Take a quiz on misinformation, see how you do

[Frankfooter]

Oxford is doing a study to judge how susceptible people are to misinformation.
The site is a bit slow, but its worth checking out.

Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST)

Loading…

yourmist.streamlit.app

For those who accuse me of posting misinformation, the challenge is up.

 

[PeteOsborne]

This error had to be made on purpose.
FYI, Oxford is not doing the study. The closest connection is that Rakoen Maertens left Cambridge university in October 2023 to fill a position at Oxford.
Yara Kyrychenko (https://share.streamlit.io/user/yarakyrychenko) of Cambridge University is conducting the current study that started in August 2023, with others, Maertens, R.*, Götz, F. M. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia , Golino, H. F., Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Kerr, J. R., Stieger, S., McClanahan, W. P., Drabot, K., He, J., & van der Linden, who did the first study and released the results in June 2023.Asterisk after Maertens name is to show he is no longer at Cambridge.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/misinformation-susceptibility-test
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-023-02124-2 this one has been peer reviewed.



Congratulations!
You're more resilient to misinformation than 96% of the US population!

Your MIST results: 20/20
Veracity Discernment: 100% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: 0 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You are neither too skeptical nor too gullible when it comes to the news.


You see the problem with disinformation is that I did not take the test yet, I am still waiting for the page to load.
I went on the internet, posted these results I found and most people would think these were my results without me saying these are my results.
This is disinformation.I will post my results if the page ever loads.

 

[Valcazar]

For those who would be interested in the write up of their experiment.

The Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST): A psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment - Behavior Research Methods

Interest in the psychology of misinformation has exploded in recent years. Despite ample research, to date there is no validated framework to measure misinformation susceptibility. Therefore, we introduce Verification done, a nuanced interpretation schema and assessment tool that simultaneously...

link.springer.com

 

[Valcazar]

This error had to be made on purpose.
FYI, Oxford is not doing the study. The closest connection is that Rakoen Maertens left Cambridge university in October 2023 to fill a position at Oxford.
Yara Kyrychenko (https://share.streamlit.io/user/yarakyrychenko) of Cambridge University is conducting the current study that started in August 2023, with others, Maertens, R.*, Götz, F. M. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia , Golino, H. F., Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Kerr, J. R., Stieger, S., McClanahan, W. P., Drabot, K., He, J., & van der Linden, who did the first study and released the results in June 2023.Asterisk after Maertens name is to show he is no longer at Cambridge.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/misinformation-susceptibility-test
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-023-02124-2 this one has been peer reviewed.



Congratulations!
You're more resilient to misinformation than 96% of the US population!

Your MIST results: 20/20
Veracity Discernment: 100% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: 0 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You are neither too skeptical nor too gullible when it comes to the news.


You see the problem with disinformation is that I did not take the test yet, I am still waiting for the page to load.
I went on the internet, posted these results I found and most people would think these were my results without me saying these are my results.
This is disinformation.I will post my results if the page ever loads.

It hasn't loaded for me, either.

Reading the review paper, this doesn't come across as a very convincing measure.
It's limited to headlines only, and the ability to discern fake headlines.

That's a very small part of understanding misinformation, and one that is probably even more limited than it once was as news is consumed so differently than in "newspaper style format".

The fact they found that if someone does a training on disinformation (the Bad news game) they get better at spotting fake headlines but also classify more real headlines as fake.

I think this may have some use as a general population measure in some ways, but is probably very bad at measuring individual susceptibility to fake news.

 

[PeteOsborne]

It hasn't loaded for me, either.

Reading the review paper, this doesn't come across as a very convincing measure.
It's limited to headlines only, and the ability to discern fake headlines.

That's a very small part of understanding misinformation, and one that is probably even more limited than it once was as news is consumed so differently than in "newspaper style format".

The fact they found that if someone does a training on disinformation (the Bad news game) they get better at spotting fake headlines but also classify more real headlines as fake.

I think this may have some use as a general population measure in some ways, but is probably very bad at measuring individual susceptibility to fake news.

Another interesting tidbit was this:
"The survey also analysed channels through which respondents receive their news. The “legacy media” came out top. For example, over 50% of those who got their news from the Associated Press, or NPR, or newer outlets such as Axios, achieved high scores.
Social media had the news audiences most susceptible to misinformation. Some 53% of those who got news from Snapchat received low scores, with just 4% getting high scores. Truth Social was a close second, followed by WhatsApp, TikTok and Instagram."

 

[shack]

For those who accuse me of posting misinformation, the challenge is up.

