4 ms·

This is a complicated topic, but it seems especially difficult because there are cases where something has been clearly falsified, and yet people persist in bel

This is a complicated topic, but it seems especially difficult because there are cases where something has been clearly falsified, and yet people persist in believing it, and and even worse, don't seem to adjust their approach to the source of the misinformation as a result. This leads to three interpretations, all of which are fraught for different reasons: first, that the person is the victim of a con or brainwashing operation; second, that they are strongly motivated in their assertion of beliefs, such that the belief is not actually an assertion of truth, but what they want to be true; or third, that they do in fact have some cognitive deficit. The last is problematic for the reasons you mention, but so are the other two. The first is problematic because it suggests some vulnerability of the person, even if it's one that everyone shares. Everyone can be conned, but victims often feel shame about it, simply about being a victim. This leads to problematic situations where you can be labeled as insensitive for even suggesting that people were conned, as if you're shaming the victims rather than the perpetrator. The last is problematic maybe for obvious reasons, that you are left in a catch 22 of either accepting disingenuous statements of belief that are really hiding bigotry or other problems, or attack the underlying motives and get accused of name calling. I'm not saying there's no way out, but it's complicated and involves a lot of mass psychology.

kelipso 2y ago
The fourth interpretation is that the something has not been clearly verified. The misinformation problem could lie with the accuser as well.
- NemoNobody 2y ago
  The 5th problem is that a broad general understanding is necessary to identify when clearly verified information, is still misinformation. The first thing the Q handlers told them all was "to do your own research" and then led them to research exclusively their own little nonsense part of the Internet. Thru this entire process people are gas lot and manipulated in about every possible way to get the person to accept the sources for their "research discoveries" as actual sources for legitimate information. It tricks them into thinking they are smart. It's hard to lie to someone that knows the truth - it's why smart people seem so arrogant. If they have concluded something is true, its more likely is than isn't. Smart people that know stuff also, place the burden of proof on anyone that challenges their beliefs or understandings - that's difficult to combat with knowledge. Trumpers are like tricked into that misunderstanding of their perception of reality. All the echo chambers echoed, so it must be true, and so people then defend to the bitter endz false beliefs, accepted bc of fake information, deliberately placed where they could "independently discover it" That's really to combat bc the information isn't real. Hard to counter a belief about something that isn't true but is the stated reason for other terrible ideas.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    My point being that this same process can be true for the accusers as well, with the only difference being that the accusers have institutional support. Is the primary criterion that a disputed fact is true whether the fact has institutional support? In order to "combat misinformation", are we going to select a bunch of oracles in institutions and have them decide what the truth is? (These are rhetorical questions, btw.)

kelipso 2y ago

The fourth interpretation is that the something has not been clearly verified. The misinformation problem could lie with the accuser as well.

NemoNobody 2y ago
The 5th problem is that a broad general understanding is necessary to identify when clearly verified information, is still misinformation. The first thing the Q handlers told them all was "to do your own research" and then led them to research exclusively their own little nonsense part of the Internet. Thru this entire process people are gas lot and manipulated in about every possible way to get the person to accept the sources for their "research discoveries" as actual sources for legitimate information. It tricks them into thinking they are smart. It's hard to lie to someone that knows the truth - it's why smart people seem so arrogant. If they have concluded something is true, its more likely is than isn't. Smart people that know stuff also, place the burden of proof on anyone that challenges their beliefs or understandings - that's difficult to combat with knowledge. Trumpers are like tricked into that misunderstanding of their perception of reality. All the echo chambers echoed, so it must be true, and so people then defend to the bitter endz false beliefs, accepted bc of fake information, deliberately placed where they could "independently discover it" That's really to combat bc the information isn't real. Hard to counter a belief about something that isn't true but is the stated reason for other terrible ideas.
- kelipso 2y ago
  My point being that this same process can be true for the accusers as well, with the only difference being that the accusers have institutional support. Is the primary criterion that a disputed fact is true whether the fact has institutional support? In order to "combat misinformation", are we going to select a bunch of oracles in institutions and have them decide what the truth is? (These are rhetorical questions, btw.)