Analytical Ability (not Education Level) is key to better identifying misinformation (and information).

[essentialsaltes]

Educated but easily fooled? Who falls for misinformation and why​

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development have identified who is most susceptible to online misinformation and why. Their meta-analysis reveals surprising patterns in how demographic and psychological factors—including age, education, political identity, analytical thinking, and motivated reflection—affect people's ability to assess the accuracy of information.

For instance, individuals with higher levels of education are just as likely to fall for misinformation as those with a lower level of education. The work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides important information for theory building and designing interventions.

Individuals with higher analytical thinking skills—that is, who are better at logically evaluating information, identifying patterns, and systematically solving problems—performed better overall and were more skeptical (tending to classify news as false). [i.e. misidentifying a true news story as misinformation. But they were still more accurate than the people with lower analytical thinking skills.]

The strongest effect in the meta-analysis was the influence of familiarity. When participants reported having already seen a news headline, they were more likely to believe it was true. [This is a pretty well-known effect and may explain why certain false stories get shared over and over again -- to make them familiar to people and thus more likely to be believed.]

 

[Landon Caeli]

I can't figure out what any of this stuff means.

 

[public hermit]

If true, that's good news. Analytic skills can be taught and improved.

 

[Yttrium]

If your use of analysis and logic leads you to distrust what the other side is saying... then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Aaron112]

For instance, individuals with higher levels of education are just as likely to fall for misinformation as those with a lower level of education.

Amazing coincidence or simple observation; this is in line with Scripture and with what Jesus says Himself.
===========================================
This seems obvious also - people who can think freely do better.

Individuals with higher analytical thinking skills—that is, who are better at logically evaluating information, identifying patterns, and systematically solving problems—performed better overall

 

[durangodawood]

If your use of analysis and logic leads you to distrust what the other side is saying... then you're doing it wrong.

Depends on what the other side is saying.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Educated but easily fooled? Who falls for misinformation and why​

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development have identified who is most susceptible to online misinformation and why. Their meta-analysis reveals surprising patterns in how demographic and psychological factors—including age, education, political identity, analytical thinking, and motivated reflection—affect people's ability to assess the accuracy of information.

For instance, individuals with higher levels of education are just as likely to fall for misinformation as those with a lower level of education. The work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides important information for theory building and designing interventions.

Individuals with higher analytical thinking skills—that is, who are better at logically evaluating information, identifying patterns, and systematically solving problems—performed better overall and were more skeptical (tending to classify news as false). [i.e. misidentifying a true news story as misinformation. But they were still more accurate than the people with lower analytical thinking skills.]

The strongest effect in the meta-analysis was the influence of familiarity. When participants reported having already seen a news headline, they were more likely to believe it was true. [This is a pretty well-known effect and may explain why certain false stories get shared over and over again -- to make them familiar to people and thus more likely to be believed.]

Yeah. We all know that folks like Mary Shelley have all been merely pseudo-intellectual propagators of misinformed deflection.

 

[Yttrium]

Depends on what the other side is saying.

Uh huh. But people will be people. Some will give faulty information. It doesn't matter what side they're on. We do it wrong when we look at it from the aspect of sides.

Logic flows from a set of assumptions. If one the assumptions is wrong, it doesn't matter how good your logic is, your conclusion won't be worth much. It's very easy for people to make assumptions that are unfairly biased in their side's favor and/or unfairly biased against the other side. The assumptions themselves might contain misinformation. When you put yourself on a side, you need to recognize that your analysis could be tainted by your fondness for that side.

Take a critical look at all sides.

 

[Aaron112]

Or, who the other side is. Someone notorious, someone reliable, flakey, trustworthy, faithful friend, unknown neighbor, greedy for money or power, gracious and generous.... what is known or unknown about them.

Depends on what the other side is saying.

 

[DaisyDay]

Take a critical look at all sides.

Yeah, especially one's own which is particularly difficult, but I have met people who never question their own opinion. And, of course, there was that memorable study that found that intelligent people weren't more likely to be right but came up with better excuses.

 

[Chesterton]

Let's see. OPs in this forum are supposed to link to a credible news source. Does phys.org qualify? When an alleged science article includes a sentence with the clause "With the rise of right-wing populism..." and then in the next paragraph implies that we need to teach our kids not to be right-wing populists...there, I've identified some misinformation for you. You're welcome.

 

[durangodawood]

Uh huh. But people will be people. Some will give faulty information. It doesn't matter what side they're on. We do it wrong when we look at it from the aspect of sides.

Logic flows from a set of assumptions. If one the assumptions is wrong, it doesn't matter how good your logic is, your conclusion won't be worth much. It's very easy for people to make assumptions that are unfairly biased in their side's favor and/or unfairly biased against the other side. The assumptions themselves might contain misinformation. When you put yourself on a side, you need to recognize that your analysis could be tainted by your fondness for that side.

Take a critical look at all sides.

Speaking of assumptions, its a really bad one to presume that every ideological fantasy is opposed by equally fantastical thinking.

Sometimes its one side of an ideological dispute that has gone off the rails.

 

[Yttrium]

Speaking of assumptions, its a really bad one to presume that every ideological fantasy is opposed by equally fantastical thinking.

Sometimes its one side of an ideological dispute that has gone off the rails.

Yeah. By my estimation, MAGA has gone off the rails.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Speaking of assumptions, its a really bad one to presume that every ideological fantasy is opposed by equally fantastical thinking.

Sometimes its one side of an ideological dispute that has gone off the rails.

Sometimes its both sides.

 

[durangodawood]

Sometimes its both sides.

I would agree. But what examples would you offer?

 

[Chesterton]

Speaking of assumptions, its a really bad one to presume that every ideological fantasy is opposed by equally fantastical thinking.

Sometimes its one side of an ideological dispute that has gone off the rails.

Absolutely right. There's a reason I'm on one side and not the other, and the reason is reason. Queers for Hamas, men can get pregnant, math is racist, etc. Don't you think one side is a little off the rails? God bless Donald Trump. Despite his flaws, he remains on the rails of sanity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would agree. But what examples would you offer?

The usual ones from both sides.

 

[Yttrium]

There's a reason I'm on one side and not the other, and the reason is reason. Queers for Hamas, men can get pregnant, math is racist, etc. Don't you think one side is a little off the rails? God bless Donald Trump. Despite his flaws, he remains on the rails of sanity.

Wow, thanks for providing a great example of my point!

 

[durangodawood]

The usual ones from both sides.

I dont follow. Can you offer examples from history so as not to get caught up in a current politics debate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I dont follow. Can you offer examples from history so as not to get caught up in a current politics debate.

From history? Ok. Hitler's Nazis VS. Stalin's Soviets.

That's an extreme example, but I'm sure we could come up with others that fit the pattern.