A Psychological Vaccine Against Fake News
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Nicolaas Vroom
Oct 21, 2022, 4:25:18 AM10/21/22
to
This posting is a reaction op the article: "A Psychological Vaccine
Against Fake News". To read the article select this link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349693716_A_Psychological_Vaccine_Against_Fake_News
Written by Rakoen Maertens and Sander van der Linde.
Both from University of Cambridge UK.
We Read:
"Despite years of research in cognitive and behavioural science on how
to curb the impact of misinformation, a magic bullet solution for the
problem has not been found. The classical method is known as debunking
and entails issuing a correction after people have already been exposed
to a falsehood."
And:
"This leads to the natural question of whether we can prevent
misinformation from taking root in the first place? In the 1960s,
American psychologist William McGuire developed a framework known as
inoculation theory, which closely follows the biomedical analogy.
In brief, McGuire posited that — similar to a biomedical vaccine —
the 'cognitive immune system' needs to become familiar with a weakened
version of the 'virus' in order for it to develop 'mental antibodies'."
To read more about 'inoculation theory' select this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation_theory
IMO the most important weapon against fake news, or to decide what is
true or false is education. Explain in as simple and as clear as
possible language how something functions or operates, backed up by
means of experiments.
A nice document to read about vaccines is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine
Regarding vaccines it is important:
First to describe the disease against which the vaccine protects you.
Secondly to describe in as much detail as possible how the vaccine
performs this task, backed up by means of experiments.
Thirdly test that the vaccine actual protects you.
This is dangerous for a completely new vaccine.
This is extra difficult for a vaccine that is an update of a previous
vaccine.
Regarding fake news and the inoculation theory.
First describe in detail what fake news is in general.
Secondly describe how inoculation theory in general operates or
functions and how it decides what is true and what is false.
(Or right and wrong)
IMO to answer this question in general is almost impossible.
Instead of 'in general' you can also read: 'in case of a virus'
How difficult it is to evaluate all the news about the corona pandemic
becomes clear when you study face masks.
Why was there so much mistrust about the use of face mask, while face
mask where already in use during the Spanish flue?
The use of face mask is almost the first line of defence against the
spreading of almost any infection or contagious disease.
In the article the following example is discussed:
"In particular, we used a screenshot of a real website that hosts a
bogus petition allegedly signed by thousands of scientists claiming
that global warming is a hoax"
Next, we read:
"The warning and weakened dose are meant to trigger people’s vigilance
and attention (to start the production of mental antibodies), and the
message offers people concrete ways to resist the misinformation.
After people were inoculated, participants were exposed to a full dose
of the misinformation."
This raises two important questions:
1) What are these mental antibodies?
2) What does inoculation mean in this example.
My conclusion is that in general to investigate what is right or wrong
requires a detailed scientific investigation.
Except if people on purpose produce misinformation.
Nicolaas Vroom
https://www.nicvroom.be/
Against Fake News". To read the article select this link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349693716_A_Psychological_Vaccine_Against_Fake_News
Written by Rakoen Maertens and Sander van der Linde.
Both from University of Cambridge UK.
We Read:
"Despite years of research in cognitive and behavioural science on how
to curb the impact of misinformation, a magic bullet solution for the
problem has not been found. The classical method is known as debunking
and entails issuing a correction after people have already been exposed
to a falsehood."
And:
"This leads to the natural question of whether we can prevent
misinformation from taking root in the first place? In the 1960s,
American psychologist William McGuire developed a framework known as
inoculation theory, which closely follows the biomedical analogy.
In brief, McGuire posited that — similar to a biomedical vaccine —
the 'cognitive immune system' needs to become familiar with a weakened
version of the 'virus' in order for it to develop 'mental antibodies'."
To read more about 'inoculation theory' select this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation_theory
IMO the most important weapon against fake news, or to decide what is
true or false is education. Explain in as simple and as clear as
possible language how something functions or operates, backed up by
means of experiments.
A nice document to read about vaccines is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine
Regarding vaccines it is important:
First to describe the disease against which the vaccine protects you.
Secondly to describe in as much detail as possible how the vaccine
performs this task, backed up by means of experiments.
Thirdly test that the vaccine actual protects you.
This is dangerous for a completely new vaccine.
This is extra difficult for a vaccine that is an update of a previous
vaccine.
Regarding fake news and the inoculation theory.
First describe in detail what fake news is in general.
Secondly describe how inoculation theory in general operates or
functions and how it decides what is true and what is false.
(Or right and wrong)
IMO to answer this question in general is almost impossible.
Instead of 'in general' you can also read: 'in case of a virus'
How difficult it is to evaluate all the news about the corona pandemic
becomes clear when you study face masks.
Why was there so much mistrust about the use of face mask, while face
mask where already in use during the Spanish flue?
The use of face mask is almost the first line of defence against the
spreading of almost any infection or contagious disease.
In the article the following example is discussed:
"In particular, we used a screenshot of a real website that hosts a
bogus petition allegedly signed by thousands of scientists claiming
that global warming is a hoax"
Next, we read:
"The warning and weakened dose are meant to trigger people’s vigilance
and attention (to start the production of mental antibodies), and the
message offers people concrete ways to resist the misinformation.
After people were inoculated, participants were exposed to a full dose
of the misinformation."
This raises two important questions:
1) What are these mental antibodies?
2) What does inoculation mean in this example.
My conclusion is that in general to investigate what is right or wrong
requires a detailed scientific investigation.
Except if people on purpose produce misinformation.
Nicolaas Vroom
https://www.nicvroom.be/
Timothy Golden
Oct 21, 2022, 7:47:19 AM10/21/22
to
The government through back doors controls the media.
