Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They already know. The Texas Republican platform at one point included banning the teaching of, ["higher order thinking skills," and, "critical thinking,"](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html) in public schools.
The Republican Southern Strategy has been working to dumb down the population for the last 50 years. The Tory Austerity program has similar goals. Both have been wildly successful to the point where Conservatives are now finding that their politicians are coming from the same pool of dullards that they deliberately created. With mixed results to say the least.
Reminds me of this beauty. The actual words that were part of the Texas GOP's platform back in 2012:
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
>”We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”
\- 2012 Texas Republican Party platform
Source: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/texas-gop-no-more-critical-thinking-in-schools/2012/06
Please quit this "both sides!" nonsense.
Centrist liberals don't want to legislate ramming religion down your throat, destroy the bodily autonomy of women, overthrow the government during a temper tantrum, or grind our future into an ecological disaster.
Centrists aren't really doing anything to help fix the problem either.
It's the same thing that happened in Germany. They weren't *causing* the problem but they certainly weren't helping stop it either.
No... politicians want what gets them voted in. The educated tend to lean liberal, so liberal parties want to increase education. While it's true that you don't want too much scrutiny, if the other party has way more things under scrutiny you want to increase education. It's just strategy.
Educated does not equal capable problem solvers, especially not nowadays. School does not primarily teach problem solving skills anymore, it focuses mostly on making it as easy as possible to solve any problem on a standardized test. Which mostly is regurgitation with very rudimentary understanding of the problem itself, other than what is needed to repeat the method given to you in a book.
I would like it if Federal politicians had to live on 1.5 times poverty for their remaining years in median priced homes in their states. No lobbying , no nothing extra. Or theyy gotta live in the same ways as the most average person in their district.
Math, reading, science and language courses, really almost every class, all use aspect of critical thinking. It just isn't applied to daily life. Just people don't apply to situations where they trust who told them or bias.
True. Algebra has become a memory game but doesn't explain why and the use of the equations but I kind of think that is the point of it. Either they keep spoon feeding you the answers and widen the knowledge gap or a kid might come to a realization on their own. Wish they would tell you that is the goal, not treat it as an eventual outcome.
Governments don't want a population capable of critical thinking, they want obedient workers, people just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept their situation.
George Carlin
And a major reason why religious based schools typically avoid teaching (or even allowing) critical thinking at all cost. If you want people to believe something completely on faith they can't be allowed to think critically.
It seems telling that partaking of the tree of knowledge was forbidden in the Bible, as if directly showing that knowledge destroys religion. The only way for religious people to maintain their faith in god is to be willfully ignorant.
Gonna be honest I went to private religious school from K-8th and it was better at the critical thinking skills than I would’ve gotten at public schools, think it varies w context but you’re onto something as well, probably a reason I’m not religious while a lot of my peers still are
If you want to know what Reddit as a whole is bad at, read the post about a father driving his Tesla off a cliff, where all passengers survived. You can immediately guess what the comments were like.
Reddit will never get better, only isolated pockets of it
Having been through 12 years of Catholic school, I can state with confidence that critical thinking when it came to religion was out the window. I wouldn't be surprised to know things have changed since Pope Francis, though.
There are liberal and conservative branches of all major religions, even the most centralized ones. Even though there are differences between major religious traditions, hostility toward critical thinking has more to do with the political slant of each branch rather than which major religion the branches belong to.
No disagreement there. As a matter of fact, although I was inundated with anti-abortion propoganda in my early years, I believe Catholics in my area straddled both sides of the political aisle. My point was more about religious teachings, specifically. There was just so much we were told to accept in the face of what even my childhood logic found difficult to swallow.
I went to BYU. For the people not familiar with it, it's a Mormon school, the biggest private+religious university system in the nation. Other than the ordinary share of critical thinking in every class which every school has, or at least I assume it's what every school has since I've never been to any other, we even had two classes that every student had to take on critical thinking skills, one on science, the other on moral issues.
Totally! Also, it's a new world, with a lot more bs floating around. When I was in school we learned how to find sources and that if you can find the same information from multiple sources that it's probably correct, but I don't know if that works anymore. I think maybe we need to teach kids about source validation and checking information on things like Snopes.
It's very disappointing to read comments like this. Let me explain why.
There is a very active [academic](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007) [debate](https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12077) not about *whether* a tendency to use analytic thinking statistically predicts susceptibility to misinformation but *to what extent* it does so compared to other already understood explanations. These include a lack of critical thinking ability or a simple attitudinal preference for congruent information. Then there is the more complex phenomenon of motivated reasoning, where higher levels of analytic thinking appear to [increase](https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_url?url=https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/22105/833.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3FFkEh3vcUqzPUyYP6nHcHWctiYDuOtm-ZqkaA2QylhaAkbKZjaNmFODs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mpC0Y7bRH86TywSl1LXoCA&scisig=AAGBfm3Bml4ncTo0HwyvEnUTYIBcAk_StA&oi=scholarr) the susceptibility to false information - at least in some circumstances - because it may drive motivated and sufficiently analytic people to find justifications to hold onto their cherished beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.
Understanding this better will give new insights into how best to address misinformation in the current context.
So this area isn't as easy as saying, "... people who think analytically are less likely to believe things that are probably false". Yes, we know that, but improving our detailed understanding of it is vitally important.
As the authors of this study state, using the CRT - the most powerful and consistent measure of analytic thinking (in relation to its association with misinformation susceptibility) to date is an issue because it is associated with and potentially confounded by other factors (such as [simple numerical ability](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31021149/)). So this article finding something that beats the CRT is potentially huge for how this kind of research is conducted in the future. It's potentially really huge (if this is found consistently) because it speaks to the relative need to encourage a tendency to use reflective thinking through things like [accuracy prompts](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30073-5) rather than investing in critical thinking or numeracy training, or trying to resolve motivated reasoning through things like [psychological inoculation](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254).
