law explicitly forbids it, so if you find something usable with no contradiction, please notify.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:50PM (5 children)
So all those crusaders and every Christian who has ever attacked anyone else for not being Christian gets a free one-way express ticket to Hell, hmm? Despite "compel them to come in" in Luke? Interesting. You'd think your God would've been a little clearer about that and not given conflicting instructions, or even anything that could possibly be taken as conflicting instructions, in his holy writ.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 04 2018, @12:10PM (4 children)
> So all those crusaders and every Christian who has ever attacked anyone else for not being Christian gets a free one-way express ticket to Hell, hmm?
Who knows, I am not able to reverse engineer their mind and soul. All I have is the example set by Christ, the commandments, and the context.
> compel them to come in -- Luke
hm. you derive the 007 license to kill from this, when out of metaphor it probably says the kingdom of God is made open to those that were not the originally chosen ones, which will not even have asked for it, I suggest you to make less assumptions when interpreting.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 04 2018, @07:41PM (3 children)
Oh it's not just me who derives that license, though historically it's been less a license to kill than to torture horribly for weeks on end and THEN kill. You weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition?
And Jesus is no example. Listen and listen good, Bot: anyone whose MO boils down to "kiss my ass or I will fry yours for eternity" is not only not worth worshiping, but is very likely a demon. The Bible somehow manages, to anyone with three working brain cells, to make its supposed hero into the literal worst-of-all-possible-worlds villain and at least one of its villains (who gets conflated with others extra-Biblically...) probably the central hero of the story.
When the guy doing the saving is the guy whose temper tantrums you're being saved from, that's not a gift. That's blackmail. That's domestic terror. The Bride of Christ is a battered wife, and it was my own experience as a teenager and young adult working with battered spouses that made that particular lightbulb go off in my head.
You know what that makes you? "Bottom bitch." The one who thinks the pimp won't kill her if she does the smacking-down of the other hos for him when they get out of line. I can tell you from secondhand experience that doesn't last and you not only a fool for thinking it does, but evil for doing it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 04 2018, @11:16PM (2 children)
> And Jesus is no example.
This clashes with the peculiar way Jesus talks, which makes sense when setting an example for man. Talking about/with the father in third person, for example, is setting an example. There would be no need to talk.
> That's domestic terror.
The god is either absent or lets you do whatever you want on this earth. Instead, the definition of terror is coercition by fear. No coercition, no terror. No coercition means you can terrorize in the name of god too.
No coercition does not imply lack of responsibility. Responsibility implies the risk of whatever the hell the hell is.
> The battered wife...
...is leaving the husband and all we got was a lightning strike on S. Peter (well there is also a couple other strange coincidences, but no signatures of a very evil god. If He needs suggestions, I am here)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 05 2018, @02:18AM (1 child)
You seem to have some problems with reading comprehension...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 05 2018, @12:25PM
I just don't read what you do, because my impression of the books does not adhere to your synthesis. This is not even a rematter of faith.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:26AM (2 children)
Do you imply Jews are animals? F. Nazi everywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:56AM (1 child)
If you check out the American Neo-Nazi on-line Dating services, it is pretty obvious that Nazis do not successfully procreate. There are no "alt-right" women, except those who are being paid to be hangers-on and camp-followers, or as they refer to their "women". "THOT". (Translation for normal men: "That Hore Over There". Not something any Gentleman would use to refer to any female, even if it were the case, because Gentleman are gentle men, for the win.
So God only allowed Moses to take two Nazis onto the Ark, but they were both male, and hilarity ensued.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:46PM
Wait, the neo-nazis use black slang?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:20AM (1 child)
You're wrong about Noah's Ark. Genesis 7:2 makes quite clear that he took much more than just 1 pair of each kind of clean animals. Plus, if he hadn't, the fact that he sacrificed 1 of each clean animal in Genesis 8:20 would have rendered all the clean animals extinct.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:37PM
We are talking about Moses' ark, buddy. Pay attention pls.
(seriously, touché)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 31 2018, @11:44AM (1 child)
A whale does not fit our current definition of "fish". It certainly fit the definition of "fish" from that time, which is "animal that lives in the water."
