profsanderlinden.bsky.social
Professor of Social Psychology in Society at the University of Cambridge and Author of FOOLPROOF: Why We Fall for Misinformation and How to Build Immunity (2023) + The Psychology of Misinformation (2024). Bad News Game.
www.sandervanderlinden.com
262 posts
32,659 followers
969 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I think SNOPES was going for the idea that they want citizens to be critical thinkers and become fact-checkers themselves rather than create blind trust in whatever they say. Trust but verify, sort of thing! I think it was tongue-in-cheek to show how easy it is to mislead on the internet.
comment in response to
post
Yeah for sure, I think they mean to refer to the Celtic Britons or something.....
comment in response to
post
Very cool, hadn’t seen this yet!
comment in response to
post
Free link (no paywall) authors.elsevier.com/a/1lG3e3BtfH...
comment in response to
post
Here's a free link guys! No paywall authors.elsevier.com/a/1lG3e3BtfH...
comment in response to
post
We have some related work in the context of climate change showing more rapid decay if people return to denial content in between but boosters still seem somewhat useful journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...
comment in response to
post
My pleasure you’re doing great work. Thanks for fighting the good fight and let’s keep at it!!
comment in response to
post
yale.zoom.us/webinar/regi...
comment in response to
post
No she didn't - for her own reasons perhaps. We had our final-year undergraduate students cover this debate in my digital influence class so I've been intrigued by the discussions!
comment in response to
post
Yeah - Amy Orben is here and I think they did invite her but it’s definitely a heated topic and hard to get representation from all sides + phrasing that pleases most I imagine. Amy is conducting her own commissioned review I think & got unfairly smeared by the Times recently re bias.
comment in response to
post
I guess the fact that Twenge dropped out gives some confidence that people on both ends were unhappy? I can’t imagine Haidt would be celebrating these results…
comment in response to
post
Jay always strikes me as nuanced on these issues but fair enough regarding your other point! I guess it’s hard to get skeptics on board once you have Haidt…
comment in response to
post
Ha ok fair enough
comment in response to
post
Thanks that helps clarify!
comment in response to
post
They were all in the claim development team right - the core organising team seemed comprised of fairly independent people?
comment in response to
post
Actually Haidt was in the claim development team so that’s how that claim got in I imagine but you’d want key folks to contribute claims right and then have tons of experts rate them?
comment in response to
post
Though Rausch isn’t part of the CORE team? Interesting Twenge developed claims but left the consensus.
comment in response to
post
Ah interesting thanks - didn’t know who Rausch was.
comment in response to
post
Perhaps all survey respondents could contribute claims? Or if it’s been prominently featured in the media to have experts assess the claim?
comment in response to
post
Yes fair but I imagine Haidt wasn’t part of the organising team? Though maybe I’m wrong about that. The consensus also seems to run pretty contrary to some of his strongest claims (e.g. bans).
comment in response to
post
Can you elaborate on the COIs?