Part Of Bias, Beliefs, And Telling Facts From Misinformation: It comes down to how information is processed after it get filtered by initial reactions to bias about the source...

woodguru

It comes down to how information is processed after it get filtered by initial reactions to bias about the source...

...There are those that choose not to believe anything a person or source says, to the extent that they will take it as a lie or misinformation, and the flip side of this is that they will choose to believe the "trusted" sources they will swear by even when they are laughably and embarrassingly wrong.
...others may recognize that even though they don't like the source or person, they know that person is sometimes accurate, there may be a certain degree of bias involved with the end conclusions as the information fits with what they already think they know.
...and the unbiased person doesn't care where they get their information as long as it comes from well sourced validation, meaning FOX works as long as they show a source and it isn't Hannity or Carlson's conclusions they pull out of their butts.

To me the more interesting characteristic is the person who has some facts straight to where we can agree on the surface facts, but they draw conclusions that cannot be supported by the facts, or the surface facts do not reflect an underlying event or circumstance that completely changes the conclusion, a good example of that is shutting down the pipeline.

Yes Biden shut down the pipeline in spite of the trump administration keeping it on life support. As a conclusion that is so wrong and irrelevant would be that it is a cause of gas prices going up...no, it never was in operation to where stopping something that was a factor could have a result. Stopping something that never has had a function or an impact can't impact prices.

But the right repeated that so often it's baked into the collective minds of the right.

I tend to weigh the experience and background of people I don't agree with very often into part of a process of adding to and building a series of facts I can make conclusions on. If a person is a postman, I will generally trust their narratives on how things work in their jobs...I may not agree with conclusions they come to because they get out of what they really know or understand, but as to their direct jobs I do. A postman may not have a clue about the political dynamics of what has and is happening to the postal service at large, being an employee doesn't mean they have a clue about that.

Smedley_buzkill

woodguru wrote:

It comes down to how information is processed after it get filtered by initial reactions to bias about the source...

...There are those that choose not to believe anything a person or source says, to the extent that they will take it as a lie or misinformation, and the flip side of this is that they will choose to believe the "trusted" sources they will swear by even when they are laughably and embarrassingly wrong.
...others may recognize that even though they don't like the source or person, they know that person is sometimes accurate, there may be a certain degree of bias involved with the end conclusions as the information fits with what they already think they know.
...and the unbiased person doesn't care where they get their information as long as it comes from well sourced validation, meaning FOX works as long as they show a source and it isn't Hannity or Carlson's conclusions they pull out of their butts.

To me the more interesting characteristic is the person who has some facts straight to where we can agree on the surface facts, but they draw conclusions that cannot be supported by the facts, or the surface facts do not reflect an underlying event or circumstance that completely changes the conclusion, a good example of that is shutting down the pipeline.

Yes Biden shut down the pipeline in spite of the trump administration keeping it on life support. As a conclusion that is so wrong and irrelevant would be that it is a cause of gas prices going up...no, it never was in operation to where stopping something that was a factor could have a result. Stopping something that never has had a function or an impact can't impact prices.

But the right repeated that so often it's baked into the collective minds of the right.

I tend to weigh the experience and background of people I don't agree with very often into part of a process of adding to and building a series of facts I can make conclusions on. If a person is a postman, I will generally trust their narratives on how things work in their jobs...I may not agree with conclusions they come to because they get out of what they really know or understand, but as to their direct jobs I do. A postman may not have a clue about the political dynamics of what has and is happening to the postal service at large, being an employee doesn't mean they have a clue about that.

It comes down to how information is processed afte... (show quote)

Yes Biden shut down the pipeline in spite of the trump administration keeping it on life support. As a conclusion that is so wrong and irrelevant would be that it is a cause of gas prices going up...no, it never was in operation to where stopping something that was a factor could have a result. Stopping something that never has had a function or an impact can't impact prices.
Biden also shut down drilling and exploration on Federal land. That DID affect the price almost immediately. Now that we are importing oil from Russia, the Senile S**tweasel has extended the moratorium on drilling, making us even more dependent on foreign oil after threatening sanctions on Russia. THAT'LL show Putin a thing or two. The only people he has sanctioned so far is Ukraine. I guess they didn't pay daddy's little dopehead all the money they owed him.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

What?
Perhaps you should take your own advise on the Propaganda in which YOU choose to consume and incorporate into your bias.
So far the best the Left has come up with is sanctions, sanctions that don't do anything but hurt our allies, and is also why we can't get any REAL international support to stabilize the puppet regime in Ukraine.
The Keystone pipeline was just one small part of the energy destructive policies by this Administration that has helped stregthen, and embolden countries like Russia and China
(Better keep an eye on Tawain too).

