🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:56:33 UTC No. 16100807
Does there exist an objective way to test how good someone is at differentiating misinformation and true information?
Like a test with a bunch of questions in the following format:
A claim, and two short articles arguing for and against the veracity of this claim respectively.
You are asked to pick which one seems the most trustworthy.
But only one side is actually objectively correct, in an way that you could even verify yourself after the test.
Cult of Passion at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:19:38 UTC No. 16100842
>>16100807
Deduction if extremes, once someone is dead...news of there whereabouts would stand out quite a bit.
Measuring for extreme, or total, is needed for finding a balanced middle point that is balanced on Fundemental axis, not human centered, but also human like F/C temps.
When appropriate is the key.
Cult of Passion at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:23:23 UTC No. 16100844
I also inversely use that to speed read, and why I know much about so much.
Certain books, like Jonathan Tooker's Timetravelers book to the Bible, I read a few paragraphs and Im off connecting dots and explaining things, pointing out all sorts of citations and insights I noticed too.
Its not "Time Travel" but the "amount of Math" needed to explain it was there, the whole Biology side isnt explainable to anyone else in the world, but people are working on it in various fields, and I continue to work in mine.
Choo choo, the WinRAR train is coming through.
Cult of Passion at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:27:41 UTC No. 16100846
A part of Nature lies, so you have to adapt to that...or be a victim to a parasite.
https://youtu.be/0qdgmn55f_s
The next step after "Clean your room." is "Clean your house."
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:28:12 UTC No. 16100848
>>16100842
>>16100844
>>16100846
What the fuck are you talking about
Cult of Passion at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:29:28 UTC No. 16100852
>>16100848
>A claim, and two short articles arguing for and against the veracity of this claim respectively.
>You are asked to pick which one seems the most trustworthy.
>But only one side is actually objectively correct, in an way that you could even verify yourself after the test.
You just failed the Test.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:50:56 UTC No. 16100868
>>16100807
not as easy. at most you can argue someone more versed with the usual ways misinformation gets assembled then it's a matter of having access to enough info and having the ability to understand it and its implications.
lately it become more clear to me that normies can't really do this, and no way of expecting them to, considering how shit happens these days at least. they need an informational authority and that's where the war is being fought atm, on that status. best bet is your government, which will abuse it of-course, the alternative is foreign nations or plain trolls which will clearly do even worse. it's a choose the lesser evil situation, especially because normies just can't.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:56:45 UTC No. 16101209
>>16100807
People thought spaghetti grew on trees just because the BBC said so in the 1950s so no
🗑️ Cult of Passion at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:18:00 UTC No. 16101242
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:29:00 UTC No. 16101341
>>16100807
Identifying misinformation is done by cross checking and other research. Two articles, one for and one against, wouldn't be enough information, even if they do cite sources because they could be misquoting the sources
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:40:07 UTC No. 16101355
>>16100807
We tried so hard they were so dumb
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 03:39:48 UTC No. 16102643
bump
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:24:24 UTC No. 16102927
>>16101341
There could be a rule that you are allowed to read the sources that each article specifically cite.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:52:58 UTC No. 16103091
>>16100807
There's a pretty easy test
If they believe in a flat earth they're retarded. If they see YouTube videos telling them what to think about footage from the ISS, from the Moon, or from earth showing things far away, they ain't the sharpest tools in the shed. They took the first thing they heard and agreed with it and refuse to change their minds. I suppose a general test would be to provide misinformation, then have someone else tell them why it's wrong
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:05:44 UTC No. 16103132
>>16100807
Misinformation is a buzzword.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 00:30:17 UTC No. 16104056
>>16100807
at some point axioms are "you get it or you dont". like literally two people will look at the same thing and say its different colour or something. you cant test that shit except if reality happens and darwinism intervenes
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 00:39:32 UTC No. 16104074
>>16100807
EZ AF. Scared of doing the Math? That is 100% a scammer. Scared of computer simulations? 100% a scammer. Wants the government to censor? 100% a criminal scammer.
That is why you know for sure the holocaust is a fraud.