6 ms·

They studied whether the average American can use Google to fact-check news articles and the answer seems to be no. And in particular, some people seem to be re

They studied whether the average American can use Google to fact-check news articles and the answer seems to be no. And in particular, some people seem to be really bad at using a search engine: > So what do the low-google-fu people do to generate bad results? Often, they just literally plug the questionable article headline or URL into Google. If your search terms are “SHOCK REVELATION: SHILLARY CAUGHT DRINKING BABIES’ BLOOD AT MARTHA’S VINEYARD ESTATE,” Google’s probably going to give you results that go along with its assumptions. But it doesn’t mean you can’t learn how to fact-check news articles, or that it can’t be taught. It might be interesting to repeat the study for other groups. College graduates? Graduate students? Also, I wonder if it’s possible to build a better search engine with this task in mind?

bb88 3y ago
The cynic in me suggests that one of the political parties in the US doesn't really want the population well educated. I also feel "fact check via google" is also the wrong way to go about it, because google just spits out whatever the internet says. The reality is that a certain skeptical mindset is required when consuming news reports. And when the skepticism goes away, you end up with a cult. And that's not something that every school district teaches.
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  Firstly, I think you're right—and their policies very much so reflect this. Re: the "skeptical mindset"—I think critical thought is essential. But that's a lot more complex than merely having a "skeptical mindset", which is effectively what these "Do your own research" type of people tend to have. They're skeptical of the "mainstream elites", and that's about the end of the thought process. They're very likely to buy most narratives that counters mainstream consensus.
- sugarplant 3y ago
  > The cynic in me suggests that one of the political parties in the US doesn't really want the population well educated. yes just the single party that is the opposite of mine of course ;)
  - the_gastropod 3y ago
    Oh my! A both-sideser! Yep. Both U.S. political parties are equally problematic! No distinctions to be drawn, whatsoever!
    - mrangle 3y ago
      There are, in fact, at least two positions on most issues that the English speaking world cares about. But why move the goal post from voter education to a discussion on the subjective badness of the two main parties? That is, if your aim is to make a point under the discussion being had.
    - hetman 3y ago
      I don't think he ever said "equally".
    - insickness 3y ago
      Nope. Just one side is problematic. The other has a monopoly on wisdom and justice. Go team!
      - bb88 3y ago
        And the other believes in a violent overthrow of congress because they can't string words together in a coherent thought to convince the other side? I thought one of the benefits to the US was a "marketplace of ideas".
        mrangle 3y ago
        Who violently overthrew Congress? Gaslighting doesn't help your argument. Is the "markeptplace of ideas" like when the Media and the DNC incited mass riots for eight full months before the 2019 election, mass-terrorizing American voters? To what end? To make sure there was a "fair trial" (note: this assured the opposite)? Or to make sure that the preferred candidate was elected? Again, by targeting American voters.
- mrangle 3y ago
  "one of"
  - the_gastropod 3y ago
    Yes. One of. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/11/18/what-house-republicans-want-do-public-education-funding/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/11/18/what-hou...
    - mrangle 3y ago
      You prior wrote "well educated".
- hetman 3y ago
  The cynic in me suggests this is true of both major parties in US politics. The sets of things they want to you learn and don't want you to learn -- usually because it's just too hard to have a public conversation due to ideological conflict -- those sets of things just happen to be different in either case.
- vladms 3y ago
  I wonder if there is some connection between prevalence of actual cults (or any organization built on belief, like churches or totalitarian regimes) and opposition to teaching on how to be skeptical.
jfengel 3y ago
Building a better search engine would be easy. Just cutting out the most egregiously delusional sites would go a long way. But nobody would use it. People who are intent on confirming their biases scream "censorship" if you tell them they can't use their favorite sources of misinformation. They will swear up and down that they are capable of telling truth from lies, and even if they can't the lies are their natural born right.
hetman 3y ago
It can be taught but most people have little motivation to learn. Genuine verification of claims is a lot of hard work so for most people the question becomes: Why bother learning how? First, the warm and fuzzy feeling you get by confirming your chosen world view doesn't take very much work. Just a couple minutes on Google. Second, for many, the mere suggestion that there is a need to learn a new skill connected with research will likely be interpreted as an attack on their intelligence. So the real question we have to be asking is how we can motivate people to even want to uncover truth even when it leads to discomfort. The answer is obvious for those who have already arrived there but not for those who haven't.
irjustin 3y ago
This has always been the push/pull between strict democracy, republic, and benevolent dictatorship. In a strict democracy, there are too many "idiots" who don't actually understand what the issue is. In a dictatorship you can get a CRAZY amount of things done (see Singapore, China), but all it takes is one/few bad egg(s) and sends the whole country into the stone age (see Philippines). A republic seems pretty okay in the long term for now mostly because if there's too much infighting the country becomes a gridlock (like now), but that seems more like a feature than a bug.
g-b-r 3y ago
A much better search engine for most people is simply one not personalized to their tastes
bnralt 3y ago
The main problem is that everyone thinks that it's something we have to teach other people to do, but few see this as something that they themselves have to get better at. In fact, people become simply hostile to others for doing this if it's a piece of information they like. I just saw a quote yesterday taken out of context on Reddit, and one of the most highly upvoted comments was someone mocking people who want context. If the quote makes a bad person bad, than someone even bothering to look at whether or not it accurately portrayed the situation is the enemy trying to defend the bad person. Everyone should put more effort into fact checking things they want to be true than things they don't, because it's usually when we want something to be true that we drop our guards.
- a_gnostic 3y ago
  I wish I could upvote this more.
- vladms 3y ago
  Maybe we could take a step back and don't think in black and white. I do not "want something to be true", I give it a probability to be true between 0 and 1. But the thing is that moving from binary (true/false) to continuous (probability) requires mental effort which many people prefer not (or are not able) to do.
caseysoftware 3y ago
> It might be interesting to repeat the study for other groups. College graduates? Graduate students? College graduates are no longer a rarified group with high IQs: We conducted a meta-analysis of the mean IQ scores of college and university students samples tested with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale between 1939 and 2022. Results. The results show that the average IQ of undergraduate students today is a mere 102 IQ points and declined by approximately 0.2 IQ points per year. Ref: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1309142/abstract https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1309... As a whole, their primary differentiator appears to be the ability to get loans. Individual programs (by university or degree) vary though so cohort analysis by one of those may be useful.