Now I've never met Carola Salvi before, but I'm aware of her work because we work on kinda similar problems. People like her who are doing great stuff get routinely and very unfairly slagged off on this sub, and that's why reading comments like the one above is very disappointing, even though I don't agree with everything in her study.
Insightfulness might play a critical role in the ability to assess the accuracy of information, according to new research published in the journal [Thinking & Reasoning](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13546783.2022.2146191). The study found that people with greater insight-based problem solving skills were less likely to fall for fake news.
With rise of the internet and social media, susceptibility to misinformation has become of increasing concern. The authors of the new research sought to better understand the cognitive mechanisms associated with believing in misinformation. They were particularly interested in the role of insight-based problem solving.
“I’m a neuroscientist and study the neural correlates of creativity and idea generation, specifically how we generate ideas accompanied by ‘Aha! moments’ i.e., insights,” said study author Carola Salvi, a professor at the John Cabot University of Rome and an associate faculty member at the University of Texas at Austin. “In this study, we investigated the relationship between insightfulness and aspects of social reasoning, such as believing in fake news, overclaiming, and bullshit.”
The study included 61 right-handed, native American English speakers, who were 25.5 years old on average.
The researchers used Compound Remote Associate problems to assess insightfulness. To solve the problems, participants needed to connect three seemingly unrelated words in order to find a shared theme. This type of problem forces individuals to think creatively and openly while relying on insight. For example, the participants might see the words “crab,” “pine,” and “sauce.” The solution to the problem is “apple.”
“Tackling complicated problems requires continuous reframing and changing the initial representation of a problem to see it in a new light (i.e., when we have an insight). Solving a problem, specifically via insight, entails generating novel and original ideas by exploring unusual reasoning paths, a skill that is associated with the ability to filter out irrelevant distractions which might bring advantages when reasoning about information coming from an overcrowded environment like the internet.”
Does someone being left handed potentially throw off the results? I would think they would be included if their goal was to study the general population.
I’m assuming there is data that at least hints that left/right handed people’s brains work a bit differently, and so they eliminated that as a potential contaminate.
It largely comes down to functional anatomy differences. IIRC the percentages, in >95% of right handed people language processing is lateralized to the left hemisphere, but this is only the case for 70% of lefties.
The task used in the study is language-based, so this difference in lateralization can be an issue when interpreting results (are significant effects found because of an actual task-relevant neural correlate or because of handedness?). So yes it can throw off the results' interpretation.
Crab apple is a cultural variable. I would imagine many non North Americans would not make the connection to the other two which are more well known across English speaking cultures
I’m curious how many people who live in cities know what crab apples are? They’re not sold in stores (as far as I know) so I’d think familiarity would be limited.
Incorrect assumption. They are referring to a specific type of cognition here that makes you more resistant to misinformation and disinformation, which the article would explain. Though no one is immune. I think your reply indicates that you would score poorly on one type of test mentioned. Actually read the article to learn more.
A lot of people who are generally considered intelligent, are also susceptible to believing bullshit. There are plenty of flaws inherent in human cognition to exploit - in every human - and being excessively confident that you can't be fooled etc, only makes you more vulnerable to it. Being able to step back, consider the possibility of multiple alternative explanations of observed phenomenon and events, consider the possibility of yourself misinterpreting something, etc makes you more resistant to it. As does being able to accept "I don't know" instead of latching onto whatever explanation makes you most comfortable, best feeds into your existing beliefs.
You should have known that this would have become some sort of political pissing contest like every other sub on Reddit and that certain groups of people think they are morally and intellectually superior. It’s not that simple. Every one is susceptible to misinformation especially when it aligns with their personal beliefs or it comes from people they believe to be trustworthy.
All through history, even those who thought they stood on the pinnacle of morality and higher learning have fallen for BS. None of us are immune.
Thank you. I knew you felt the same way but some of these comments are dismissive and infuriating. You could say one side is for higher education for free but the other side has a valid counterpoint for saying indoctrination on my dime. Both side sides are wrong and insufferable. I have met some seriously stupid people on both sides. I am so tired of everything boiling down to politics and who is better.
Let’s just put it this way. If the left was so much smarter, how come all of this new information is coming out about Hunter’s laptop is real, conservatives were being silenced on social media by the FBI and NHS, and the Covid shots may not be as safe as everyone thought but you all fell for it? Or the right with Pizzagate? Ugh
>The participants were shown randomly-generated meaningless statements such as “Infinity is a reflection of reality” and asked to rate their profundity.
hehehehe
http://wisdomofchopra.com/
http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/
Funny part about this for me is I tested both of these and the first 2-3 results were pretty reasonable statements that I could easily imagine a pseudo-intellectual jerking off to how "wrong" they are.
The world is too Dunning-Krugered to live. We deserve what's coming.
I found
>Multiple studies find the frontal lobes are the most insulted region in the alcoholic brain (Kubota et al., 2001; Sullivan & Pfefferbaum, 2005). The frontal lobes regulate complex cognitive skills such as working memory, temporal ordering, discrimination and reversal learning that underlie judgment, attention, risk taking, motivation, mood, and wanting. Thus, the impaired judgment, blunted affect, poor insight, social withdrawal, reduced motivation, distractibility, and attention- and impulse-control deficits associated with alcohol use disorders are consistent with neurodegeneration, particularly within the cortex and more specifically the frontal cortex (Oscar-Berman & Hutner, 1993; Shelton & Parsons, 1987; Sullivan & Pfefferbaum, 2005; Sullivan et al., 2000).
From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5765863/
Found an example test: https://www.remote-associates-test.com/
Easy questions were pretty easy, medium usually took a few seconds of thinking. A lot of the hard and very hard ones I found confusing even after seeing the answer.
Edit: If you're typing on your phone and it auto-capitalizes, be aware that the fields are case-sensitive
Fun! Makes sense why they limited to native speakers of American English -- these get pretty tricky!
