Connect with us

The Conversation

How to tell if a conspiracy theory is probably false

Published

on

theconversation.com – H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University – 2024-05-07 07:33:01

Conspiracy theories can muddle people’s thinking.

Natalie_/iStock / Getty Images Plus

H. Colleen Sinclair, Louisiana State University

Conspiracy theories are everywhere, and they can involve just about anything.

People believe false conspiracy theories for a wide range of reasons – including the fact that there are real conspiracies, like efforts by the Sackler family to profit by concealing the addictiveness of oxycontin at the cost of countless American lives.

The extreme consequences of unfounded conspiratorial beliefs could be seen on the staircases of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and in the self-immolation of a protestor outside the courthouse holding the latest Trump trial.

But if hidden forces really are at work in the world, how is someone to know what’s really going on?

That’s where my research comes in; I’m a social psychologist who studies misleading narratives. Here are some ways to vet a claim you’ve seen or heard.

An overview of a maze of passages between shrubs.

Sometimes there’s nothing but the maze itself.

oversnap/E+ via Getty Images

Step 1: Seek out the evidence

Real conspiracies have been confirmed because there was evidence. For instance, in the allegations dating back to the 1990s that tobacco companies knew cigarettes were dangerous and kept that information secret to make money, scientific studies showed problematic links between tobacco and cancer. Court cases unearthed corporate documents with internal memos showing what executives knew and when. Investigative journalists revealed efforts to hide that information. Doctors explained the effects on their patients. Internal whistleblowers sounded the alarm.

But unfounded conspiracy theories reveal their lack of evidence and substitute instead several elements that should be red flags for skeptics:

  • Dismissing traditional sources of evidence, claiming they are in on the plot.

  • Claiming that missing information is because someone is hiding it, even though it’s common that not all facts are known completely for some time after an event.

  • Attacking apparent inconsistencies as evidence of lies.

  • Overinterpreting ambiguity as evidence: A flying object may be unidentified – but that’s different from identifying it as an alien spaceship.

  • Using anecdotes – especially vaguely attributed ones – in place of evidence, such as “people are saying” such-and-such or “my cousin’s friend experienced” something.

  • Attributing knowledge to secret messages that only a select few can grasp – rather than evidence that’s plain and clear to all.

Step 2: Test the allegation

Often, a conspiracy theorist presents only evidence that confirms their idea. Rarely do they put their idea to the tests of logic, reasoning and critical thinking.

While they may say they do research, they typically do not apply the scientific method. Specifically, they don’t actually try to prove themselves wrong.

So a skeptic can follow the method scientists use when they do research: Think about what evidence would contradict the explanation – and then go looking for that evidence.

Sometimes that effort will yield confirmation that the explanation is correct. And sometimes not. Like a scientist, ask yourself: What would it take for you to believe your perception was wrong?

A hand holds a magnifying glass over one silhouetted figure, which is connected in a diagram to other figures.

Look closely at allegations of massive conspiracies.

Boris Zhitkov/Moment via Getty Images

Step 3: Watch out for tangled webs

When theories claim large groups of people are perpetrating wide-ranging activities over a long period of time, that’s another red flag.

Confirmed conspiracies typically involve small, isolated groups, like the top echelon of a company or a single terrorist cell. Even the alliance among tobacco companies to hide their products’ danger was confined to those at the top, who made decisions and enlisted paid scientists and ad agencies to spread their messages.

False conspiracies tend to implicate wide swaths of people, such as world leaders, mainstream media outlets, the global scientific community, the Hollywood entertainment industry and interconnected government agencies.

The online manifesto of Max Azzarello – the man who self-immolated on the steps of a New York courthouse in April 2024– railed against a conspiracy allegedly including every president since Bill Clinton, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, even the writers of “The Simpsons.”

Remember that the more people who supposedly know a secret, the harder it is to keep.

Step 4: Look for a motive

Confirmed conspiracies tell stories about why a group of people acted as they did and what they hoped to gain. Dubious conspiracies involve a lot of accusations or just questions without examining what real benefit the conspiracy nets the conspirators, especially when factoring in the costs.

For instance, what purpose would NASA have to lie about the existence of Finland?

Be particularly suspicious when conspiracies allege an “agenda” being perpetrated by an entire sociodemographic, which is often a marginalized group, such as a “gay agenda” or “Muslim agenda.”

