Why conservatives are more likely to fall for fake news

[Jaecp]

If you're going to start threads in this forum, please create threads that address substantive topics, and aren't just trolling with stuff debunked in the first few posts. Thanks.

Raphs cite debunks nothing, like, its not even on the same axis

What thread was our other discussion in? I was at Standing Rock and didn't have internet

[Littlejoe]

I think it's far more simple for some of us "older" folks...I think many of us who grew up on News men who valued their craft, who checked and double checked their stories before publishing them, and their editors who were charged with making sure the stories were legit tend to automatically think something is legit. It's a hard habit to break becoming someone who has to doubt every story until you can fact check it yourself. How about people start suing false story makers so that they think twice before running scam news stories just to try to make the other side look foolish...

[MaxVel]

Raphs cite debunks nothing, like, its not even on the same axis

What thread was our other discussion in? I was at Standing Rock and didn't have internet

Credibility of Wash Post in this topic...

The 'Dakota Access Pipeline' one...

[Mountain Man]

There's a good article in the Washington Post today...

One of the biggest purveyors of "fake news" around.

You morons want to know why Hillary lost? It wasn't because of "fake news". It's because she was a terrible candidate!

[Starlight]

You morons want to know why Hillary lost?

NO. I do not want your or anyone else's opinions on it. It is not the topic of this thread. Do you know how you can tell? No part of the OP mentions Hillary or the election, not once. It's kind of a hint.

It's because she was a terrible candidate!

For once, you and I agree. She was a terrible terrible candidate. The Dems should never have nominated her. It was a stupid idea. The only reason she managed to win the popular vote was the GOP nominated someone even worse.


The topic of this thread is the scientific observation that conservatives lack / do not use critical thinking abilities, and this often leads to them believing and sharing news stories that are false, because they do not apply enough critical analysis to what they read and and believe and share. Neither Hillary nor the 2016 election outcome are directly relevant to that topic. Can we stay on topic please people?

[Mountain Man]

Democrats picked Hillary over Bernie, and then rioted in the streets when Hillary lost. Case closed. You're just trolling, SL.

And why did they riot? Because article after article in the mainstream press assured them that Hillary was "inevitable", that Donald Trump was a joke candidate who wasn't serious and didn't have any real chance of winning. Pundits on the left all but promised the precious snowflakes that they would wake up on November 9th with a self-satisfied smile on their face and the words "Madam President" on their lips.

Speaking of fake news.

[Mountain Man]

The topic of this thread is the scientific observation...

It would help if you realized that psychology isn't science.

Source: Los Angeles Times

The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...ience-20120713

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

2016-12-05-9708e484_large.jpg

[Starlight]

It would help if you realized that psychology isn't science... Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

I don't agree, psychology uses all of those things. It's a 'soft'/'social' science rather than a 'hard'/'pure' science in the way something like physics is, but it definitely uses the scientific method generally. While I'm in the 'pure' sciences myself, my best friend did his phd in psychology, and from reading articles in his field it's very clear to me, that yes, what they are doing is science, and meets the general criteria of science that you outline here. Writing off the entire discipline of psychology, as I've seen you and other conservatives do on this forum before, is ignorant and misguided at best.

[DesertBerean]

I don't agree, psychology uses all of those things. It's a 'soft'/'social' science rather than a 'hard'/'pure' science in the way something like physics is, but it definitely uses the scientific method generally. While I'm in the 'pure' sciences myself, my best friend did his phd in psychology, and from reading articles in his field it's very clear to me, that yes, what they are doing is science, and meets the general criteria of science that you outline here. Writing off the entire discipline of psychology, as I've seen you and other conservatives do on this forum before, is ignorant and misguided at best.

I have to agree with Starlight. Psychology isn't as hard on scientific RESULTS, but the most honest form does use scientific METHODS . The problem, IMHO, is the fact that people themselves can skew the way the methods are applied simply because people are so variable. This is what I can't stand with the idea that psychologists have ALL the answers. They don't.

[TheWall]

No scientist has all the answers as we can not observe everything. Nor can we test everything scientifically.

[Meh Gerbil]

I've seen the whole 'conservatives are stupid' thing going on 40 years now.
Can someone send me an email when the liberals try a new tactic?

[demi-conservative]

I've seen the whole 'conservatives are stupid' thing going on 40 years now.
Can someone send me an email when the liberals try a new tactic?

Why change, when it works so well on children of conservatives at all those lib colleges??

[Mountain Man]

I don't agree...

I thought you wanted to talk science, not opinion.

In other news, a 2014 survey conducted by Pew Research found that Republicans are better informed than Democrats and independents while Democrats are the least informed of the three.

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commenta...o-pew-research

Another survey conducted earlier this year found that Trump supporters were the best informed among all voters while Hillary supporters were the least informed. I even posted a thread about it back in October, but it seems that the "usual suspects" avoided it like the plague.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-more-informed

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, the media, the same people that lie to us and edit their news coverage, to make their opponents look worse, are the same ones attacking others for 'fake news coverage'. Irony at it's finest. I suppose though that the media needs an excuse, any excuse, to avoid having to deal with the fact that half the country no longer trust them, due to their lies and biased coverage, so blaming others for their own failures and confirming that those they so despite, are stupid, is a nice alternative to some self reflection. Guess instead of figuring out why none of their opponents trust them, doubling down on the very reasons why they are un-trusted is a nice alternative. Hope they enjoy losing for another 6 years.

Classic xenophobia