Tell me what you think you know.

The 'third person effect hypothesis' states that individuals exposed to a mass media message believe it will have a greater effect on others than on themselves. We tend to believe that while we can think for ourselves, other people are more easily manipulated.

There's a study published this month that goes a bit further. (Link at the bottom, but it's behind a journal paywall.)

People were asked to rate their own susceptibility to various forms of bias compared to their classmates, other people in an airport or just 'an average American'. Predictably enough, the vast majority rated themselves below average (that is, not easily swayed).

Those people were followed up and were told the ways each of the biases might affect them without their knowing. Again, the vast majority ended up rating their own susceptibility to bias as less than average.

Finally, the kicker. The subjects were shown the results - that is, they were told that almost everyone rates themselves below average. You guessed it, the majority of participants thought everyone else was being biased in their deluded self-assessment, but that their own self-assessment remained correct, that they were below average susceptibility.

Do you think you are more or less susceptible to bias in the media than the average person?

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/3/369.short

Originally posted by DrKF
The 'third person effect hypothesis' states that individuals exposed to a mass media message believe it will have a greater effect on others than on themselves. We tend to believe that while we can think for ourselves, other people are more easily manipulated.

There's a study published this month that goes a bit further. (Link at the bottom, bu ...[text shortened]... ias in the media than the average person?

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/3/369.short

"Do you think you are more or less susceptible to bias in the media than the average person?"

Usually the media I follow get(s?) it right. 🙂

I am of below average susceptibility and the average person is of average susceptibility.

There, that was easy.

Most of the people I rub up the wrong way here are either somewhat wrong about something or very wrong.

Originally posted by DrKF
The 'third person effect hypothesis' states that individuals exposed to a mass media message believe it will have a greater effect on others than on themselves. We tend to believe that while we can think for ourselves, other people are more easily manipulated.

There's a study published this month that goes a bit further. (Link at the bottom, bu ...[text shortened]... ias in the media than the average person?

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/3/369.short

I posted a question on another chat forum about 7 years ago that was similar. The question was:

Are you

1. More independent minded than the average person ... or ...
2. Less independent mined than the average person

This was essentially my own informal experiment to test roughly the same hypothesis described by DrKF. I purposefully gave only two choices. Although not scientific research, it was incredibly interesting food for thought. I don't remember the final numbers, but it was something like 49 people choose (1) and 1 person choose (2). And that one person was probably either gaming the system, or was perhaps the most independent minded of all.

Nevertheless, I still consider myself more independent thinking than average.

Originally posted by DrKF
The 'third person effect hypothesis' states that individuals exposed to a mass media message believe it will have a greater effect on others than on themselves. We tend to believe that while we can think for ourselves, other people are more easily manipulated.

There's a study published this month that goes a bit further. (Link at the bottom, bu ...[text shortened]... ias in the media than the average person?

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/3/369.short

Seems similar—in effect—to the so-called “Dunning-Kruger” effect. Or, at least, the two might operate together. The media (third-person) effect could enhance the Dunning-Kruger effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

The figures are similarly huge for the number who think they are a better than average driver. It's over 90%, which means almost half of you are wrong. And still you probably think you are a better than average driver.

Here's a quiz. You don't even need to tell the answer back here. Or tell the truth.

http://tim-richardson.net/misc/estimation_quiz.html

Originally posted by DrKF
The 'third person effect hypothesis' states that individuals exposed to a mass media message believe it will have a greater effect on others than on themselves. We tend to believe that while we can think for ourselves, other people are more easily manipulated.

There's a study published this month that goes a bit further. (Link at the bottom, bu ...[text shortened]... ias in the media than the average person?

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/3/369.short

But which one is the "true" one? Are the subjects more biased than they think or are the others less biased than the subjects think? Probably a mix of both so that leaves us simply with two bounds.

The implications for the final question may not be irrelevant.

Originally posted by DrKF
The figures are similarly huge for the number who think they are a better than average driver. It's over 90%, which means almost half of you are wrong. And still you probably think you are a better than average driver.

Here's a quiz. You don't even need to tell the answer back here. Or tell the truth.

http://tim-richardson.net/misc/estimation_quiz.html

Okay, I'll be honest. I got 6 right. Which is technically within the okay range, but more likely indicates some degree of overconfidence.