Also look to see whether those spreading the conspiracy theories have something to gain. For example, scholarly research has identified the 12 people who are the primary sources of false claims about vaccinations. The researchers also found that those people profit from making those claims.

Step 5: Seek the source of the allegations

If you can’t figure out who is at the root of a conspiracy allegation and thus how they came to know what they claim, that is another red flag. Some people say they have to remain anonymous because the conspiracists will take revenge for revealing information. But even so, a conspiracy can usually be tracked back to its source – maybe a social media account, even an anonymous one.

Over time, anonymous sources either come forward or are revealed. For instance, years after the Watergate scandal took down Richard Nixon’s presidency, a key inside source known as “Deep Throat” was revealed to be Mark Felt, who had been a high-level FBI official in the early 1970s.

Even the notorious “Q” at the heart of the QAnon conspiracy cult has been identified, and not by government investigators chasing leaks of national secrets. Surprise! Q is not the high-level official some people believed.

Reliable sources are transparent.

A view of a person holding a flashlight standing in a dark field while a circular shape hovers overhead, beaming a light down.

This didn’t happen.

David Wall/Moment via Getty Images

Step 6: Beware the supernatural

Some conspiracy theories – though none that have been proven – involve paranormal, alien, demonic or other supernatural forces. People alive in the 1980s and 1990s might remember the public fear that satanic cults were abusing and sacrificing children. That idea never disappeared entirely.

And around the same time, perhaps inspired by the TV series “V,” some Americans began to believe in lizard people. It may seem harmless to keep hoping for evidence of Bigfoot, but the person who detonated a bomb in downtown Nashville on Dec. 25, 2020, apparently believed lizard people ran the Earth.

The closer the conspiracy is to science fiction, the closer it is to just being fiction.

Step 7: Look for other warning signs

There are other red flags too, like the use of prejudicial tropes about the group allegedly behind the conspiracy, particularly antisemitic allegations.

But rather than doing the work to really examine their conspiratorial beliefs, believers often choose to write off the skeptics as fools or as also being in on it – whatever “it” may be.

Ultimately, that’s part of the allure of conspiracy theories. It is easier to dismiss criticism than to admit you might be wrong.The Conversation

H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Can AI chatbots boost human creativity?

Published

on

theconversation.com – Jaeyeon Chung, Assistant Professor of Business, Rice University – 2024-11-13 07:26:00

AI chatbots can give helpful suggestions.

Carol Yepes/Moment via Getty Images

Jaeyeon Chung, Rice University

Think back to a time when you needed a quick answer, maybe for a recipe or a DIY project. A few years ago, most people’s first instinct was to “Google it.” Today, however, many people are more likely to reach for ChatGPT, OpenAI’s conversational AI, which is changing the way people look for information.

Rather than simply providing lists of websites, ChatGPT gives more direct, conversational responses. But can ChatGPT do more than just answer straightforward questions? Can it actually help people be more creative?

I study new technologies and consumer interaction with social media. My colleague Byung Lee and I set out to explore this question: Can ChatGPT genuinely assist people in creatively solving problems, and does it perform better at this than traditional search engines like Google?

Across a series of experiments in a study published in the journal Nature Human Behavour, we found that ChatGPT does boost creativity, especially in everyday, practical tasks. Here’s what we learned about how this technology is changing the way people solve problems, brainstorm ideas and think creatively.

ChatGPT and creative tasks

Imagine you’re searching for a creative gift idea for a teenage niece. Previously, you might have googled “creative gifts for teens” and then browsed articles until something clicked. Now, if you ask ChatGPT, it generates a direct response based on its analysis of patterns across the web. It might suggest a custom DIY project or a unique experience, crafting the idea in real time.

To explore whether ChatGPT surpasses Google in creative thinking tasks, we conducted five experiments where participants tackled various creative tasks. For example, we randomly assigned participants to either use ChatGPT for assistance, use Google search, or generate ideas on their own. Once the ideas were collected, external judges, unaware of the participants’ assigned conditions, rated each idea for creativity. We averaged the judges’ scores to provide an overall creativity rating.

One task involved brainstorming ways to repurpose everyday items, such as turning an old tennis racket and a garden hose into something new. Another asked participants to design an innovative dining table. The goal was to test whether ChatGPT could help people come up with more creative solutions compared with using a web search engine or just their own imagination.

two adults and two small children play with an arrangement of cardboard boxes in a brightly lit room with hard flooring

ChatGPT did well with the task of suggesting creative ideas for reusing household items.

