- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NYT Op-Ed: Stop Critical Thinking
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:11 pm
After seeing this headline in the meme thread, I had to read this op-ed. NYT link at the bottom for those who dare.
Some highlights from "experts" on how to effectively evaluate information online:
Is Wikipedia the best, unbiased source on information?
Is Google the best, unbiased source on information?
Who has time to critically evaluate another point of view? Just Google it and go with your preconceived notions.
Warning - NYT
Some highlights from "experts" on how to effectively evaluate information online:
quote:
Influenced by the research of Sam Wineburg, a professor at Stanford, and Sarah McGrew, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, Mr. Caulfield argued that the best way to learn about a source of information is to leave it and look elsewhere, a concept called lateral reading.
quote:
Mr. Caulfield walked me through the process using an Instagram post from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist, falsely alleging a link between the human papillomavirus vaccine and cancer. “If this is not a claim where I have a depth of understanding, then I want to stop for a second and, before going further, just investigate the source,” Mr. Caulfield said. He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google. “Look how fast this is,” he told me as he counted the seconds out loud. In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist.
“Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the best, unbiased source on information about a vaccine? I’d argue no. And that’s good enough to know we should probably just move on,” he said.
Is Wikipedia the best, unbiased source on information?
quote:
What is potentially revolutionary about SIFT is that it focuses on making quick judgments. A SIFT fact check can and should take just 30, 60, 90 seconds to evaluate a piece of content.
quote:
The four steps are based on the premise that you often make a better decision with less information than you do with more. Also, spending 15 minutes to determine a single fact in order to decipher a tweet or a piece of news coming from a source you’ve never seen before will often leave you more confused than you were before. “The question we want students asking is: Is this a good source for this purpose, or could I find something better relatively quickly?” Mr. Caulfield said. “I’ve seen in the classroom where a student finds a great answer in three minutes but then keeps going and ends up won over by bad information.”
quote:
“We’ve been trained to think that Googling or just checking one resource we trust is almost like cheating,” he said. “But when people search Google, the best results may not always be first, but the good information is usually near the top. Often you see a pattern in the links of a consensus that’s been formed.
Is Google the best, unbiased source on information?
Who has time to critically evaluate another point of view? Just Google it and go with your preconceived notions.
Warning - NYT
This post was edited on 2/20/21 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:14 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:
“We’ve been trained to think that Googling or just checking one resource we trust is almost like cheating,” he said. “But when people search Google, the best results may not always be first, but the good information is usually near the top. Often you see a pattern in the links of a consensus that’s been formed.
That's some serious native advertising. I guess Google doesn't really need to advertise itself in the NYT, but you never know.
This post was edited on 2/21/21 at 8:08 am
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:22 pm to McLemore
quote:
but the good information is usually near the top. Often you see a pattern in the links of a consensus that’s been formed.
"All the sources and media outlets Google is in league with have been put there at the top and never question anything they feed you. So glad that's settled. Pick our sources only."
This post was edited on 2/20/21 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:22 pm to TerryDawg03
Wait, this isn’t the Babylon Bee?
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:25 pm to McLemore
quote:
the best results may not always be first, but the good information is usually near the top.
Your search results are based on data they take from you and attempt to manipulate you by placing the results in a certain order.
This chode is completely ignorant as to how Google actually works.
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:35 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
He is not ignorant, but he hopes his readers are.
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:43 pm to TerryDawg03
This is all such BS. Obviously you should make sure information is legitimate before calling it gospel, but fricking google and Wikipedia?!
Don’t listen them, just google it!
Don’t listen them, just google it!
Posted on 2/20/21 at 10:52 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Your search results are based on data they take from you and attempt to manipulate you by placing the results in a certain order.
This, and the search results that occur near the top because firms that do search engine optimization get paid to keep their clients information appearing at the top of search results.
Posted on 2/20/21 at 11:17 pm to TerryDawg03
I let my bird tell me which parts are worth ignoring.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 10:32 am to TerryDawg03
quote:
In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist.
Wikipedia also calls anyone that questions the actions of Israel an anti-semite. If you try to edit the entry, it will revert back to the anti-semitism claim within minutes. Wikipedia will then lock out everyone but their approved editors from the entry. It is nothing more than NWO propaganda at this point.
quote:
Is Wikipedia the best, unbiased source on information?
There's a reason why schools don't allow wikipedia as a reference.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 10:49 am to TerryDawg03
“Believe exactly what you are told to believe.”
Jesus.
Jesus.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 11:19 am to TerryDawg03
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:00 pm to TerryDawg03
(((Warzel)))
There’s a fricking surprise.
There’s a fricking surprise.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News