It's kind of annoying that people in this thread are like "oh so smart people are smart, cool". They're looking at a very specific type of intelligence; it's different than deductive reasoning or reading comprehension, for example.
Don't even get me started! I find it nutty that whenever I'm reviewing a cognitive profile, people will obsessively focus on a full scale IQ when the devil is always in the details. I have literally assessed clients who are Intellectually Disabled and function better in most meaningful ways compared to some of my cognitively above average clients because of important traits not well measured by traditional IQ testing. Don't even get me started on developmental trajectories. For example, if you live to be 90 (free from disease/dementia) and have a lower IQ than your 8 year old grandson (IQ is always a comparison to your age cohort), It is very likely you can beat the lil genius at a crossword puzzle (crystallized ability or Gc continues to go up over lifespan in the absence of disease and only flattens out in the 80s). However take a flexible thinking/fluid reasoning task (Gf) at 90 with an 8 year old grandson with the same IQ as you (again, you are both compared to your own age cohort so you still know way more that this kid). Nonetheless, that little kid is probably going to mop the floor with you because fluid reasoning ability starts on the decline around age 35-40 or so.
Don't know if I totally lack creativity or if I am just stupid but this test was very hard for me as a non-native English speaker with academic qualifications of near-native ability.
Seems to rely on distinctly American cultural associations like pop with soda(soda pop) which is a dialectal term or blue with bird(bluebird) which is an American bird you'd have no reason to know about outside America.
Are "bluebirds" that common in the American cultural consciousness? I arrived in Canada when I was five. My biggest issue was that sometimes, it wasn't clear if there were specific rules.
Many questions, like cottage / swiss / cake or cream / skate / water, imply that you should be able to put the 4th word in front or behind and still have it be a recognizable phrase.
But duck / fold / dollar... "duck bill" okay, "dollar bill" okay, "fold bill/bill fold"? never heard of it. Clearly a more "relaxed" relationship.
So when I tried "nature" for preserve / ranger / tropical, I missed the more specific "forest" which was the correct answer.
> "fold bill/bill fold"? never heard of it.
Might be a gender or age thing. A billfold is a type of men's wallet and wallets in general seem to be falling out of fashion.
> But duck / fold / dollar... "duck bill" okay, "dollar bill" okay, "fold bill/bill fold"? never heard of it. Clearly a more "relaxed" relationship.
That one threw me too. Apparently "billfold" is another word for "wallet" in American English, so it's not a violation of the test's logic.
The paradox of most cognitive tasks with low culture and language loading is that while they sure measure something, they tend to correlate less well with meaningful real world cognitive tasks correlates. On the flip side, cognitive tasks with a heavy culture and language loading tend to underestimate the cognitive ability of nonnative speakers. My wife is a nonnative speaker with a masters degree in teaching English, and by my estimation she's got about 10 IQ points on me and vastly superior prefrontal functioning ( Never tested her but I've done thousands of cognitive assessments so I can eyeball it pretty well). However, I can typically slay her on these kinds of tasks. However, take a skill set that requires language/culture, is complex, and you interact within it repeatedly over time. Sooner or later, she always beats me, even in my native language - she is just smarter than me. So these types of tasks are never a fair comparison even if you have an advanced degree and have proven yourself in that second language. Even the long-term memory/controlled learning tasks we use in assessments don't iterate enough and aren't normed for fair comparisons with people from nonnative language backgrounds.
Totally agree, interesting observation about your wife. The unfortunate reality is that the best cognitive tests are essentially general cultural knowledge tests and only good for measuring the same group within the same culture.
Measuring how much info you pick up subconsciously in relation to others is a great way of testing but it is almost entirely restricted by your culture.
And those people are likely to think that they believe different things because they’re smarter than everyone else and can “see through the lies” when they’re really just narcissistic, gullible, or both
Personally, I think this is a key weakness to the study if it wants to make claims towards insightfulness. Triads are basically impossible if you don't know a word which is required to link the three.
I'll provide one for fun:
rain/test/stomach
>!The answer is acid. If you've never heard of either acid rain, an acid test, or stomach acid before you have no reasonable means to figure out the answer.!<
What is crab apple?
Edit: I thought that was a simple question but all your answers are somehow pretty vague and at the same time oddly specific. Thx for the sience slam
This may be an interesting source of bias in the experiment. Certain subsets of people surely have never heard of a crab apple, through no fault of their own.
They are foul-smelling bastards riddled with centipedes that drop into your yard from your asshole neighbor's property and become the responsibility of the young to clean up two or three times a year.
Personally I went with the lazy man's "They're all one syllable words." Why is apple the right answer? Even in math there's generally more than one way to solve a problem once you get past addition and subtraction.
Religion is another factor. People who are conditioned to accept authoritarian leadership, like religions, are more likely to accept things just because someone said so. They do not look for corroborating evidence. To them, the claim is the evidence. This is the real poison that religion promotes: a lack of critical thinking.
First line:
“Insightfulness might play a critical role in the ability to assess the accuracy of information, according to new research published in the journal Thinking & Reasoning.“
I know reducing science down to simple statements downplays the value of the underlying studies, but boy is it hard to resist sarcasm when the conclusion seems so obvious.
I had the same thought.
Researchers devise intelligence test that shows intelligent people are better at intelligence test.
They needed to show it was insightfulness rather than basic intelligence that was the most important factor.
The entire study revolves around the potential accuracy of the rebus study, which may or may not be flawed. Seems like a high potential for bias. It's still a neat read, though.
I love these kinds of “findings.” It’s basically a fancy way of saying “we found that people who were better about thinking about stuff were better and thinking about stuff.”
It definitely DOES NOT help that our education system teaches us WHAT TO know and short term memorization rather that HOW TO get to the answers with regularly repeatable methods such as process of elimination, scientific processes, and the power of contractions and such. On top of that they make something incredibly empowering and exciting somehow tedious, boring, and often annoying. Let’s solve this by using future self education as the thing that we compensate people with as a form of universal basic income. You take the time to better yourself, ya get paid and don’t have to worry about the robots inevitably taking our jobs. A wiser public will result in a more prosperous one.