It's as if you criticise a text from the 20th century for calling Pluto a planet, while it is well known that Pluto is a dwarf planet, and despite the name a dwarf planet is not a planet.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:10PM
Pluto is a planet of restricted growth, you insensitive clod.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:29AM (2 children)
I have to admit, it was pretty damn clever for the democrats to create a bunch of supposed "fact checking" web sites and get their buddies over at Google/Facebook/Twitter to use them in a misinformation campaign... but this has a cost. Because so much has legitimately turned out to be conspiracy, now everything looks like a conspiracy.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:32AM
No, it was not "clever." They rolled the dice and lost with complete disregard to the way the world was unfolding around them.
(Score: 3, Touché) by number11 on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:32AM
You'll feel better when the hangover wears off, Ivan.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:57AM (23 children)
Reality is neither liberal, nor conservative. Reality is indifferent to humanity. Any liberal bias is in the eye of the beholder. There is more reason to suppose that reality is conservative, actually, because the penalties for failing to understand reality are so harsh. Liberals do not allow harsh into their world view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:30AM (20 children)
Aww you were so close but you had to fall immediately back down the partisan hole.
There are arguments you can make for reality have liberal and conservative components, but primarily the "liberal bias" people refer to is the fact that humanity thrives when we cooperate. Conservatism is generally more insular and competitive with outsiders and often promotes division between "us" and "them". Liberal values are more inclusive and over time they have been shown to be more successful. That said some values are being pushed to ridiculous extremes that defy common sense and create division of their own.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:43AM
So, you've resorted to making excuses for people who are unable to plainly state what is on their mind. And, reality has no bias after all, right? And, at the end of the day, we have people making meaningless noises in an attempt to convince themselves that they know what they are talking about. Only, instead of thanking God, you want to thank Reality. Interesting . . .
At least you understand that some of those liberal values have reached the "ridiculous" level. If one were to take that diversity nonsense to it's ultimate extreme, we would have a research unit, consisting of almost every ethnic group in the world. One group - let's say Polynesians - was missing, though. After many months of tough research, Human Resources would realize that the Polynesian were missing. The ONLY Polynesian available just happens to be an ignorant booby who failed kindergarden, has never accomplished anything in his life, is addicted to drugs, has a long arrest record - but he's hired anyway. And, he leads the research team to success within a week of being hired.
And, that whole story only "proves" that reality has a liberal bias!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:49AM (18 children)
Except when they aren't, of course. Let us also keep in mind that a lot of conservative values these days are liberal as well. A conservative democrat is always going to be more liberal than a progressive statist, for example.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:12AM (1 child)
In case you missed the last part of what I said I'll clarify things for you, you are a douche.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:19AM
Nope. Not seeing the problem with what I wrote. We aren't anywhere near those ridiculous extremes at present. But perhaps this is the "I didn't really mean it" weasel clause?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:14AM (15 children)
Quite a number of idiosyncrasies coming from your direction, your majesty.
Of course we'll let you "keep in mind", or "remember", or "note", you are free to do as you please. If the mothership allows you to, who are we to object?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:22AM (14 children)
So what? An opinion is by definition very close to an idiosyncrasy [oxforddictionaries.com]:
Is there something you think I should know?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:38AM (13 children)
Yessir, of course there is: don't be surprised if many of us won't swallow your BS, much less keep it in mind.
The frequent use of "Let us..." is a patronizing attempt to rally around your position; it may sound as "academic speak" but what usually follows is subprime intellectual garbage.
However, we'll let you indulge in your feeling of "I'm behaving like a leader for us" because we love you as our soylentil brother.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:10AM (12 children)
You want to be treated like a grown up? Act like one. I'm not going to take you seriously when you whine like a five year old. I don't have to give you a lollypop. I won't.
Let us recall the previous AC coy remark which added nothing to the discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:28AM (9 children)
I'm acting like one, pointing out how you are seen from outside yourself.
If you can do something about it, you'll do it, if you can't you won't.
Which has nothing to do with the observation I shared with you, thus the act of recalling is not necessary in this case.
Your chosen wording signals that you won't do anything to adjust yourself. Little surprise there, conservatives try to can their mind and preserve it, like a pickle or a jam; they'll disregard how backward they end due to the world moving ahead and letting them behind.
In the end do as you like, your "majesty plural" user; just keep in your minds or do an act of collective recalling that, as much as we love you, there's nobody to follow you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @06:36AM (8 children)
No, you aren't. You're playing games. And I return that, tit for tat.
Let us note that I disagree.
So what? I'm not the problem here. And I'm not changing my ways because a) I don't care about your opinion, and b) I don't respect your opinion.
I gather you don't have anything better to do with your time, but if you ever should change, this pointless activity would be a great thing to completely excise from your life. Perhaps you should preemptively do it so that you actually will have a life at some point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:47AM (7 children)
There's no problem anywhere. Just a view from outside you, view which was offered free of any obligation.
No need to throw a tantrum over it (ref "I'm not going to take you seriously... I don't have to give you a lollypop. I won't.")
Oh, if you only could feel yourself how much this hurts me! It's like having a nanotube of carbon in my ass, trying to impede on me giving whatever the mentioned orifice usually gives.
Suggestion noted; even if I admit that it's not very likely I'll be in a crisis if spare time in the next couple of days. I can thus indulge in staying on this thread a little more.
Back to you, khallow. We, the readers, have an enquiring mind, please let us note next a revelation on how useful an expenditure of your time this thread is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:03AM (2 children)
khallow, just admit it, you have lost again. You have equated informed opinion to bizarre right-wing ideological positions such as your own. So by your own petard, you are hoist. Your opinion is your opinion, only your opinion, supported by no facts or evidence, and you expect us to accept that as any thing more than the more refined and ethereal kind of bullshit?
The better part of Valor, my dear and Fluffy khallow, is to admit when you are fairly bested. To continue on like this bespeaks bad faith, and a lack of rational awareness. Please, Soylentils deserve better from you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:55PM (1 child)
Where is the AC complaining about pejorative turns of speech and the much less polished attempts at eloquence now?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:25PM
Here I am
Rock you like a hurricane (Are you ready, baby?)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:10PM (2 children)
LOL, talk about that Royal wee wee!! And, how many readers have to share the same mind?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:18PM
LOL. That sucker must be completely worn out by now, if this is all they have to complain about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:03PM
It doesn't include you, Runaway! No matter, never mind. And take your hands off the Royal wee-wee, you perv!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:04PM
A view, which let us note, could be greatly improved by its beholder growing up. Here's the petty game and double standard that's being played. aristarchus can shit wherever he likes, such as in reply to this very article(!), and you won't say a thing. I use the "royal we" and the drama is on. I don't take serious the "views outside me" that ignore far worse than my supposed pretentiousness.
This isn't a helpful point of view. It's the whining of a small child.
The double standard is easily explained. I disagreed with some belief of your either in this thread or way back when, and you don't have a rational response. Rather than educate yourself on the matter and think about it a little, things that would allow you to come up with reasoned, thoughtful posts that actually challenge my viewpoints, you instead came up with a grammatical nit to pick, because that was the easy thing to do. And even then, you (or perhaps some other AC? You all look alike to me) played further games by starting with an insinuation rather than outright stating your opinion on the matter.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:04PM (1 child)
Well, now we know who succeeded Dr. Seus' Grinch.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:05PM
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @10:01AM (1 child)
You're quite liberal with your assertions. So much so that you are harshing my buzz.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:11PM
That are funny.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:59AM (1 child)
1. Fact-checking is intellectually hard and time-consuming. Believing lies is easy and fast.
2. The natural reaction of a human to contradictory evidence is to go with what they previously believed, regardless of new information.
3. For any fact-check with money at stake, there are people with deep pockets with an incentive for you to get it wrong, and thus will try to ensure the sources of information available to you lie to you about the subject at hand.
These all add up to something Jonathan Swift wrote: "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:24AM
You don’t subjugate the victim; you subjugate the one you fear or if that fails you place yourself as the victim subjugated by a “new” bully. Both are the most powerful stories we can tell. Behind which even the most villainous can hide.
There is a reason that some have subverted the teaching of Jesus. Getting rich and/or powerful isn’t possible if you die for the sins of all. You are merely as dead as any of the powerfuls’ sense of others is. But Christ knew those influences of the individual to repeat themselves. And is why he, himself, didn’t. He died for all.
And why stories are so powerful. A simple well written good story can change the world. But so can a similarly poorly written bad story. And that is the theft I see today happening to our world.
It will swing back, of course. And further down the road of freedom based on trust (not fear). LBut knowing we regress from this road in my twilight (even to return eventually) saddens me as my daughter will get less of the love God is trying to bring us all. And more of the hate he died to erase.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:08AM (19 children)
It's been a good 40+ years since I've been to church, but when I read Moses and ark together my brain instantly went "um, something's wrong here"
Maybe I watch too much Ellen and her word games, but still....
