Defense against the dark free speech arts update

Jargon Alert! 

DADA: defense against dark free speech arts

Much or maybe most of the American public is ignorant and unprepared to deal with the onslaught of powerful, modern radical right authoritarian DFS (dark free speech). Toxic social media is a significant factor in fomenting unwarranted distrust, lies, slander and truly deranged crackpottery. Solid evidence of social ignorance and mental weakness is the stunning degree of public support for DJT, the GOP and the tactics of MAGA. The authoritarian onslaught is based mostly on bigotry, lies irrationality and other DFS-fomented emotions and false beliefs. Despite MAGA’s obvious appeal based on deceit and irrationality, tens of millions of adult Americans cannot see what is clearly in front of them. Those mostly defenseless minds have fallen to the power of DFS.

My limited knowledge of the state of DAGA science and public education leads me to believe that the forces engaged in DAGA is fragmented, weak and mostly ineffective. Teaching of the cognitive and social sciences for mental defense is dismal in public education. The MSM is mostly in failure mode when it comes to dealing with the threat. Academics aware of the problem are few and their influence in educating the public is miniscule. 

An incremental no-brainer bit of new research exemplifies the crappy, primitive state of American DADA:

To make children better fact-checkers, expose them to 

more misinformation — with oversight

“We need to give children experience flexing these skepticism muscles and using these critical thinking skills within this online context,” a UC Berkeley psychology researcher said.

In an era when online misinformation is seemingly everywhere and objective facts are often in dispute, UC Berkeley psychologists in a new study have presented a somewhat paradoxical partial solution: Expose young children to more misinformation online — not less.

Doing so in limited circumstances, and with careful oversight and education, can help children gain the tools they’ll need to sort fact from fiction online, said Evan Orticio, a Ph.D. student in UC Berkeley’s Department of Psychology and lead author of a paper published today (Thursday, Oct. 10) in the journal Nature Human Behavior.

Orticio argues that, given children’s natural skepticism and early exposure to the internet’s boundless misinformation, it is crucial for adults to teach them practical fact-checking skills. Instead of attempting to completely sanitize their online environment, he said adults should focus on equipping children with tools to critically assess the information they encounter.

Zorpy eyeballs fact check exercise

“Children can adapt their level of skepticism according to the quality of information they’ve seen before in a digital context,” Orticio said. “They can leverage their expectations of how this digital environment works to make reasonable adjustments to how much they trust or distrust information at face value — even if they know next to nothing about the content itself.”

Think about that. People in power bumble and fumble with the impossible task of sanitizing what children see online. That basically deprives them of any chance to learn to self-defend against DFS. Unfortunately, this study was based on a small sample size (N = 122) of 4–7-year-old children exposed to falsity. At most, this is just another hint at doing what has been obvious to me for years, a major, multi-year effort in mandatory public education in DADA.

An analogy is in the hygiene hypothesis: The idea that exposure to germs is beneficial for children's immune system development has been largely validated by scientific research, rather than debunked. This concept, known as the “hygiene hypothesis,” has gained substantial support from multiple studies over the years.

Exposure to germs teaches children’s immune system how to effectively respond with limited damage to healthy cells and tissues. For years, my intuition, based on some evidence, has been that exposure to DFS teaches minds how to more effectively respond with emotional manipulation and false beliefs that DFS is designed to foment. The presence of DADA in American society is low to nil. 

The research paper’s abstract reinforces my argument:

A simulation suggests that children’s behavior is adaptive, because increased fact-checking in more dubious environments supports the discovery of potential misinformation. Importantly, children were least diligent at fact-checking a new claim when all prior information was true, suggesting that sanitizing children’s informational environments may inadvertently dampen their natural skepticism. Instead, these findings support the counterintuitive possibility that exposing children to some nonsense may scaffold vigilance towards more subtle misinformation in the future.

A counterintuitive possibility?? Wrong mindset scientists! Wrong, wrong wrong, damn it!! It should have been an intuitive possibility, especially in view of existing data. Sigh. I rest my case. End of rant.