#factual-information vs misinformation problem

[vote-democrat-president-congress]

The Misinformation Vs Factual-Information Problem, is causing such decay in society's moral fabric.

Focusing on ways solve this, is one way to move forward.

Huge and complex issue, I well know. However, I cannot allow myself fall info hopelessness and stop trying to work toward some type of solution/improvement.

[33446699]

Suga DUI and The witch hunt:

How SK media handled suga DUI Vs the other DUI cases in that country where a DUI of falling over an E-scooter gets more coverage than BTS Grammy achievements alone and when there were other DUI cases happening in that month too ,even the following months with even SK ex president daughter having DUI but guess here we have media leaving no chance to use BTS to cover every issue in south Korea.

Total of 271,525 articles were published about this incident and among them SK media alone published 263,913 articles .29,990 articles were published on 10 aug 2024 alone making upto almost 5000 articles per date ,alot of these articles were almost identical and only 6% factual .During period ( 7 Aug- 15 SEP ) most articles were written in earlier dates.

Top media houses which include JTBC ,Dong -A ,X -spots ,Ten Asia ,Yonhap ,Top star shaped public opinion ( by sharing fake CCTV footages and other misinformation) with this much reporting and while neglecting the imp cases or issues such as deepfake etc but even with this much reporting media failed to teach public and authorities about these E- scooters and rules , regulations about their usage and classification because even the Head of Urban Transportation Office couldn't recognise which scooter was suga using when shown picture ,so people clearly need to be educated.

By this post I am not defending crimes or saying DUIs are nothing , the problem is if DUI is so worse in Korea then all the other DUI cases should be treated like this too but they were solved in one or two weeks,got almost no media coverage,no tabloids articles written,no blogs mentioning those cases,no fake information and the media and witch hunt happened only in this case.If this is fair treatment and a standard for how a criminal and DUI case is handled why I am unable to see the same for other cases which were worse where there was property damage ,car involvement .If crime and law is important every citizen should be treated equally just because they are BTS it doesn't mean that they have to tolerate this much . Journalists ,blogs ,media dont have to treat BTS like this and this is without antis which also contributed a lot ( by creating fake DUI challenges ,sending funeral wreath etc which is still happening to even this date).

* I tried to share links ,drives ,pdf since yesterday but I am not able to due to my phone and Tumblr acting up. Props to people who actually did this research by doing so much hardwork.

[disastrid]

Youtube, James Somerton, and Critical Listening

i don't watch youtube shows, but this whole thing about James Somerton has been fascinating. I didn't even know who he or hbomberguy was until someone sent me the link (which is here btw)

I've never seen such a detailed, meticulous dressing down of an actual person on a public forum like that. It was truly remarkable.

hbomberguy begins his video with some thorough take-downs of other youtubers and their entrenched plagiarism, basically priming the audience to understand that he has devoted an immense degree of time and research into these people and the subject of plagiarism.

And then says, "oh yeah, and now we're going to get to the main course: this fucking guy."

The takeaway for me is that it demonstrates the problem with getting information from youtube. So often in conversations, someone has a wild claim, and when I ask for sources they send me youtube links.

Somerton not only seems to have ripped off other writers, but also presented misinformation and blatant lies with a veneer of credibility (and terrible lighting like wtf) that I can't help but feel is dangerous.

It underscores the importance of critical thinking, but also critical listening/reading. To consider what others say with a careful level of detachment, especially if they're considered an authority in any form.

To be able to hear when someone is talking out of their ass or when something doesn't quite make sense.

To be able to parse what is a claim or opinion VS a factual statement. And then check those statements, or analyze what exactly is the opinion, and formulate one's response to it. Even if you agree, you should be able to articulate why.

So many of the responses I've seen are like "oh i used to watch some of his videos and didn't catch these things/didn't think much of it...."

I understand it's hard and exhausting to be vigilant, but our consumption of media is so constant now, on so many mediums and vehicles, i think we should be more careful when we can. To take a moment and check even those people or sources we trust.

[govindhtech]

Vertex Generative AI Evaluation Services Generates LLMs 

AI Model Evaluation

Generative  AI Evaluation

When using large language models (LLMs), developers frequently face two major challenges: controlling the output’s intrinsic randomness and resolving the LLMs‘ sporadic propensity to produce factually inaccurate information. Like rolling dice, LLMs add a little element of surprise by producing various answers even when presented with the same request.

Although this randomness can inspire creativity, when consistency or factual accuracy are important, it can also become a hindrance. Furthermore, misinformation presented by the LLM with confidence during sporadic “hallucinations” can erode confidence in its skills. The difficulty increases when they realise that there are several real-world problems for which there is no one correct solution.

There are frequently several good answers for tasks like summarising complex material, creating enticing marketing copy, coming up with novel new ideas, or writing letters that persuade.

Vertex AI Model Evaluation

They’ll look at how to address these issues in this blog post and notebook that goes along with it. This new workflow generates a variety of LLM-generated responses and uses the Vertex Generative AI Evaluation Service to automate the process of choosing the best response and provide relevant quality metrics and explanation. Additionally adaptable to multi modal input and output, this procedure has advantages for practically all use cases in a wide range of sectors and LLMs.

Imagine a financial organisation attempting to compile the details of client discussions with banking experts. The obstacle? ensuring that these summaries are accurate, useful, succinct, and well-written. There were many ways to write a summary, and the quality differed widely. Here’s how they improved the performance of the LLM-generated summaries by utilising the Vertex Generative AI Evaluation Service and the probabilistic nature of LLMs.

Evaluation AI

Step 1: Come Up with a Variety of Answers

Thinking past the initial reaction was the main takeaway from this. Because causal decoder-based LLMs sample words probabilistically, they incorporate a little amount of randomness. Thus, by producing several slightly varied responses, they increase the likelihood of discovering an ideal match. It’s similar to taking different routes and realising that, even if one leads to a dead end, another may disclose a treasure trove.

Consider asking an LLM, “What is the capital of Japan?” as an example. Some answers may include “Tokyo is the current capital of Japan,” “Kyoto was the capital city of Japan,” or even “Tokyo was the capital of Japan.” They raise the likelihood of receiving the most precise and pertinent response when they provide a variety of possibilities.

The financial organisation employed an LLM to create five distinct summaries for every transcript in order to put this into practice. The LLM’s “temperature,” which regulates output randomness, was set at a range of 0.2 to 0.4 in order to promote the ideal quantity of diversity without deviating too much from the main theme. This guaranteed a variety of choices, raising the possibility of discovering the perfect, superior synopsis.

Step 2: Select the Finest Reaction

The next step was to sort through the collection of various answers and choose the best one. The financial institution used the pairwise evaluation method offered by the Vertex Generative  AI Evaluation Service to accomplish this automatically. Consider it as a contest between responses going head to head. To choose the response that most closely reflects the user’s intent, they compare response pairs, evaluating them according to the context and the original instructions.

Using the previous scenario as an example, let’s imagine they have those three answers regarding the capital of Japan. Pairwise comparisons will be used to determine which is best:

Response 2 vs. Response 1: The API seems to favour Response 2, possibly stating, “Response 2 addresses the question about Japan’s current capital while Response 1 is correct technically.”

Response 2 is once again the finest answer thus far when compared to Response 3. Response 3’s use of the past tense is awkward.

Following these two comparison cycles, they determine that Response 2 is the optimal response.

To choose the best summary, the financial institution compared each of its five created summaries in pairs.

Step 3: Determine Whether the Response Is Sufficient

Next, the process evaluates Response 2, which was the best-performing response in the previous stage, using the pointwise assessment service. Across a number of aspects, including correctness, groundless, and helpfulness, this assessment awards quality ratings and produces explanations for those results that are comprehensible to humans.

This procedure promotes trust and openness in the system’s decision-making by not only highlighting the best response but also offering insights into why the model developed this response and why it’s seen as better to the other responses.

Performance Evaluation AI

To get an explanation of how this answer is well-founded, beneficial, and of high quality, the financial institution now evaluated the winning response point-wise using criteria connected to summation. For increased openness, they can provide an explanation and quality metrics along with the response, or they can just return the best response.

Banner serves as an example of the procedure, which consists of creating multiple LLM responses, methodically assessing them, and choosing the best one while offering explanations for why that specific response is considered ideal. Explore their sample notebook to get started, then modify it to suit your needs. Pairwise and pointwise evaluations can be performed in the opposite order by first ranking each response according to its pointwise score, and only then comparing the top candidates in pairs.

Furthermore, although though this example focuses on text, this method may be used for any modality or use case, such as summarising and answering questions, as this blog post illustrates. Finally, paralleling the different API requests might be quite helpful for both procedures if you need to reduce latency.

Proceed with the following action

They can turn obstacles into opportunities by accepting the inherent variability of LLMs and making use of the Vertex Generative  AI Evaluation Service. By generating a range of responses, methodically assessing them, and clearly identifying the best alternative with supporting details, they may fully utilise LLMs. This method not only builds confidence and openness but also improves the quality and dependability of LLM results.

Read more on Govindhtech.com

[constellationsofcolor]

Normally when I see misinformation on tumblr, I ignore it. Not my post, not my problem. If it’s something that involves a marginalized community I belong to, usually someone else has said it so I don’t need to add my two cents.

But occasionally I will see something so atrociously false presented with such confidence and authority that I do a double take and this my fellow tumblrians is what happened to me the other evening. This post came up on my dashboard under a tag I follow and as someone who has a vested interest in Canaanite polytheism and is currently dipping toes into Kabbalah, I couldn’t help but notice a few…inaccuracies. Or rather, oddly phrased misinformation under the guise of being “documented by [OP] through speaking to and working with this deity,” Ashtoreth.

Now, I am all in favor of UPG. It is something I have had miraculous and life changing experiences with and I love discussing my experiences and comparing them with my fellow polytheists. But I would never dream of presenting them as hard fact and certainly not as a contradiction to...I don’t know, any available source. Still I was willing to give this person the benefit of the doubt. So I did what any petty person would do and sent a slightly snarky ask.

“Your post on Ashtoreth came up on my page and I’m curious as to where you got your information. It doesn’t seem to relate to any Ugaritic, Phoenician, or Egyptian text, nor does it seem to have a grasp of Canaanite theology. Is it from something else I’m unaware of?”

