DebunkThis

1080 readers

1 users here now

Debunking pseudoscience, myths, and spurious hogwash since 2010.

We are an evidence-based Reddit/Lemmy community dedicated to taking an objective look at questionable theories, dodgy news sources, bold-faced claims, and suspicious studies.

Community Rules:

Posting

Title formatting on all posts should be "Debunk This: [main claim]"

Example: "Debunk This: Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay."

All posts must include at least one source and one to three specific claims to be debunked, so commenters know exactly what to investigate.

Example: "According to this YouTube video, dihydrogen monoxide turns amphibians homosexual. Is this true? Also, did Albert Einstein really claim this?"

NSFW/NSFL content is not allowed.

Commenting

Always try to back up your comments with linked sources. Just saying "this is untrue" isn't all that helpful without facts to support it.

Standard community rules apply regarding spam, self-promotion, personal attacks and hate speech, etc.

Links

Suggested Fediverse Communities

• RFK Jr. Watch @lemm.ee - Discuss misinformation being spread by antivaxxer politician, Robert F Kennedy Jr.
• Skeptic @lemmy.world - Discuss pseudoscience, quackery, and bald-faced BS
• Skeptic @kbin.social - The above, just on Kbin
• Science Communication @mander.xyz - Discuss science literacy and media reporting

Useful Resources

• Common examples of misleading graphs - How to spot dodgy infographics
• Metabunk.org - a message board dedicated to debunking popular conspiracies
• Media Bias / Fact Check - Great resource for current news fact checking + checking a source's political bias
• Science Based Medicine - A scientific look at current issues and controversies
• Deplatform Disease - A medical blog that specifically counters anti-COVID-vaccine claims
• Respectful Insolence - David Gorsky's blog on antivax shenanigans, politics, and pseudoscience

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kabe

[email protected]

Debunk This: Boomers better at identifying online misinformation than Gen Zers and millennials (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by kabe to c/debunkthis

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This headline seems dubious on the face of it.

Did the study results actually show this? If so, could simply spending more time online account for doing worse on this test?

Also, just for fun, you can take the test here. I got two wrong and I have no idea which ones they were 😅

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I got a 19/20, and it reports the one missing point as being slightly skeptical. I'm guessing it was this headline, which I marked as fake: "International Relations Experts and US Public Agree: America Is Less Respected Globally."

I feel like this is actually a test of two things: first, can you recognize the form that headlines tend to take? and second, can you recognize the kinds of things the media would be willing to say? The reason I marked that headline as fake is because it sounds slightly more casual than I'd expect.

So it's no surprise that boomers would be able to answer those particular questions with more accuracy, because they grew up with headlines looking like the "real" headlines in the survey. Or put very bluntly, this is primarily a survey of how in-touch you are with boomers' mode of journalism.

Boomers score highest on this test.

Stop the presses.

[–] kabe 1 points 2 years ago

That's a good point.

I'd imagine the gap would close considerably if the participants had access to the entire article and not just the headline.