Ideas for combating misinformation

[Jtalk4456]

Recently I had to stop talking to a person that is on the other side of the fence from me but we've always maintained respect and civility and a healthy discourse. While we often have this good discourse, every now and then I flat out can't agree on any front with something they're talking about. Sometimes their belief is no longer a matter of policy or how to get better, but an actual moral issue. This last conversation, they showed two things from big news organizations doing something stupid. One was actually a real news thing and the other was a post by an imposter account to make it look like the organization messed up. I always try to fact check any claims about these terrible stories. So I point out that the one wasn't real. The other person got super defensive I presume because only the one on their side of beliefs was a problem. I can get the frustration there, but when trying to talk about it, they started acting like the place being wrongly accused was being "sus" for defending themselves so quickly. The convo got too defensive and the other person called me a gaslighter when I wouldn't agree with the victim blaming. The loss of a friend aside, I am struggling to think of a solution for all this. The simple issue is that not everyone will fact check. We could have organizations more closely monitor what they say and do, but then you get to first amendment issues. And that won't change those who intentionally put out misinformation. I'm honestly just feeling a bit hopeless for the ability of humanity to turn around and care about knowledge and truth again. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts or ideas on combating this issue?

[Avocado Diaboli]

Unless you can monitor the entirety of human output in real time and immediately flag something as true or false (and that's a tall order in itself for even the most basic statements, because there's often nuance and context to deal with) you can't do anything to combat willful misinformation. Propaganda is popular because it's easy and it works. And that's what people with an agenda count on. It's an unfortunate fact of life that some people will always argue a certain way to promote their agenda, regardless of if they're being truthful or not.

 

Oftentimes, the perception of being correct is more important than the reality of being correct. If you have a bunch of articles, bad studies or even just doctored screenshots and footage ripped out of context or wholly fabricated and you used that as a source for your arguments, you inherently look trustworthy, because it seems like you did the research, checked the facts etc. And if I on the opposing side go out and actually do the fact checking, I've already lost the debate. I've wasted time confirming something while my opponent gets to make up rapid-fire lies all day long, so it's a Sisyphean task. Because oftentimes, stuff like this isn't discussed to convince the argumentative sparring partner. In a public setting, it's mostly used to talk past the opponent and talk to the audience, hoping that they'll lap up all the false info and then carry it into their private conversations, just like the one you were having. That's why, for example, televised political debates never actually feature any debating between the candidates, they just cite their pre-written script that they'll hope sticks with as many viewers as possible.

 

And in private people just rely on what they heard being trumpeted around publicly. And if you try to correct them, they feel attacked, threatened because they feel they're made to look like an uninformed fool. These types of discussions are never about arriving at an eventual end where a consensus is reached and where people are being open to being convinced of something, especially surrounding topics that are inherently about a philosophical outlook and not cold hard data. The best you can do in such a situation, in my experience, is bow out gracefully. Because otherwise you'll risk permanent damage to your relationship with the other person at best or violence at the very worst, depending on how well either can remain civil.

 

The only thing you could theoretically do is switch gears and ask something along the lines of "What would it take to convince you of X being true/untrue?". If they can formulate a response, there's hope. If not, then it's a waste of breath.

[Heliian]

"it's much easier to con someone than to make them acknowledge they've been conned." 

 

You have to let the fanatics go so the best thing you can do is counter the lies and try to convince the undecided that the information isn't truthful.  

 

Call out the lies and show them the reality.  

 

Information is being weaponized very easily in the digital age.  Propaganda farms are real.

[suedseefrucht]

23 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

truth

In most cases, you can never be 100 % sure. This gets a bit philosophical, but at some point, we have to trust in something.

A manufacturer and some software can tell you, a CPU has 8 cores, but you never opened it up and counted them, right?

Or if someone tells you, your CPU will die in 5 years, it's impossible to prove him/her wrong right now.

 

So since I can never be 100 % sure, I take a look from different perspectives. Even if I dont like a perspective.

I try to accept every opinion and perspective and think about them.

Then I try to find a solution which works for as many opinions/perspectives as possible.

 

For example:

Person A says: The CPU will last 10 years.

Person B says: The CPU die in 15 years.

I just say: If my system still works in 5 years, I will sell it for a good price and I will probably not have a problem.

 

(Just trying to avoid political topics here)

[Jtalk4456]

8 hours ago, suedseefrucht said:

-snip-

In those examples truth is not even an issue, you can check cores in software or pull off the IHS if you're really paranoid, and CPU lifespan will depend entirely on use and care. I'm talking about stuff non tech, all the things I can't mention for getting into politics, but a general distaste of what humanity is doing to knowledge.

It's frustrating to no longer be able to reasonably expect the majority of people to use common sense. Sure there will always be some outliers, but we're talking large segments of the population literally denying reality for some examples.