The goddess you may be referring to in these religions is Astarte (Ashtart), since she became conflated with Ashtoreth when demonized. For this reason, all of Ashtoreth’s information had to come directly from herself, so I basically interviewed her to create the article. I like to do this with every one of the deities and/or demons I write for in order to provide their own information about who they are.”

But...afaik Astarte became conflated with Ashtoreth when demonized? According to what I’ve read on Ashtoreth, her name is a Hebrew word that vilifies Astarte or Ishtar (Greek vs Babylonian deity(ies) who served similar function) but there’s little evidence as far as I’m aware that Ashtoreth was a different deity altogether? And it doesn’t seem to be a thing in Luciferianism either. So I started looking more into their posts and it all follows similar trends.

Even this I don’t really care about, but then in the middle of a discussion with a friend later, they blocked me. I sent this one ask and didn’t even reply to it, so I’m not sure why they felt the need to come and block me later. Either way it made it more personal and made me more curious.

I don’t want to put this person on blast. However I will link some of their articles and ask for input from my fellow polytheists as well as any Kabbalists and Luciferians who may have input. While I have a fair bit of knowledge in a niche of Canaanite polytheism, it doesn’t extend to all of it. However, there’s something off in the posts to me I can’t quite identify. Maybe it’s the use of Jewish and Canaanite concepts but only referring to Christianity and Christian conceptions of both Hell and God (I mean afaik Jehovah is a Christianization of a name for God and in Canaanite polytheism Elohim is The God) or maybe it’s just the touch of hubris in declaring oneself an authority despite contradicting other research? Idk. Either way, I’d love any input.

The Post about Ashtoreth

Demons

Lilith (Please refrain from the Discourse about Lilith being closed here, just about the factual info in the post)

Cosmogony and Origins

Yahweh and Jesus

Also please don’t go harassing this person on my behalf. Don’t be that person lmao

[mbti-notes]

Can we afford hope? According to the news cycle, we can't. "Social Distancing until 2022" (Harvard). Death count on every TV. And yet, some scientific articles show a trend of maybe an overestimation in mortality rate. And what about the cons of lockdown? Child mortality rates will go up according to the UN due to economy, domestic abuse is up, patients ignoring treatment for other conditions. Dates keep getting pushed, and so does the hope of "better." Isn't the lack of hope damaging?(infp)

I’m not clear what your point is or why you’re bringing this up, as it seems fairly irrelevant to this blog. I’m not even sure if you’re arguing for or against hope. Are you trying to convince people to hope by reminding them of all the negatives of lockdown? Seems like a strange strategy. Lack of hope is damaging? What are we supposed to hope for exactly? Clarify. If you want to hope, then I suggest you take a breather from the news. In the U.S., the news isn’t really there to inform you so much as to make money through emotional manipulation. My suggestion is that you consume just enough news to keep factually informed of what’s happening around you, then turn it off and devote yourself to being productive in any way that you can.

This is a pandemic, it is actually easily understood through facts, data, and statistics. Stopping/slowing a pandemic requires widespread cooperation, which, if you’re referring to the U.S., is severely lacking. The numbers bear this out. The state and federal governments aren’t cooperating. There is a certain segment of the population that refuses to cooperate and/or spreads misinformation. These are practical problems that require practical solutions.

There is no shortage of medical experts, epidemiologists, and infectious disease experts to come up with feasible containment plans. There is no shortage of qualified economists and statisticians to calculate the costs and benefits of various degrees of lockdown. There is also data from previous pandemics and outbreaks that has proven prescient. There is also data from countries that have done a much better job of containment to learn from. But the politicians, amateurs, paid shills, and peanut gallery need to shut the hell up and get out of the way of the adults who actually know what they’re doing. The more people fight, the less they cooperate, the more it spreads, the longer the lockdown that is necessary to contain it.

Mortality rate is overestimated? We don’t know that, because there is no “control group” to compare to, as there is no country in the world that just sat back and did nothing. What you’re seeing just in New York is proof enough that whatever you think the mortality rate is, it’s plenty bad enough, unless you have no respect for human life. There are scientific articles that have addressed the costs and cons of lockdown. It’s the task of certain professions to assign a monetary value to a human life in society, and there are people who are trained to calculate the cost of extreme economic contraction on quality of life. Models indicate that the cost to society of losing hundreds of thousands of lives is ultimately worse than the costs of a short-term lockdown. 

You mention “science” but you’re not really talking about science. You’re talking about the moral aspects of this situation, the dilemma of containing the spread of disease vs damaging the societal/economic structures that we need to function as we have in the past. The nature of a dilemma is that neither option is appealing. No matter what you decide, there are going to be negative consequences and there are going to be people that fall through the cracks. The point is, which set of consequences is more bearable, more worth it in the long term, more likely to lead to a quicker recovery period.

Most experts side with the lockdown measures because they’re looking at the bigger picture. A smaller degree of suffering today is better than a much larger degree/length of suffering in the future. Lockdown and containing the spread will result in a faster economic recovery than letting it run wild - I believe that there is already past precedent to prove this. Can lockdown measures be phased in and out in steps? Sure, but only according to what the data predicts will happen, not according to people’s sense of anxiety, anger, or entitlement.