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Hartree on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:20AM (6 children)
Glad to know I wasn't the only one.
Next they'll be telling us about David slaying 50,000 Philistines with the jawbone of a wildebeest.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:23AM (2 children)
It got me, because I'm a speed reader. If I'd actually read the name, I probably would've noticed.
I'm not sure it's a good test. With information that is widely known, you're not expecting a routine rehashing to contain not just an error, but a trick. If you are a teacher and that's a book report by a student, you'd be reading it more carefully and probably wouldn't be fooled by that one. Or, if it made statements about things you didn't know, you'd likely be more skeptical. You'd certainly take other factors into account, like whether the source is well-known and trustworthy. Like, if that statement was on The Onion, or it was April Fools Day, you'd be reading it with much more skepticism.
Maybe since the article was about fact checking, I should not have been so trusting. Regardless of whether I saw the name or not, I was definitely not fooled into thinking Moses sailed the ark. The error did not work on me. It didn't change what I knew, did not even cause me to doubt I misremembered the Biblical story.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Spamalope on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:54PM
And it works because people have limited processing power, and naturally look for the important bits to focus on. You'll begin to skim as soon as your recognize bible things as the topic and only look closely when you see that pattern broken or something original vs by wrote rehash. Speed reading accentuates that process.
In any case, this isn't a fact check example it's a skimming isn't seriously studying example.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:28PM
When reading for information, try reading out loud. That requires more brain power and attention, which makes a person far more likely to notice errors or mistakes.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:50AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:38AM
... and you have plenty of both.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:47PM
Exactly, there is not much debate or fake news or propaganda around the topic of biblical fish stories. I'm sure some site exists full of angry debates about ancient religions, but whereever it is it isn't at that clickbait site or its discussion.
Also none of the propaganda sensors built into brains will trigger because again, its just a fish story.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:20AM (5 children)
Many of us believe that religion is stupid.
Maybe so, but you can't deny that [wordpress.com] looking down upon you [wordpress.com] is not awesome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:42AM (4 children)
Says the racist dickbag. You seem to be short on dicks this evening, gotta pack some more in!
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:46AM (3 children)
Suck my dick, you faggotfuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:08AM (2 children)
Many, wait, all of us, believe that Ethanol_fueled is stupid, and we believe that he is not a religion. Just pure, unadulterated, fueled by ethanol, stupid. At least he is pure, as in pure stupid, but at least pure something. Got to admire that in a dog, or in a troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:12PM (1 child)
Awesome! Cokehead posting as AC vs alchy arch-rival! Let the troll-down begin!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:54PM
I got the popcorn. Whoever loses, we win :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:54AM (1 child)
Just means you have a weak brain. My brain is strong, so it realized the authors made a mistake and auto-corrected it before the sentence reached conscious level understanding. In other words: Jst mns u hve a wk brn. My brn is strng, so it rlzd th athrs mde a mstke nd ato-crrted it bfre th sntnce rched cnscus lvl undrstndng.
It's not false news to the people who read it correctly. It would be false news to people who have never heard of it before and learned it based off that sentence.
Tee brain is a pattern matching machine. It makes assumptions. There was enough data to assume the name was correct, thus fully reading the name wasn't required. If you don't know the subject then you can't match a pattern to it thus you'll read what's actually there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:21PM
Exactly, was wondering if I'd be the first one to state the bleeding obvious in a thread that apparently instantly exploded into offtopic stupid. They are chasing up an entirely wrong tree here. Watch live TV sometimes, pay attention and watch how often supposedly highly intelligent and very educated people misspeak. If we had a custom of stopping the conversation and abusing the speaker for swapping out the name of a person or place by accident the whole thing would be even more useless than it currently is. No, our brains have a lot of error correction and we typically hot patch it and hear what everybody knows they meant to say and everybody moves on. And in the Internet Era the written word is now getting the same treatment because it is hard to find a block of text that is error free. Editors are endangered and will be extinct in our lifetime.
Bottom line, interesting observation but they entirely missed the meaning of it. It isn't a bug in humans, it is a feature to allow communication between brains that make random and often unimportant mistakes and communicate over lossy channels like speech where it easy to mishear a word here and there.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:53AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:49PM
I think I saw the film of the book that you mean: Raiders of the Lost Ark [rottentomatoes.com].