On 2/28/2022 at 8:56 AM, Avocado Diaboli said:

The only thing you could theoretically do is switch gears and ask something along the lines of "What would it take to convince you of X being true/untrue?". If they can formulate a response, there's hope. If not, then it's a waste of breath.

That's a fair idea

On 2/28/2022 at 11:46 AM, Caroline said:

You get used to it.

yeah but I'm not asking just to stop my own frustration. I'm genuinely worried for the rest of humanity. Me getting used to the problem doesn't solve the problem. IDK, it seems to be a futile question, but I'd like to think humanity can be saved from simple ignorance

[wseaton]

I have friends and relatives who are on the typical opposite ends of the political spectrum. All the way from radio waves to gamma rays. Many are quite educated. Its amazing the dumb things they say just to support their point of view and I fact check them and get dirty looks.

 

I'm a hard moderate and tired of being the constant fact checker. If you dissect either extremes arguments enough you get to a core of some emotional anchor. The logic and facts melt away and you hit the real nerve.

 

Agenda based media that caters to either political slant doesn't help. People have to want to pursue truth and collective problem solving first.

[suedseefrucht]

7 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

humanity can be saved from simple ignorance

Maybe the ignorance is just skepticism in a big dosage.

 

For example, the moon landing.

Most people wasn't there in person, so they believe it or not.

And it will be hard to prove the opposite to someone, since videos can be fake and rocks can be from earth too.

 

Common sense just means, most of the poeple believe something and if you dont have the same opinion, you are probably wrong.

But there is a chance, most people are wrong. So a bit of skepticism is good.

 

[Jtalk4456]

8 hours ago, suedseefrucht said:

Maybe the ignorance is just skepticism in a big dosage.

 

For example, the moon landing.

Most people wasn't there in person, so they believe it or not.

And it will be hard to prove the opposite to someone, since videos can be fake and rocks can be from earth too.

 

Common sense just means, most of the poeple believe something and if you dont have the same opinion, you are probably wrong.

But there is a chance, most people are wrong. So a bit of skepticism is good.

 

A bit of skepticism is good, but the moon landing being faked literally would have required more technology than was available at the time, when I say common sense I'm also including basic grade school knowledge and simple observation. I don't think the issue is people questioning things, but rather when the question is competently answered with basic observable and repeatable fact, the question has been answered and the skepticism should go away at that point. With many things we're at the point of me telling you the sun is in the sky at noon. You say "Is it really?", and I say 'yes, look up and see for yourself'. You look up and see it, and then say 'I still don't believe you'. This is the difference between intelligence and ignorance. Intelligence is the state of knowing something. If you don't know rocket science as a woodworker, it's simply you haven't been given that knowledge. If someone teaches you all about rocket science and you refuse to listen, that's the ignore part of ignorance. Lack of intelligence comes with a healthy amount of skepticism, but ignorance is the part I'm worried about. Denying basic reality is a dangerous proposition as we've seen already

[Moonzy]

On 2/28/2022 at 9:18 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

The loss of a friend aside, I am struggling to think of a solution for all this. The simple issue is that not everyone will fact check. We could have organizations more closely monitor what they say and do, but then you get to first amendment issues. And that won't change those who intentionally put out misinformation.

recently discussed something with a friend of mine, things got a bit too heated since, as most people do, they come up with stereotypical arguments while i come up with facts with backing, and state that they can indeed be anti-something, but don't use misinformation to do it, hate it for a proper reason.

as you can guess, didnt went down too good, so we both acknowledged to not discuss about that topic any further, or be civil when we do it.

 

On 2/28/2022 at 9:18 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

I'm honestly just feeling a bit hopeless for the ability of humanity to turn around and care about knowledge and truth again. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts or ideas on combating this issue?

Perception is very important

Quote

Much of navigating life is an analysis of pros and cons, and part of what makes us unique as individuals is that our personal pros and cons list are all, like, different! Something you think is a pro I might think is a con. Or maybe we both think something's a con but we put different weights on the same con which another agreed upon pro might outweigh  for only one of us! And maybe we don't even know there's something out there with a pro to the con. (sauce)

And you really need to put yourself in their shoes sometimes.

edit: sometimes if it doesnt affect you directly, then who cares what they think, lol

[Vishera]

On 2/28/2022 at 2:18 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

I am struggling to think of a solution for all this.

I know a thing or two about psychology,and to explain and address everything about this topic i will have to write a book.

Long story short - There is no solution to this,there will always be people who will defy logic act and believe in things that don't make sense.

The most common reasons are populism (believing or doing things just because they are popular,or to enforce the rules of society),

When that false information is part of the person's identity or harms his/her political agenda,or perceived what you said as you accusing him of being a liar.