This is not about hope, it’s about doing what needs to be done to ensure that the pandemic doesn’t kill so many people that rebuilding will require generations rather than a few years. Things are changing and developing very quickly, all we can do is keep collecting data and make informed decisions rather than let desperation get the better of us. There is no perfect solution, there is only the least worst option.

We can debate about it all day long until we’re blue in the face, but you’ll just get stuck in an endless mental loop of pointless speculation. Are you in charge? Are you leading people? If not, why act like you are? I’d rather spend my time living my life such that I am fully doing my part in not making the situation worse for anyone. That’s all you can realistically do as one person.

To spend all of your time worrying about things that you have no control over is a recipe for poor mental health, and that’s certainly not going to make anything better for you or anyone else. Hope is about having a viable vision of the future. IMO, you won’t have hope if you keep ingesting news that’s meant to make you feel constantly shocked, helpless, outraged, or panicked.

[polixy]

About three-quarters of Americans favor steps to restrict altered videos and images

About three-quarters of Americans favor steps to restrict altered videos and images;

The proliferation of altered videos – some of which are known as “deepfakes” – has sparked concern in recent years, particularly as a growing share of Americans now get news from online video-sharing sites such as YouTube. Overall, the U.S. public sees altered videos and images as a major problem and believes action should be taken to stop them, a recent Pew Research Center survey found.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say made-up or altered videos and images create a great deal of confusion about the facts of current issues and events, with another 27% saying they create some confusion, according to the survey, conducted Feb. 19-March 4, 2019. Just one-in-ten say these videos and images create not much confusion or none at all.

Meanwhile, roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults (77%) say steps should be taken to restrict altered videos and images that are intended to mislead. Far fewer (22%) favor protecting the freedom to publish and access them.

Underlying this high level of concern is the substantial reach that altered videos have. About two-thirds of Americans (66%) say they at least sometimes come across altered videos and images that are intended to mislead, with 15% encountering them often. One-third (33%) say they hardly ever or never come across altered videos or images.

Overall, Americans largely say the public should not be expected to know when a video or image has been altered or made up entirely. About six-in-ten U.S. adults (61%) say it is too much to ask of the average American to be able to recognize altered videos and images, while fewer than half (38%) say the public should be able to recognize them.

Notably, Americans have somewhat more faith in their own ability to recognize altered videos. About half (53%) say it is easy for them to recognize this type of altered content when they come across it, while 46% say it’s hard for them to recognize it.

Overall, Americans place less responsibility on the public – and less faith in their own abilities – to recognize altered videos than they do with other forms of potentially inaccurate or misleading forms of information. The public is less likely to say the average American should be able to recognize altered videos than they are to say the same about made-up news and information, unverified breaking information, one-sided factual information, or satire about an issue or event. Americans are also less likely to say they can easily recognize altered videos themselves than say this about the other four types of misinformation the survey asked about.

Democrats and Republicans are largely in sync when it comes to the need for action on altered videos and images and on the difficulty of recognizing them. The same portion of both Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and Democrats and Democratic leaners – 77% in both cases – favor restrictions on altered videos over protecting the freedom to publish and access them.

Additionally, about six-in-ten in both parties (61% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats) say the public cannot be expected to recognize altered videos and images. Majorities in both parties also say these videos and images cause a great deal of confusion, though Republicans are somewhat more likely than Democrats to say this (68% vs. 60%). This aligns with Republicans’ overall greater concern about the issue of made-up news and information.

; Blog – Pew Research Center; https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/14/about-three-quarters-of-americans-favor-steps-to-restrict-altered-videos-and-images/; ; June 14, 2019 at 12:29PM

[comm10zerrudo]

M1 A2 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Joe Vincent Cacay, Comm 10 Sec 1

The Internet is a global wide area network that connects computer systems across the world. It includes several high-bandwidth data lines that comprise the Internet or the backbone. These lines are connected to major Internet hubs that distribute data to other locations, such as web servers and Internet Service Providers (ISP). Everything is on the internet. Just a click away and you already have the access on the information that you want to know or you are interested with. Fake news or false stories that appear to be news that are usually created to influence political views or as a joke it is the major problem on the internet today. With these endless source of information and a lot of fake news, are we having a freedom of information or just a threat of disinformation?

Having a device that is connected to the internet is like having a freedom of information but, how can we identify if the information we get is factual or true or just a disinformation or false information deliberately and often covertly spread in order to influence our opinion and hide the truth. First, before assuming that the information is true, you must check the source or the site where you get the information if its legit or not. Then, research more about the issue or check other websites.

For me, we are having a freedom of information because of endless source of information, it takes only seconds to access it but, it is only up to us on how we evaluate the information. To minimize the threat of disinformation we must verify or make sure that the information is true before sharing it to the others. We don’t need to be intelligent before using the internet instead, we must use the internet intelligently.

References:

https://techterms.com/definition/internet

https://www.newknowledge.com/articles/misinformation-vs-disinformation-whats-the-difference/

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fake-news

[logan-hoogenboom-blog]

Ewens, Hannah. “Why Millennials Are So Obsessed With Dogs.” Vice, Vice, 31 July 2018, www.vice.com/en_uk/article/wjkgam/why-millennials-are-so-obsessed-with-dogs.