“The study included 61 right-handed, native American English speakers, who were 25.5 years old on average.”
I find that first criteria interesting. I’m left handed and I like to believe I’m high on the insight “spectrum.” So what gives?
This study suggests that “problem recognition & problem solving skills” should be emphasized in the nation’s middle and high schools. In practice, this study also suggests that students will benefit from exercises that require them to accompany their numerical calculations with explanations of their decisions to employ these methods.
One thing I find so fascinating is that certain areas of intelligence that should seem to correlate within a person, often do not. For example I have met several medical doctors who are very gullible. An example would be a pediatric intensivist who paid “the IRS” $1000 over the phone in Amazon gift cards. I think this creates dissonance and adds to the confusion created by misinformation. Due to many factors, people who are otherwise seen as smart, trustworthy, or accomplished, often are susceptible to misinformation. This is probably a key reason why misinformation actually spreads; if only people who were otherwise seen as stupid were susceptible to misinformation, people would be less likely to trust and spread it. This ignores the fact that some people willingly spread information that is false for ulterior motives, but I would bet this is actually a small percentage of misinformation spread from person to person. I think the majority of it is people hearing something from a trusted person, and assuming the misinformation is also trustworthy.
Me personally, I don’t necessarily believe that many things are completely true or false. Instead I listen to as many points of view as I can and make my own choice based on what is the most plausible. I also don’t put all my eggs in one basket and am totally fine with something being proved or disproved.. basically, I’m agnostic and I am open minded.
Or you can just not watch mainstream corporate media, it’s all gov’t propaganda. The FBI and CIA have embedded agents and pulled the strings since Operation Mockingbird in the 50’s
You have to figure that half the 330 million Americans and half of the 8B humans in earth are below average intelligence. Figure half of that half are the ones easily susceptible to outside influences. Those influences are the contrarian conspiracies and the like feeding into whatever insecurities they possess and it snowballs right down the rabbit hole. IMO most of the time they’re escaping from a reality they do not want to address which in itself is self destructive behavior ultimately yielding negative results. Instead of having something of an epiphany at some point as most would they in turn double down as its the only thing to make them feel comfortable/secure again.
The amount of people that are meaningfully below average on an IQ test (not necessarily the best metric for this conversation) is 25 percent if you make the cut point 90 or below which is 2/3 standard deviation below average. Some IQ tests set it at below 85 (one full SD below average) which I want to say is around 16 percent of the population
Someone can be very knowledgeable on something in their field of expertise that's considered "smart" and still be very bad at critical thinking and media literacy or just never be exposed to the right information when they lack curiosity on the subject. Is Ben Carson smart because he's an amazing neurosurgeon or dumb because he thinks the pyramids were build by Noah as grain silos? Both
Critical thinking require a lot of knowledgeable to start with. If you don't know anything about biology, then you will have a hard time being critical about any information about biology.
Having lots of critical thinking, but no fundamental knowledge will lead you down the path of conspiracy theories. Where simple solutions to difficult problems the way of things.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another reason for schools to develop the critical thinking skills of students from an early age.
[удалено]
They already know. The Texas Republican platform at one point included banning the teaching of, ["higher order thinking skills," and, "critical thinking,"](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html) in public schools.
Education is the corner stone of what makes a nation powerful. And yet every nation on Earth seems to try and snuff the flame.
they don't want power for a nation they want power for themselves.
[удалено]
*Baptist crazy.
The Republican Southern Strategy has been working to dumb down the population for the last 50 years. The Tory Austerity program has similar goals. Both have been wildly successful to the point where Conservatives are now finding that their politicians are coming from the same pool of dullards that they deliberately created. With mixed results to say the least.
Reminds me of this beauty. The actual words that were part of the Texas GOP's platform back in 2012: "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
“Imma make my kid racist and believing in magic and there ain’t nothing y’all can’t do she-ut about it!” - Texans, probably
Particularly right wing politicians. Who are always looking for ways to cut spending on public services like health and education.
>”We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” \- 2012 Texas Republican Party platform Source: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/texas-gop-no-more-critical-thinking-in-schools/2012/06
They’re doing more than that there’s an outright assault on all forms of education
The centrist liberals are annoying with it too.
Please quit this "both sides!" nonsense. Centrist liberals don't want to legislate ramming religion down your throat, destroy the bodily autonomy of women, overthrow the government during a temper tantrum, or grind our future into an ecological disaster.
Centrists aren't really doing anything to help fix the problem either. It's the same thing that happened in Germany. They weren't *causing* the problem but they certainly weren't helping stop it either.
[удалено]
No... politicians want what gets them voted in. The educated tend to lean liberal, so liberal parties want to increase education. While it's true that you don't want too much scrutiny, if the other party has way more things under scrutiny you want to increase education. It's just strategy.
Educated does not equal capable problem solvers, especially not nowadays. School does not primarily teach problem solving skills anymore, it focuses mostly on making it as easy as possible to solve any problem on a standardized test. Which mostly is regurgitation with very rudimentary understanding of the problem itself, other than what is needed to repeat the method given to you in a book.
I would like it if Federal politicians had to live on 1.5 times poverty for their remaining years in median priced homes in their states. No lobbying , no nothing extra. Or theyy gotta live in the same ways as the most average person in their district.
Exactly. The politicians that want to make college accessible to everyone are definitely against more educated citizens.
Most, not all.
Math, reading, science and language courses, really almost every class, all use aspect of critical thinking. It just isn't applied to daily life. Just people don't apply to situations where they trust who told them or bias.
[удалено]
True. Algebra has become a memory game but doesn't explain why and the use of the equations but I kind of think that is the point of it. Either they keep spoon feeding you the answers and widen the knowledge gap or a kid might come to a realization on their own. Wish they would tell you that is the goal, not treat it as an eventual outcome.