View attachment 370091

Just because you personally may not be susceptible to misinformation, that has no bearing on your desire and proven history of foisting misinformation on people who you think are more susceptible than you. They are two different things, Geno.

Your logic, as usual, has much to be desired. This has done nothing to diminish the accusations (which have been verified as true over and over) against you. You intentionally continue to spread hate speech on a public forum.

You're slower than that website if you think your gaslighting attempt would work.

 

[shack]

For those who would be interested in the write up of their experiment.

The Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST): A psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment - Behavior Research Methods

Interest in the psychology of misinformation has exploded in recent years. Despite ample research, to date there is no validated framework to measure misinformation susceptibility. Therefore, we introduce Verification done, a nuanced interpretation schema and assessment tool that simultaneously...

link.springer.com

I wonder if The Lancet looked at it.

 

[Valcazar]

Another interesting tidbit was this:
"The survey also analysed channels through which respondents receive their news. The “legacy media” came out top. For example, over 50% of those who got their news from the Associated Press, or NPR, or newer outlets such as Axios, achieved high scores.
Social media had the news audiences most susceptible to misinformation. Some 53% of those who got news from Snapchat received low scores, with just 4% getting high scores. Truth Social was a close second, followed by WhatsApp, TikTok and Instagram."

Which means "extent and type of media consumption" may be what is being measured here and not so much "susceptibility to misinformation".

I'm not really convinced this is measuring what they claim it is measuring.
(At the same time, reading the literature review, it seems LOTS of these measures are pretty scattershot, so it isn't like they are just being wildly inconsistent with other research here.)

 

[PeteOsborne]

Close to 4 hrs and page still hasn't loaded, still have the blue circle going with intermittent "please wait"..

 

[PeteOsborne]

Page still hasn't loaded, closing it.

 

[Skoob]

Just because you personally may not be susceptible to misinformation, that has no bearing on your desire and proven history of foisting misinformation on people who you think are more susceptible than you. They are two different things, Geno.

Your logic, as usual, has much to be desired. This has done nothing to diminish the accusations (which have been verified as true over and over) against you. You intentionally continue to spread hate speech on a public forum.

You're slower than that website if you think your gaslighting attempt would work.

I find it funny & ironic that Terb's king of misinformation spreading created a thread about susceptibility to misinformation.

Isn't that like an arsonist sharing info about fire protection?

 

[shack]

I find it funny & ironic that Terb's king of misinformation spreading created a thread about susceptibility to misinformation.

Isn't that like an arsonist sharing info about fire protection?

The point that Geno attempted, and failed miserably, to make and was the entire purpose of this thread, was just because he could identify misinformation, somehow proves that he doesn't lie. So if I ace my math exam, it proves that I'm an expert in geography. Even better, because a lawyer knows the law, it means he never breaks the law/commits a crime. There is absolutely ZERO correlation between the two things he wanted to equate.

Hahahahahahahaha.

 

[basketcase]

The point that Geno attempted, and failed miserably, to make and was the entire purpose of this thread, was just because he could identify misinformation, somehow proves that he doesn't lie. ...

Just makes it worse that he can tell what's misinformation but continues to push his own disinformation.

 

[Skoob]

Just makes it worse that he can tell what's misinformation but continues to push his own disinformation.

I don't think he can...he just adds his own to double-down on his failure to grasp reality hoping no one will notice.

 

[shack]

Just makes it worse that he can tell what's misinformation but continues to push his own disinformation.

I think we already knew the depths of his moral depravity.

 

[shack]

I don't think he can...he just adds his own to double-down on his failure to grasp reality hoping no one will notice.

Oh don't sell him short. He knows exactly what he's attempting. He knows what the truth is, which makes his lying and hate speech even more despicable.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Close to 4 hrs and page still hasn't loaded, still have the blue circle going with intermittent "please wait"..

Its misinformation.
It isn't actually a test.
It is clickbait.
Frankfooter pulled a trick on all of us.

 

[shack]

Frankfooter pulled a trick on all of us.

Slight correction, Shaq.

He attempted to pull a trick on us. He thinks that we're all as stupid as kluutz.

Interestingly, he refuses to comment on the responses he's received. All of a sudden, he's a shrinking violet.

 

[The Oracle]

Its misinformation.
It isn't actually a test.
It is clickbait.
Frankfooter pulled a trick on all of us.

I never opened it...I considered who the source on here was.

 

[PeteOsborne]

Page still hasn't loaded, closing it.

Tried it again this morning, I don't believe the survey is still running.
So Frank might have got his results the same way I did.