Thoth101 Posted July 11, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 No, your request is denied because we can re-investigate 911 right here! I've chosen to start with the obvious discrepancies on building7. What is your explanation for it coming down on film before it came down in real life? (I have the evidence for that but I still haven't been able to explain how 'they' did it.) The best I can think of so far is that it was lazer generated images of the collapse of the building that was created before the actual collapse, through manipulation of clocks that show it coming down in real time. Who planted all the charges in the building and why did they do it? Was it to hid important documents that would revel an inside job coverup? And if so then why didn't they just have a agent carry out the evidence in a cardboard box or two or a dozen? It's just that it seems that would be easier that them having to spend weeks secretly hiding what they were doing in building 7. Or anything else you can provide here as evidence of the _________ theory that building 7 was an inside job?This thread is about who is fact checking the fact checkers not 911. Like I said create a thread about 911. I am glad you are showing interest in it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoth101 Posted July 11, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) How Fact-Checking is Flawedhttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201906/how-fact-checking-is-flawed My inbox often includes a “PolitiFact Truth Rundown.” I have been critical of the fact-checking industry as unsound, but still look at their offerings. A recent one on Dan Crenshaw, a member of Congress from Texas, illustrates a major flaw in fact-checking that causes a great deal of distrust.Crenshaw lost his eye serving as a Navy SEAL in Afghanistan. He received a great deal of attention for his sense of humor in an appearance on Saturday Night Live to receive an apology from Pete Davidson after a disrespectful joke. More recently he appeared on The View and made this statement about asylum seekers coming across the Mexican border: “As it turns out, about 80 to 90 percent of those don’t have a valid asylum claim, once we actually get their documentation.” PolitiFact rated this statement to be False.The interviewer immediately interjected, “That fact, what you are saying, actually has been debunked.” Crenshaw responded, “It has not been debunked. I’m sorry, no it has not. I deal with the Department of Homeland Security and these are the numbers that are coming out… Explain why those are false then. You’re just saying they’re false, you’re not providing evidence they are.” Why does PolitiFact endorse The View and dispute Crenshaw? The PolitiFact report admits that he was citing the figures from Homeland Security accurately: “The truth is, about 20 to 30 percent of asylum requests have been granted annually since 2009” and “asylum was granted in 16% of cases that originated from a credible fear claim.” But here is the catch: “Experts said that does not mean that the remaining 70 to 80 percent of cases are invalid.”According to PolitiFact’s experts—an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute and two law professors—the remaining claims were not necessarily invalid, but could have been dismissed for other reasons even though there was truth to them. So “we rate this claim False.” In other words, Crenshaw’s experts were the administrators and judges who rejected the asylum requests. His definition of “valid” is what an immigration judge said passed the standard. PolitiFact's experts offer a different definition of “valid” and think many of the other cases might have merit as well. Who is right? Whom do you trust? More importantly, what standard should PolitiFact apply?One of the core flaws of fact-checking is that the answer depends entirely on which frame they choose. They could ask two distinct questions:Can this statement be considered to be true?Can this statement be considered to be false? If they asked the first question about Crenshaw’s statement, it clearly could be considered to be true. He is relying on government data and the government’s definition of validity: a judge accepts the claim “once we actually get their documentation.”If fact-checkers chose the second question, Crenshaw’s statement can be challenged by experts who prefer a different interpretation of validity and therefore question the government’s data.Read On:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201906/how-fact-checking-is-flawed Edited July 11, 2020 by Thoth101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoth101 Posted July 11, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 Fact-Checking Is Ineffective Where It Counts: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201905/fact-checking-is-ineffective-where-it-counts Fact-checking has become an article of faith in the era of dueling facts. The problem is that many psychological mechanisms work against it. And the available evidence indicates that it does not change perceptions. If fact-checkers insist on admitting the evidence, why won’t they admit that fact-checking is not working? Studies indicate that citizens resist fact-checking messages that oppose their prior beliefs, especially if the appeals clash with their partisan leanings. Perhaps even more interesting are findings suggesting that attempts at correction may actually induce greater confidence (the backfire effect). And even apparent corrections may mask the persistence and re-emergence of prior beliefs, or what have been called “belief echoes.” While many advocates and scholars maintain a stubborn support of the fact-checking industry, their views of its efficacy are more hopeful than empirical. Fact-checkers are fighting against two dominant problems in how ordinary people react to their reporting. The first is the broad set of psychological mechanisms that support resistance to opposing information (which are especially strong among more educated citizens). If voters were rational consumers of information, fact-checking might work. But we know that non-rational and psychological forces abound. Perhaps the lead actors are selective cognition, group conformity, and motivated reasoning. Humans process information in a highly selective way. We can’t give equal weight to the millions of possible inputs, so we only pay attention to some, accept some, and remember some. The information we select tends to be the pieces that reinforce our prior views and positive perceptions of ourselves; the rest we tend to overlook. Conformity to the beliefs of our group is another core mechanism that warps our perceptions. Social proof is the term for relying on the judgment of others when we are in doubt. And the others we trust the most are ones who are like us. But the real heart of conformity is the price paid for disagreement. As Somerset Maugham phrased it in The Moon and Sixpence, “The desire for approbation is perhaps the most deeply seated instinct of civilized man.” The most famous psychology study of conformity was not about dress or language or politics, but about conformity of perceptions. Motivated reasoning—the tendency to shift perceptions toward ones that fit our political identities—combines these cognitive and social effects. Mental errors are common and social conformity is rampant, but they are even more powerful if they have a political motive behind them.Even if a skilled individual overcame all of these tendencies, they still might reject fact-checking for a different reason. The second problem that fact-checkers face is the impression that they employ illegitimate methods or are ideological partisans (which is also especially strong among the more educated). A Rasmussen poll from September 2016 illustrates the prevalence of distrust: “Do you trust media fact-checking of candidates’ comments, or do you think news organizations skew the facts to help candidates they support?” Only 29 percent expressed trust in fact-checking. Why don’t voters trust fact-checkers? Perhaps because they shouldn’t. One of the first studies of fact-checking that we conducted was on whether the different major fact-checkers—PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, and The Fact Checker of The Washington Post—actually agreed with each other. It is hard to test whether the fact-checkers are providing us with the accurate facts, but at the very least they should be agreeing with each other. Otherwise one of them is clearly wrong. What we found was that often they do not agree on the prevailing facts. A more recent study by by Chloe Lim in Research & Politics comes to similar conclusions about a wider range of fact-checks. The inherent subjectivity of the enterprise, combined with a lack of established standards for identifying and weighing evidence, means that fact-checkers will continue to disagree even among themselves.Continue:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201905/fact-checking-is-ineffective-where-it-counts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montgomery Posted July 12, 2020 Report Share Posted July 12, 2020 (edited) Fact-Checking Is Ineffective Where It Counts: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201905/fact-checking-is-ineffective-where-it-counts Fact-checking has become an article of faith in the era of dueling facts. The problem is that many psychological mechanisms work against it. And the available evidence indicates that it does not change perceptions. If fact-checkers insist on admitting the evidence, why won’t they admit that fact-checking is not working? Studies indicate that citizens resist fact-checking messages that oppose their prior beliefs, especially if the appeals clash with their partisan leanings. Perhaps even more interesting are findings suggesting that attempts at correction may actually induce greater confidence (the backfire effect). And even apparent corrections may mask the persistence and re-emergence of prior beliefs, or what have been called “belief echoes.” While many advocates and scholars maintain a stubborn support of the fact-checking industry, their views of its efficacy are more hopeful than empirical. Fact-checkers are fighting against two dominant problems in how ordinary people react to their reporting. The first is the broad set of