bb88 3y ago

The cynic in me suggests that one of the political parties in the US doesn't really want the population well educated. I also feel "fact check via google" is also the wrong way to go about it, because google just spits out whatever the internet says. The reality is that a certain skeptical mindset is required when consuming news reports. And when the skepticism goes away, you end up with a cult. And that's not something that every school district teaches.

the_gastropod 3y ago
Firstly, I think you're right—and their policies very much so reflect this. Re: the "skeptical mindset"—I think critical thought is essential. But that's a lot more complex than merely having a "skeptical mindset", which is effectively what these "Do your own research" type of people tend to have. They're skeptical of the "mainstream elites", and that's about the end of the thought process. They're very likely to buy most narratives that counters mainstream consensus.
sugarplant 3y ago
> The cynic in me suggests that one of the political parties in the US doesn't really want the population well educated. yes just the single party that is the opposite of mine of course ;)
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  Oh my! A both-sideser! Yep. Both U.S. political parties are equally problematic! No distinctions to be drawn, whatsoever!
  - mrangle 3y ago
    There are, in fact, at least two positions on most issues that the English speaking world cares about. But why move the goal post from voter education to a discussion on the subjective badness of the two main parties? That is, if your aim is to make a point under the discussion being had.
  - hetman 3y ago
    I don't think he ever said "equally".
  - insickness 3y ago
    Nope. Just one side is problematic. The other has a monopoly on wisdom and justice. Go team!
    - bb88 3y ago
      And the other believes in a violent overthrow of congress because they can't string words together in a coherent thought to convince the other side? I thought one of the benefits to the US was a "marketplace of ideas".
      - mrangle 3y ago
        Who violently overthrew Congress? Gaslighting doesn't help your argument. Is the "markeptplace of ideas" like when the Media and the DNC incited mass riots for eight full months before the 2019 election, mass-terrorizing American voters? To what end? To make sure there was a "fair trial" (note: this assured the opposite)? Or to make sure that the preferred candidate was elected? Again, by targeting American voters.
mrangle 3y ago
"one of"
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  Yes. One of. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/11/18/what-house-republicans-want-do-public-education-funding/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/11/18/what-hou...
  - mrangle 3y ago
    You prior wrote "well educated".
hetman 3y ago
The cynic in me suggests this is true of both major parties in US politics. The sets of things they want to you learn and don't want you to learn -- usually because it's just too hard to have a public conversation due to ideological conflict -- those sets of things just happen to be different in either case.
vladms 3y ago
I wonder if there is some connection between prevalence of actual cults (or any organization built on belief, like churches or totalitarian regimes) and opposition to teaching on how to be skeptical.

jfengel 3y ago

Building a better search engine would be easy. Just cutting out the most egregiously delusional sites would go a long way. But nobody would use it. People who are intent on confirming their biases scream "censorship" if you tell them they can't use their favorite sources of misinformation. They will swear up and down that they are capable of telling truth from lies, and even if they can't the lies are their natural born right.

hetman 3y ago

It can be taught but most people have little motivation to learn. Genuine verification of claims is a lot of hard work so for most people the question becomes: Why bother learning how? First, the warm and fuzzy feeling you get by confirming your chosen world view doesn't take very much work. Just a couple minutes on Google. Second, for many, the mere suggestion that there is a need to learn a new skill connected with research will likely be interpreted as an attack on their intelligence. So the real question we have to be asking is how we can motivate people to even want to uncover truth even when it leads to discomfort. The answer is obvious for those who have already arrived there but not for those who haven't.

irjustin 3y ago

This has always been the push/pull between strict democracy, republic, and benevolent dictatorship. In a strict democracy, there are too many "idiots" who don't actually understand what the issue is. In a dictatorship you can get a CRAZY amount of things done (see Singapore, China), but all it takes is one/few bad egg(s) and sends the whole country into the stone age (see Philippines). A republic seems pretty okay in the long term for now mostly because if there's too much infighting the country becomes a gridlock (like now), but that seems more like a feature than a bug.

g-b-r 3y ago

A much better search engine for most people is simply one not personalized to their tastes

bnralt 3y ago

The main problem is that everyone thinks that it's something we have to teach other people to do, but few see this as something that they themselves have to get better at. In fact, people become simply hostile to others for doing this if it's a piece of information they like. I just saw a quote yesterday taken out of context on Reddit, and one of the most highly upvoted comments was someone mocking people who want context. If the quote makes a bad person bad, than someone even bothering to look at whether or not it accurately portrayed the situation is the enemy trying to defend the bad person. Everyone should put more effort into fact checking things they want to be true than things they don't, because it's usually when we want something to be true that we drop our guards.

a_gnostic 3y ago
I wish I could upvote this more.
vladms 3y ago
Maybe we could take a step back and don't think in black and white. I do not "want something to be true", I give it a probability to be true between 0 and 1. But the thing is that moving from binary (true/false) to continuous (probability) requires mental effort which many people prefer not (or are not able) to do.

caseysoftware 3y ago

> It might be interesting to repeat the study for other groups. College graduates? Graduate students? College graduates are no longer a rarified group with high IQs: We conducted a meta-analysis of the mean IQ scores of college and university students samples tested with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale between 1939 and 2022. Results. The results show that the average IQ of undergraduate students today is a mere 102 IQ points and declined by approximately 0.2 IQ points per year. Ref: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1309142/abstract https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1309... As a whole, their primary differentiator appears to be the ability to get loans. Individual programs (by university or degree) vary though so cohort analysis by one of those may be useful.