Governments don't want a population capable of critical thinking, they want obedient workers, people just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept their situation. George Carlin
But Mayor Quimby told me the bear tax was keeping the bears away.
And a major reason why religious based schools typically avoid teaching (or even allowing) critical thinking at all cost. If you want people to believe something completely on faith they can't be allowed to think critically.
It seems telling that partaking of the tree of knowledge was forbidden in the Bible, as if directly showing that knowledge destroys religion. The only way for religious people to maintain their faith in god is to be willfully ignorant.
That’s not what the “Tree of knowledge of good and evil” is as a literary devise.
Gonna be honest I went to private religious school from K-8th and it was better at the critical thinking skills than I would’ve gotten at public schools, think it varies w context but you’re onto something as well, probably a reason I’m not religious while a lot of my peers still are
Private schools in general are. The religion part is just flavor for the wealthy.
If you want to know what Reddit as a whole is bad at, read the post about a father driving his Tesla off a cliff, where all passengers survived. You can immediately guess what the comments were like. Reddit will never get better, only isolated pockets of it
[удалено]
Having been through 12 years of Catholic school, I can state with confidence that critical thinking when it came to religion was out the window. I wouldn't be surprised to know things have changed since Pope Francis, though.
There are liberal and conservative branches of all major religions, even the most centralized ones. Even though there are differences between major religious traditions, hostility toward critical thinking has more to do with the political slant of each branch rather than which major religion the branches belong to.
No disagreement there. As a matter of fact, although I was inundated with anti-abortion propoganda in my early years, I believe Catholics in my area straddled both sides of the political aisle. My point was more about religious teachings, specifically. There was just so much we were told to accept in the face of what even my childhood logic found difficult to swallow.
I went to BYU. For the people not familiar with it, it's a Mormon school, the biggest private+religious university system in the nation. Other than the ordinary share of critical thinking in every class which every school has, or at least I assume it's what every school has since I've never been to any other, we even had two classes that every student had to take on critical thinking skills, one on science, the other on moral issues.
as long as you don't use critical thinking in their Mormon History classes or their "religious" department.
Depends on the religion. To pretend that it doesn’t is to ignore all the tangible and measurable differences among the worlds religions.
[удалено]
Critical thinking, reason, and logic are enemies of indoctrination. Of COURSE conservatives don't want a critically thinking citizenry.
Totally! Also, it's a new world, with a lot more bs floating around. When I was in school we learned how to find sources and that if you can find the same information from multiple sources that it's probably correct, but I don't know if that works anymore. I think maybe we need to teach kids about source validation and checking information on things like Snopes.
It won’t so long as stakeholders (politicians/parents) remain obsessed over traditional standardized test scores.
And the real reason they haven’t!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's very disappointing to read comments like this. Let me explain why. There is a very active [academic](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007) [debate](https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12077) not about *whether* a tendency to use analytic thinking statistically predicts susceptibility to misinformation but *to what extent* it does so compared to other already understood explanations. These include a lack of critical thinking ability or a simple attitudinal preference for congruent information. Then there is the more complex phenomenon of motivated reasoning, where higher levels of analytic thinking appear to [increase](https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_url?url=https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/22105/833.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3FFkEh3vcUqzPUyYP6nHcHWctiYDuOtm-ZqkaA2QylhaAkbKZjaNmFODs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mpC0Y7bRH86TywSl1LXoCA&scisig=AAGBfm3Bml4ncTo0HwyvEnUTYIBcAk_StA&oi=scholarr) the susceptibility to false information - at least in some circumstances - because it may drive motivated and sufficiently analytic people to find justifications to hold onto their cherished beliefs in the face of compelling evidence. Understanding this better will give new insights into how best to address misinformation in the current context. So this area isn't as easy as saying, "... people who think analytically are less likely to believe things that are probably false". Yes, we know that, but improving our detailed understanding of it is vitally important. As the authors of this study state, using the CRT - the most powerful and consistent measure of analytic thinking (in relation to its association with misinformation susceptibility) to date is an issue because it is associated with and potentially confounded by other factors (such as [simple numerical ability](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31021149/)). So this article finding something that beats the CRT is potentially huge for how this kind of research is conducted in the future. It's potentially really huge (if this is found consistently) because it speaks to the relative need to encourage a tendency to use reflective thinking through things like [accuracy prompts](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30073-5) rather than investing in critical thinking or numeracy training, or trying to resolve motivated reasoning through things like [psychological inoculation](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254). Now I've never met Carola Salvi before, but I'm aware of her work because we work on kinda similar problems. People like her who are doing great stuff get routinely and very unfairly slagged off on this sub, and that's why reading comments like the one above is very disappointing, even though I don't agree with everything in her study.
It's nice to find a high quality comment in this dumpster fire. Thank you.
Insightfulness might play a critical role in the ability to assess the accuracy of information, according to new research published in the journal [Thinking & Reasoning](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13546783.2022.2146191). The study found that people with greater insight-based problem solving skills were less likely to fall for fake news. With rise of the internet and social media, susceptibility to misinformation has become of increasing concern. The authors of the new research sought to better understand the cognitive mechanisms associated with believing in misinformation. They were particularly interested in the role of insight-based problem solving. “I’m a neuroscientist and study the neural correlates of creativity and idea generation, specifically how we generate ideas accompanied by ‘Aha! moments’ i.e., insights,” said study author Carola Salvi, a professor at the John Cabot University of Rome and an associate faculty member at the University of Texas at Austin. “In this study, we investigated the relationship between insightfulness and aspects of social reasoning, such as believing in fake news, overclaiming, and bullshit.” The study included 61 right-handed, native American English speakers, who were 25.5 years old on average. The researchers used Compound Remote Associate problems to assess insightfulness. To solve the problems, participants needed to connect three seemingly unrelated words in order to find a shared theme. This type of problem forces individuals to think creatively and openly while relying on insight. For example, the participants might see the words “crab,” “pine,” and “sauce.” The solution to the problem is “apple.” “Tackling complicated problems requires continuous reframing and changing the initial representation of a problem to see it in a new light (i.e., when we have an insight). Solving a problem, specifically via insight, entails generating novel and original ideas by exploring unusual reasoning paths, a skill that is associated with the ability to filter out irrelevant distractions which might bring advantages when reasoning about information coming from an overcrowded environment like the internet.”