psychological mechanisms that support resistance to opposing information (which are especially strong among more educated citizens). If voters were rational consumers of information, fact-checking might work. But we know that non-rational and psychological forces abound. Perhaps the lead actors are selective cognition, group conformity, and motivated reasoning. Humans process information in a highly selective way. We can’t give equal weight to the millions of possible inputs, so we only pay attention to some, accept some, and remember some. The information we select tends to be the pieces that reinforce our prior views and positive perceptions of ourselves; the rest we tend to overlook. Conformity to the beliefs of our group is another core mechanism that warps our perceptions. Social proof is the term for relying on the judgment of others when we are in doubt. And the others we trust the most are ones who are like us. But the real heart of conformity is the price paid for disagreement. As Somerset Maugham phrased it in The Moon and Sixpence, “The desire for approbation is perhaps the most deeply seated instinct of civilized man.” The most famous psychology study of conformity was not about dress or language or politics, but about conformity of perceptions. Motivated reasoning—the tendency to shift perceptions toward ones that fit our political identities—combines these cognitive and social effects. Mental errors are common and social conformity is rampant, but they are even more powerful if they have a political motive behind them.Even if a skilled individual overcame all of these tendencies, they still might reject fact-checking for a different reason. The second problem that fact-checkers face is the impression that they employ illegitimate methods or are ideological partisans (which is also especially strong among the more educated). A Rasmussen poll from September 2016 illustrates the prevalence of distrust: “Do you trust media fact-checking of candidates’ comments, or do you think news organizations skew the facts to help candidates they support?” Only 29 percent expressed trust in fact-checking. Why don’t voters trust fact-checkers? Perhaps because they shouldn’t. One of the first studies of fact-checking that we conducted was on whether the different major fact-checkers—PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, and The Fact Checker of The Washington Post—actually agreed with each other. It is hard to test whether the fact-checkers are providing us with the accurate facts, but at the very least they should be agreeing with each other. Otherwise one of them is clearly wrong. What we found was that often they do not agree on the prevailing facts. A more recent study by by Chloe Lim in Research & Politics comes to similar conclusions about a wider range of fact-checks. The inherent subjectivity of the enterprise, combined with a lack of established standards for identifying and weighing evidence, means that fact-checkers will continue to disagree even among themselves.Continue:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201905/fact-checking-is-ineffective-where-it-countsGood stuff Thoth! This gets right to the heart of the disagreement we have on what hit the Pentagon and who did it. My facts directly contradict yours and this offers some possible reasons why. Not saying I agree with all of that and also, I could add more to it. Assuming that I believe the whole official story on 911, why do you think I believe it? Edited July 12, 2020 by montgomery Thoth101 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted July 12, 2020 Report Share Posted July 12, 2020 Assuming that I believe the whole official story on 911, why do you think I believe it?A. Conditioned irrational response to 'conspiracy theories' despite presumably not being naive enough to think that the people in power never mislead the general public. B. A clear minded examination of the evidence presented leads you to believe that the theories are utter nonsense. C. You're a troll that loves to pick on Thoth because you think he's an easy target and it makes you feel less sad/weak/pathetic/bored. It's C isn't it? Yep, definitely C! Thoth101 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montgomery Posted July 12, 2020 Report Share Posted July 12, 2020 A. Conditioned irrational response to 'conspiracy theories' despite presumably not being naive enough to think that the people in power never mislead the general public. B. A clear minded examination of the evidence presented leads you to believe that the theories are utter nonsense. C. You're a troll that loves to pick on Thoth because you think he's an easy target and it makes you feel less sad/weak/pathetic/bored. It's C isn't it? Yep, definitely C!Thoth is definitely not an easy target, he's constantly zigzagging and dodging all attempts to nail him down. But he's an interesting study on conspiracy theories. As you may find me too because I accept the official government story on 911. And I"m pretty outspoken on Americans and America's worldwide aggression so that picks a lot of their (your?) as-es! So yes, it's C but not exactly as you put it but with some