100
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by PeleSpirit@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

This article has the test in it. https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/misinformation-susceptibility-test

Edit: If you do bad on the test, here are some games to play to help you get better (scroll down): https://inoculation.science/inoculation-games/

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AncientFutureNow@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

YouGov is a garbage institution. They were founded by some uber conservatives in England, operate out of England, meddle in American politics, and have a propensity for sneakily skewing results of surveys. I recall one clickbait headline of theirs about most US citizens support banning abortion and they had surveyed a very small set of people and from conservative, religious areas.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I believe you but you gotta show some receipts,. I see that there is some people that don't like them. 538 is pretty conservative and does an okay job. It seems to be a legit questionnaire even if they use the info for evil.

Edit: I should add that the test is from Cambridge too.

[-] mayo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I had a glance and didn't see anything but I'm not investigative reporter and it's hard to tell without spending a lot of time on it. One of the founders ran as a conservative and is now on the board. It's probably in their interest (they are public/in stock market) to conduct good surveys, but to also generate data which would be of interest to conservative leaning organizations. That's my guess. Their articles may be misleading though, since those would be more promotional/marketing material of the data they want to sell.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That's what I think too. It's like Fox being quite good at polling so they can con their audience.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

took the test, got 16/16, 100% correct. i don’t believe the test itself.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 11 points 1 year ago

I got 14/16.

I was doubting myself hard, especially after reading this stupid ass very real headline earlier: Open Borders Creating Bidenvilles of Homelessness. Who Saw That Coming?

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I got 19 out of 20 and I believe it. I don't know which one I got wrong though, probably the king of morocco one. Why don't you believe it?

[-] ares35@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

18/20 here, and a bit 'skeptical' (-2, 80% on 'real' news, but called-out all the 'fake' news). better safe than stupid.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I got 19/20 here and was wondering about the same question. I put real on that one.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Same, I put real too.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

seems improbably that i’d get 100%.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think you can believe it, they talk about which ones were wrong and who usually got them wrong in the article.

[-] Xylight@lemmy.xylight.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Same.

Conspiracy time: they say you get a high score so that you trust your gut and believe headlines that aren't true! 😱 /s

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That sounds true to me.

[-] GFGJewbacca@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Took the 20 question version and got 20/20. I think it was an okay way to get a sense on fake news, but at the same time there have been more conspiracy theories peddled by media from all different political leanings over the past 5-10 years. Even a legitimately published headline can be deceiving.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

oh that's easy - if I disagree with it then it's fakenews

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I agree and therefore certify you as a truth speaker. Everything you say is always true now.

[-] stu@lemmy.pit.ninja 6 points 1 year ago

My problem with the test is that I'm not sure it's really testing what it purports to be testing. It says that it's testing your ability to discern misinformation from looking at titles, but I think what it's really testing is your ability to differentiate human written titles and AI generated titles. AI generated titles could be truthful and human written titles could be utter bullshit and without checking the credibility of the source or reading the article, you're not necessarily going to know which is which unless you already know something about the topic.

That said this is an interesting experiment that I predict will not have the same results when LLMs become more advanced.

[-] flossdaily@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That was a poorly constructed test. The fake headlines were far too easy to identify since they really didn't play into any of the ongoing, large disinformation campaigns.

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
100 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19087 readers
3778 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS