The Mis-Information Age?

[Townhallsavoy]

One of my more pretentious students made this comment in class today:

"In just a few years, most old people won't matter because we're growing up in the Information Age.  We'll know more accurate information about more subjects than they could ever imagine."

It's said that we're living in this so called Information Age because of the easy access to the internet.  One can essentially read a plethora of sources on any given subject at any given time.  Whether or not those sources are peer reviewed is unbeknownst to the reader.

So I'm wondering if we're actually performing more harm to our young minds than good. 

How many times have you seen people - especially my age and younger - on the internet use wrong information? 

How often have you been in an argument on a message board and had to correct someone? 

I generally consider this message board one of the more educated boards around including non-sports boards, so I do value the opinions here 

A few examples:

Reddit - You go to its Politics page and their Atheism page, and it's littered with misinformation.  Specious arguments abound.  Tremendous arrogance reigns. 

I've seen some good arguments for atheism.  They aren't found on Reddit's page, and there are 646,000+ subscribers following every fallacy posted. 

The autodidacts of message boards - Maybe I've perused too many message boards in my life, but there seems to be an ever growing number of self-taught know-it-alls that think they're above the college educated simple folk.

Their free-for-all learning methods allow them to digest more pertinent information, they say.  I've seen a lack of guidance as their main fault, but often, their Dunning-Kruger brains lack the ability to see how wrong they are. 

So if a majority of people see the internet as a better source of education while missing the fact that internet is in fact not a better source for education, what happens?

[Vandy Vol]

The internet is a better source of information due to ease of access.  It's just that you need to have the ability (and some tech savvy) to separate the right information from the wrong information.

IRS.com tells you that you don't need to report income you received on a 1099-R?  Well, hopefully you know enough that recognize that a government agency does not have a .com domain, but instead has a .gov domain.

Dictionaries have sites.  Encyclopedias have sites.  Government entities have sites.  Entire books are on Google.  Valid information is out there; it's just a matter of being able to find it.

[Townhallsavoy]

The internet is a better source of information due to ease of access.  It's just that you need to have the ability (and some tech savvy) to separate the right information from the wrong information.

IRS.com tells you that you don't need to report income you received on a 1099-R?  Well, hopefully you know enough that recognize that a government agency does not have a .com domain, but instead has a .gov domain.

Dictionaries have sites.  Encyclopedias have sites.  Government entities have sites.  Entire books are on Google.  Valid information is out there; it's just a matter of being able to find it.

But most people don't find it. 

For example, Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is one of the most glorious web inventions of all time...if you use the reference section at the botton to cross check the information.  Are the sources valid?  Wikipedia tells you yes.  How does one know for sure? 

And think of how many people go to IRS.com thinking it's legit.  There's still a large quantity of people - including youths - that don't know how to work the internet. 

[Tarheel]

THS, you deserve extra credit for using the word 'autodidacts' in your post.  I'm impressed.

Yes, I think that the information age makes it quicker to propagate mis-information amongst eager, young (and ignorant) minds today.  And some old ones too e.g. there's nothing I hate worse than getting one of those ridiculous, forwarded emails about the "Close Pass of Mars this August" or the "New Fighter" being developed by the Navy (the former happened in 2003 and the later is usually still shots from the movie "Stealth".  I guarantee there will be emails circulating about Mars this summer and some idiots will believe it without doing their due diligence.

[Vandy Vol]

But most people don't find it. 

For example, Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is one of the most glorious web inventions of all time...if you use the reference section at the botton to cross check the information.  Are the sources valid?  Wikipedia tells you yes.  How does one know for sure? 

And think of how many people go to IRS.com thinking it's legit.  There's still a large quantity of people - including youths - that don't know how to work the internet.

Sure, wrong information is out there.  The same can be said with magazines, and even with peer-reviewed articles.  It's not a matter of wrong information being disseminated for the first time ever; it's a matter of it being easier to access.

And sure, there are people who are unable to find correct information on the internet due to ignorance, laziness, or a combination of the two.  But I don't think that should suggest that the "information age" is more harmful than good.

Ultimately we're going to have to incorporate cross-referencing and internet knowledge into our education, whether that be existent in schools or left up to parents at home.  But there needs to be a push for it either way.

[Snaggletiger]

The worst thing is if you take what you read in the paper....ooohhh let's saayyy some musicians birthday....and you decide to post it on a message board without......I don't know....checking the intrawebz to make sure that information is accurate....juuuussst sayin'.