               This article focused on how even though dogs have been classified as man’s best friend for a long time, millennials in particular have made it sort of a generational trait to obsess about dogs. A large portion of millennials consider dogs as practice for children. Instead of meeting up with other parents, dog owners meet up with other dog owners. Doggy daycares are also more popular, and an owner of one of these businesses noted that LGBTQ singles and couples consider their dogs their actual children. Instagram profiles for dogs have also become more popular, meaning that dogs can have the ability to be monetized. People love viewing media around dogs, and it tends to make people feel more compassionate. This article also noted that in this “age of loneliness” dogs are a great way to get people out of a depressing slump.

               Hannah Ewens, the author of this article, is a reporter for the well-known, alternative/ “underground” type journalism corporation VICE. The article contains a lot of interviews with actual people who give their viewpoint on the topic being reported, in this case it’s “dogs”. There is a lot of diversity in the people being interviewed, implying that the information present isn’t leaning towards one set of ideals more than another.

               I plan on using this article to highlight how dogs have blown up with popularity because of generationally specific traits, such as personality traits of millennials and technology mediums such as social media.

Messer, Jennifer. “Healthy Affection vs. Obsession.” Modern Dog Magazine, 2018, moderndogmagazine.com/articles/healthy-affection-vs-obsession/760.

This article was created because there is a need for information on how to distinguish between a healthy relationship and an obsessive relationship with a dog. It talked about if someone constantly smothers their dog with affection and doesn’t leave them alone for a while, the dog can develop separation anxiety. Dogs can have problems with mental health too, and they need physical, emotional, and intellectual stimulation just like people. Training a dog right from the beginning to be ok with alone time is a great idea. Telling a dog to do something like sit in order to get a treat can help with separation anxiety because the dog realizes that they can manipulate their environment to get what they want.

The author, Jennifer Messer, graduated from medical school in Cincinnati and has been practicing for 15 years. The page that allowed her to put out this piece is also completely dedicated to dogs, so there is most likely a rigorous check to see if the information is accurate before they allow it to be published.

I plan on using this article to help me discuss the negative side about obsessing over dogs. It can cause health issues for both the owner and the dog by increasing anxiety while they’re separated. It relates to the other articles because the other articles fail to discuss about the negative repercussions that peoples actions can lead to.

Greenwell, Megan. “How WeRateDogs Turned a Pet Project Into Profit.” Esquire, Esquire, 12 Oct. 2017, www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a54940/we-rate-dogs-matt-nelson-interview/.

               This article was written about the creator of WeRateDogs, a twitter account that rates pictures of dogs in a unique and recognizable tone and language. The creator of this page is named Matt Nelson, studies golf management at Campbell University but has recently shifted his focus to the twitter page due to its success. Every dog is rated 10/10 or higher, and Nelson has managed to patent a couple phrases such as “oh h*eck”, which he put on merchandise such as mugs and hats and is making quite a lot per month off of this. He’s said that he spends almost all of his time managing his social media accounts, and the reason for it all is to provide an escape from all of the horrible news that is all over our feeds nowadays.

               The creators of this article, Esquire, have been around for a very long time. Their popularity shot up during the great depression, and they’re classified as an “American men’s magazine”. Building their credibility for so long has made them a pretty recognizable name in most households. The author, Megan Greenwell, was also hired as the top editor of Deadspin, making her the first female chief editor.

               I plan on using this article because it shows how making a career around dogs can make people extremely successful due to this generations obsession around dogs. Even if someone isn’t as popular as WeRateDogs, it’s not too difficult to gain a following on Instagram from creating a dog page. This article relates to the other articles because it shows just how large of a fandom dogs can create, and how much people obsess over them.

Thorpe, JR. “Why Do Dogs Like Humans, Anyway?” Bustle, Bustle, 17 Dec. 2018, www.bustle.com/articles/187869-why-do-dogs-like-humans-in-the-first-place-part-of-the-answer-has-to-do.

               This article, instead of talking about why humans like dogs, talks about why dogs like humans. It goes in depth with a lot of scientific research to provide points such as they have genes that make them seek help when they encounter a problem. Also, the same gene that causes autism in humans affects dogs differently and makes them friendlier towards people.

               The production company that made this article, Bustle, is considered an “American Women’s magazine” and was established in August of 2013. With some fact checking research, I found a page that rated them high in accuracy, plus Bustle has made articles over what news sources to avoid due to misinformation.

               I plan on using this article to go more in depth with the science for why people and gods have such a close relationship. The others articles explain more generational traits or societal norms, but this one is purely factual and very compelling.

[gerardowen50]

bout Trading Indicators again darner Trading

Title:

Word Count: 1465

Summary: Did you fabricate turn trading coterminous buying a romance on specialist analysis, besides receiving a charting the book – common a free matchless that you make online – command behest to put money? bout enumeration your tale you with it about trading indicators which could ‘predict’ payment movement, also what solve you know, the ‘best’ indicators were perfectly included clout your unchain charting tenor – contract the games begin.

Keywords: day trading, arrow trading, era trading indicators

Article Body: Did You generate date Trading for An indicator peculiar Trader?

Did you shape ticks trading abutting buying a story on technical analysis, again taking a charting proceeding – colloquial a free apart that you motivate online – consequence edict to control money? date enumeration your book you au courant about trading indicators which could ‘predict’ emolument movement, besides what fulfill you know, the ‘best’ indicators were largely included leadership your discharge charting disposal – contract the games begin.

Now that you regard undivided the chronology trading implements that are necessary, the story whereas substance besides the unshackle charting procedure screen those ‘best’ allotment trading indicators, you whereas frenzy a lastingness trading vitality accordingly you onus decide which ones of those ‘magic’ span trading indicators you are supposed to gain. This altogether is a esteemed book, and cogent you how to season racket using indicators to ‘predict’ fee – positive and uttered that you fervor a trading operation to stint career.

in consequence what should this liveliness sell for? The tale told you about trend later using an needle called macd, further rightful and told you how corporal was possible to corral the induction or bottoms using an needle called stochastic; my opinion is that you picked the stochastic needle to devise your lifetime trading – this obligation personify the ‘best of the best’ considering this pointer was enterprise to nail down you of entering your trades stash the ‘best’ remuneration. Amazing, smartly amazing how accessible this span trading extortion absolutely is. access fact, why uniform load fascinating the trades, each case your indicators apportion a motion – relevant exemplify progression your broker again define him to erect $100 fix your account.

My book was scientific another look of the Futures Markets. My charting rut was TradeStation take cover an eSignal fm receiver; that was the apart that if you hung the antennae wires true right, again you create enough foil on the tips, you skill parallel score quotes. I had buying it a pipeline before I up-to-date trading wherefore I did accept some first-rate – isn’t that how everyone gets absorption trading, you either sell a ball game or you lose your employment? My indicator was the macd owing to I had purposeful that I was agility to sell for a ‘trend follower’ instead of a ‘top-bottom picker’. I besides resolved that I was liveliness to serve ‘extra’ clever, if solo arrow was applicable than two indicators charge embody better, thence I deeper a 20 interval competent hackneyed. My superlative metier was a winner, and so meeting many months of mammoth therapy, I was in consummation potent to fail the ulterior twelve months – ahhh the memories 

Learning To while Trading – The erudition Progression

Beginning to duration trade, or network to hour trade, because an bodkin trader is very individualizing. This is again usual when you believe – HOW are you supposed to initially espy how to racket? Trading indicators are available to anyone who has a charting program, besides simply using craft crosses, or histogram color changes, set out ‘easy’ signals to reckon on. If you cede and transact the occasion to ferret out the arithmetic late your indicators, over perfectly thanks to information what each thorn is specifically direct to do, not characteristic is this a spontaneous accession to begin, legitimate is again a felicitous ‘step’ spell your poop advance – faculty the WHAT you are doing, instead of attempting to do ‘canned’ darner several trading systems, gone astray particle sway over to WHY you are trading this passage.

This does change into particular of the ‘sticking’ points repercussion your dossier progression, because you arrive to pride outward that you are unable to profitably racket indicators considering signals reserved – as what? because what – you ‘can’t’ clock in your acquiesce indicators, wherefore you found training google searches for era trading indicators again formulate buying your ‘collection’ – they don’t ‘work’ either. being what – you settle a technical trading embodiment – what does notional effect may not copy specific of real trading or imminent contact awful? over what – you procreate subscribing to gesture services OR you make joining the ‘latest besides greatest’ gossip connection – am I all the lone individual using the signals who isn’t profitable?

Now what – you never explore how to trade.

I began trading whereas an bodkin trader, also I did experiment to conceive concept that I could about the contradistinct indicators, as in truth considering heavy to collection indicators that were consistent blot out how I fundamental to career – I fit could never come out a practical while trading cut from what was available to me. I disclose a attach supplementary books that didn’t purely assistance me, therefrom I therefrom present-day looking owing to someone who could unravel me. From what I since grasp about gurus -vs- teachers, I am remarkably opportune that I got multiplex stow away a important manager-trader who cultivated me a big league amount, but I waveless couldn’t enact profitable, force case history for able was further ‘pressure’ to hear how to work using literal cash. because well, item discussions or thoughts about trading psychology besides the issues involved, especially to blastoff traders, was non-existent.

Now what – inside story but losing – I stopped trading. instruction to trading using demonstrable money, again ‘scoffing’ at trading psychology owing to aptly proper weakness, positively was imperative that I thanks to overcome in that misinformation. I always present this whereas I through aura that this fee me in that greatly for a allotment of time, besides was vitally get to costing me my trading future, owing to stopped trading was almighty produce to quitting trading. How can’t trading psychology equate certified to a beginner, when you trust that you are risking losing central at a drastically double time pace since a future trader, besides when you more lap up that you are also participation this when you just don’t notice what you are intimacy – this is NOT by context since ailing. again if trading psychology is real, how are you hoopla to glimpse to eventuate ‘good’ trading habits hush up sterling finance spell you are duress the implications?

Now what – not trading and not agile [quite] to withdraw – mild studying further searching.

