Right Wingers are more susceptible to believing falsehoods.

T. A. Gardner said:
It might, but we don't have enough information to be sure.
Click to expand...

What do you mean we don't have enough information? Are you saying that she might not be racist. She just singled her out because she spoke Spanish and looked Hispanic because of Trump?
 
AProudLefty said:
What do you mean we don't have enough information? Are you saying that she might not be racist. She just singled her out because she spoke Spanish and looked Hispanic because of Trump?
Click to expand...

We don't know if she singled this woman out or the cause of the rant to begin with. We don't know if the woman being ranted on speaks Spanish for sure unless that's on the video, and have no idea if she's from Puerto Rico. If the ranting woman knew that, why didn't she say "go back to Puerto Rico!?"

It all adds in bias to the question.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
We don't know if she singled this woman out or the cause of the rant to begin with. We don't know if the woman being ranted on speaks Spanish for sure unless that's on the video, and have no idea if she's from Puerto Rico. If the ranting woman knew that, why didn't she say "go back to Puerto Rico!?"

It all adds in bias to the question.
Click to expand...

No. All she said was "go back to your own country". It's a fact that she's from Puerto Rico. What we don't know if the crazy lady knew that. The point still stands. She targeted her specifically. Nobody else.

No bias here.
 
AProudLefty said:
No. All she said was "go back to your own country". It's a fact that she's from Puerto Rico. What we don't know if the crazy lady knew that. The point still stands. She targeted her specifically. Nobody else.

No bias here.
Click to expand...

We don't know if it's a fact she's from Puerto Rico. We have to take the word of the person writing that sentence for it. Remember, this is part of a true / false quiz. The person taking the quiz, without specific knowledge of that video from somewhere has nothing to go on but the statement made. True, we don't know what the ranter knew or didn't either. We also don't know if the person writing that question added specific knowledge found after the fact or not.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
We don't know if it's a fact she's from Puerto Rico. We have to take the word of the person writing that sentence for it. Remember, this is part of a true / false quiz. The person taking the quiz, without specific knowledge of that video from somewhere has nothing to go on but the statement made. True, we don't know what the ranter knew or didn't either. We also don't know if the person writing that question added specific knowledge found after the fact or not.
Click to expand...

True. We don't know if she's from Puerto Rico for sure. Still doesn't change anything.

Fact #1: She was unhappy with PR woman for speaking Spanish.
Fact #2: She told her to go back to her own country, where ever that is.
Fact #3: She said, “I pay legal money, not drug money.”
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Conservatives more susceptible to believing falsehoods
Study finds news environment hurts ability to find truth

Conservatives are less able to distinguish political truths from falsehoods than liberals, mainly because of a glut of right-leaning misinformation, a new national study conducted over six months shows.

One of the main drivers of the findings appeared to be the American media and information environment.

“The deck is stacked against conservatives because there is so much more misinformation that supports conservative positions. As a result, conservatives are more often led astray.”

Every two weeks, the researchers identified viral political news stories, 10 true and 10 false, that received high social media engagement.

The researchers then asked participants to assess a series of 20 statements that were based on these stories. Participants labeled each one as true or false and indicated how confident they were in their label.

In the end, participants had evaluated as many as 240 statements on a broad range of topics and representing many different viewpoints.

A separate group of people, recruited online, were surveyed to determine whether the claims, if true, would be better for liberals or for conservatives, or if they were neutral.

For example, participants rated this true statement that received widespread social media engagement when it came out: “Investigators for the DHS Office of the Inspector General have identified poor conditions in several Texas migrant facilities, including extreme overcrowding and serious health risks.”

Results showed that 54% of Democrats correctly said that the statement was “definitely true” – compared to only 18% of Republicans.

Another statement – a false one – was “While serving as Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia, selling 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to that country in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.”

Here, only 2% of Democrats said this was “definitely true,” but 41% of Republicans did.

“These are important factual claims, yet we see vast partisan differences in belief,” Garrett said.

One of the major issues identified in the study was that these widely shared truths and falsehoods have different implications for liberals and conservatives.

Two-thirds (65%) of the high-engagement true statements were characterized as benefiting liberals, while only 10% of accurate claims were considered beneficial to conservatives. On the other side, 46% of falsehoods were rated as advantageous to conservatives, compared to 23% of false claims benefiting liberals.

“We saw that viral political falsehoods tended to benefit conservatives, while truths tended to favor liberals. That makes it a lot harder for conservatives to avoid misperceptions,” Garrett said.

Although the information environment was the primary reason conservatives were susceptible to misinformation, it may not be the only one.

Results showed that even when the information environment was taken into account, conservatives were slightly more likely to hold misperceptions than were liberals.

“It is difficult to say why that is,” Garrett said. “We can’t explain the finding with our data alone.”

Results did show further distinctions between how conservatives and liberals approached the political claims in the viral stories they evaluated.

Liberals showed greater overall sensitivity, which characterizes an individual’s ability to distinguish truths and falsehoods. Conservatives and liberals were equally good at detecting truths and falsehoods when most true stories were labeled politically neutral.

But if more of the factually accurate stories were labeled political – benefiting either liberal or conservative positions – liberals became better than conservatives at distinguishing true from false statements.

“Conservatives did not get any worse, but they did not keep up with liberals who were getting better at discerning truths and falsehoods,” Garrett said.

Conservatives also showed a stronger “truth bias,” meaning that they were more likely to say that all the claims they were asked about were true.

“That’s a problem because some of the claims were outlandish – there should have been no ambiguity about whether they were true or not,” he said.