And then all the Nazis were killed, it was awesome!
That Ark didn't float, though, IIRC. Which was a minor disappointment.
(Score: 4, Touché) by FatPhil on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:38AM
Moses took 2 of each animal onto his ark. He had no ark, he took no animals. The statement is vacuously true. Every predicate is true about members of the empty set.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Funny) by Bot on Saturday March 31 2018, @10:06AM
> It's been a good 40+ years since I've been to church
unsurprisingly being said in comment #660666
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by legont on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:51AM (1 child)
Many years ago I stopped participating in surveys because I would not agree with questions let alone be able to chose an answer from the list. All the answers seemed wrong and I strongly suspected that the questionnaire was design to either BS clients or brainwash me or both. That was before the Internet.
I bet it's way worse today. The reason this whole fake news thing came up was because "wrong" folks learned to use the technique. In fact most script kiddies can now beat a liberal TV guru. And this is good.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:25PM
Yeah. These days most discussions lead me to question the premise of all parties to it. Try it, anytime you read of see a political discussion try to identify the defective premise that is causing the stupidity you see. It usually isn't hard to spot, but nobody even looks for it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:38AM (1 child)
> In the biblical story, what was Jonah swallowed by?
A giant fish
> How many animals of each kind did Moses take on the Ark?
Seven pairs of clean animals, and one pair each of unclean animals.
And yes: Noah, not Moses. I missed it too. The reason: mental shortcuts. The first question sets the stage -- it 'potentiates' the context to be 'Biblical questions'. Now that the context is trusted, we take shortcuts comprehending the second question.
This is not surprising. The alternative -- savouring each word -- means we don't get to process the volumes of information we come across each day.
The solution is less news. Spend less time online. Bye! I'm off to walk , speak to people and have lunch! :D
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday April 03 2018, @04:55AM
Is it just me, or SN has gotten a little shittier lately?
Dozens of posts, and only this single post way down where points out the stupidity and FUD and clickbaityness of the article.
This isn't about fake fact or fact checking, it's about the human tendency to overlook meaningless details and subconsciously correct errors, like how you tend to overlook typos or how yo can reed this wihtout problens.
I fail to see how asking leading questions is related to fact-checking, other than the fundamental fact that humans are fallible, in which case, thank you for your meaningful contribution to science.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:15AM (1 child)
So you can slip false premises into questions and people don't notice. Is that a big deal? How does that help anyone win an argument? It's a different category of errors than stating something false, and me not noticing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:05AM
It doesn't. What it does do is get people to shut up so that the propaganda can continue uninterrupted, while predisposing them to swallow whatever bullshit a "fact checker" can shove in their face, usually to propagate the MSM agenda.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:18AM
Q: Why You Stink at Fact-Checking?
A: Because of Moses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by fustakrakich on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:44AM
He had the 15 Commandments [youtube.com], right?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bot on Saturday March 31 2018, @10:04AM (1 child)
In a real world scenario, the answer is correct and discarding the fact that it was not Moses is mere noise reduction.
Have you meatbags ever given tech related advice, help? How many times you let OR EVEN ENCOURAGED wrong approximations as long as the final result was helpful to resolve issues?
The importance of this in the context of detecting fake news IS fake news. Or maybe this was the test.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:14PM
So when a normal person asks that question they normally mean Noah and not Moses. Because Moses didn't take animals into his ark (Moses' Ark was the Ark of the Covenant).
In a normal person's model of the questioner's thinking , the questioner is thinking of some character in the Bible and wants to know how many animals of each kind that character was taking into the ark. So for the question and questioner the name isn't the top priority, the biblical character is already "identified" by the questioner's description of what the character did, and the questioner wants to know more details of what happened.
More examples: if someone says "My Email is not working" you assume they are having problems using their email program/service, not that a particular email message is not working. Similar for "The Internet is down" complaints.
Or you visit some primitive peoples and they ask about the big bird you were inside, you assume they meant the plane arrived in. Both communicating parties have models in their mind, the words are to change the models.
p.s. FWIW according to the Bible for the "unclean" animals, Noah took a pair of each kind, for the "clean" ones Noah took 7 pairs.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:52PM
Because most people don't even question that these stories are not FACT. They are fiction, and they are bullshit in a blender. It doesn't matter if it gets all mixed up, it is still bullshit.