Cognitive bias codex and critical thinking

[Chuckman]

I won't even begin to get into bias in the media. I don't own a TV anymore for a reason.

But human memory is fallible, and our memories do change over time, without us realizing it. So something that we "know" to be "truth" may not be the truth any longer.

There have been a few long term memory studies done, where subjects were asked about certain events in their life, and the answers recorded. A few years later, they were asked again about the same events, and those answers recorded. Its been found that certain details committed to memory change. What was a sunny day, is now remembered as cloudy. What was a red shirt is now green. The friend who was about to get married, you were happy for them then, but now remember it as suspecting the marriage would end in divorce. These changes happen naturally to our memories, but we don't know or remember the changes happening.

With enough information about someone, its also possible to create false memories. This works especially well if someone the subject knows and trusts is in on it. One experiment I saw once was creating a false memory of being lost in a shopping mall while a child created in adults, by using information you already knew about their childhood. It was successful in nearly every subject. The human brain is a biological organ, not a physical computer, and the way it works is still quite mysterious. Our brains, in my personal opinion, aren't the best suited to this modern world we live in. Constant stimulation from news, radio, screens, phones, worldwide events brought to us instantly, and media that has found ways of manipulating our feelings in order to market to us are all using our brains natural abilities against us.

So yes, the truth is the truth, but what's remembered as truth may not be completely true.

This is actually a version of the Mandela effect. False memories, something that happened that never did. This is very prevalent in families: how did ol' great Uncle Chuckman get that limp? He was shot in the war. Reality: he tripped in a ditch.

We know that not all "truths" are inviolable or ever-lasting. Remember that pesky little report out of England at the beginning of COVID, where deaths would happen logarithmically? That "truth" went by the wayside when we learned new "truths." Some "truths" are ever-lasting, unimpeachable: the sky is blue. Water is wet. Many biases, I would say most if not all, are effected by the former "truth" and not the latter.

How we think about, talk about, interpret, those truths relates to bias.

 

[Joe.]

Here is the biggest issue with that chart.

If I wanted to, I could post a very small number of articles on a website. I could meticulously research them. Hire a cadre of reporters to be wherever the news is happening. On the ground in Ukraine, for example.

I could put reporters in various poor communities and from their findings create a series of articles about welfare fraud.

The factual basis of those articles would be darn near impossible to impeach. But because of the perceived bias, I would be somewhere to the right of center and NOT near the top half of the chart. NOT because my articles were less factual. But because of the perceived bias on the part of Otero.

That is why that chart cannot be used as any measure of "truth".

It says "fact reporting", not truth...meaning, there is no reporter opinion (nor lies, obviously) inserted into the reporting. You're correct-- if you and I go to the same event to report on it, we could quite possibly report two different sets of "facts" based on who we spoke with, our methods of data gathering, etc. Both could be sets of "facts" that we gathered, but-- for example-- mine might not be "the truth" if my source lied to me and yours didn't.

 

[Studentofthegun]

Even distribution based on what. exactly? Even number of outlets on the left and right.

The number of outlets is a meaningless metric. Most people want to know how biased or accurate an outlet is. Measuring them against one another is somewhat beside the point. The chart, on the Y axis, goes from less facts to more facts, essentially. That's not necessarily the case though.

I know some excellent lawyers who went to UD. Which law school did you attend? If it's Ivy League, I have some work for you and we pay generously.

I had no idea that lawyers were supposed to be experts on media bias. What I'm questioning is her ability to parse out the truth and her own bias. Which is a perfectly legitimate exercise.

Yes, she's a Democrat, but did you read their methodology and who is performing the ratings? "...at least three human analysts with balanced right, left, and center self-reported political viewpoints."

So they say. Of course I read their "methodology'. When she first released the chart, do you know how many people generated it? Was it just her when she first did it back in 2016? Who picks those three people? How is their bias and affiliations assessed?

You're trying to tell us what "we should" go to for the "truth" TBH, I don't care what you do. I don't know you and likely never will. I was simply presenting as independent of an evaluation that is out there in response to a statement that there are 5-6 left-leaning outlets and only 1 right-leaning. No need to be such an angry person.