Simon Ritzmann/DigitalVision via Getty Images

The results were clear: Judges rated ideas generated with ChatGPT’s assistance as more creative than those generated with Google searches or without any assistance. Interestingly, ideas generated with ChatGPT – even without any human modification – scored higher in creativity than those generated with Google.

One notable finding was ChatGPT’s ability to generate incrementally creative ideas: those that improve or build on what already exists. While truly radical ideas might still be challenging for AI, ChatGPT excelled at suggesting practical yet innovative approaches. In the toy-design experiment, for example, participants using ChatGPT came up with imaginative designs, such as turning a leftover fan and a paper bag into a wind-powered craft.

Limits of AI creativity

ChatGPT’s strength lies in its ability to combine unrelated concepts into a cohesive response. Unlike Google, which requires users to sift through links and piece together information, ChatGPT offers an integrated answer that helps users articulate and refine ideas in a polished format. This makes ChatGPT promising as a creativity tool, especially for tasks that connect disparate ideas or generate new concepts.

It’s important to note, however, that ChatGPT doesn’t generate truly novel ideas. It recognizes and combines linguistic patterns from its training data, subsequently generating outputs with the most probable sequences based on its training. If you’re looking for a way to make an existing idea better or adapt it in a new way, ChatGPT can be a helpful resource. For something groundbreaking, though, human ingenuity and imagination are still essential.

Additionally, while ChatGPT can generate creative suggestions, these aren’t always practical or scalable without expert input. Steps such as screening, feasibility checks, fact-checking and market validation require human expertise. Given that ChatGPT’s responses may reflect biases in its training data, people should exercise caution in sensitive contexts such as those involving race or gender.

We also tested whether ChatGPT could assist with tasks often seen as requiring empathy, such as repurposing items cherished by a loved one. Surprisingly, ChatGPT enhanced creativity even in these scenarios, generating ideas that users found relevant and thoughtful. This result challenges the belief that AI cannot assist with emotionally driven tasks.

Future of AI and creativity

As ChatGPT and similar AI tools become more accessible, they open up new possibilities for creative tasks. Whether in the workplace or at home, AI could assist in brainstorming, problem-solving and enhancing creative projects. However, our research also points to the need for caution: While ChatGPT can augment human creativity, it doesn’t replace the unique human capacity for truly radical, out-of-the-box thinking.

This shift from Googling to asking ChatGPT represents more than just a new way to access information. It marks a transformation in how people collaborate with technology to think, create and innovate.The Conversation

Jaeyeon Chung, Assistant Professor of Business, Rice University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Can AI chatbots boost human creativity? appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

Brain-training games remain unproven, but research shows what sorts of activities do benefit cognitive functioning

Published

on

theconversation.com – Ian McDonough, Associate Professor of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York – 2024-11-13 07:25:00

Brain-training games sell themselves as a way to maintain cognitive function, but the evidence isn’t there yet.

Eva-Katalin/E+ via Getty Images

Ian McDonough, Binghamton University, State University of New York and Michael Dulas, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Some 2.3 million of U.S. adults over 65 – more than 4% – have a diagnosis of dementia. But even without a diagnosis, a certain amount of cognitive decline is normal as age sets in.

And whether it’s due to fear of cognitive decline or noticing lapses in cognition when we are stressed, many of us have had moments when we thought we could use an extra cognitive boost.

The good news is research has shown that people can make changes throughout adulthood that can help prevent or delay cognitive decline and even reduce their risk of dementia. These include quitting smoking and properly managing blood pressure.

In addition to these lifestyle changes, many people are turning to brain-training games, which claim to optimize your brain’s efficiency and capacity at any age. The makers of brain-training apps and games claim their products can do everything from staving off cognitive decline to improving your IQ.

But so far these claims have been met with mixed evidence.

We are cognitive neuroscientists who focus on brain health across the adult lifespan. We study how the brain informs cognition and the ways we can use brain imaging to understand cognitive and brain-training interventions. We aim to understand how our brains change naturally over time as well as what we can do about it.

Ongoing research shows what actually happens to the brain when it is engaged in new learning, offering a window into how people can sustain their brain health and how brain-training games can play a role. We believe these studies offer some strategies to train your brain the right way.

