SnooPuppers1978

SnooPuppers1978 t1_jdarj58 wrote

Reply to New research finds when small talk becomes awkward, we are more likely to blame ourselves by chrisdh79

> The research may have been limited by the self-report method for data collection.

Makes me wonder if people good at small talk were doing small talk and people poor at small talk or with social anxiety were doing the self reporting?

So they could be accurately "blaming" themselves, if they see that they are the common factor why the small talk frequently seems to fail and others handle it with ease.

It's one of those things that the more you try to improve at it, the more you worry and the more it can hinder your performance - instead of making the most out of the present moment, which people naturally good at it would do.

In the end it's also a matter of mindset whether you find something awkward, or how much you care about it in the first place.

3

SnooPuppers1978 t1_jcvucab wrote

Reply to comment by uberneoconcert in A Swedish study found elite male soccer players are 1.5 times more likely to develop neurodegenerative disease compared to population controls. A previous study from Scotland suggested that soccer players were 3.5 times more likely to develop neurodegenerative disease. by Wagamaga

> I was a D1 scholarship athlete and there was no way I was telling anyone when I got a concussion in high school after they made it clear what the risks were, including field removal.

For clarification, I don't know anything about US and American Football, you did not tell because it would have hindered your career or you made a typo here and you meant you would definitely because of the health risks?

When did your neuro issues first appear and how?

1

SnooPuppers1978 t1_jcvq6aa wrote

Reply to comment by Ok_Analysis_4955 in A Swedish study found elite male soccer players are 1.5 times more likely to develop neurodegenerative disease compared to population controls. A previous study from Scotland suggested that soccer players were 3.5 times more likely to develop neurodegenerative disease. by Wagamaga

What a depressing thing to know. I play soccer, and I love playing it, I don't practice heading, but I just play as hobby and sure in some cases I have to head the ball. It always felt nasty, but I thought surely it's safe or otherwise soccer wouldn't be as popular sport as it is.

Now I'm not sure if I should quit or simply never head the ball... I always look forward to playing and can't wait to play.

Maybe at least in training I will stop heading any faster moving balls. From now on though whenever I head the ball I'm left wondering how many IQ points did I exactly lose this time. Was it 0.01 or 0.001? 100 or 1000 headings would yield in drop of 1 IQ point.

I would like to see a study where it compares IQs (and other mental performance test results) at certain age for soccer players and IQ for same players in 10 years or different various time periods. For all pro, amateur, sunday league.

2

SnooPuppers1978 t1_jb1xvlv wrote

Reply to comment by SerialStateLineXer in On Facebook, Visual Misinfo Widespread. In the runup to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election visual misinformation was widespread across the platform, and that it was highly asymmetric across party lines, with right-leaning images five to eight times more likely to be misleading. by Wagamaga

Yes, this question definitely needs to specify that on the whole population level over large numbers.

1

SnooPuppers1978 t1_jb1vsy3 wrote

Reply to comment by mindfu in On Facebook, Visual Misinfo Widespread. In the runup to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election visual misinformation was widespread across the platform, and that it was highly asymmetric across party lines, with right-leaning images five to eight times more likely to be misleading. by Wagamaga

I do see issues with most social studies to be fair, and it often would feel like there must have been baked in bias affecting those.

Even with more concrete sciences there is a lot of possibility for cherry picking, and many other flaws stemming from biases. You could keep pre emptively checking for potential datasets that might be most likely to agree with your bias.

But again I personally, intuitively, based on what I have seen, would also guess that right side does a lot more misinformation, but then there is also a question of how much more and how much of that is coming due to bias from the study authors.

Because there is a certain point of interpretation where you draw the line and this could affect the results a lot. Where is the line drawn for any topics from either side to give benefit of the doubt.

And politics being such a subject worst in terms of biases.

I would like to see concrete random sample of how they classified the content, that would be interesting, but seems behind a paywall.

1

SnooPuppers1978 t1_jb0215s wrote

Reply to comment by mindfu in On Facebook, Visual Misinfo Widespread. In the runup to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election visual misinformation was widespread across the platform, and that it was highly asymmetric across party lines, with right-leaning images five to eight times more likely to be misleading. by Wagamaga

> For example, anything implying vaccines don't work

Even this statement can be understood in multitude of different ways. What does "not work" even mean? Did the vaccines work in creating herd immunity? No. Did vaccines work in terms of reducing deaths and hospitalisations? Yes.