[Townhallsavoy]

Sure, wrong information is out there.  The same can be said with magazines, and even with peer-reviewed articles.  It's not a matter of wrong information being disseminated for the first time ever; it's a matter of it being easier to access.

At least with peer-reviewed articles, it's understood by the reader (usually educated as well) that the information can be wrong and subject to change.  It enables discussion and not supercilious gloating of empty knowledge.

And sure, there are people who are unable to find correct information on the internet due to ignorance, laziness, or a combination of the two.  But I don't think that should suggest that the "information age" is more harmful than good.

Ultimately we're going to have to incorporate cross-referencing and internet knowledge into our education, whether that be existent in schools or left up to parents at home.  But there needs to be a push for it either way.

The academic world is very hesitant to use the internet as a valid source.  As you said, if one knows where to find the appropriate information, it's usable.  However, one can easily use the school library to find accepted sources. 

And I really am not speaking of the schools here.  I'm talking about the everyday person that thinks they know a subject based on random internet sources.  It seems to be breeding a culture of bloviation.  Just look at politics for instance.

[Townhallsavoy]

The worst thing is if you take what you read in the paper....ooohhh let's saayyy some musicians birthday....and you decide to post it on a message board without......I don't know....checking the intrawebz to make sure that information is accurate....juuuussst sayin'.

Sure.  But who cares about a musician's birthday? 

I do care when someone is going to vote for Barack Obama because they can rattle off a list of 180 positives he's produced for the country.

Or when someone tells me that God is capricious.

Or that fluid sexuality is a legit phenomenon. 

Or that Ronald Reagan was a terrible president. 

Or that Cam Newton really did take $180k and Milton McGregor funneled much more money to players through his casino.

Or that evolution has been debunked by YEC scientists. 

Or that Zimmerman is a white man that killed Trayvon Martin in cold racist blood. 

[Kaos]

How often have you been in an argument on a message board and had to correct someone? 

Every.Single.Fucking.Day

[Vandy Vol]

At least with peer-reviewed articles, it's understood by the reader (usually educated as well) that the information can be wrong and subject to change.  It enables discussion and not supercilious gloating of empty knowledge.

The academic world is very hesitant to use the internet as a valid source.  As you said, if one knows where to find the appropriate information, it's usable.  However, one can easily use the school library to find accepted sources. 

And I really am not speaking of the schools here.  I'm talking about the everyday person that thinks they know a subject based on random internet sources.  It seems to be breeding a culture of bloviation.  Just look at politics for instance.

I was taught in junior high or high school that Eli Whitney was a black man.  It was in the social studies book, and the teacher believed it as well.  I honestly don't feel that the internet's reliability is different from any other medium's reliability; it's all a matter of who is writing it and the source of their information.  Just because it's in book form and is in a library doesn't mean that it's accurate.

The problem with the internet is that it is much easier to be an "author," and thus the amount of information has increased.  With an increase in information comes an increase in incorrect information, especially when so many of the "authors" aren't educated and/or don't do their research due to the ease with which they can post popular material.

But, real sources still exist out there on the popular system of tubes.  It's sort of like being able to tell the difference between The Wall Street Journal and The National Enquirer.  I agree that not everyone is able to do it, but it can be done.  And, in reality, it needs to be done for all types of medium, not just the internet.  The great thing about the internet is that it allows us to cross reference information a lot easier.  When a book that you trusted due to it merely being a book tells you that Eli Whitney was a black man, you can cross reference and find correct information on the internet.

[AWK]

I've come to the conclusion that there will always be morons and assholes in the world, and the smart and nice people are the exceptions.  The internet just gives them an easy route to validate said ignorance/ass-holism. 

[Saniflush]

The worst thing is if you take what you read in the paper....ooohhh let's saayyy some musicians birthday....and you decide to post it on a message board without......I don't know....checking the intrawebz to make sure that information is accurate....juuuussst sayin'.

off with those people's heads

[GH2001]

One of my more pretentious students made this comment in class today:

"In just a few years, most old people won't matter because we're growing up in the Information Age.  We'll know more accurate information about more subjects than they could ever imagine."

It's said that we're living in this so called Information Age because of the easy access to the internet.  One can essentially read a plethora of sources on any given subject at any given time.  Whether or not those sources are peer reviewed is unbeknownst to the reader.

So I'm wondering if we're actually performing more harm to our young minds than good. 

