On Wednesday night, White House spokeswoman Sarah Hakbebe Sanders replaced Donald Trump at a press conference in which CNN reporter Jim Acosta briefly speaks with the White House intern. The clip is low quality and is edited for dramatizing original staff; It is presented in context, without sound, with a slow speed of close crop zoom, and contains additional frames that seem to emphasize the experience of contact with acacia.
Nevertheless, the White House decided not only to share the video, but also the basis for canceling the press of the acct. The consensus was tightly close to anyone, and it is clear: the events described in Sanders & # tweet just did not happen.
This is only the last example of misinformation about our misinformation. The fact that he continues not only to harvest,More rapidly and more widely than legitimate, actual newsIt is enough to get acquainted with someone: how will people affect the earth in these schools?
To be frank, may not be difficult to think about. The technical term is "reduced open minded and analytical thinking". David Randy – MIT's behavioral researcher who begins to study fake news in social media, which he expects and why he has a different name on his behalf: "It's just a mental laughter," he says.
Disinformation researchers have suggested two competing hypotheses about why people are social media. The popular approach to advocating climate change and negative research on its existence is that people are blindly based and critical thinking skills to pinpoint their hollow holes in their concrete ideas. According to this theory, the fake story does not relieve any critical thinking as a weapon, based on prejudice, in order to present a union that is unbearable and misleading to misinformation.
The other hypothesis is that the reasoning and critical thinking in fact gives people the opportunity to distinguish truth from the truth, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. (If this is less like a hypothesis and more like explanations of thinking and critical thinking, it is because they are).
Several Riddh's last experiments support the second number of the theory. Published in a year published in the journal Cognitive, And his research partner, Rejina University psychologist Gordon Pennikock, tested people with cognitive reflection test, the size of analytical thinking that poses no immediate questions about non-intuitive responses, such as: The battery and the ball is worth $ 1.10. Exercise needs more than $ 1.00 ball. What is the cost of the ball? They found that a high score is less likely to be that the false fake titles perceive as precise, and are more likely to distinguish them from true personalities than those who performed badly.
Another study published on the SSRN, predicts that people have been promoting news publishers (the idea of Facebook briefly, early last year) may reduce the level of misinformation of social media. Researchers have discovered that despite the reliance on trust, the folks have made a "good job" that distinguishes between reputation and intangible sources.
"It was a surprise," says Radi. As many people, he initially assumed the idea of crowdsourcing media reliability was "a really terrible idea." Its results are not only indicated otherwise, they have also shown, among other things, "that the more cognitive sophisticated people are better than the low quality of high quality [news] Sources. "(And because you probably wonder now: when do I ask people whether they are the most cognitively sophisticated, they say the answer is yes and also that" they are not generally. "Lake Wobegon Effect: Ე is true! )
His latest research, which was recently published Journal of Applied Research Memory and Cognitive, Believes that false beliefs are related not only with analytical thinking, but also figure-delusion, dogmatism and religious fundamentalism.
Which means sensitivity to false information is more lazy, than partial bias. Which sounds on the one hand – let's be honest – pretty bad. But this also implies that people are not overly discouraged. Change people's ideology that are closely guarded by their identity and identity is very difficult. People are more critical about what they read than they are much easier to compare.
Once again, maybe not. "I think social media is particularly difficult because many of the social media are intended to encourage non-rational thinking." Randy says. Those who sat and were affected by their phone while thumb-thumb-thumbing-up of their Twitter feed or closed Instagram just re-opened this reflexively, suffered primarily, which means to browse such a brain dead, uborous state. Default settings, such as push messages, autoplaying videos, algorithmic news channels-they all cater to people's prone to consume things passively instead of actively, they have to take away by impetus rather than resistance. This is not a groundless philosophy. Most people simply do not use social media to get involved in the critique of news, videos, or sound teeth in the past. As one recent survey shows, most people will browse Twitter and Facebook to unwind and defrag-hardly mood you want to take when engaging in cognitively demanding tasks.
But it should not be. Platforms can use visual hints that make a simple concept of the truth in the minds of their users – a badge or a symbol that is what the "precision position" calls it. According to him, he has experimented with the works that will investigate whether nudging people thinking about the concept of accuracy can make them more different about what they believe and share. At the same time, he suggests that confrontation of fake news is not necessary by other people, because it is fake, but the notion of truth in the non-political context. You know: just plant the seeds.
It will not be enough to change the misinformation. But if our sensitivity to false stories really reflected in intellectual accuracy, it's a good start. Poverty of critical thinking may seem to be a difficult situation, but what it sees in optimism. "I hope it is," he says, adding that the country is not moving towards a more general approach is not a completely lost cause.
More great WIRED stories