The Psychology of Misinformation and Its Remedies | David Myers
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- In the battle against misinformation, having truth and facts on your side is often still not enough. People are stubbornly-and seemingly inexplicably-willing to believe things that are obviously not true. What are the underlying psychological reasons for this, and what can be done to address them?
Psychologist David Myers shares ten striking examples of people believing things that are clearly untrue and detail the psychological mechanisms that enable and sustain false beliefs. Finally, Myers will illustrate the contribution of scientific inquiry, education, and faith-based humility to restraining misinformation.
David Myers is a social psychologist at Hope College and psychological science communicator. His work includes several textbooks for introductory and social psychology, blog essays at TalkPsych.com, and general audience books on topics including the science of happiness, the psychology of hearing loss, the powers and perils of intuition, and the meeting ground between psychological science and faith. His newest book offers forty short-form essays, each exploring a psychological science revelation about our wonderful lives.
This talk took place on March 28, 2024, at 7:00 pm EDT.
These kind of videos and talks are needed so much these days! Thanks!
All of our local and national politicians need to see this video as well!
This was an excellent presentation, fast, to the point, pure and practical info.
5:32 This criticism makes no sense. The young feared serving as a vector if they got infected: they feared killing someone close to them, maybe becoming an orphan. Also, it wasn't fun for the young to get sick. One of my students (of less than 100 when the pandemic started) ended up in the hospital for a month. A former student went through the same. Also, I don't believe the fear was balanced between the young and old. I recall the old saying about youthful indiscretion at the time, "They don't care about us." The old understood the young could get them killed. You're not making a compelling attempt at even-handedness.
14:08 This also is not a compelling attempt at even-handedness: deaths aren't the only measure of excessive force. This is like asking people which kills more: pot or alcohol. The pot numbers will be inflated, but death rate is not the only measure of danger.
20:03 But most scientists aren't in bioengineering, and aren't aware that genetic modification is not as free of off-target modifications as, say, Craig Venter first claimed. You might as well poll dentists on matters of physics.
21:10 Selection bias preventing the data from addressing the original question
I appreciate your wanting to bring a certain group into the fold by keeping them from feeling singled out, but false equivalencies aren't the way to do it either.
i enjoyed your talk and i love the way you use science to prove/disprove ideas. however, at the end of the talk you said we are made/created so why don't you apply science evolution to how people are made?
the other people are living better than they used to...therefore, though my life is the same, I feel like my life is worse because others are doing better than they use to be. ( I dont think this)
Wonderful!, thankyou so much.
Also, children treated for emotional problems works around the same premise as my other comment. The children are the product of bad nature and nurture pairings that will not hold long term. These children are more likely to inherit these undesirable factors and so inevitably have emotional difficulties. The break up is not the cause but merely an indicator of quality ingredients that make up the child produced.
Re: the very happy marriage stats; i speculate those that are desired enough to commit to, for the long term, will be the product of better nature and nurture, and therefore, these "chosen ones" began as happier individuals, so the marriage serves merely as a rubber stamp of quality goods so to speak and not the causative factor of happiness. Just as the action of "buying" the ripe undamaged fruit doesn't make it sweeter than the non ripe, damaged, and therefore, unsold goods.
i enjoyed your talk and i love the way you use science to prove/disprove ideas. however, at the end of the talk you said we are made/created so why don't you apply science evolution to how people are made?