They are tools of disinformation.
The methods were well exposed by John Stockwell going back to the eighties I believe, when he left the CIA as a station chief to tell all.
The difference is that now the level of infiltration is obscene.
When the media becomes such an information circus then we are left constructing our own truths; attempting to find the truth in a system we cannot trust. They've set us up for such a disaster by breaking their own credibility.
Our best practice is to practice media accountability.
If Covid-19 was manmade then the early stories of its natural origins put out by British and American science sources do deserve scrutiny.
Such scientific mouthpieces must be very handy. This of course is the unspeakable which will go snubbed even on youtube, which has a pretty wide tolerance, but not this wide. That already global biological warfare has occurred is not in the analysis. I believe there is at least room for hedge analysis on this one. That an orange haired man looking to beat China would ask his deep what his options are and pick that one is entirely believable.
That Ukraine as a follow on to cover this evil has to be even more evil; well; there you have it. The American president in bed with Nazis.
The pileup of lies in their lightest form so fluffy you could butter them and enjoy eating them... until you realize there is nothing there but the butter you put on them. This is the nature of the Ukraine war. It is a march to nowhere fast. It is ultimately a war of attrition. We will yield Europe to seed ourselves feeling richer... and yet we will lose this war. Again that buttery nothingness awaits your tastebuds. Time to put on a second layer of socks.
Independent journalists are the only way to go now. If you are one who feels that you can still get some information from NPR or the NYT: you are mislead by these sources. There are no intellectual sources with integrity and zeal for truth like they used to be. Give them up and seek out the best independent journalists you can find: https://thegrayzone.com
Timothy Golden
Oct 23, 2022, 8:44:43 AM10/23/22
to
On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 7:47:19 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:25:18 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > This posting is a reaction op the article: "A Psychological Vaccine
> > Against Fake News". To read the article select this link:
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349693716_A_Psychological_Vaccine_Against_Fake_News
> > Written by Rakoen Maertens and Sander van der Linde.
> > Both from University of Cambridge UK.
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:25:18 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > This posting is a reaction op the article: "A Psychological Vaccine
> > Against Fake News". To read the article select this link:
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349693716_A_Psychological_Vaccine_Against_Fake_News
> > Written by Rakoen Maertens and Sander van der Linde.
> > Both from University of Cambridge UK.
> > My conclusion is that in general to investigate what is right or wrong
> > requires a detailed scientific investigation.
> > Except if people on purpose produce misinformation.
> >
> > Nicolaas Vroom
> > https://www.nicvroom.be/
Is China's zero covid policy a readiness system for a fresh release?
> > requires a detailed scientific investigation.
> > Except if people on purpose produce misinformation.
> >
> > Nicolaas Vroom
> > https://www.nicvroom.be/
This best explains their behavior: in the event of another biological attack containment is paramount.
Nicolaas Vroom
Oct 24, 2022, 2:11:55 PM10/24/22
to
Op vrijdag 21 oktober 2022 om 13:47:19 UTC+2 schreef Timothy Golden:
Reading from my comments you can conclude what the problem is:
How to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Assuming that no ones lies.
One solution is presented at this link: https://www.goviralgame.com/en.
"A 5-MINUTE GAME THAT HELPS PROTECT YOU AGAINST COVID-19 MISINFORMATION".
Please select "ABOUT"
But this creates a new problem:
Is it possible by means of sort of game to decide IN GENERAL,
If there is anyone who can explain how the game works, please do.
Nicolaas Vroom.
https://www.nicvroom.be
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:25:18 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > This posting is a reaction op the article: "A Psychological Vaccine
> > Against Fake News".
> > This posting is a reaction op the article: "A Psychological Vaccine
> > Against Fake News".
> These sorts of analyses hardly confront the problem.
Yes, that is the question. What is the problem.
> The government through back doors controls the media.
Of course you can claim that, but is that true?
> Independent journalists are the only way to go now.
I agree with you. But also do they always write what is true?
> There are no intellectual sources with integrity and zeal for truth
> like they used to be.
Also here: This is a simple claim. But is it true in general?
> like they used to be.
> Give them up and seek out the best independent journalists you can
> find: https://thegrayzone.com
Are they always telling you what is true?
> find: https://thegrayzone.com
Reading from my comments you can conclude what the problem is:
How to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Assuming that no ones lies.
One solution is presented at this link: https://www.goviralgame.com/en.
"A 5-MINUTE GAME THAT HELPS PROTECT YOU AGAINST COVID-19 MISINFORMATION".
Please select "ABOUT"
But this creates a new problem:
Is it possible by means of sort of game to decide IN GENERAL,
what is true and what is false
IMO the simple answer is: NO.
If there is anyone who can explain how the game works, please do.
Nicolaas Vroom.
https://www.nicvroom.be
Timothy Golden
Oct 25, 2022, 9:52:54 AM10/25/22
to
Social animals we are. Still, the idea that the truth does ultimately exist; difficult as it is to find: this is the position of a truth seeker. We have to remain observant. When most of our observations prove to be obfuscated by others we turn away from that society. There is plenty else to do. That the public feels so shut down by the politics is entirely believable. Caught with two bad choices a no vote leaves minority rule in power. Democracy defeated. We do seem to be engaged in a downward trend in terms of integrity and credibility. Trying to assess what this means at the large scale I suppose does lead me back around to where I started: we see the indications of collapse. The sorts of schmucks that are running things: are they winners or are they losers? To spit upon the ruling class is the majority opinion. We are unable to elect decent rulers in this corrupt system.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages