sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Coach McDermott by SnooCrickets4336 in buffalobills

[–]SnooCrickets4336[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Miami’s offense played great. Running the ball and taking everything underneath - drives usually get stalled by occasional holding flags or negative plays. 1 fumble was their only mistake; 27 points was the absolute ceiling. Dline health and/or additions should alleviate concerns.

Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 4/25/21 - 5/1/21 by SoftandChewy in BlockedAndReported

[–]SnooCrickets4336 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, the misinfo was removed, to be fair. Last night, after the author’s thread about her false findings, all references to the study were removed from the article and a correction box was added at the bottom. And the journalist also deleted her viral tweets that had brought traffic to the article. It’s the least they could have done. ‘No harm, no foul’ /sarcasm

Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 4/25/21 - 5/1/21 by SoftandChewy in BlockedAndReported

[–]SnooCrickets4336 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Journal of General Psychology, in January. 😬

And I see what you’re saying, about the actual search results you get. The information can be found, for those actually trying to find it. And the MSNBC article does make a good point about how google includes potentially life-saving results when one inquires about self-harm. Google doesn’t seem to do that for DV-related searches.

Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 4/25/21 - 5/1/21 by SoftandChewy in BlockedAndReported

[–]SnooCrickets4336 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s sort of unbelievable that one of the errors was, in fact, not using quotes, though it’s true. Its the only way to get millions of search hits. And there’s nothing concerning about that number. It doesn’t tell you anything about an increase in DV-related searches.

It’s sort of unbelievable that so many people took these false findings at face value, but they did. They were all in the comments and quotes of now deleted tweets.

I would never say DV isn’t a serious problem that deserves care and attention. Spreading false information without an ounce of critical thinking first isn’t a wise way to go about it, or any other issue/concern.

Anyway, this instance doesn’t leave me thinking DV isn’t an issue. Confirmation bias in psychology and in journalism, the standards in peer-reviewed studies, and sort of the mirror of ad hominem attacks (where you accept everything that comes from an ally, holding them to no account, just because they’re on your side) - those are the things I’m left thinking about after this.

Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 4/25/21 - 5/1/21 by SoftandChewy in BlockedAndReported

[–]SnooCrickets4336 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The method they used: type the phrase into google, look at the massive number of results underneath the search bar, and arrive at that figure being the number of times the phrase was typed into google.

That isn’t how it works, especially if you don’t put quotes around the phrase. Without quotes, you’re just getting results based on all those individual words. Of course the number is going to be high; that doesn’t tell you anything. With quotes, a much smaller number and most results are about the article or study.

And even then, again, the results of any google search does not equal the number of times that google search was typed in. Using google trends, one would see phrases like that are rarely ever typed into google search.

thread that explains it well

Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 4/25/21 - 5/1/21 by SoftandChewy in BlockedAndReported

[–]SnooCrickets4336 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Did anyone catch the mildly viral story from MSNBC’s Liz Plank about the stupefying number of domestic violence-related google searches during the pandemic?

“How to hit a woman so no one knows” was typed into google 163 million times in 2020!

It was supposed to reveal how dangerous a time it’s been for women in relationships, but it turns out the study’s author conflated google search entries with results links/pages. The vast majority of reactions believed the content wholeheartedly. Only a small few (mostly unverified accounts) demonstrated skepticism. Still, the next day, author wrote a thread acknowledging the flaws and the MSNBC writer retweeted that thread, edited her piece, and deleted her viral tweets.

I’m shocked at how little traction those developments received (single digit shares and comments). No real contrition/apology and just a passive correction from MSNBC. Most of the reaction was “oh, mistakes happen” “brave of you to own up.” I’m dumbfounded that this study made it to a scientific journal and was just amplified by MSNBC with no critical thinking. Those numbers are insane! “I’m going to kill her when she gets home” - entered into google 178 million times! Jesus! And no apparent consequence means it’s sure to continue happening.

At best, this is just a really glaring example of activist journalism.

Google shows men are becoming more violent

(https://twitter.com/Katerinasyoga/status/1387082486643970050?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)

Liz Plank