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

woodguru wrote:

It comes down to how information is processed after it get filtered by initial reactions to bias about the source...

...There are those that choose not to believe anything a person or source says, to the extent that they will take it as a lie or misinformation, and the flip side of this is that they will choose to believe the "trusted" sources they will swear by even when they are laughably and embarrassingly wrong.
...others may recognize that even though they don't like the source or person, they know that person is sometimes accurate, there may be a certain degree of bias involved with the end conclusions as the information fits with what they already think they know.
...and the unbiased person doesn't care where they get their information as long as it comes from well sourced validation, meaning FOX works as long as they show a source and it isn't Hannity or Carlson's conclusions they pull out of their butts.

To me the more interesting characteristic is the person who has some facts straight to where we can agree on the surface facts, but they draw conclusions that cannot be supported by the facts, or the surface facts do not reflect an underlying event or circumstance that completely changes the conclusion, a good example of that is shutting down the pipeline.

Yes Biden shut down the pipeline in spite of the trump administration keeping it on life support. As a conclusion that is so wrong and irrelevant would be that it is a cause of gas prices going up...no, it never was in operation to where stopping something that was a factor could have a result. Stopping something that never has had a function or an impact can't impact prices.

But the right repeated that so often it's baked into the collective minds of the right.

I tend to weigh the experience and background of people I don't agree with very often into part of a process of adding to and building a series of facts I can make conclusions on. If a person is a postman, I will generally trust their narratives on how things work in their jobs...I may not agree with conclusions they come to because they get out of what they really know or understand, but as to their direct jobs I do. A postman may not have a clue about the political dynamics of what has and is happening to the postal service at large, being an employee doesn't mean they have a clue about that.

It comes down to how information is processed afte... (show quote)

***...There are those that choose not to believe anything a person or source says, to the extent that they will take it as a lie or misinformation, and the flip side of this is that they will choose to believe the "trusted" sources they will swear by even when they are laughably and embarrassingly wrong.

>>>Sounds like woody all the way.

TruePatriot49 Loc: The Democratic People's Republic Rhode Island

woodguru wrote:

It comes down to how information is processed after it get filtered by initial reactions to bias about the source...

...There are those that choose not to believe anything a person or source says, to the extent that they will take it as a lie or misinformation, and the flip side of this is that they will choose to believe the "trusted" sources they will swear by even when they are laughably and embarrassingly wrong.
...others may recognize that even though they don't like the source or person, they know that person is sometimes accurate, there may be a certain degree of bias involved with the end conclusions as the information fits with what they already think they know.
...and the unbiased person doesn't care where they get their information as long as it comes from well sourced validation, meaning FOX works as long as they show a source and it isn't Hannity or Carlson's conclusions they pull out of their butts.

To me the more interesting characteristic is the person who has some facts straight to where we can agree on the surface facts, but they draw conclusions that cannot be supported by the facts, or the surface facts do not reflect an underlying event or circumstance that completely changes the conclusion, a good example of that is shutting down the pipeline.

Yes Biden shut down the pipeline in spite of the trump administration keeping it on life support. As a conclusion that is so wrong and irrelevant would be that it is a cause of gas prices going up...no, it never was in operation to where stopping something that was a factor could have a result. Stopping something that never has had a function or an impact can't impact prices.

But the right repeated that so often it's baked into the collective minds of the right.

I tend to weigh the experience and background of people I don't agree with very often into part of a process of adding to and building a series of facts I can make conclusions on. If a person is a postman, I will generally trust their narratives on how things work in their jobs...I may not agree with conclusions they come to because they get out of what they really know or understand, but as to their direct jobs I do. A postman may not have a clue about the political dynamics of what has and is happening to the postal service at large, being an employee doesn't mean they have a clue about that.

It comes down to how information is processed afte... (show quote)

LittleWoody, what We the People want from newscasters is for them to simply tell us what happened and let us decide how we feel about it. We don't want them slanting the news to make it fit a particular narrative, either left or right. We also want to hear ALL of the news. Withholding certain stories that you don't want us to know about is lying. For instance, many other countries had massive demonstrations against the totalitarian C****-** lockdowns and mandates. Very little coverage, if any, was shown on the "Main Stream Media ". I saw videos of these demonstrations on alternate sites. You l*****ts complain about misinformation but who are you, or anyone else, to say what is or isn't misinformation. Let me decide.