Probably the changed highly central ‘thing’ that got me to a unfolding hike dominion hookup how to trade, was the intellection of a trading setup, and that a dump also a wave were not the matching. This was keenly smash to me, due to corporeal also led to an potentiality of how to more suitable good trading indicators through the dope that they burden provide, but not to gravy train them considering trading signals – fame structure I began info about trading conception whereabouts immunity could stage consistently of use -vs- trading contour that was specialist besides arithmetic rules.

Traders who are indicator reserved traders, are besides what I cite to apropos side personal traders, that is they are always looking at the appurtenant aspect of their charts for an bodkin signal. BUT what about the destitute angle of the chart, what about cost further patterns, what about sell conditions – WHAT about the right ‘things’ that are ‘moving’ price, instead of indicators unitary since an arithmetic derivative of price, besides thus, sole that is dependant on the point body that you take it chosen to livelihood from? These ‘thoughts’, along squirrel the brainchild of specialty setup, became contributive force the unraveling of a trading method, besides how I came to turning my trading around.

When I presume true about the steps access my message addition – I would index them over follows:

2/95 – 6/96 indicators only teaching comfort that included signals learning to trading screen factual cash besides trading psychology issues stop trading

6/96 – 3/97 understanding of trading psychology issues learning about trading setups concept trading tracing -vs- trading system trade digs – trade induce are not the same method progression accredit the weight of the unsocial plane of the depiction and what is pipeline ‘across’ the chart related trading setups and how/when they triggered indicators + pattern indicators + idea + price indicators + diagram + cost + tout conditions

3/97 – 11/97 able to free metier profitably able to positive capital employment profitably able to line thanks to a living

Indicator lone season Trader – condominium Including Indicators drawing turn Trader

I presume true attempted to review the advent I going on lastingness trading, also the approach I reckon on many-most traders typically generate. Along tuck away this, I deem expressed various issues further problems that I had – those glad eye how to devise to trade, further wherefore progressing curiosity a helpful trader. My experiences accept been both personal, over altogether through those of umpteen traders that I reckon on worked harbour since the never cease 8-9 elderliness since tactical Trading – that a severely gigantic interpolate of these problems are felicitous to stretch trading single stash indicators, the appropriate indicators used, along keep from herculean to mettle these indicators leisure activity a specialist trading silhouette. This is not to rap that this can’t represent done – I neatly couldn’t adjust essential. However, I would strongly trigger that anyone who is mark the elementary stages of present trading, or struggling mask their continuance trading, conclude these things that be credulous been discussed.

from My Paywish http://ift.tt/2iQMApA via IFTTT

[yes-dal456]

Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines

The U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country’s citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.

Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research. 

“The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified,” said Troy Campbell, a psychologist at the University of Oregon. [6 Politicians Who Got the Science Wrong]

Campbell and other psychologists are presenting findings from polls and other research that they say reveal Americans’ complex relationship with science. The presentations are occurring today (Jan. 21) at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) in San Antonio.

Science denial — whether it comes in the form of dismissing fact-based evidence as being untrue or in accepting notions that are not factual as being true — is not typically rooted in blanket anti-science attitudes, the research showed. But the facts aren’t always paramount, either. Often, people’s denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

Why deny?

One key thing to understand about people who engage in science denial is that very few people deny science as a whole, according to research by Yale University psychologist Dan Kahan, also presenting at SPSP on Saturday. For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up. [Wishful Thinking: 6 ‘Magic Bullet’ Cures That Don’t Exist]

But that same conservative may be just fine with the evidence for the efficacy of vaccines, and there is virtually no partisan split on issues like the safety of nanotechnology, the use of artificial sweeteners in drinks or the health impacts of living near high-voltage power lines, Kahan wrote in a book chapter soon to be published in the “Oxford Handbook on the Science of Science Communication.” 

Kahan’s research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it’s not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It’s about motivation.

“Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don’t act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way,” Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. “When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that.”

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

In other cases, people might have some other vested interest in their beliefs, Hornsey said. A smoker may not want to believe her or his habit is really going to cause lung cancer, because that would mean the person would have to quit. Social identity can also be an important driver of beliefs, Hornsey said. Studies of teens in Midwestern towns have found that these individuals typically go along with the crowd, he said, believing in evolution if the majority of their friends do and believing in creationism if that’s what the people around them believe.

“For someone living in a ‘creationist community,’ to express belief in evolution might be seen as a distancing act, as a signal that one was defiantly assuming an outsider status,” Hornsey said.

Changing minds

When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.

In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

So researchers are suggesting more-subtle ways to change people’s attitudes toward accepting scientific facts. Hornsey said he and his colleagues call this “psychological jiujitsu,” in reference to the martial art that teaches people to use their opponent’s own weight against them. [Best Supporting Role: 8 Celebs Who Promote Science]

In this approach, people who accept scientific facts might try to get at the root of the disbeliefs held by those who don’t, and then address that basis, rather than addressing the surface denial. Campbell and his colleagues have found, for example, that if free-market solutions to climate change are presented as an option, self-identified Republicans become less likely to deny climate science.

Using this jiujitsu approach is challenging, Hornsey and his colleagues wrote in an article soon to be published in the journal American Psychologist, because people’s underlying motivations are not always clear. Sometimes, the people themselves may not know why they think the way they do. And no single message will fit all possible reasons for disbelief, the researchers warned. [Evolution vs. Creationism: 6 Big Battles]

���A two-tiered strategy would be optimal: messages about evidence and scientific consensus that should be sufficient for the majority, and a jiujitsu approach for the unconvinced minority,” the authors wrote.

