With the 2024 Olympics having just wrapped up, we’ve been hearing lots of opinions on what an athletic body should look like. There’s no single answer – and no, someone’s BMI does not indicate how healthy or athletic they are.
Did you know that misinformation on the internet and social media often plays on your emotions to go viral? In particular, anger is frequently used to spread misinformation (1-3) .
Research shows that:
Tweets that provoke anger rather than joy tend to be retweeted more (3).
Being angry also makes it easier to believe misinformation (4).
People who are angry are more inclined to consider false information as “scientifically credible” (5).
Strong negative emotions tend to make us more sensitive to information that confirms our views. This creates an echo chamber (in other words, seeing and believing only what aligns with our perspectives) (6). In fact, emotions such as anger, sadness or frustration scramble the message and diminish our ability to analyze scientific information. Our brains tend to simplify problems and solutions when we’re upset (7). Being aware of this misinformation tactic will help you avoid being fooled (8).
Remember to take your time before sharing any information. Those who read information carefully have better judgment when faced with false information (9,10).
Sources: https://tinyurl.com/SUFBigEmotions
Share our original Tweet!
Did you know that misinformation on the internet and social media often plays on your emotions to go viral?
Ever notice how those loading screens in video games sneak in a few seconds of wisdom? They’re not just making you wait; they’re giving you pro tips to up your game!
What if your brain did the same for you when navigating the internet and social media?
Keep these tips in mind. Here are a few others as a reward for starting the side quest of reading the caption:
Does the person making the claim have the relevant expertise?
What is the position of most relevant experts on this topic?
If there is a source for the claim, does the source actually say the same thing as what is claimed?
Where is the source located on the hierarchy of evidence?
Let us know some questions you ask yourself when navigating potentially suspicious information online.
Share our original Tweet!
What if sharing a post had a loading screen, with a few quick tips on how to avoid regretful retweets? 🧠🔄
Anecdotes can help convey information in a way that is easy to understand and remember (4,5). But sometimes our brains can latch onto these easy and emotional stories at the cost of considering more robust evidence (1,3,5). This can lead to some pretty harmful decisions (3)!
Read on to learn why we like anecdotes so much, and why this might be a problem. And if you find yourself being more convinced by a story than a statistic, take a step back and consider all the evidence before making your choice!
Have you ever heard, “Meteorologists can’t predict the weather. Last week they said it was going to rain and it didn’t!”?
While it’s true that meteorologists sometimes miss the mark, a 5-day forecast can accurately predict the weather 90 percent of the time (1,2,3). Focusing only on those few misses while ignoring all the accurate predictions is an example of cherry-picking evidence.
Same goes with science. When scientists reach a consensus, it means that a vast majority of experts in a certain field agree based on extensive evidence (4). For example, over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and driven by human activities (5,6,7,8). It does not mean that there are no contradictory studies – there usually are (9). But picking only the studies that support your view while ignoring the bulk of evidence is misleading.
Cherry-picking happens when people intentionally or unintentionally select evidence that fits their narrative while ignoring all the data that might contradict it. This misinformer tactic is often used by denialists or people who support a controversial opinion (9,10). By only presenting the few examples or studies that best align with their view they make it seem like their idea actually aligns with the scientific consensus (10). Others will deny or discredit all work that goes against their belief, but accept the same scientific process when the findings align with their ideology (11).
As humans, we often select information that already aligns with our beliefs. That’s called a confirmation bias (10,11,12). To avoid doing unintentional cherry-picking, be mindful of your own bias, take time to form an opinion, and ask yourself if any other evidence might be available (10).
We are all a little biased. It’s human nature. But by recognizing our bias, we can avoid the cherry-picking trap! Let us know if you want to see more posts about human biases!
We love reading your questions and always encourage curiosity and digging deeper!
When you ask us questions we take the time to do some research and consult an expert on the matter when needed!
On the topic of mouth breathing vs nose breathing, there are many claims out there and it is a nuanced topic that may require its own post in the future. Don’t hesitate if you have questions. As a precaution and regardless of the claims made, any changes to your breathing habits should be done slowly and incrementally.
We also got an unusual question outside of our usual expertise but it made us laugh and learn something new, so we include it here as a bonus question:
“Is a shark’s brain actually the same shape as a uterus?”
Yes, they tend to be long and thin and can look like a spark plug or even a uterus sometimes because of the olfactory bulbs that can extend outwards (17,18)!
After the internet went wild with conspiracy theories about Her Royal Highness Princess Catherine (aka Kate Middleton), the Princess of Wales, stepping back from her public duties for a few months, the Royal Family has now released a statement about her health.
This was none of our business. So why was the internet so obsessed with #KateGate ?
Swipe through for just some of the key reasons why Princess Catherine’s absence captivated our conspiratorial minds.
Have you ever noticed the use of percentages in health product advertisements? They’re useful tools for expressing the change between two numbers, but without context, they’re meaningless and can be misleading.
Make sure you see the big picture!
Thank you to @figures.first for this great collaborative post!
This tactic aims to make the ‘hero’ appear more trustworthy than institutional authorities and mainstream media. This narrative works like this (1,2):
Claims the world is controlled by biased and corrupt elites.
“Exposes” said corruption by cherry-picking information and using anecdotal evidence to seem more relatable.
Presents themselves as the hero who bravely reveals hidden truths, implying that those who trust institutional authorities are merely “sheep” following blindly.
Claims they are being censored and persecuted for telling you the truth.
Rallies followers in the name of freedom and justice.
By posing as the censored hero that is risking it all in the name of the truth, justice and freedom, they create a common enemy (e.g. mainstream media), and build a community of followers ready to defend the same goal (1,3). They also profit from spreading misinformation (2,4).
Talking about polarizing topics, whether it’s with friends and family, or strangers on the internet, can be particularly difficult. People can react adversely, get even more closed-up, become aggressive, and the conversation can quickly devolve.
Here are a few tips to help you get through these difficult discussions.
There are also resources available across the country to tackle radicalization in friends and family members. Check out our references (38).
Discussing polarizing topics can be difficult. Regardless of who the conversation is with, it’s better for everyone if it goes positively. Even if you can't see eye to eye.
While causation and correlation can exist at the same time, the two events are often unrelated. Even if the rooster does not crow, the sun will still come up.
Here is a COVID-19 example of the causal fallacy.
Misinformer: “My cousin got the vaccine and one month later had a heart attack. The shot caused him to have a heart attack!”
Thanks to Jordan Collver for collaborating with us on this post. Jordan is an illustrator and science communicator specializing in using the visual and narrative power of comics to explore themes of science, nature, and belief.
We’re working on a series of misinformer tactics with Jordan so stay tuned for more.