And there are more possible reasons for it.

 

Opposing their opinions directly only hardens their opinions and makes them more stubborn and defensive,they will perceive it as an attack.

[IPD]

Moon landing being faked--if it were remotely plausible--would have had the USSR all over it, trying to show up the USA as gaslighting the world.  The USSR would NOT have forgone that angle in the midst of the cold war.  That they didn't--should be a fairly strong indication of those events actually happening (and did multiple times...)

 

--

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Those who know history are doomed to watch everyone else repeat history.

 

--

The crux as I see it is that humanity has devolved into taking arguments/points/facts/data....personally.  Sure, in a political mudslinging contest--that is precisely what is happening.  But that's not how real discourse happens.  Facts don't care about your feelings--as Thomas Sowell would probably say.  So if you can get both sides to approach a topic from a "what do the facts say" perspective...rather than a "I'm right, and they're wrong" perspective--you can have meaningful discourse.

 

Any policy, action, historic event, etc--all will eventually have some data to support or contradict the impetus behind the original action.  For example, if an engineering disaster occurs--and it has many similarities to previous engineering disasters--then it would be fair to argue that the lessons learned were not significant enough, taken to heart, etc.  Rules are written in blood--as they say.  Another example--rife throughout history--is what typically happens when the bean counters or those in charge...directly disagree with the advice of subject matter experts, engineers, those who designed the materials in question, etc.

 

This same retroactive analysis of data to determine efficacy, prudent action etc--can also be applied to political policy.  If both parties can agreed that the facts don't lie and personal views must yield to countermanding factual data--then perhaps rational discourse can occur.  But otherwise, all an individual seeks is self-affirmation and the self-licking-ice-cream-cone of logic.

[whm1974]

10 hours ago, suedseefrucht said:

Maybe the ignorance is just skepticism in a big dosage.

 

For example, the moon landing.

Most people wasn't there in person, so they believe it or not.

And it will be hard to prove the opposite to someone, since videos can be fake and rocks can be from earth too.

 

Common sense just means, most of the poeple believe something and if you dont have the same opinion, you are probably wrong.

But there is a chance, most people are wrong. So a bit of skepticism is good.

 

If the US faked The Moon Landing, then the USSR and the Soviet Bloc wouldn't let that passed. My Nation would have lost face with the rest of the Free World.

[Jtalk4456]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Those who know history are doomed to watch everyone else repeat history.

Haven't heard the second part of that before. Makes a lot of sense. A lot of scary sense

[DANK_AS_gay]

On 2/28/2022 at 8:56 AM, Avocado Diaboli said:

ripped out of context

So this has always been a rough point for me. Let's say I want to quote the Bible. I'm not going to quote all 66 books just to say one thing, I'm going to use a couple verses or even a whole paragraph. Then I will get called out for "ripping it out of context", and "cherry picking" when all I was doing was providing evidence in a convenient manner. I know you weren't talking specifically about this, but I've been thinking about this for a while.

[Vishera]

36 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

So this has always been a rough point for me. Let's say I want to quote the Bible. I'm not going to quote all 66 books just to say one thing, I'm going to use a couple verses or even a whole paragraph. Then I will get called out for "ripping it out of context", and "cherry picking" when all I was doing was providing evidence in a convenient manner. I know you weren't talking specifically about this, but I've been thinking about this for a while.

 

3 hours ago, Vishera said:

The most common reasons are...

When that false information is part of the person's identity or harms his/her political agenda

I had to fix that a bit,i didn't word it as i should have.

 

It's a protective mechanism of the human psychic.

Their political agenda is derived from their ideology,their ideology is part of their identity (depends on how much it's important to them) which means that they do so to protect their identity.

 

Nobody wants their identity to "break" and have it filled with question marks,

An identity crisis is bad for your mental health after all.

 

I mean if they accept the truth they will realize that the thing isn't true and wonder to themselves:

Quote

"If that's not true,Have i been believing in lies all that time?,

If that is a lie,then my believes were a lie.

Now that i know that,I am left with a hole where my ideology was,i don't know what i believe in anymore...

What do i believe? and what do i not believe? especially now that i have this hole..."

 

[IPD]

It is exceedingly difficult for an individual to have to come to terms with the fact that their premise for living, their philosophy, their core beliefs, their view of life--is all based on fallacy.  Even admitting it would be distasteful (and yet, mature of) the person who is doing the self-assessment.

 

That's why I aspire to always base everything I view/think/do/believe--on facts.  Because that way, I am only drawing conclusions based on the best data available; the best of what is currently known.  If new evidence presents itself or circumstances change--then I don't take it personally.  I'm just reformulating, respositioning and reposturing based on new evidence coming to light.