> Fauci tried engineering covid with Bill Gates

Can also be interpreted/understood in multitude of different ways.

So interpreter can choose to interpret those in any biased way to that interpreter. For example they can choose on the first statement to mean, that this statement implies that vaccine have had absolutely no positive effect at all which makes the statement false, while bias in other direction could interpret it that vaccines didn't do what was initially publicly advertised or promised which makes the statement true for them if they consider public advertising claiming that you wouldn't get infected.

Like you could go into this thought pattern of, "these crazies certainly mean that not work means that vaccines don't have absolutely any positive effect, non biased person can see that, so surely that's the correct way to interpret it. This statement makes them not get the vaccine so I'm definitely in the right in determining this statement to be misinformation", but it doesn't seem wholly scientific to me. Fact is pandemic still proceeded even after vaccine rollout, so in some sense they did work, but did they work enough? Does saying "not work" mean "not work to end the pandemic or not work at all"?

And you are saying "implying not work", which would be even more unclear, than a clear statement of saying "they don't work". Implying not to work, could be someone just claiming they got infected even though they took the vaccine and being frustrated about it.

If you determine that any message that would get people to vaccinate, is "true information" and anything that might make them avoid getting to do that is "misinformation", it might be more obvious. But is that what you are looking for? Because certainly you can say truths either way and definitely lie in any direction.

On the "not work" topic, you take this fact check as an example:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-gates-idUSL1N2S7292

So you can see that all sides are cherry picking/biased here.

Reuters title said that the original statement is "Fact Check-Bill Gates did not say COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective"

  1. Where did anyone claim "Bill Gates said COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective". Maybe somewhere someone did, but in the examples, I'm seeing "not working well" which is clearly a subjective statement.
  2. Next ineffective in terms of what? Ineffective in terms of blocking transmission? Bill Gates did strongly imply that.
  3. etc, etc, etc. So all sides have at least some amount of bias here, either in how they interpret the claims, how they fill in the blanks, etc.
2

SnooPuppers1978 t1_jawy76z wrote

Reply to comment by fractiousrhubarb in On Facebook, Visual Misinfo Widespread. In the runup to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election visual misinformation was widespread across the platform, and that it was highly asymmetric across party lines, with right-leaning images five to eight times more likely to be misleading. by Wagamaga

You have to consider sarcasm, context, multiple interpretations, metaphoric meanings and in the end you would interpret any statement depending on your bias even before testing it against the "actual reality" of which rarely is black and white and easy to determine or validate.

10

SnooPuppers1978 t1_javnhk1 wrote

Reply to On Facebook, Visual Misinfo Widespread. In the runup to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election visual misinformation was widespread across the platform, and that it was highly asymmetric across party lines, with right-leaning images five to eight times more likely to be misleading. by Wagamaga

While I would intuitively agree with the results, I still wonder how it could be possible to do a study like this in an unbiased manner?

2

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9ncx0u wrote

Reply to comment by odinlubumeta in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123

YouTube for example wouldn't be what it is now. It would affect the whole ecosystem of different things, people livelihoods, because so much depends on those things. Content creators for discovery etc. You wouldn't be able to have personalised experience in YouTube or anywhere with third party content. And Reddit for that matter.

I for one want to have personalised content.

I hate the times of curated content like TV was or otherwise. I want to view content on demand, created by anyone and what is relevant to me.

But pretty sure it is going to be ruled in Google's favour anyway because of the sheer impracticality.

1

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j8cztkx wrote

Reply to comment by Sminada in Study links Covid-19 vaccination hesitancy in Africa to the use of media platforms that spread misinformation. The spread of the Covid-19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa was accompanied by unprecedented and recurring waves of misinformation and disinformation. by Wagamaga

What were excess deaths in Tanzania and other African countries compared to US/Europe and others?

You can hide causes of deaths, but hiding excess deaths if you keep track of them would be extremely difficult.

6

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j7wcsk5 wrote

Reply to Can't we just control the development of AI? by [deleted]

I think one obstacle is that in theory anyone can build AI in secrecy and especially different World Powers. It is kind of like race for nuclear. Each country must race for having the best AI and AGI first because otherwise they will lose to other countries, like West losing to China or Russia. So AGI could be unleashed from one single country and take over the World that way.

2