Group items tagged

Skepticism of online "news" serves as a decent filter much of the time, but our innate biases allow it to be bypassed, researchers have found - especially when presented with the right kind of algorithmically selected "meme." At a time when political misinformation is in ready supply, and in demand, "Facebook, Google, and Twitter function as a distribution mechanism, a platform for circulating false information and helping find receptive audiences," said Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth College (and occasional contributor to The Times's Upshot column). Why? Here are the key reasons: 1. Individual bias/first impressions: subtle individual biases are at least as important as rankings and choice when it comes to spreading bogus news or Russian hoaxes. Merely understanding what a news report or commentary is saying requires a temporary suspension of disbelief. Mentally, the reader must temporarily accept the stated "facts" as possibly true. A cognitive connection is made automatically: Clinton-sex offender, Trump-Nazi, Muslim men-welfare. And refuting those false claims requires a person to first mentally articulate them, reinforcing a subconscious connection that lingers far longer than people presume.Over time, for many people, it is that false initial connection that stays the strongest, not the retractions or corrections. 2. Repetition: Merely seeing a news headline multiple times in a news feed, even if the news is false, makes it seem more credible. 3. People tend to value the information and judgments offered by good friends over all other sources. It's a psychological tendency with significant consequences now that nearly two-thirds of Americans get at least some of their news from social media.

"Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it," Jonathan Swift once wrote. It was hyperbole three centuries ago. But it is a factual description of social media, according to an ambitious and first-of-its-kind study produced by MIT and published Thursday in Science. The massive new study analyzes every major contested news story in English across the span of Twitter's existence-some 126,000 stories, tweeted by 3 million users, over more than 10 years-and finds that the truth simply cannot compete with hoax and rumor. By every common metric, falsehood consistently dominates the truth on Twitter, the study finds: Fake news and false rumors reach more people, penetrate deeper into the social network, and spread much faster than accurate stories. "It seems to be pretty clear [from our study] that false information outperforms true information," said Soroush Vosoughi, a data scientist at MIT who has studied fake news since 2013 and who led this study. "And that is not just because of bots. It might have something to do with human nature."

Lying in politics transcends political party and era. It is, in some ways, an inherent part of the profession of politicking. But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. A whopping 70 percent of Trump's statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. (Compare that to the politician Trump dubbed "crooked," Hillary Clinton: Just 26 percent of her statements were deemed false.) For decades, researchers have been wrestling with the nature of falsehood: How does it arise? How does it affect our brains? Can we choose to combat it? The answers aren't encouraging for those who worry about the national impact of a reign of untruth over the next four, or eight, years. Lies are exhausting to fight, pernicious in their effects and, perhaps worst of all, almost impossible to correct if their content resonates strongly enough with people's sense of themselves, which Trump's clearly do.

This New York Post article discusses strategies to tell when someone is lying. It provides tips on how to detect a liar, like what details they won't be able to provide. It also discusses a study conducted by the University of Amsterdam. This study describes nine experiments where 1,445 people needed to determine whether handwritten letters, videos, and interviews, both pre-recorded and live, were discussing true or false information. It also discusses the accuracy of polygraphs and how our intuition and attention to detail can help us determine if someone is being truthful or not.

We each absorb select scenes in our environment through which we interpret a situation, creating our own reality by that to which we give attention. Our brain naturally tries to process what could otherwise be overwhelming amounts of information, by reducing it to a simplified story. However, because that story is based on a small sliver of reality, our perception may be incorrect. Thought holes, or cognitive distortions, are skewed perceptions of reality. They are negative interpretations of a situation based on poor assumptions. Studies show self-defeating thoughts (i.e., "I'm a loser") can trigger self-defeating emotions (i.e., pain, anxiety, malaise) that, in turn, cause self-defeating actions (i.e., acting out, skipping school). Left unchecked, this tendency can also lead to more severe conditions, such as depression and anxiety. Accurate thinking--identifying and recognizing one's false assumptions--can help reduce negative thinking. Here are 8 common thought holes: 1. Jumping to conclusions: judging a situation based on assumptions as opposed to definitive facts 2. Mental filtering: paying attention to the negative details in a situation while ignoring the positive 3. Magnifying: magnifying negative aspects in a situation 4. Minimizing: minimizing positive aspects in a situation 5. Personalizing: assuming the blame for problems even when you are not primarily responsible 6. Externalizing: pushing the blame for problems onto others even when you are primarily responsible 7. Overgeneralizing: concluding that one bad incident will lead to a repeated pattern of defeat 8. Emotional reasoning: assuming your negative emotions translate into reality, or confusing feelings with facts

Dwight tries to logically reason his relationship with Jim: Jim is Dwight's enemy, but Jim is also his own worst enemy. Therefore the enemy of Dwight's enemy is his friend. So Jim is actually Dwight's friend. But Jim is also his own worst enemy, and the enemy of a friend is an enemy. So Jim is...what? It is fallacy in humor because though the logic makes some sense, it goes in circles and puts Dwight in the same spot but more confused than helped.

