I think there is a third factor - the means by which people acquire misinformation. For example, a statement from the first article Glen cited:
"The President of the United States insists that hydroxychloroquine, a drug often used to treat malaria, is a real “game changer” for COVID-19 and has already garnered FDA approval. You take it. Potentially, you die." Misinformation includes: 1- Trump "insists" — misinformation unless you interpret frequent mentions that "it could be a game changer" as being insistent. 2- garnered FDA approval — Trump lied 3- you take it, potentially, you die — reporter is being intentionally disingenuous. you take it in the form of fish tank cleaner, likely you die. you overdose, potentially you die, you take it off-label from a physician as prescribed it could be a minor, at least, game changer. Three national governments and thousands of physicians are claiming so. One sentence, three bits of misinformation, two of which arise from hidden bias, perspective, of the author who is pretending to be simply factual if not objective. I found numerous similar examples in the article with the result that I am skeptical of everything he says - unjustly of course, because he does provide some good points. davew On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, at 12:20 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > So, I try to be on the lookout for my triggers that are said to > contribute to the spread of misinformation [†]. So, when I find 2 > seemingly good arguments with conflicting reasoning and conclusions, > it's an opportunity to test my bias. The first one attributes the > spread of misinfo to scientific illiteracy. The 2nd one to behavioral > inertia. > > Why Are Lies More Attractive than Science? > https://bylinetimes.com/2020/03/30/the-coronavirus-crisis-why-are-lies-more-attractive-than-science/ > > Fake news in the time of coronavirus: how big is the threat? > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/30/fake-news-coronavirus-false-information > > I'm not as skeptical as Dave about scientific [il]literacy. I believe > there are good-faith scientists (and popularizers) who are working on a > real problem (e.g. psych resistance to understanding exponential > growth). But I disagree with the 1st article's conclusion. I don't > think that's the most important factor. This is mostly, I think, > because I doubt my competence in everything, from hanging a picture to > reading papers on spin glasses. But it's bolstered by my friends', who > have no understanding of science, *very* persnickety behavior with > regard to wherever their attention lands. They're picky in what they > believe, from which shoegazer electronic band is best to which type of > patchouli oil works best on skin vs. in the diffuser. So, the rhetoric > in the 2nd article seems more right, to me. It's less about > understanding the "science" and more about entrained behavior. > > > [†] E.g. here: > https://theconversation.com/10-ways-to-spot-online-misinformation-132246 > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