qualifications. And fwiw, I don't consider anybody on this board a difficult target as long as I stick to what I know and don't know. Except Thoth who I find to be difficult for the reasons I've stated. So what's biting your a-s today, did I hurt your feelings with something I said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted July 12, 2020 Report Share Posted July 12, 2020 Thoth is definitely not an easy target, he's constantly zigzagging and dodging all attempts to nail him down. But he's an interesting study on conspiracy theories. As you may find me too because I accept the official government story on 911. And I"m pretty outspoken on Americans and America's worldwide aggression so that picks a lot of their (your?) as-es!No I most certainly am not a fat, deluded, stupid, gun toting, god worshipping, rascist USian ****tard thank you very much! :) So yes, it's C but not exactly as you put it but with some qualifications.Called it! And fwiw, I don't consider anybody on this board a difficult target as long as I stick to what I know and don't know. Except Thoth who I find to be difficult for the reasons I've stated.You know stuff? So what's biting your a-s today, did I hurt your feelings with something I said?The discussion on consciousness always gets me going. I can't understand why so many people have so much trouble grasping the fact that there's no explanation at all for how you get from physical processes of the brain to a conscious observer appearing and it just really winds me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 12, 2020 Report Share Posted July 12, 2020 (edited) No I most certainly am not a fat, deluded, stupid, gun toting, god worshipping, rascist USian ****tard thank you very much! :) Don't you forget who owns your sorry butt, It is the US, the US owns this entire world. Edited July 12, 2020 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted July 12, 2020 Report Share Posted July 12, 2020 Don't you forget who owns your sorry butt, It is the US, the US owns this entire world.Yea okay, if you say so. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoth101 Posted July 13, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 Good stuff Thoth! This gets right to the heart of the disagreement we have on what hit the Pentagon and who did it. My facts directly contradict yours and this offers some possible reasons why. Not saying I agree with all of that and also, I could add more to it. Assuming that I believe the whole official story on 911, why do you think I believe it?Thanks, I am glad I am helping you to see the bigger picture. And it isn't easy at first. I didn't actually start using my own mind until around 2006. Something finally just clicked in my brain through my experiences and I started to see a different picture. Believe it or not at one time I believed everything the mainstream and government told me. I even called myself a Christian and I followed the Bible god. So trust me, mind control can be broken. I can say I was under mind control till I was about 26. But many people are under the spell even till the day they die. I have been on both sides of this journey. The important thing is just to start to connect the dots. Once you can do all that, it all starts to come together. Like I said at one time I even believed the official story of 911. The reason I did is because I was naïve and I didn't know any better. I only learned things from what the media told me. My parents weren't informed also so they couldn't tell me. I probably shouldn't be so hard on people that believe the official story since I also did. I have to remember I was like that at point also. So I apologize for that. I need to learn to be a little more understanding and that many people just don't know and aren't well informed. And I can't expect everybody to believe the same things. In fact that is what makes the world interesting. If we all believed the same things it would be a boring world. But we can learn things together and still come to our own conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoth101 Posted July 13, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 A. Conditioned irrational response to 'conspiracy theories' despite presumably not being naive enough to think that the people in power never mislead the general public. B. A clear minded examination of the evidence presented leads you to believe that the theories are utter nonsense. C. You're a troll that loves to pick on Thoth because you think he's an easy target and it makes you feel less sad/weak/pathetic/bored. It's C isn't it? Yep, definitely C!Thanks A-wal. I appreciate you coming back to this forum again. You have great fortitude and knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montgomery Posted July 17, 2020 Report Share Posted July 17, 2020 (edited) Thanks A-wal. I appreciate you coming back to this forum again. You have great fortitude and knowledge.I agree with A-wol, this is just another 'monsanto' you're trying to get going. Or maybe another 'santorum'? http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/ Edited July 17, 2020 by montgomery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.