In my defense, I kind of rushed and kept thinking I was missing an understanding of the penalty for waffling too much (that's the term I just coined for intentionally throwing the net extremely wide to ensure you're never wrong). I would have actually felt a little bad to have gone 10 for 10, because the instructions called for going for 90%. Although 10 for 10 is very close to 9 for 10 (much better than 6 for 10), it could indicate a deliberate attempt to thwart the test to get the right score. Clearly, any one attempting to do so could easily go 10 for 10 and pat himself on the back.

The only one I answered with an exact number, I got right.

I propose a new test. And those that have not taken this test, I would suggest they consider shooting to get 50% right rather than 90%. That introduces the possibility of seeing their "underconfidence". Although, I'd say that by the nature of this test (with no penalty or even scored measure of "broadness" of answer ranges) and the fact that it is not a "blind" experiment more likely measures how you want to perceive yourself as opposed to measuring how over/under confident you actually are.

Originally posted by techsouth
Okay, I'll be honest. I got 6 right. Which is technically within the okay range, but more likely indicates some degree of overconfidence.

In my defense, I kind of rushed and kept thinking I was missing an understanding of the penalty for waffling too much (that's the term I just coined for intentionally throwing the net extremely wide to ensure you're ...[text shortened]... o perceive yourself as opposed to measuring how over/under confident you actually are.

i got 4 😵

all of my ranges were pretty tight so i did expect it tbh. the only ones that i wasn't close on was the elephant and the boeing 747 weight, undervalued each.

Originally posted by DrKF
The 'third person effect hypothesis' states that individuals exposed to a mass media message believe it will have a greater effect on others than on themselves. We tend to believe that while we can think for ourselves, other people are more easily manipulated.

There's a study published this month that goes a bit further. (Link at the bottom, bu ias in the media than the average person?

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/3/369.short

I am not surprised by that at all. People don't think they have been duped until the facts prove otherwise and even then they may not because of cognitive dissonance. People don't usually have the ability to overcome being swayed by repetition whether by rumor or propaganda.

http://www.livescience.com/1956-study-gossip-trumps-truth.html

This is a flaw in human nature that propagandists exploit. That is why even intelligent people like sh6 can be manipulated into believing things that are untrue. If he had any doubts that he is capable of overcoming this it would not work. When he hears Ron Paul cannot win enough times he is genuinely convinced. Facts matter less than repetitiveness. Even though the video Whodey provided in the "Ron Paul doesn't exist" thread is very convincing, sh6 cannot overcome the repetitive message that swayed him previously. That is why propaganda is very effective. Even the presidents are coached into using phrases repetitively to take advantage of this flaw in human nature. Remember how many times GW Bush repeated the words weapons of mass destruction? That was no accident. It was planned that way and it worked like a charm.

It does not mean sh6 is dumb. He is very intelligent and clever, but he is also human.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I am not surprised by that at all. People don't think they have been duped until the facts prove otherwise and even then they may not because of cognitive dissonance. People don't usually have the ability to overcome being swayed by repetition whether by rumor or propaganda.

http://www.livescience.com/1956-study-gossip-trumps-truth.html

This is a ...[text shortened]... rm.

It does not mean sh6 is dumb. He is very intelligent and clever, but he is also human.

Do you think you are more or less susceptible to bias in the media than the average person?

Why?

Originally posted by DrKF
Do you think you are more or less susceptible to bias in the media than the average person?

Why?

I am no exception, less of course. I would be surprised if anyone in this forum gave a different answer.

The reason is that I know how propaganda works more than the average person. I am aware of the power of repetitiveness and how people are easily manipulated by it. I think that gives me some degree of immunity to it, but NOBODY is completely immune. Like I said before, it is human nature.

Originally posted by DrKF
The 'third person effect hypothesis' states that individuals exposed to a mass media message believe it will have a greater effect on others than on themselves. We tend to believe that while we can think for ourselves, other people are more easily manipulated.

There's a study published this month that goes a bit further. (Link at the bottom, bu ...[text shortened]... ias in the media than the average person?

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/3/369.short

Self assessments are often off base. American grade school kids when asked about their math aptitude and performance rated themselve highly, but ranked near the bottom of the barrel compared to kids in the same age group in other industrialized countries.

That's why so often we see insulting comments on these pages based on factual or philosophical differences.

Originally posted by DrKF
The 'third person effect hypothesis' states that individuals exposed to a mass media message believe it will have a greater effect on others than on themselves. We tend to believe that while we can think for ourselves, other people are more easily manipulated.

There's a study published this month that goes a bit further. (Link at the bottom, bu ...[text shortened]... ias in the media than the average person?

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/3/369.short

The "third person effect hypothesis" is kind of a "Captain Obvious observation"...

... isn't it?