Ah, now we are getting into it.

First of all, you have no idea whether or not this really is an independent evaluation. You're just assuming it is.

Second, you're trying to characterize my comments as emotional. That's a sad, tired tactic and one often employed when one is losing an argument. It is an attempt to tie some sort of emotional element to the argument under the assumption that emotion impedes one's ability to make a logical argument.

The problem is that I'm not angry. I'm simply making very good points that you're not countering very well.

You believe that the chart is unbiased because it says it is. You probably believe mainstream media because it reaffirms that which you already believe.

That's why you should probably read the links in the original post and take them to heart.

Let's remember one of your statements in a different thread.

Yes, there are a ton of ultra-liberals who want all guns abolished. Then there are those who are a bit more moderate who prefer more control and safety measures. And there who are even more moderate/true moderates who fully support 2A.

While you're at it, you might want to take another look at how most liberals feel about gun control. The legitimacy of this chart is just one of your self delusions.

 

[Studentofthegun]

I read a solution to this issue.

Tie ones IQ level to internet speed. Low IQ? Dial-up for you.

In that case, good luck getting connected to the internet with a potato.

 

[Studentofthegun]

It says "fact reporting", not truth...meaning, there is no reporter opinion (nor lies, obviously) inserted into the reporting. You're correct-- if you and I go to the same event to report on it, we could quite possibly report two different sets of "facts" based on who we spoke with, our methods of data gathering, etc. Both could be sets of "facts" that we gathered, but-- for example-- mine might not be "the truth" if my source lied to me and yours didn't.

That is one of the craziest things I've ever read on this forum.

I guess by your reasoning there could be false facts, true facts, and everything in between.

You're mixing concepts here. What do you think the creators of the chart are trying to achieve? What does the chart purport to be?

The chart does not have a "truth" axis. The axis is essentially factual and not factual. But it is the CURVE of the data points/outlets that I have a problem with.

The curve trends toward more factual in the center, but I just outlined an example of where the chart would rank my outlet despite the factual nature of the reporting. That's because the chart erroneously ties factual reporting to perceived lack of bias.

Surely you can acknowledge this major error on the part of the chart?

 

[DurhamDad]

What, on the left, would you suggest is on-par with InfoWars and OANN in terms of providing misleading info? And be serious...don't just spout out "CNN and MSNBC", because that is factually untrue. Seriously MISLEADING information, ie- outright lies...not things you vehemently disagree with.

I do not watch oann or Infowars so I can't compare them, but I did give you a beginning list above of news that NPR and almost all of the 'center' ranked corporate media were totally wrong about, if not actually lying.

Remember the CNN reporter standing in front of a burning building, with looters scurrying by, saying that it was ' a mostly peaceful protest?'

Would you not consider that an outright lie with a leftist bias?

 

[Studentofthegun]

I do not watch oann or Infowars so I can't compare them, but I did give you a beginning list above of news that NPR and almost all of the 'center' ranked corporate media were totally wrong about, if not actually lying.

Remember the CNN reporter standing in front of a burning building, with looters scurrying by, saying that it was ' a mostly peaceful protest?'

Would you not consider that an outright lie with a leftist bias?

No bias there on the part of CNN. It's simply a case of them having "different facts". 🙄

And there's yet another problem with the chart. By what analysis is "fact" derived? If they consider the assessment of reporters onsite as more "fact based" than an opinion article that is labeled as such...

Surely I am not the only one that sees the problem.

Bias is an extremely difficult thing to see when there's a bias of omission. Sometimes the media is so brazen that they gaslight you with the headline, which was exactly what CNN did with the "Fiery but mostly peaceful" bit.

All Sides is where I go to for new aggregation. It also has bias issues.

I will say I like their chart better because they don't make the mistake that Ad Fontes makes with regard to the "factual" assessment.

 

[Studentofthegun]

Look, you can do a back test... Just see what they were saying on the then- controversial topics that we now have answers to... Were they balanced in their reporting or did they forcefully push the false mainstream narrative that has now been reversed:

Sandman encounter
Kavanaugh accuser
Trump Russia
Rittenhouse shooting
BLM fraud
COVID origins
Hunter laptop

And the list goes on and on

This really nails it as far as I'm concerned. Look at the various narratives pushed by many of the mainstream outlets. The bias of omission was really blatant with regard to the Hunter Biden laptop story.

 

[DurhamDad]

This really nails it as far as I'm concerned. Look at the various narratives pushed by many of the mainstream outlets. The bias of omission was really blatant with regard to the Hunter Biden laptop story.

I think you are being charitable with regard to the laptop.

Back when the story first broke, and the corporate media started trying to suppress and cast doubt on it, I remember Dan Bongino showing a scan of the computer store invoice for the laptop. The invoice had an FBI evidence stamp/number on it, and the signatures of Hunter and the shop owner had been verified.

And then those '50 former intelligence officials' said it was most likely a Russian disinfo campaign, Biden repeated that as a fact in a debate, and all the Corp media ran with that as the 'TRUTH' while Twitter shut down the NY Post.

And now of course we know all those statements were blatant lies which in themselves likely changed the outcome of the election.

 

[DurhamDad]

I don't know all those outlets, but of the ones I do, that looks close to how I would rank them.

Going back to NPR, programming can vary wildly from station to station due to local shows and commentators, but I've found national level shows like Diane Rehm either skew left or skew left hard.

Yup, and with NPR here in the Triangle broadcast via WUNC from a studio in Durham, you can bet it is HARD left.

 

[Joe.]

No bias there on the part of CNN. It's simply a case of them having "different facts". 🙄

And there's yet another problem with the chart. By what analysis is "fact" derived? If they consider the assessment of reporters onsite as more "fact based" than an opinion article that is labeled as such...

Surely I am not the only one that sees the problem.

Bias is an extremely difficult thing to see when there's a bias of omission. Sometimes the media is so brazen that they gaslight you with the headline, which was exactly what CNN did with the "Fiery but mostly peaceful" bit.

All Sides is where I go to for new aggregation. It also has bias issues.

I will say I like their chart better because they don't make the mistake that Ad Fontes makes with regard to the "factual" assessment.

View attachment 467703

This one is great because, like you said, it's simply bias-based. Also confirms for me that I go to the most neutral sources.

 

[Joe.]

I don't know all those outlets, but of the ones I do, that looks close to how I would rank them.

Going back to NPR, programming can vary wildly from station to station due to local shows and commentators, but I've found national level shows like Diane Rehm either skew left or skew left hard.

Local programming can certainly skew, but I find that the national reporters of just news-- not talk shows-- are more centrist.

 

[RR]

 

[Joe.]

I think you are being charitable with regard to the laptop.

Back when the story first broke, and the corporate media started trying to suppress and cast doubt on it, I remember Dan Bongino showing a scan of the computer store invoice for the laptop. The invoice had an FBI evidence stamp/number on it, and the signatures of Hunter and the shop owner had been verified.

And then those '50 former intelligence officials' said it was most likely a Russian disinfo campaign, Biden repeated that as a fact in a debate, and all the Corp media ran with that as the 'TRUTH' while Twitter shut down the NY Post.

And now of course we know all those statements were blatant lies which in themselves likely changed the outcome of the election.

What were the final results of the laptop investigation? I hadn't heard what was actually on it and verified to be valid.

Want to talk about changing election outcome? "But her emails!!!" and good ol' Comey LOL

 

[Joe.]

View attachment 467717

Where is the right half of that timeline showing MAGA/GQP? Agreed that the Progressives have gone far left and true Conservatives have remained relatively in-place, as have true Liberals, but that timeline is not showing the faction of the GOP (Greene, Gaetz, Boebert, Brooks, etc.) who have wandered as far right as the Progressives (AOC & Squad) have gone left.

 

[Joe.]

I do not watch oann or Infowars so I can't compare them, but I did give you a beginning list above of news that NPR and almost all of the 'center' ranked corporate media were totally wrong about, if not actually lying.

Remember the CNN reporter standing in front of a burning building, with looters scurrying by, saying that it was ' a mostly peaceful protest?'

Would you not consider that an outright lie with a leftist bias?

