Are you susceptible to misinformation?

[Amity Island]

Well they created the headlines didn’t they. So they know which ‘recent study says…’ they made up, and which headlines were based on studies / evidence that exist? That’s my guess anyway.

I meant, before people do the test, Cambridge should provide a definition of what "misinformation" is. Without knowing what "misinformation" is, how can anyone do the test? What exactly is one looking for. There needs to be a datum / benchmark to compare against.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I think the concept of misinformation is fairly self-explanatory. Though categorisation of what is in which ‘box’ is arguably a little trickier?

 

[Amity Island]

I think the concept of misinformation is fairly self-explanatory. Though categorisation of what is in which ‘box’ is arguably a little trickier?

I think without a definition, people's understanding of "misinformation" could vary considerably, affecting the usefulness and accuracy of conducting such a test.

How does misinformation differ from disinformation, lies or propaganda?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I think the differences lie in whether there is intentionality to deceive.

So misinformation would cover disinformation, lies and (arguably) some propaganda. But not all misinformation is disinformation.

“Misinformation” vs. “Disinformation”: Get Informed On The Difference

The difference between misinformation and disinformation may seem minimal, but it's crucial to get our facts straight on both kinds of wrong information.

www.dictionary.com

As I understand it misinformation is the broader of the terms and covers more ground (including things which aren’t true which are spread in good faith)

 

[mashedupmatt]

18/20 for me - couple of tricky ones

 

[Amity Island]

I think the differences lie in whether there is intentionality to deceive.

So misinformation would cover disinformation, lies and (arguably) some propaganda. But not all misinformation is disinformation.

“Misinformation” vs. “Disinformation”: Get Informed On The Difference

The difference between misinformation and disinformation may seem minimal, but it's crucial to get our facts straight on both kinds of wrong information.

www.dictionary.com

As I understand it misinformation is the broader of the terms and covers more ground (including things which aren’t true which are spread in good faith)

That's pretty much how I understand it.

In the links within the test it describes misinformation as being a problem for society within a democracy. The way I see it (my opinion; which is outside of the scope of misinformation) is that although misinformation (lies and inaccurate information used deliberately or unwittingly) is said to be bad for society, so can truth. When propaganda (be it truth or not) is used to amplify and push certain ideas and aims, this too can be bad for society and the individual, and yet; this is not something many are aware of or are encouraged to watch out for.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

How does misinformation differ from disinformation, lies or propaganda?

I think the intent is for misinformation (for the purposes of the test) to include any of those. So it's basically "is this story true or not".

I'm sure there's some value in seeing how people distinguish misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, deception, etc., but surely not a whole lot of value?

 

[beating_my_betes]

That's pretty much how I understand it.

In the links within the test it describes misinformation as being a problem for society within a democracy. The way I see it (my opinion; which is outside of the scope of misinformation) is that although misinformation (lies and inaccurate information used deliberately or unwittingly) is said to be bad for society, so can truth. When propaganda (be it truth or not) is used to amplify and push certain ideas and aims, this too can be bad for society and the individual, and yet; this is not something many are aware of or are encouraged to watch out for.

Just tell us you got 2 out of 20. We're all friends here

 

[Amity Island]

I think the intent is for misinformation (for the purposes of the test) to include any of those. So it's basically "is this story true or not".

I'm sure there's some value in seeing how people distinguish misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, deception, etc., but surely not a whole lot of value?

I'm just making a small but important point, that whilst misinformation is being brought to the forefront, there are much more important issues that never get dealt with. There are endless examples of where propaganda is widespread but is unchallenged. There are many facts that people are never told, when stories and information are presented in only one light, position, aim or agenda. Basically, what I am saying is, people are being deceived, misled, miseducated en-mass every day and none of this gets flagged or taken down as misinformation.

"Cook discovered Australia" (untrue)

No he wasn't responsible for discovering Australia, people had been living there for thousands of years before he arrived.

"Cook was a great explorer" (one side of the story)

Perhaps, but he also spread western diseases into other counties, treated indigenous people appallingly.

Captain Cook shot an Aborigine before he even set foot on Australia

Bestselling author Peter FitzSimons was stunned while researching a biography of Captain James Cook to learn the legendary navigator had shot an indigenous warrior.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Rob Oldfield]

That's pretty much how I understand it.

In the links within the test it describes misinformation as being a problem for society within a democracy. The way I see it (my opinion; which is outside of the scope of misinformation) is that although misinformation (lies and inaccurate information used deliberately or unwittingly) is said to be bad for society, so can truth. When propaganda (be it truth or not) is used to amplify and push certain ideas and aims, this too can be bad for society and the individual, and yet; this is not something many are aware of or are encouraged to watch out for.