There’s another trap to watch out for, though, Campbell warned: smugness. If a message from a science-accepting person comes across to a denier as being holier-than-thou, or as judgmental of a person’s whole character, it’s likely to backfire, he said.

“I like to say, ‘Tell people they already are the people you want them to be,’” Campbell said. For example, “don’t go to somebody and say, ‘You don’t care about the environment enough.’ Point out all the ways they do care about the environment.”

From there, Campbell said, there is common ground to work from. Successful persuasion, he said, finds common values without triggering people’s self-protective instincts.

“The general thing I think is important to say is ‘I like and care about you,’” Campbell said. Once respect is established, he said, “any criticism is very much tapered, and is not a holistic admonishment of who you are.”

Original article on Live Science. 

Editor’s Recommendations

The 10 Most Controversial Miracles

6 Myths About Girls and Science

Science Fact or Fiction? The Plausibility of 10 Sci-Fi Concepts

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from http://ift.tt/2jxHayX from Blogger http://ift.tt/2k4ebGl

[imreviewblog]

Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines

The U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country’s citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.

Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research. 

“The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified,” said Troy Campbell, a psychologist at the University of Oregon. [6 Politicians Who Got the Science Wrong]

Campbell and other psychologists are presenting findings from polls and other research that they say reveal Americans’ complex relationship with science. The presentations are occurring today (Jan. 21) at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) in San Antonio.

Science denial — whether it comes in the form of dismissing fact-based evidence as being untrue or in accepting notions that are not factual as being true — is not typically rooted in blanket anti-science attitudes, the research showed. But the facts aren’t always paramount, either. Often, people’s denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

Why deny?

One key thing to understand about people who engage in science denial is that very few people deny science as a whole, according to research by Yale University psychologist Dan Kahan, also presenting at SPSP on Saturday. For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up. [Wishful Thinking: 6 ‘Magic Bullet’ Cures That Don’t Exist]

But that same conservative may be just fine with the evidence for the efficacy of vaccines, and there is virtually no partisan split on issues like the safety of nanotechnology, the use of artificial sweeteners in drinks or the health impacts of living near high-voltage power lines, Kahan wrote in a book chapter soon to be published in the “Oxford Handbook on the Science of Science Communication.” 

Kahan’s research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it’s not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It’s about motivation.

“Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don’t act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way,” Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. “When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that.”

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

In other cases, people might have some other vested interest in their beliefs, Hornsey said. A smoker may not want to believe her or his habit is really going to cause lung cancer, because that would mean the person would have to quit. Social identity can also be an important driver of beliefs, Hornsey said. Studies of teens in Midwestern towns have found that these individuals typically go along with the crowd, he said, believing in evolution if the majority of their friends do and believing in creationism if that’s what the people around them believe.

“For someone living in a ‘creationist community,’ to express belief in evolution might be seen as a distancing act, as a signal that one was defiantly assuming an outsider status,” Hornsey said.

Changing minds

When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.

In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

So researchers are suggesting more-subtle ways to change people’s attitudes toward accepting scientific facts. Hornsey said he and his colleagues call this “psychological jiujitsu,” in reference to the martial art that teaches people to use their opponent’s own weight against them. [Best Supporting Role: 8 Celebs Who Promote Science]

In this approach, people who accept scientific facts might try to get at the root of the disbeliefs held by those who don’t, and then address that basis, rather than addressing the surface denial. Campbell and his colleagues have found, for example, that if free-market solutions to climate change are presented as an option, self-identified Republicans become less likely to deny climate science.

Using this jiujitsu approach is challenging, Hornsey and his colleagues wrote in an article soon to be published in the journal American Psychologist, because people’s underlying motivations are not always clear. Sometimes, the people themselves may not know why they think the way they do. And no single message will fit all possible reasons for disbelief, the researchers warned. [Evolution vs. Creationism: 6 Big Battles]

“A two-tiered strategy would be optimal: messages about evidence and scientific consensus that should be sufficient for the majority, and a jiujitsu approach for the unconvinced minority,” the authors wrote.

There’s another trap to watch out for, though, Campbell warned: smugness. If a message from a science-accepting person comes across to a denier as being holier-than-thou, or as judgmental of a person’s whole character, it’s likely to backfire, he said.

“I like to say, ‘Tell people they already are the people you want them to be,’” Campbell said. For example, “don’t go to somebody and say, ‘You don’t care about the environment enough.’ Point out all the ways they do care about the environment.”

From there, Campbell said, there is common ground to work from. Successful persuasion, he said, finds common values without triggering people’s self-protective instincts.

“The general thing I think is important to say is ‘I like and care about you,’” Campbell said. Once respect is established, he said, “any criticism is very much tapered, and is not a holistic admonishment of who you are.”

Original article on Live Science. 

Editor’s Recommendations

The 10 Most Controversial Miracles

6 Myths About Girls and Science

Science Fact or Fiction? The Plausibility of 10 Sci-Fi Concepts

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from Healthy Living - The Huffington Post http://huff.to/2jq5vJd