And on the other end of the spectrum, Fox News calling the events of 1/6 in the Capitol a peaceful protest and an exercise of first amendment rights. If you're going to call a spade a spade, call them all spades.

 

[georgel]

Every commercial we watch on TV. Entertainment (TV, movies). Your examples, and mine, are on a macro level. On the micro level, understanding them can help one present arguments better and more logically, as well as (hopefully) help one come to understand their own biases and issues with reasoning better. I am trying to get better at this with myself.

I took a course on sales development that highlighted all the sales technique and closings. We discussed that everyone is selling something, an idea, a like or dislike, a belief, etc. After the course, I said, They might as well rebrand the course Interpersonal Relationships 101. The accompanying book outlined it all. I'll try to remember the title and look it up.

But, my point was that our society is being altered by those using these techniques in a big way. Argueably though, it's not much different than McDonald's selling you fries.

 

[Joe.]

Which reporters or shows in particular do you see as centrist?

I don't listen to NPR anymore, and haven't for over a decade, but I do miss Car Talk and The Thistle & Shamrock.

Edit: not that either of those shows are news or "lean" in any direction really, I just enjoyed them

Morning Edition (Steve Inskeep) and NPR News Now on a podcast (Korva Coleman, Jack Spear, Dave Mattingly)...it's an update at the top of every hour.

 

[DurhamDad]

What were the final results of the laptop investigation? I hadn't heard what was actually on it and verified to be valid.

Want to talk about changing election outcome? "But her emails!!!" and good ol' Comey LOL

For one example, my understanding is that former Hunter biz partner Bobolinski (sp?) provided sworn testimony verifying that the 'Big Guy' referred to in several of the emails was in fact Joe Biden, which contradicted Joe's statements about not being aware/involved with Hunter's business dealings. IIRC, it has also been verified that Hunter was paying expenses for Joe documented in those emails.

More will likely come out as Durham continues his prosecution of Sussman, et al.

Re Comey, yes, the knife can cut both ways but I don't recall the specifics. Were his statements later shown to be false?

 

[noway2]

Gun control is a great example. Crime has been falling for decades and the numbers don't support the picture the anti's are painting, but no logical argument or dataset will deter or convince them anything different from what they already believe.

Former FiveThirtyEight Writer: After I Got The Data, Support For The Gun Control Policies I Liked 'Crumbled'

"...the case for the policies Id lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence."

townhall.com

 

[DurhamDad]

And on the other end of the spectrum, Fox News calling the events of 1/6 in the Capitol a peaceful protest and an exercise of first amendment rights. If you're going to call a spade a spade, call them all spades.

I don't disagree, and I am glad you seem to acknowledge CNN's lie, it's just that you didn't ask about Fox.

I think Fox is quite biased and I don't use them as a source because of it, though I do find Tucker Carlson to be a generally honest critic when I see some of his clips on other media.

No need to get pissy about it.

 

[Joe.]

For one example, my understanding is that former Hunter biz partner Bobolinski (sp?) provided sworn testimony verifying that the 'Big Guy' referred to in several of the emails was in fact Joe Biden, which contradicted Joe's statements about not being aware/involved with Hunter's business dealings. IIRC, it has also been verified that Hunter was paying expenses for Joe documented in those emails.

More will likely come out as Durham continues his prosecution of Sussman, et al.

Re Comey, yes, the knife can cut both ways but I don't recall the specifics. Were his statements later shown to be false?

Gotcha. Looking forward to more info coming out on the laptop, dealings, and anything Joe may have been involved with.

Comey-- When FBI director, announced just eleven days before election day that the bureau was investigating 'newly discovered evidence' related to the Hillary Clinton email scandal in which she had been cleared of months earlier. (This is against DOJ policy.) Then followed up a few days later that there wasn't anything remotely relevant in the emails. Did this alone torpedo her election? Who really knows, but it's hard to deny that a bombshell like this so close to the election didn't sway at least some voters in a very close election. The guy is a buffoon, and not solely for this incident-- there were other things related to his dealings with Trump that were improper and detrimental to Trump.

 

[Joe.]

I don't disagree, and I am glad you seem to acknowledge CNN's lie, it's just that you didn't ask about Fox.

I think Fox is quite biased and I don't use them as a source because of it, though I do find Tucker Carlson to be a generally honest critic when I see some of his clips on other media.

No need to get pissy about it.

I honestly didn't meant to get pissy-- sorry about that!

Yes, CNN does spin A LOT, which is why I haven't watched them in a long time. There used to be more personalities that I liked before they got farther and farther left, but it's really only John Berman now and will have on as background noise while getting ready in the morning from time to time.

 

[DurhamDad]

Gotcha. Looking forward to more info coming out on the laptop, dealings, and anything Joe may have been involved with.

Comey-- When FBI director, announced just eleven days before election day that the bureau was investigating 'newly discovered evidence' related to the Hillary Clinton email scandal in which she had been cleared of months earlier. (This is against DOJ policy.) Then followed up a few days later that there wasn't anything remotely relevant in the emails. Did this alone torpedo her election? Who really knows, but it's hard to deny that a bombshell like this so close to the election didn't sway at least some voters in a very close election. The guy is a buffoon, and not solely for this incident-- there were other things related to his dealings with Trump that were improper and detrimental to Trump.

Totally agree on Comey... Just another indication of corruption of the FBI it seems, whether it cuts one way or the other.

The irony will be when Hillary's emails actually do surface via Durham, if they end up helping to prosecute her, her campaign, and/or the Perkins Coie and/or opposition research (ETA: Fusion) crew.

 

[DurhamDad]

I honestly didn't meant to get pissy-- sorry about that!

Yes, CNN does spin A LOT, which is why I haven't watched them in a long time. There used to be more personalities that I liked before they got farther and farther left, but it's really only John Berman now and will have on as background noise while getting ready in the morning from time to time.

Yup, that was another one like NPR that I just left behind as they went insane. Can you say Brian Steltor?! Good grief.

 

[Studentofthegun]

Where is the right half of that timeline showing MAGA/GQP? Agreed that the Progressives have gone far left and true Conservatives have remained relatively in-place, as have true Liberals, but that timeline is not showing the faction of the GOP (Greene, Gaetz, Boebert, Brooks, etc.) who have wandered as far right as the Progressives (AOC & Squad) have gone left.

Based on what, exactly?

I can name many topics on which the left has moved further to the left. Can you do the same for the right?

What specific stances have changed? What positions do Greene, Gaetz, Boebert, Brooks, etc hold that are far right of where conservatives were in 2008?

The right hasn't moved much at all on topics like:

1. Abortion
2. Gun control
3. Taxes
4. National Security
5. Border security

Look at where the left is now with regard to:

1. Gender identity and pushing those concepts in schools. I don't remember it happening as much in 2008.
2. The Biden Admin is taking illegals and dumping them out in cities all across the USA. Don't remember Obama doing that. He still had them in cages.
3. Gun control: We've got articles about repealing the 2nd Amendment.
4. If you don't get the vaccine you're a science denier and should lose your job.
5. BLM can burn cities down and still rake in millions from leftists organizations.

The only reason you might think that the right is more extreme is because there's simply more distance between the left and right these days. But in reality, only one crowd moved very much.

 

[Joe.]

Yup, that was another one like NPR that I just left behind as they went insane. Can you say Brian Steltor?! Good grief.

OMG, that guy is the WORST!!! And comes off as so damn arrogant!
I was bummed when Chris Wallace left Fox. That guy gave it equally to Dems and the GOP.

 

[Studentofthegun]

Gotcha. Looking forward to more info coming out on the laptop, dealings, and anything Joe may have been involved with.

Comey-- When FBI director, announced just eleven days before election day that the bureau was investigating 'newly discovered evidence' related to the Hillary Clinton email scandal in which she had been cleared of months earlier. (This is against DOJ policy.) Then followed up a few days later that there wasn't anything remotely relevant in the emails. Did this alone torpedo her election? Who really knows, but it's hard to deny that a bombshell like this so close to the election didn't sway at least some voters in a very close election. The guy is a buffoon, and not solely for this incident-- there were other things related to his dealings with Trump that were improper and detrimental to Trump.

Dig into Comey and his association with HSBC bank. Money laundering for the cartels and having some of said money funneled to the Clintons/Democrats.