Could you give a couple of examples of where you think truth has been bad for society?

 

[Amity Island]

Could you give a couple of examples of where you think truth has been bad for society?

Plenty, propaganda is the starting point. Like broadcasting (casting "seeds" to "plant" ideas) only stories that support someone's/groups aims and agenda. Where only one side of a story is told to promote and aid a particular position or agenda. Yes, what is being said may be true in itself, but it fails to give the full picture. This is why in court we have to agree to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because otherwise people will only give the favourable facts not all the facts. Take my example above, Cook portrayed as a hero, an explorer, a discoverer, all to promote imperialism. In reality, Cook was part of a military operation to conquer and expand.

 

[Rob Oldfield]

Plenty, propaganda is the starting point. Like broadcasting (casting "seeds" to "plant" ideas) only stories that support someone's/groups aims and agenda. Where only one side of a story is told to promote and aid a particular position or agenda. Yes, what is being said may be true in itself, but it fails to give the full picture. This is why in court we have to agree to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because otherwise people will only give the favourable facts not all the facts. Take my example above, Cook portrayed as a hero, an explorer, a discoverer, all to promote imperialism. In reality, Cook was part of a military operation to conquer and expand.

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

[Amity Island]

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

Ok. Your question "Could you give a couple of examples of where you think truth has been bad for society?"
According to the Cambridge test info, they said that misinformation is bad for society in a democracy. Thus, for example; anything that presents only one side (a defintion of misinformation) - even if truthful - of a story is bad for people and society.

Of course it's not good for society to tell or promote only the favourable information or facts. Someone could tell you something is really cheap (truth) but if they don't also tell you that it is stolen, that can't be good for you or society.

It's so easy to tell people what they want to hear.

 

[Rob Oldfield]

Ok. Your question "Could you give a couple of examples of where you think truth has been bad for society?"
According to the Cambridge test info, they said that misinformation is bad for society in a democracy. Thus, for example; anything that presents only one side (a defintion of misinformation) - even if truthful - of a story is bad for people and society.

Of course it's not good for society to tell or promote only the favourable information or facts. Someone could tell you something is really cheap (truth) but if they don't also tell you that it is stolen, that can't be good for you or society.

It's so easy to tell people what they want to hear.

I give in.

 

[Amity Island]

I give in.

Ok you want it spelling out with specific examples.

Society believing "the truth" that Captain Cook was a hero when in reality, he was dishing out appalling violence on natives.

That joining your country in going to war is good, when in reality going to war is absolutely terrible and costs the lives of millions. It leaves families without their dad and without an income to support them when Dads don't return.

 

[Rob Oldfield]

Neither of those are truth. Those are both just opinions.

 

[Amity Island]

Neither of those are truth. Those are both just opinions.

I don't disagree with you Rob and that is precisely where I am coming from, but those are just two examples of how "truth" is being promoted to the masses. Ask anyone in the street about Captain Cook, see what they say.

You won't find a book in any school describing Captain Cook and his crew as ruthless men, killing natives, bringing western diseases and imperialism to foreign shores. No; Cook was a hero, an explorer. That one sided truth becomes the "truth" promoted.

 

[Rob Oldfield]

I don't disagree with you Rob and that is precisely where I am coming from, but those are just two examples of how "truth" is being promoted to the masses. Ask anyone in the street about Captain Cook, see what they say.

You won't find a book in any school describing Captain Cook and his crew as ruthless men, killing natives, bringing western diseases and imperialism to foreign shores. No; Cook was a hero, an explorer. That one sided truth becomes the "truth" promoted.

Fine. That's not what you said in the first place though. You just said there was a problem with truth.

 

[rebrascora]

I wonder how you actually define truth because that in itself can be shady. Two people can see the same incident and give two very different interpretations of it, which they each believe to be the truth and indeed to them it is the truth. You can even get video evidence or scientific evidence which doesn't always give you the whole picture. Opinion is part of an individual's assessment of truth. It is why juries exist. We each bring to every moment of every day, a perspective which is based on our previous life experiences.

 

[Amity Island]

Fine. That's not what you said in the first place though. You just said there was a problem with truth.

I said that truth can be bad for society for example when it's being used for propaganda, e.g promoting only the favourable side of the truth that suits the person or organisations aims.

Stories or information portrayed as truth and spread widely within society can become accepted as "the truth". However, if one diggs beneath the surface, there is often more to it than what is widely believed.