Category: Misinformation 101

Phew… that was just the first few minutes of an influencer’s day! 😮‍💨 

Elaborate morning routines can look glamorous, but they’re often not backed by science! For a deeper dive on each step, check out our sources below.

Survivorship bias is a cognitive bias that happens when we focus – sometimes unintentionally – only on the people or things that “made it through” a situation, and ignore those that didn’t. When that happens, we get a distorted picture of reality (1).

This bias shows up in many ways. Someone might say, “My great-uncle smoked his whole life and lived to 90, so smoking can’t be that bad.” But the people who smoked and died young aren’t here to tell their story – their stories are missing. The same thing happens when people say, “I didn’t get the vaccine and I was fine,” without considering the many who weren’t so lucky (1,2,3).

Survivorship bias can also affect research (1,3). For example, a study suggested that older adults who drank more wine lived longer than those who drank less or not at all – implying that drinking wine helps people live longer (4). But this can be misleading. Many people who were harmed by heavy drinking may have already died before the study started, so they weren’t counted. Others might have quit drinking because of health problems and ended up in the “non-drinker” group, making the drinkers look healthier by comparison (3,4,5).

Another great example comes from how the American military decided where to reinforce WWII airplanes. If they had only considered the bullet holes on the planes that returned, they would have missed a crucial piece of insight – those areas weren’t fatal. The real areas that needed reinforcement, were the places where bullets hit and caused planes not to return (6).

When we only look at people who completed a treatment or succeeded in a program, we miss those who dropped out or didn’t make it. That can lead us to believe something works better than it actually does (1,7,8,9).

This matters because it can lead us to make decisions based on incomplete data (1). Looking at both successes and setbacks helps us see the full picture – and make better choices.

Most Canadians and Americans are concerned about misinformation (1,2). But earlier this year, a U.S. Presidential Action ended National Science Foundation (NSF) support for misinformation research, claiming that it interferes with free speech (3-6). 

This research is important, and restricting it can cause harm.

Individually, misinformation can cause loss of trust, confusion, stress, and lead to physical harm (7-17). For society, misinformation can create economic and political distress, prevent effective emergency responses after crises, threaten public health, and create or worsen violence and discrimination (7,8,12,15-25).

Misinformation has broad impact, and is studied by many disciplines including computer science, economics, politics, law, and social science (16,26). This research helps us understand how false information spreads, how it can harm us, and what we can do about it (16,26,27). Cuts to this research may mean fewer solutions to the problems created by misinformation.

The statements from the White House and the NSF claim that misinformation research hurts free speech (3,4). This is not true. Many evidence-based responses to misinformation involve empowering people to navigate the internet better without removing any posts (17,28,29). Moderating false information online – which is supported by most Americans, though support has declined slightly over the past few years – is only one tool in the toolbelt (30-32).

Do you know the difference between vertical and lateral reading? Fact-checkers use lateral reading because it is faster, more efficient, and less biased than vertical reading.

The SIFT method involves:
S, stopping
I, Investigating the source
F, Finding better coverage and 
T, Tracing the information. 

We’ll summarize each point for you so you know how to SIFT.

Did you know about this fact-checking method? Let us know and don’t hesitate to share this video with your loved ones!

Initial beat produced by Shayzex Beats and remixed by us.

We also did a post on SIFT that gets a little deeper into the process.

We might be a little late to the trend, but this one was too good to pass up! 

Introducing: ScienceUpFirst’s Myth Buster Starter Pack!

Here are four essential accessories for anyone aspiring to become a Myth Busting champion. 

Listening & Empathy essentials: First, a great myth buster listens closely, opens respectful dialogue, and always approaches others with empathy — even when they don’t share their views. 💬🩵👂 

A reminder to pause before sharing: A mindful myth buster also knows that one of the easiest ways to stop misinformation is to pause and ask: “Is this true?” before sharing information online. 🛑 

Red flag spotter: Myth busters are also really good at spotting the various misinformers’ tactics and misleading reasoning that are often used to spread misinformation. 🔍🚩

Finally, myth busters always read past the headlines, check the credibility of their sources, and consult more than one to get the full picture. 📚That’s why we’ve added multiple trusted sources!

Sound like you? Then welcome to the squad!

I say, bananas are yellow. You say, bananas are red. Can’t we compromise and just call them orange?

Here’s another example, let’s say two people argue about eating raw chicken. One says it can contain harmful bacteria and must be fully cooked. The other says it’s totally fine to eat raw. To settle the debate, they compromise by only cooking the chicken partially, so it’s still a little pink inside.

That’s the middle ground fallacy in action, and a salmonella special waiting to happen (1,2). Yikes!

Also called appeal to moderation, golden mean fallacy, or gray fallacy, this reasoning suggests that the middle point between two opposing views is automatically the most accurate (3,4,5,6). But truth isn’t decided by averaging opinions. If one of those extremes is clearly false, then the compromise isn’t a fair solution – it’s a distortion of the truth (3,7).