[5/*] The most recent example that really drove this home for me is that there were recent disclosures regarding grant proposals and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There were _two separate proposals_, one of which was funded, and the other which was not.
-
Show this thread
-
[6/*] It turns out gain of function research was _in_ the first proposal (DARPA. unfunded), not in the second proposal (NIH, funded), but then the second proposal ended up in the lab "accidentally" producing gain of function. Those are the actual facts that were disclosed.
2 replies 1 retweet 24 likesShow this thread -
[7/*] From a reading comprehension standpoint, this is very straightforward (to me). But Twitter is now _littered_ with threads of people who are all over the map on what they are asserting. It's insane. I guess Twitter is where people who failed reading comprehension end up?
6 replies 0 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
[8/*] It is so frustrating that it makes me want to make a weekly show where all I do is recap what the subjects, verbs, and objects of the week's news sentences were, because apparently nobody can handle that if it gets even slightly complicated.
7 replies 0 retweets 58 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cmuratori
Interesting thread. You leave out the bad faith element. Some people have no trouble twisting facts, even blatantly going against them, if it serves their purpose, whatever that may be. There would be plenty of that on twitter I suspect.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TwoForDinnerTFD
I don't disagree, but I see reading comprehension as central to this. Nobody would twist a fact so basic as "there are two grant proposals" into "there is one grant proposal" if they thought people had reading comprehension skills, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TwoForDinnerTFD
Like the very fact that people can be manipulated in that way, if we assume bad faith, just shows you how poor the reading comprehension is generally.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
There is no denying that.Also, some literate people would not care to fact-check, research for themselves, or question what their feed tells them.There's a correlation to comprehension but I feel it can be its own separate problem.Consider how polarized and factious people can be
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TwoForDinnerTFD
That is also a huge problem, but one that asks more of people. Like you can go read all the source documents in this case, but nobody does (except a few of us, I guess :) But I'm not expecting that - I'm just expecting people to remember basic things like there are two grants.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
I commend you for that. If enough voices dilute that particular fact - the two grants. The original and arguably honest truth is lost. My issue -- unsolvable -- is flagging how much of the confusion has resulted from disinformation rather than fast, dumb, emotional reading.; (
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think they go together, in a lot of ways.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.