Garrett said a strength of this study, compared to many previous ones, is that it analyzed a wide range of political claims, reflecting the diversity of the media environment that Americans are exposed to. It clearly confirms the point made by many media commentators that conservatives are awash in false statements that support what they want to believe.

“We show that the media environment is shaping people’s ability to do this very basic, fundamental task. Democracy depends on people being able to tell the difference between what is true and false and it falters when people have difficulty agreeing on what’s real,” he said.
Click to expand...

THE FACT THAT YOPU WERE TOO AFRAID TO LEAVE A LINK TO YOUR "STUDY" SPEAKS VOLUMES....
 
AProudLefty said:
True. We don't know if she's from Puerto Rico for sure. Still doesn't change anything.

Fact #1: She was unhappy with PR woman for speaking Spanish.
Fact #2: She told her to go back to her own country, where ever that is.
Fact #3: She said, “I pay legal money, not drug money.”
Click to expand...

That third one wasn't in the survey's statement.
 
AProudLefty said:
Oh that's true.

I am just going by the definition of "racist" and say yes it applies to her.

Or maybe she isn't really a racist because of her mental illness. ;) Who knows????
Click to expand...

But we could apply it without mentioning it being so in the statement. The reader should be able to determine that from the rest of what was given.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
But we could apply it without mentioning it being so in the statement. The reader should be able to determine that from the rest of what was given.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think I see what you are saying. The answer would be "probably true". We know nothing about that woman and the PR woman. Just from what we see in the video. It's a fact that she was antagonizing her for whatever reason.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Okay, I read the ten page report and looked at the study's methodology and questionnaire. Unless you want to say the Liberals would do better than Conservatives on the categories of current events and politics in a game of Jeopardy it's meaningless.

Each participant was given a sting of statements from a long list. These were either supposed to be either false or true. The participant would then have to decide what they thought about that statement without further evidence of any sort saying it was one of four options:

Definitely true
Probably true
Probably false
Definitely false

Each statement was coded Democrat (D), Republican (R), or Neutral (N). This slant was determined using something called Amazon Mechanical Turk. It is a crowdsourcing site.

Many of the statements would require knowledge of specific events, persons, companies, etc., to have any knowledge about them. Someone with better current event / political awareness would do much better on this test than someone who doesn't have that awareness, thus the comparison to it being like Jeopardy.
If, for example, Democrats and Progressives were more attuned to current events and say watched more news than Republicans and Conservatives, they'd do better on the test. They'd be able to answer with correct specificity that a statement was definitely true or false versus probably.

As I read through the questions, I found many were my first thought was I have no idea... For example:

For the first time in company history, Huggies is featuring a black father and daughter on its diaper product packaging.

Not a clue.

There were others with clear, likely unintentional, bias built in like this one:

In a racist rant caught on video, a white woman can be seen telling a Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican woman that she should "be deported" and go back to "her own country."

The word racist adds bias. The person reading this should make that decision for themselves based on the rest of the statement. The second problem is in the video how was it determined the woman being berated spoke Spanish and was from Puerto Rico? Those are things that would require this woman to say or show because those are qualities one can't otherwise know about someone.

The sample (see table S1 in the study) shows that persons self-identifying a favoring Democrats out number those favoring Republicans about 3 to 2. The respondents were also overwhelmingly White (858 to 346). 57% were female. The breakdown of that by political position isn't given.

Anyway, I'd say on the whole the study really doesn't prove much of anything other than that people that lean Progressive and Democrat are better at a game of current events and politics Jeopardy than Conservatives and Republicans.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/suppl/2021/05/28/7.23.eabf1234.DC1/abf1234_SM.pdf
Click to expand...

Impressive analysis.
 
AProudLefty said:
Yeah I think I see what you are saying. The answer would be "probably true". We know nothing about that woman and the PR woman. Just from what we see in the video. It's a fact that she was antagonizing her for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

That's my point. Many, most, of the questions are indeterminant in being definitely true or false. In fact, I'd say that someone taking those surveys could have answered probably true (or false) to as much as 80% or more of the questions.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's my point. Many, most, of the questions are indeterminant in being definitely true or false. In fact, I'd say that someone taking those surveys could have answered probably true (or false) to as much as 80% or more of the questions.
Click to expand...

How about this?

"A white woman antagonizes an Hispanic woman and tells her to go back to her own country"?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Impressive analysis.
Click to expand...

It's what I do when someone quotes some "study" now. Right, Left, whatever, I go look it up and carefully read it. That's because most studies being done now are 90% bullshit. That the authors are academics, or PhD's, or whatever doesn't impress me. I want to see what they did and how they did it. Polls are the same way. Most are badly biased now.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Hispanic is a language, not a racial characteristic.
Click to expand...

Here's a riddle for you.

How-Many-S-In-The-Sentence-Riddle.jpg
 
Depends...

If we are counting only capital S's, 6 unless we are talking about the second sentence only then 2.

Or if we are counting all S's in the first sentence only, then 7, and 3 in the second.

In totality there can be between 6 and 10 depending on how you want to count them.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Depends...

If we are counting only capital S's, 6 unless we are talking about the second sentence only then 2.

Or if we are counting all S's in the first sentence only, then 7, and 3 in the second.

In totality there can be between 6 and 10 depending on how you want to count them.
Click to expand...

Lol you got most if it!

https://gadgetgrasp.com/how-many-s-in-the-sentence-riddle-answer-solved/

How about this one? How many letter f do you find in the sentence below?

“Finished files are the result of years of scientific study combined with the experience of years.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top