How many times have you seen people - especially my age and younger - on the internet use wrong information? 

How often have you been in an argument on a message board and had to correct someone? 

I generally consider this message board one of the more educated boards around including non-sports boards, so I do value the opinions here 

A few examples:

Reddit - You go to its Politics page and their Atheism page, and it's littered with misinformation.  Specious arguments abound.  Tremendous arrogance reigns. 

I've seen some good arguments for atheism.  They aren't found on Reddit's page, and there are 646,000+ subscribers following every fallacy posted. 

The autodidacts of message boards - Maybe I've perused too many message boards in my life, but there seems to be an ever growing number of self-taught know-it-alls that think they're above the college educated simple folk.

Their free-for-all learning methods allow them to digest more pertinent information, they say.  I've seen a lack of guidance as their main fault, but often, their Dunning-Kruger brains lack the ability to see how wrong they are. 

So if a majority of people see the internet as a better source of education while missing the fact that internet is in fact not a better source for education, what happens?

Agree with you ths. Although it troubles me to see this kind of mentality from kids I.e. cocky know it alls. I guess when that age you know everything.

[Kaos]

I've come to the conclusion that there will always be morons and assholes in the world, and the smart and nice people are the exceptions.  The internet just gives them an easy route to validate said ignorance/ass-holism.

Here's the problem. 

Morons and assholes have no boundaries.  An intelligent man and intelligent woman will limit their obligations to those they can reasonably support.  So you start with two, the two begat three, the three begat eight. 

Over the same span, morons and assholes do not hold themselves to the same standard of support.  One moron beds a multitude of different, pathetic whores.  He alone begats seven (I know a 17 year old with seven children by five different women so... ).  Those seven have little chance at escaping their roots, they begat 23.  The 23 begat 80.

In the beginning there were two intelligent rational people to one moron.  In just two generations the morons outnumber the intelligent 80-8.  The eight support 65 of the 80. 

It's how you end up where we are now.  A world where stupid decisions are hailed, ignorant leaders are chosen, the intelligent/wealthy/successful are demonized.  It's how you end up with an empty suit filled with meaningless rhetoric and driven by a destructive agenda sitting in the White House.  It's how you have more people NOT paying taxes and relying on the government for support than you do those who pay.  It's how you eventually end up with a socialist state doing the thinking for its citizens in a world where legitimate thought and debate is drowned out in a roar of ignorance.  It's how you end up in a world where Khloe Kardashian is more identifiable to the average person than any senator or even the mayor of their own town.

It's how the stupid and ignorant win.

[GH2001]

Here's the problem. 

Morons and assholes have no boundaries.  An intelligent man and intelligent woman will limit their obligations to those they can reasonably support.  So you start with two, the two begat three, the three begat eight. 

Over the same span, morons and assholes do not hold themselves to the same standard of support.  One moron beds a multitude of different, pathetic whores.  He alone begats seven (I know a 17 year old with seven children by five different women so... ).  Those seven have little chance at escaping their roots, they begat 23.  The 23 begat 80.

In the beginning there were two intelligent rational people to one moron.  In just two generations the morons outnumber the intelligent 80-8.  The eight support 65 of the 80. 

It's how you end up where we are now.  A world where stupid decisions are hailed, ignorant leaders are chosen, the intelligent/wealthy/successful are demonized.  It's how you end up with an empty suit filled with meaningless rhetoric and driven by a destructive agenda sitting in the White House.  It's how you have more people NOT paying taxes and relying on the government for support than you do those who pay.  It's how you eventually end up with a socialist state doing the thinking for its citizens in a world where legitimate thought and debate is drowned out in a roar of ignorance.  It's how you end up in a world where Khloe Kardashian is more identifiable to the average person than any senator or even the mayor of their own town.

It's how the stupid and ignorant win.

Dumbing down the masses. Having the lowest common denominator accepted as norm. All happening.

[JR4AU]

Agree with you ths. Although it troubles me to see this kind of mentality from kids I.e. cocky know it alls. I guess when that age you know everything.

Not to mention the fact that "knowledge of information" is all but useless without education, or training in how to assimilate and apply it, plus experience in doing so, not to mention general life experience and maturity. 

THS, I can't believe you didn't put this fucking know it all fucking skull full of mush in his place.

[AUJarhead]

So if a majority of people see the internet as a better source of education while missing the fact that internet is in fact not a better source for education, what happens?