Images vs Text in communicating new ideas

[Gridlock]

Sorry if this is the wrong topic, or I shouldn't have started a new thread, I'm new here

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/opening-political-mind.pdf

Abstract

Why do so many Americans believe in misinformation? One possibility is that people have not been exposed to clear factual information. If so, then presenting correct information in a compelling format should substantially reduce these false or unsupported beliefs. Alternatively, people may have encountered accurate information but rejected it because it threatened their worldview or self-concept. Drawing from psychology research, we examine whether affirming individuals’ self-worth can make them more willing to acknowledge these politically uncomfortable facts. We find support for both explanations. Results from three experiments show that providing accurate information in graphical form reduces misperceptions. However, self-affirmation also substantially reduces misperceptions among those most likely to hold them even if no other information is provided. The misperceptions problem is thus not simply the result of a lack of information – our results suggest that many people could offer correct answers if they were less psychologically threatening to provide.

Content from external source

Seemed very appropriate to what MB is about?

 

[Svartbjørn]

Four Letters @Gridlock

TLDR, thats why.

 

[Gridlock]

Sort of - a good summation (albeit one from only reading some of the paper) seems to be that "words are argument whereas images are data".

 

[Svartbjørn]

Nature, by definition, is lazy. Images are quicker for the human mind to assimilate than reading comprehension, so anything with a picture, sticks faster and more easily than something you have to read. This is why its suggested you learn a new language using pictures rather than using the word.. Showing someone a picture of shoes and saying the word Zapatos rather than having them read "The Spanish word for Shoes, is Zapatos."

So if you extrapolate that into the average joe.. you show them a scary picture and say SEE 'THEY' ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU.. while making the few words that are there seem like they come from a figure of authority.. IE Doctors, Scientists, Whistleblowers etc... it sticks in the human Psyche. Picture association, tied in with a few short words that sum the picture up. The short hand for all that, is TLDR.

 

[WeedWhacker]

TLDR, thats why.

You're a wit (not, "your a wit..." **...see that ALL too often) at the acronyms.

Acronyms are the "life blood" of aviation, in a way...so....welcome fellow pilot!!

(Hey....I kid....)

(**) some day....the word "your" and the contraction "you're" will no longer mean anything...THANK YOU, @theinternet and @facebook!!

 

[Svartbjørn]

I spent a decade as a Marine Weed, so Im really familiar with acronyms lol.. This one though, isnt one of my making... its an internet Acronym thats been around for a long time, (Too Long, Didnt Read). Sums things up pretty succinctly though, and @Gridlock brings up some very good points as well.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I spent a decade as a Marine Weed, so Im really familiar with acronyms lol.. This one though, isnt one of my making... its an internet Acronym thats been around for a long time, (Too Long, Didnt Read). Sums things up pretty succinctly though, and @Gridlock brings up some very good points as well.

A Marine? Ten years??

OK...you win.

 

[Svartbjørn]

Honestly, Id rather have been a pilot. (Go figure for a guy thats terrified of heights.)

 

[deirdre]

You're a wit (not, "your a wit..." **...see that ALL too often) at the acronyms.

Acronyms are the "life blood" of aviation, in a way...so....welcome fellow pilot!!

(Hey....I kid....)

(**) some day....the word "your" and the contraction "you're" will no longer mean anything...THANK YOU, @theinternet and @facebook!!

your driving me nuts!

 

[George B]

Sorry if this is the wrong topic, or I shouldn't have started a new thread, I'm new here

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/opening-political-mind.pdf

Abstract

Why do so many Americans believe in misinformation? One possibility is that people have not been exposed to clear factual information. If so, then presenting correct information in a compelling format should substantially reduce these false or unsupported beliefs. Alternatively, people may have encountered accurate information but rejected it because it threatened their worldview or self-concept. Drawing from psychology research, we examine whether affirming individuals’ self-worth can make them more willing to acknowledge these politically uncomfortable facts. We find support for both explanations. Results from three experiments show that providing accurate information in graphical form reduces misperceptions. However, self-affirmation also substantially reduces misperceptions among those most likely to hold them even if no other information is provided. The misperceptions problem is thus not simply the result of a lack of information – our results suggest that many people could offer correct answers if they were less psychologically threatening to provide.

Content from external source

Seemed very appropriate to what MB is about?

Would this concept be applicable to videos? A reason why youtube videos of misinformation are so hard to debunk once the viewer has accepted the information as correct?

 

[Efftup]

I think it would, definitely. Just like people believe something cos it's written down (on the internet where there are no censors or editors for anyone's own page), a Youtube video with appropriately scary music that is often little more than a slide show with some pictures added, you can any old crap.
How many times have you asked someone for proof only to be sent a link to an hour long video full of filler and NO real info?

Then when your video becomes a TLDR, you can be accused of not looking at the evidence cos you didn't watch the whole video.

 

[George B]

I think we all suspected that visual evidence is more lasting and powerful than written communication alone. So maybe debunking should also seriously investigate the mode, frequency, and format of the debunking. That is, short messages, graphic or pictorial examples, sound and music if possible.

Seems Mick's desire to keep Threads short is important. TLDR is an important deterrent to getting ones point across! Me thinks humor is also a good way to get one to remember as well.

 

[George B]

How about taking a shot at producing a few 2 minute youtube debunking videos on selected core Chemtrail conspiracy concepts. Using what we can learn about human reactions to format and communication as in this research.

 

[Efftup]

It could be a good idea. keep it short and snappy and get some obvious info across, it could work.

