Comments on: Can a picture inflate the perceived truth of true and false claims?

By: MikeB

MikeB — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:28:48 +0000

OR … If you spent every second of every day questioning all the claims presented to you, you wouldn’t have much of a life. Instead, we question things that _matter_ to us. What’s in a thermometer? Who cares as long as it ndicates temperature as accurately as required for a given circumstance. This study illustrates trivially that we give credence to _banalities_ when it looks like someone made the effort to make more than just a stated claim. The study would have likely been different if their answers had real, physical consequences.

By: Bri

Bri — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:46:07 +0000

I spotted Bob Marley once in a restaurant called Nirvanas. Such a genius, such a humanitarian. I consider it an honor to have been so close, two tables over. I could hear thier whole conversation. Are you the spotted marley that appears when I google your handle. Many wise words from you.

By: trent

trent — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:21:57 +0000

BEST.COMMENT.EVER

By: Phil Osborn

Phil Osborn — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:33:22 +0000

There’s a simple explanation. In the mid ’90′s, I purchased a used Amiga 500 system for the software and accessories that included a crude video capture system that came with it. This system could capture 1~2 frames of incoming composite video per second – b/w only, I think – and display it on screen and record it on the HD at that speed.

So, I connected my VCR/tuner and brought up a network newscast and was startled to realize that suddenly I was seeing all the camera angles and a host of other information that had previously been effectively invisable to my consciousness. I could see WHY they moved to a particular camera setup. Recently I realized WHY I suddenly acquired that enhanced processing capability… Bandwidth. Simple enough?

I was able to see all that stuff because a high percentage of the stuff that usually crowded my mental circuits was missing, like 29 or so frames per second that I didn’t need to process, along with the relatively hi-definition and full color.

Here we have quite likely a reverse example of the same process. In fact, I also thought of that as soon as the first insight occured. I concluded that if the admen were NOT taking advantage of this information overload to swamp our judgment, then they were stupid. So, when and how much? Who is using our TV or internet screen to systematically overload or emphasize what they want to sell – detergent or politics? I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader…

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 06:32:13 +0000

So this is why AI needs to eat humanities lunch.

By: SpottedMarley

SpottedMarley — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:17:52 +0000

If people were encouraged to remain more conscious in general, people would notice more, think more and understand more. Our great modern society, however, likes to keep it’s citizens just conscious enough to continue glady accepting whatever information they’re fed, regardless of the little picture next to the talking head.

By: asiwel

asiwel — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:17:01 +0000

Apparently seeing .. any thing .. is believing .. any thing.

By: Chuck Grigsby

Chuck Grigsby — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:34:34 +0000

I believe everything Steven Colbert says, and many things he doesn’t say but only hints at.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:26:24 +0000

“We added a photo to make you believe this post — Ed. ” <– This was enough to make me check the references lol