Sounds like two possible fallacies: arguing from ignorance (if he's not my friend, he must be my enemy), and/or false choices.

This is Boone: the enthymeme in this commercial is: you should choose Geico because Geico insurance can save you 15% or more. part A of this is that geico can save you money but the second part of this is missing. part B could be something like: choosing an insurance company that saves you money is good. so all together it would be: Geico can save you 15% or more and choosing an insurance company that will save you money is good so you should choose Geico. the fallacy here is kind of hard to spot but it could be false dichotomy: there are multiple other insurance companies that could save youl money and but it seems as if Geico is the only one.

Schizophrenia is a very disabling psychiatric illness affecting about 2 to 3 million Americans. Contrary to popular perception, it has nothing to do with a "split personality." Schizophrenia is a chronic brain disorder involving "positive" and "negative" symptoms. Positive symptoms include hallucinations (hearing voices or seeing visions that aren't real), delusions (fixed false beliefs), and disorganized thinking or speech. A recent study in the Archives of General Psychiatry by Paul Grant, Aaron Beck, and their colleagues found that a modified version of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), a specific type of talk therapy, can produce clinically significant improvement in patients with schizophrenia. Importantly, significant improvement was seen in certain negative symptoms-apathy/avolition (lack of drive)-as well as in positive symptoms. These results are impressive, especially considering that the participants had been ill for an average of 18 years and suffered from severe symptoms. In this study, study participants were divided into two groups. One group received CBT in addition to "standard treatment," which included treatment with antipsychotic medications. The other group received standard treatment alone. CBT has been shown to be effective in a variety of psychiatric illnesses. It uses pragmatic techniques to help a person correct inaccurate or dysfunctional thoughts and emotions by promoting critical comparison of those thoughts with observable facts. For example, if a person believes that he/she is "doing absolutely nothing," one CBT technique would be to encourage the person to keep a detailed diary of daily activities. The therapist would later review this diary with the patient and facts would be compared to perceptions. Homework assignments would include strategies to increase productive activities. In the study mentioned above, the researchers focused CBT "on identifying and promoting concrete goals for improving quality of life and

"Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage".

the part of this text that I was able to read, talked about the basics of sign language and how it is characterized as a language in the field of linguistics. This text explains how there are different meanings for similar signs based on hand shape, movement, location, orientation, and non-manual signs.

Quinn Norton is a technology writer whose job offer from The New York Times was rescinded after tweets from her past caused backlash on social media. In her essay, Norton describes how the controversy built and destroyed a falsely-constructed version of herself. The article talks about the potential perils of social media use, including context collapse, where online culture that was meant for a particular in-group becomes disseminated to other groups via social-media platforms. Consequently, it can be taken out of context and recontextualized easily and accidentally.

This article talks about a study that was conducted by MIT linguistics professors and a group from Carleton University that explored the phenomenon of why children mix up the words "and" and "or." Linguists say that children use almost entirely the same approach as adults when it comes to evaluating potentially ambiguous sentences, by testing and "strengthening" them into sentences with more precise meanings, when disjunction and conjunction ("or" and "and") are involved. However, they found that children do not test how a sentence would change if "and" was directly substituted for "or." On the other hand, adults compute "scalar implicatures," which is a technical phrase for thinking about the implications of the logical relationship between a sentence and its alternative. The research team conducted the study's experiment by testing 59 English-speaking children and 26 adults. The children ranged in age from 4 months to 6 years. The linguists gave the subjects a series of statements along with pictures, and asked them to say whether the statements were true or false. The results suggest that children are computing scalar implicatures when they evaluate the statements, but they largely do not substitute disjunctions and conjunctions when testing out the possible meaning of sentences, as adults do. In general, the researchers observed, across languages, and for children and adults alike, when you take 'and' out of the space of alternatives, "or" becomes "and."