 

[Gridlock]

It's really not TL;DR at work, it's cognitive biases based on the medium (according to the paper) - if I tell you something you will involve 'me' and your existing notions in your interpretation of the message but if I show you data, ideally graphically, you will tend to skip that bit of filtering.

 

[George B]

It's really not TL;DR at work, it's cognitive biases based on the medium (according to the paper) - if I tell you something you will involve 'me' and your existing notions in your interpretation of the message but if I show you data, ideally graphically, you will tend to skip that bit of filtering.

The same approach applies. Visual, graphical (in many cases video) helps to "involve" the viewer better than written text alone. So I still also think brevity and humor helps to disengage "filtering."

 

[Buildy]

Every few months or so I grow tired of the quack-memes on my facebook feed and have to throw this one up.



It's an uphill battle. The images stick. Eric's rational comments below the image don't tend to have the same adhesiveness, unfortunately.

 

[Svartbjørn]

It's really not TL;DR at work, it's cognitive biases based on the medium (according to the paper) - if I tell you something you will involve 'me' and your existing notions in your interpretation of the message but if I show you data, ideally graphically, you will tend to skip that bit of filtering.

But thats exactly what MAKES it TLDR... If you get told something, go read about it and verify it yourself... the vast majority of Americans dont and WONT do that because A) its "too hard", or B) Its "too long" IE they have to put forth more than the minimal effort.

Now keep in mind, Im not saying this is true for 100% of the ppl 100% of the time, but I AM saying that those that buy into the bunk are usually the very same ones who just regurgitate some snippet they saw on Facebook, or on TV and dont verify it themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now keep in mind, Im not saying this is true for 100% of the ppl 100% of the time, but I AM saying that those that buy into the bunk are usually the very same ones who just regurgitate some snippet they saw on Facebook, or on TV and dont verify it themselves.

Trouble is, it doesn't just have to be a no-hard-reading image that can be shared on Facebook. It also has to be meme-worthy. A photo of contrails with "Look Up - Their[sic] Killing You" plastered across it is going to get shared. A photo of the same contrails with "Oh Look: Ice Crystals" isn't.

 

[Svartbjørn]

Trouble is, it doesn't just have to be a no-hard-reading image that can be shared on Facebook. It also has to be meme-worthy. A photo of contrails with "Look Up - Their[sic] Killing You" plastered across it is going to get shared. A photo of the same contrails with "Oh Look: Ice Crystals" isn't.

I agree.. but again, if people take the time to do the research and read what causes those weird lines in the sky, they'll realize that they're probably not as AMGDEADLY as they're being lead to believe. Id never heard of Chemtrails until I came here to Metabunk, but within 15 minutes of doing some reading on my own and looking at the pictures, I saw them for what they were.. Condensation trails left by aircraft every day.. nothing nefarious about it at all. That was just a quick cursory search on Google and leaving out buzzwords like chemtrail, contrail and spraying. I found sites both from government AND independant sources that basically said the exact same thing.. not to mention that Id seen those lil white lines at every airport Id ever been to, old movies from WWII (my grandfather and father loved WWII movies).. you can see the trails behind Lancasters nearly a century ago now. Its a case of Chicken Little.. they hear something or see something that plays on a fear or belief they have, and run around screaming the sky is falling, without actually taking the time to try to figure it out themselves... Thats TLDR.. why look it up when someone can tell me? Does that make more sense or am I speaking in too broad of terms for a very specific acronym? (thats not a sarcastic question, Im wanting to make sure Im getting the point across and not confusing ppl).

 

[deirdre]

if people take the time to do the research and read

I don't know if its tldr. people don't look anything up. my FB pet peeve is people resharing "Missing PErsons" pics. that literally takes about 30 seconds to copy and paste the name then type "found" in google search. you don't even have to read the whole article because the headline usually says "missing ____ girl found". and people still repost that stuff and add comments like "oh god that's horrible I hope they find her"

 

[Svartbjørn]

I don't know if its tldr. people don't look anything up. my FB pet peeve is people resharing "Missing PErsons" pics. that literally takes about 30 seconds to copy and paste the name then type "found" in google search. you don't even have to read the whole article because the headline usually says "missing ____ girl found". and people still repost that stuff and add comments like "oh god that's horrible I hope they find her"

Thats kinda what Im referring to... it may not necessarily be that its too long, but they definitely didnt read.. maybe I should change it to TLTR.. Too Lazy to Research.. but you run into the situation where ppl dont know where to look to do the research, so its not a matter of being lazy, but a matter of just not knowing.. thats why I chose to use TLDR, it covers a much broader swathe while not being insulting at the same time. That make more sense? I know it doesnt necessarily strictly fit the definition of TLDR but it fits a great number of the situations you run into.

 

[Jason]

Thats kinda what Im referring to... it may not necessarily be that its too long, but they definitely didnt read.. maybe I should change it to TLTR.. Too Lazy to Research.. but you run into the situation where ppl dont know where to look to do the research, so its not a matter of being lazy, but a matter of just not knowing.. thats why I chose to use TLDR, it covers a much broader swathe while not being insulting at the same time. That make more sense? I know it doesnt necessarily strictly fit the definition of TLDR but it fits a great number of the situations you run into.

http://www.fastcompany.com/3022301/work-smart/7-powerful-facebook-statistics-you-should-know-about
With respect to facebook, Buffer did a study (or analyzed) what participants prefer or respond to.

It seems TLDR plays a role in how people respond to comments. Shorter comments, that are precise and to the point gain much more likes than long drawn out responses. It's also amazing how using photos and emoticons can increase your likes and responses. They also analyzed which types of questions gain a better response.