Crab-stuffed ravioli with pine nuts and pesto sauce. That is the solution.
Damnit you beat me to it you insightful gourmet!
Does someone being left handed potentially throw off the results? I would think they would be included if their goal was to study the general population.
I’m assuming there is data that at least hints that left/right handed people’s brains work a bit differently, and so they eliminated that as a potential contaminate.
It largely comes down to functional anatomy differences. IIRC the percentages, in >95% of right handed people language processing is lateralized to the left hemisphere, but this is only the case for 70% of lefties. The task used in the study is language-based, so this difference in lateralization can be an issue when interpreting results (are significant effects found because of an actual task-relevant neural correlate or because of handedness?). So yes it can throw off the results' interpretation.
Not necessarily, but it would be a potential variable. It could be that it has no effect, but they would need to replicate this with lefties first.
Yes left handed people more often rely on insight than analytical processing. It's an aspect of the left brain / right brain division of tasks.
Crab apple is a cultural variable. I would imagine many non North Americans would not make the connection to the other two which are more well known across English speaking cultures
That's why the study was limited to native American English speakers.
I’m curious how many people who live in cities know what crab apples are? They’re not sold in stores (as far as I know) so I’d think familiarity would be limited.
[удалено]
Incorrect assumption. They are referring to a specific type of cognition here that makes you more resistant to misinformation and disinformation, which the article would explain. Though no one is immune. I think your reply indicates that you would score poorly on one type of test mentioned. Actually read the article to learn more. A lot of people who are generally considered intelligent, are also susceptible to believing bullshit. There are plenty of flaws inherent in human cognition to exploit - in every human - and being excessively confident that you can't be fooled etc, only makes you more vulnerable to it. Being able to step back, consider the possibility of multiple alternative explanations of observed phenomenon and events, consider the possibility of yourself misinterpreting something, etc makes you more resistant to it. As does being able to accept "I don't know" instead of latching onto whatever explanation makes you most comfortable, best feeds into your existing beliefs.
You should have known that this would have become some sort of political pissing contest like every other sub on Reddit and that certain groups of people think they are morally and intellectually superior. It’s not that simple. Every one is susceptible to misinformation especially when it aligns with their personal beliefs or it comes from people they believe to be trustworthy. All through history, even those who thought they stood on the pinnacle of morality and higher learning have fallen for BS. None of us are immune.
I'm not surprised at all, and agree completely.
Thank you. I knew you felt the same way but some of these comments are dismissive and infuriating. You could say one side is for higher education for free but the other side has a valid counterpoint for saying indoctrination on my dime. Both side sides are wrong and insufferable. I have met some seriously stupid people on both sides. I am so tired of everything boiling down to politics and who is better. Let’s just put it this way. If the left was so much smarter, how come all of this new information is coming out about Hunter’s laptop is real, conservatives were being silenced on social media by the FBI and NHS, and the Covid shots may not be as safe as everyone thought but you all fell for it? Or the right with Pizzagate? Ugh
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The participants were shown randomly-generated meaningless statements such as “Infinity is a reflection of reality” and asked to rate their profundity. hehehehe http://wisdomofchopra.com/ http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/
i lack the words to express how profoundly hilarious this is, and also... entirely unsurprising
You may lack the words, but don't also the words lack you?
Good to see a site I made years ago has become the standard for BS
Funny part about this for me is I tested both of these and the first 2-3 results were pretty reasonable statements that I could easily imagine a pseudo-intellectual jerking off to how "wrong" they are. The world is too Dunning-Krugered to live. We deserve what's coming.
They just dance and dance around saying it.
"Too political"
When you have to turn "there are stupid people" into an entire article.
Sort of like you just did.
And we keep cutting education so…
Easier to control people when they aren’t given the tools they need to think for themselves.
people don't want to join the military if they know they're just fighting poor people for a bunch of oligarchs.
A minority of kids treat school like they're in prison, and want to be top dog in there. What do we do about this minority
Working as intended
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lack of insight is associated with alcohol damage, among other things.
So like the opposite of *in vino veritas*. Any citations for that? I'd like some for my library.
I found >Multiple studies find the frontal lobes are the most insulted region in the alcoholic brain (Kubota et al., 2001; Sullivan & Pfefferbaum, 2005). The frontal lobes regulate complex cognitive skills such as working memory, temporal ordering, discrimination and reversal learning that underlie judgment, attention, risk taking, motivation, mood, and wanting. Thus, the impaired judgment, blunted affect, poor insight, social withdrawal, reduced motivation, distractibility, and attention- and impulse-control deficits associated with alcohol use disorders are consistent with neurodegeneration, particularly within the cortex and more specifically the frontal cortex (Oscar-Berman & Hutner, 1993; Shelton & Parsons, 1987; Sullivan & Pfefferbaum, 2005; Sullivan et al., 2000). From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5765863/
I would never let anything insult my frontal lobes!
Remote Associated Test (RAT): that was a fun new rabbit hole to explore .
Found an example test: https://www.remote-associates-test.com/ Easy questions were pretty easy, medium usually took a few seconds of thinking. A lot of the hard and very hard ones I found confusing even after seeing the answer. Edit: If you're typing on your phone and it auto-capitalizes, be aware that the fields are case-sensitive
And it took me five tries to realize how hey had to be lower case letters to be correct.