Something went down between him and the Clinton's. He's got enough dirt on them along with a dead man's switch. If Comey ends up falling victim to Arkanacide, some documentation is going to drop to lots of journalists out there that don't care much for Bill and Hillary.

Comey and much of the FBI are completely co-opted.

 

[DurhamDad]

I don't disagree, and I am glad you seem to acknowledge CNN's lie, it's just that you didn't ask about Fox.

I think Fox is quite biased and I don't use them as a source because of it, though I do find Tucker Carlson to be a generally honest critic when I see some of his clips on other media.

No need to get pissy about it.

And I should add, regardless of Fox spin, we do still need to get a clear accounting of how much of the violence was from maga protestors versus outside instigators and Capitol police.

It would be quite an unbiased move toward transparency for the CP to simply release all their camera footage.

 

[Chuckman]

RE: media, I watch Fox. I also watch CNN and MSNBC. Hell, even the National Enquirer and Drudge broke real news.

Part of the problem is most of these outlets aren't news anymore, they are a bunch of editorialists.

 

[Pineapple]

Most of the media are as crooked as most of the politicians.

 

[Joe.]

RE: media, I watch Fox. I also watch CNN and MSNBC. Hell, even the National Enquirer and Drudge broke real news.

Part of the problem is most of these outlets aren't news anymore, they are a bunch of editorialists.

EXACTLY! There are fewer and fewer ACTUAL NEWS shows on network news channels. I don’t really care to hear people interpreting and putting their spin on events.

 

[Joe.]

Most of the media are as crooked as most of the politicians.

View attachment 467735

Airing the peaceful protests that occur during the day is boring and won’t capture the eyeballs needed for ratings. Airing the fires at night…OOOOO, spectacular!

 

[Joe.]

And I should add, regardless of Fox spin, we do still need to get a clear accounting of how much of the violence was from maga protestors versus outside instigators and Capitol police.

It would be quite an unbiased move toward transparency for the CP to simply release all their camera footage.

I’d be very interested to learn if there were other forces at play that day, but have heard or seen nothing other than MAGA, except for conjecture by Hannity, Ingraham and Carlson. There were certainly some CP who seemed to welcome people in, but the question is, “were they fearful so let people through, working an inside job, other?”

 

[Joe.]

I wish we would become as radical and loud about gun control (and other issues) as the left is about identity politics.

You don’t need to, the NRA has been doing the bidding for years while their top brass has been siphoning off big bucks for their personal use. Ouch.

Curious, what specifically do you mean by identity politics?

 

[georgel]

It's all lies anyway...

Largely unbeknownst to the general public, executives and top journalists of almost all major US news outlets have long been members of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Established in 1921 as a private, bipartisan organization to “awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities”, the CFR and its close to 5000 elite members for decades have shaped US foreign policy and public discourse about it. As a well-known Council member famously explained, they transformed the American republic into a global empire, albeit a “benevolent” one.
Based on official membership rosters, the following illustration depicts for the first time the extensive media network of the CFR and its two major international affiliate organizations: the Bilderberg Group (mainly covering the US and Europe) and the Trilateral Commission (covering North America, Europe and East Asia), both established by Council leaders to foster elite cooperation at the global level.

In a column entitled “Ruling Class Journalists”, former Washington Post senior editor and ombudsman Richard Harwood described the Council and its members approvingly as “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.
Harwood continued: “The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class. They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views.”

Based on official membership rosters, the following illustration depicts for the first time the extensive media network of the CFR and its two major international affiliate organizations: the Bilderberg Group (mainly covering the US and Europe) and the Trilateral Commission (covering North America, Europe and East Asia), both established by Council leaders to foster elite cooperation at the global level.

 

[Meckmeister]

I have a couple lawyer friends. I try not to engage in hot topics I know little about, to avoid the dreaded cognitive dissonance.

 

[Mathieu18]

I’m betting if we had an experiment where everybody plotted the sources on the plot based on where they thought ithey should go a pretty good indicator of our own biases.

Everybody should pick 10 sources that they feel like they know and put them where they think they should go on the plot!

That'd make for an interesting pole/study.