Brain training fact vs. fiction

Brain training is a set of tasks, often computerized, based on well-known tests to measure a type of cognition, but in a gamified manner.

Most brain-training games were designed to help participants master one or more specific skills. One example is a game that shows you a letter and number combination, where sometimes you must quickly identify whether the letter is even or odd, while other times you must switch to deciding whether the letter is a consonant or vowel. The game may increase in difficulty by requiring you to accomplish the task within a set time limit.

Such games are designed to require a high level of attention, fast processing speed and a flexible mind to alternate between the rules, known as executive functioning.

But it turns out that the specific skills learned in these games often do not translate to more general, real-world applications. Whether brain games meet their end goal of lasting cognitive improvement across a number of areas is still highly debated among psychologists. To make such claims requires rigorous evidence that playing a specific game improves cognitive or brain performance.

In 2016, in fact, the Federal Trade Commission issued a US$50 million penalty to one of the most popular brain-training games at the time, Lumosity, for misleading consumers into thinking that they could achieve higher levels of mental performance at work or at school and prevent or delay cognitive decline by using its product.

If improving on a brain game helps the player get better only at that or highly similar games, maybe game developers need a different approach.

Improving our brain function is possible, even if many of the claims made by developers of brain-training games are unsupported by scientific evidence.

Put some challenge into it

In a study dubbed the Synapse Project, in which one of us, Ian McDonough, helped assess the final outcomes, one group of participants were tasked with engaging in a new activity with which they had little experience. They were assigned to either digital photography or quilting. Though these activities were not games, they were meant to be engaging, challenging and done in a social environment.

Another group was assigned activities that involved little active learning, such as engaging in themed activities related to travel or cooking, or more solitary activities such as solving crossword puzzles, listening to music or watching classic movies. These groups met for 15 hours a week over 14 weeks. All participants were tested at the beginning and end of the study on various cognitive abilities.

Those assigned to the new, challenging activities showed significant gains in their memory, processing speed and reasoning abilities relative to those assigned to the less challenging activities. None of the participants were directly trained on these cognitive tests, which means that the challenging activities enhanced skills that transferred to new situations, such as remembering a list of words or solving abstract problems.

Brain scans of participants showed that over the course of the study, those engaged in the more challenging activities increased their neural efficiency. In other words, their brains didn’t have to work as hard to solve problems or recall information.

The study also showed that the more time participants spent on their projects, the bigger their brain gains and the better their memory was at the end of the 14 weeks.

One difference between the types of activities engaged in the Synapse Project and traditional brain training is whether activities are done in a group or alone. Although other studies have found a benefit to social interaction, the Synapse Project found no difference between the social and solitary activities in the low-challenge group. So, challenge rather than the social components seems to be the driver of maintaining cognitive and brain health.

What you can do to maintain a healthy brain

You might be thinking it’s time to take up digital photography or quilting. But in the end, it’s not about those specific tasks. What matters most is that you challenge yourself, which often comes naturally when doing something new.

The new learning that often is accompanied by a sense of effort – and sometimes frustration – requires accessing the resources in the frontal lobe, which manages thinking and judgment, and the parietal lobe, which processes attention and combines different sensory inputs. These regions constantly talk to each other to keep the mind adaptable in all kinds of situations and prevent the brain from going into “habit mode.”

Where does this leave us? Well, on the one hand, games touted as “training your brain” may not be the best solution compared with other routes to improving cognition.

Ironically, you might already be training your brain by playing effortful games that are not marketed as “brain training.” For example, games such as Tetris or real-time strategy games such as Rise of Nations have shown improvements in players’ cognition. Research has even shown that playing Super Mario 64 can result in increases in brain volume in regions such as the hippocampus, the memory center of the brain.

While little evidence suggests that any brain-training game or program globally improves cognition, some may improve specific aspects of it. As with other activities, challenge is key.