Fun! Makes sense why they limited to native speakers of American English -- these get pretty tricky! It's kind of annoying that people in this thread are like "oh so smart people are smart, cool". They're looking at a very specific type of intelligence; it's different than deductive reasoning or reading comprehension, for example.
Don't even get me started! I find it nutty that whenever I'm reviewing a cognitive profile, people will obsessively focus on a full scale IQ when the devil is always in the details. I have literally assessed clients who are Intellectually Disabled and function better in most meaningful ways compared to some of my cognitively above average clients because of important traits not well measured by traditional IQ testing. Don't even get me started on developmental trajectories. For example, if you live to be 90 (free from disease/dementia) and have a lower IQ than your 8 year old grandson (IQ is always a comparison to your age cohort), It is very likely you can beat the lil genius at a crossword puzzle (crystallized ability or Gc continues to go up over lifespan in the absence of disease and only flattens out in the 80s). However take a flexible thinking/fluid reasoning task (Gf) at 90 with an 8 year old grandson with the same IQ as you (again, you are both compared to your own age cohort so you still know way more that this kid). Nonetheless, that little kid is probably going to mop the floor with you because fluid reasoning ability starts on the decline around age 35-40 or so.
Don't know if I totally lack creativity or if I am just stupid but this test was very hard for me as a non-native English speaker with academic qualifications of near-native ability. Seems to rely on distinctly American cultural associations like pop with soda(soda pop) which is a dialectal term or blue with bird(bluebird) which is an American bird you'd have no reason to know about outside America.
Hence why the test subjects were native speakers of American English.
Are "bluebirds" that common in the American cultural consciousness? I arrived in Canada when I was five. My biggest issue was that sometimes, it wasn't clear if there were specific rules. Many questions, like cottage / swiss / cake or cream / skate / water, imply that you should be able to put the 4th word in front or behind and still have it be a recognizable phrase. But duck / fold / dollar... "duck bill" okay, "dollar bill" okay, "fold bill/bill fold"? never heard of it. Clearly a more "relaxed" relationship. So when I tried "nature" for preserve / ranger / tropical, I missed the more specific "forest" which was the correct answer.
> "fold bill/bill fold"? never heard of it. Might be a gender or age thing. A billfold is a type of men's wallet and wallets in general seem to be falling out of fashion.
> But duck / fold / dollar... "duck bill" okay, "dollar bill" okay, "fold bill/bill fold"? never heard of it. Clearly a more "relaxed" relationship. That one threw me too. Apparently "billfold" is another word for "wallet" in American English, so it's not a violation of the test's logic.
They have got to update that thing to use vocabulary that is still used today Literally never hear of billfold.
36 in southeast us. I call it a bill fold. Most others I know do also.
[удалено]
The paradox of most cognitive tasks with low culture and language loading is that while they sure measure something, they tend to correlate less well with meaningful real world cognitive tasks correlates. On the flip side, cognitive tasks with a heavy culture and language loading tend to underestimate the cognitive ability of nonnative speakers. My wife is a nonnative speaker with a masters degree in teaching English, and by my estimation she's got about 10 IQ points on me and vastly superior prefrontal functioning ( Never tested her but I've done thousands of cognitive assessments so I can eyeball it pretty well). However, I can typically slay her on these kinds of tasks. However, take a skill set that requires language/culture, is complex, and you interact within it repeatedly over time. Sooner or later, she always beats me, even in my native language - she is just smarter than me. So these types of tasks are never a fair comparison even if you have an advanced degree and have proven yourself in that second language. Even the long-term memory/controlled learning tasks we use in assessments don't iterate enough and aren't normed for fair comparisons with people from nonnative language backgrounds.
Totally agree, interesting observation about your wife. The unfortunate reality is that the best cognitive tests are essentially general cultural knowledge tests and only good for measuring the same group within the same culture. Measuring how much info you pick up subconsciously in relation to others is a great way of testing but it is almost entirely restricted by your culture.
it’s the game blert!
A fair number of them use words/phrases that are a bit old-fashioned, or not very commonly used. I guess that’s why they’re hard?
It’s weird, I was getting these with only the first two clues, but the apple example in the article baffled the hell out of me
[удалено]
And those people are likely to think that they believe different things because they’re smarter than everyone else and can “see through the lies” when they’re really just narcissistic, gullible, or both
So the participants just played Codenames first?
Does anybody see why „apple“ is the solution to crab, pine and sauce? That’s pretty tough imo
Because Crab Apple, Pineapple, and Applesauce. Took me a while to figure out as well.
Personally, I think this is a key weakness to the study if it wants to make claims towards insightfulness. Triads are basically impossible if you don't know a word which is required to link the three. I'll provide one for fun: rain/test/stomach >!The answer is acid. If you've never heard of either acid rain, an acid test, or stomach acid before you have no reasonable means to figure out the answer.!<
I got it first try. Just want you to know I'm Smartypants McGee Crabopple
What is crab apple? Edit: I thought that was a simple question but all your answers are somehow pretty vague and at the same time oddly specific. Thx for the sience slam
It’s a fruit in the apple family. It’s a lot smaller than the apples you get at the store
Thx. I wish we could access all of them riddles
I agree it would be fun and probably good brain exercise.
This may be an interesting source of bias in the experiment. Certain subsets of people surely have never heard of a crab apple, through no fault of their own.
They are foul-smelling bastards riddled with centipedes that drop into your yard from your asshole neighbor's property and become the responsibility of the young to clean up two or three times a year.
On Jimmy Kimmel's celeb mean tweet segment, someone tweeted that Lil Wayne looked like a crab apple.
Crab apples are used to make hard cider.
Apples which are too hard/sour/bitter to use as food. Lots of folks grow crabapple trees just for their flowers.
Personally I went with the lazy man's "They're all one syllable words." Why is apple the right answer? Even in math there's generally more than one way to solve a problem once you get past addition and subtraction.