If you’re a word person, try a numbers-based game. If you love math, consider a word game or puzzle. Choosing a task that makes you feel uncomfortable gives you the best shot at maintaining and even improving your cognition. Once you start feeling a sense of ease and familiarity, that’s a sign that it’s time to switch tasks, change the game or at least add some challenge by advancing to a new level of difficulty that feels just beyond your reach.The Conversation

Ian McDonough, Associate Professor of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York and Michael Dulas, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Brain-training games remain unproven, but research shows what sorts of activities do benefit cognitive functioning appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

In hundreds of communities across the US, finding a dentist is like pulling teeth − but in 14 states, dental therapists are filling the gap

Published

on

theconversation.com – Donald Chi, Professor of Oral Health Sciences, University of Washington – 2024-11-12 07:57:00

Experts recommend getting a dental checkup twice a year.
Julia Burmistrova/Moment via Getty Images

Donald Chi, University of Washington

For more than 50 million Americans, finding a dentist is a difficult – in some cases, impossible – proposition. Many rural communities don’t have a dentist. People of color and those with disabilities often lack access, and only about one-third of dentists accept Medicaid.

That’s why dental therapists – professionals who don’t have a full dentistry degree but are trained to provide basic dental care – are becoming increasingly popular. Dental therapists are now authorized to practice in 14 states, and they focus primarily on underserved populations.

Dr. Donald Chi, a pediatric dentist and professor of oral health sciences at the University of Washington, explains the kind of training that dental therapists receive, the critical need for them throughout the U.S., and how they have affected the communities they serve.

Dr. Donald Chi discusses the role of dental therapists.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, which have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Who lacks adequate dental care in the U.S.?

Donald Chi: Low-income people often have difficulty finding and accessing dental care. That population includes racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities or special health care needs, and people in rural areas who live a long distance from a dental office.

What are some of the effects of poor oral health?

Chi: Oral health touches every part of our lives as human beings. To eat, to socialize, to hold a job and to learn, you need your teeth, and you need them to be healthy.

Painful cavities can get in the way of sleeping, chewing your food and your employment. Imagine if you had missing teeth in the front of your mouth because you had them removed because of large cavities. There are numerous studies that show that people missing their front teeth can’t find or hold down jobs. Both the pain and aesthetic aspects of poor oral health can really create problems.

What are dental therapists, what training do they receive, and what services do they provide?

Chi: Dental therapists are a lot like physician assistants. They’re not full-fledged dentists, but they’ve received enough training to provide a limited set of dental procedures. Dental therapists typically get anywhere from two to four years of training after high school, and they’re trained to provide preventive care.

Dental therapists can administer cleanings and fluoride treatment as well as sealants, that is, coatings that protect your teeth from bacteria. And they can do some relatively simple procedures – for instance, small fillings and simple tooth extractions. But dentists are still needed for more complex treatments: bigger fillings, complicated tooth extractions, root canals, crowns and dentures.

Dental therapists are not substitutes for dentists. Dental therapists have a limited scope of practice, but that scope is critical.

In a community with lots of unmet dental care needs, dental therapists can put out small fires. Dentists can then focus on putting out the big fires. It’s a team-based effort – dental therapists work with dentists to make sure that all of a community’s needs are met.

In 2006, Alaska became the first state to authorize dental therapists. What did your research reveal about how Alaska’s plan worked?

Chi: What we found is that Medicaid recipients, both children and adults, were less likely to have teeth removed after the authorization of dental therapists. This meant that more people were keeping their teeth longer, and they were more likely to get preventive care, like fluoride treatment and cleanings.

What other lessons have you learned from other states with dental therapists?

Chi: The rest of the 13 states that have authorized dental therapists have dental therapy programs that have been running for fewer than 20 years, which is about how long Alaska’s program has run.

But we’ve seen data out of Minnesota showing that Medicaid enrollees were more likely to get dental care after dental therapy was introduced. And we see similar types of outcomes in other areas served by dental therapists. To see this almost immediate impact has just been remarkable.

Besides visiting the dentist, what other ways can people promote good oral health?

Chi: Healthy eating is a great way to promote oral hygiene, maintain tooth enamel and reduce the likelihood of gum disease.

I realize healthy eating can be hard because of the limited availability and the relatively high costs of healthy food. But minimizing the amount of sugar in your diet and staying away from juice and sugary beverages are both good ways to protect your teeth.

Brushing twice a day with a toothpaste that contains fluoride and drinking fluoridated water will also maintain good oral health.

Watch the full interview to hear more.

SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.The Conversation

Donald Chi, Professor of Oral Health Sciences, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post In hundreds of communities across the US, finding a dentist is like pulling teeth − but in 14 states, dental therapists are filling the gap appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

Trending