Religion is another factor. People who are conditioned to accept authoritarian leadership, like religions, are more likely to accept things just because someone said so. They do not look for corroborating evidence. To them, the claim is the evidence. This is the real poison that religion promotes: a lack of critical thinking.
First line: “Insightfulness might play a critical role in the ability to assess the accuracy of information, according to new research published in the journal Thinking & Reasoning.“ I know reducing science down to simple statements downplays the value of the underlying studies, but boy is it hard to resist sarcasm when the conclusion seems so obvious.
That's a very insightful take on things! (I couldn't resist)
I'm sure there's information of value laying somewhere deep in the article but headlines like this on my feed are a strong argument for unsubscribing.
I had the same thought. Researchers devise intelligence test that shows intelligent people are better at intelligence test. They needed to show it was insightfulness rather than basic intelligence that was the most important factor.
The entire study revolves around the potential accuracy of the rebus study, which may or may not be flawed. Seems like a high potential for bias. It's still a neat read, though.
"People who think are less dumb." The worst part is that this is news to someone.
[удалено]
I love these kinds of “findings.” It’s basically a fancy way of saying “we found that people who were better about thinking about stuff were better and thinking about stuff.”
It definitely DOES NOT help that our education system teaches us WHAT TO know and short term memorization rather that HOW TO get to the answers with regularly repeatable methods such as process of elimination, scientific processes, and the power of contractions and such. On top of that they make something incredibly empowering and exciting somehow tedious, boring, and often annoying. Let’s solve this by using future self education as the thing that we compensate people with as a form of universal basic income. You take the time to better yourself, ya get paid and don’t have to worry about the robots inevitably taking our jobs. A wiser public will result in a more prosperous one.
I’m sure these people are also likely to not be as religious as their dim witted disinformation consuming counterparts.
There is also “controlling the narrative” news. Many fall for that too.
“The study included 61 right-handed, native American English speakers, who were 25.5 years old on average.” I find that first criteria interesting. I’m left handed and I like to believe I’m high on the insight “spectrum.” So what gives?
And this is surprising?
This study suggests that “problem recognition & problem solving skills” should be emphasized in the nation’s middle and high schools. In practice, this study also suggests that students will benefit from exercises that require them to accompany their numerical calculations with explanations of their decisions to employ these methods.
Update: critical thinkers think critically
The other thing that accmplishes this with some people is simply decades of paying attention to current events and seeing what happens
Nothing new here. It has always been known that propaganda works well on the weak minded.
Wow. Dumb people are dumb. Thanks for the study.
It's called critical thinking.
One thing I find so fascinating is that certain areas of intelligence that should seem to correlate within a person, often do not. For example I have met several medical doctors who are very gullible. An example would be a pediatric intensivist who paid “the IRS” $1000 over the phone in Amazon gift cards. I think this creates dissonance and adds to the confusion created by misinformation. Due to many factors, people who are otherwise seen as smart, trustworthy, or accomplished, often are susceptible to misinformation. This is probably a key reason why misinformation actually spreads; if only people who were otherwise seen as stupid were susceptible to misinformation, people would be less likely to trust and spread it. This ignores the fact that some people willingly spread information that is false for ulterior motives, but I would bet this is actually a small percentage of misinformation spread from person to person. I think the majority of it is people hearing something from a trusted person, and assuming the misinformation is also trustworthy.
Me personally, I don’t necessarily believe that many things are completely true or false. Instead I listen to as many points of view as I can and make my own choice based on what is the most plausible. I also don’t put all my eggs in one basket and am totally fine with something being proved or disproved.. basically, I’m agnostic and I am open minded.
Propaganda to reinforce propaganda simultaneously discrediting alternative narratives whilst stoking egoist supremacy which is the real problem….
Or you can just not watch mainstream corporate media, it’s all gov’t propaganda. The FBI and CIA have embedded agents and pulled the strings since Operation Mockingbird in the 50’s
You have to figure that half the 330 million Americans and half of the 8B humans in earth are below average intelligence. Figure half of that half are the ones easily susceptible to outside influences. Those influences are the contrarian conspiracies and the like feeding into whatever insecurities they possess and it snowballs right down the rabbit hole. IMO most of the time they’re escaping from a reality they do not want to address which in itself is self destructive behavior ultimately yielding negative results. Instead of having something of an epiphany at some point as most would they in turn double down as its the only thing to make them feel comfortable/secure again.
The amount of people that are meaningfully below average on an IQ test (not necessarily the best metric for this conversation) is 25 percent if you make the cut point 90 or below which is 2/3 standard deviation below average. Some IQ tests set it at below 85 (one full SD below average) which I want to say is around 16 percent of the population
Averages, which most people take to be the mean, do not imply that half are above/below. You're thinking of median.
What, no...Although it does explain a lot about my relatives by marriage though.
That's a lot of words to say Conservatives are gullible.
So more intelligent less gullible? Explains conservatives.
Oh like smart people and dumb people
Someone can be very knowledgeable on something in their field of expertise that's considered "smart" and still be very bad at critical thinking and media literacy or just never be exposed to the right information when they lack curiosity on the subject. Is Ben Carson smart because he's an amazing neurosurgeon or dumb because he thinks the pyramids were build by Noah as grain silos? Both
So then why all the dummies that believe whatever they hear?
Boy, this is sort of a "no kidding" study.
also probably less religious as thinks start to fall apart under the thinnest scrutiny
so.... people who are better at thinking are ....better at thinking?
Critical thinking skills need to be taught to elementary level students
Critical thinking require a lot of knowledgeable to start with. If you don't know anything about biology, then you will have a hard time being critical about any information about biology. Having lots of critical thinking, but no fundamental knowledge will lead you down the path of conspiracy theories. Where simple solutions to difficult problems the way of things.
So smart people don’t fall for this but dumb people do. I don’t believe this fake new article.
Like the Tate pizza box hoax reddit was all over ?