Staff Peer Review Appeal Form: Fill & Download for Free

Reminding you to vote, or not reminding you to vote, is not manipulating the vote. Every responsible adult knows about election day and knows they should vote. They’re reminded dozens of times a day during the several months before the election. One reminder more or less doesn’t affect their participation. This might be a shock, but long before Google, long before Facebook, long before the Internet or Cable TV, millions of people still somehow remembered that we vote on the first Tuesday in November. I guess they were all magical geniuses or something until the late 90s, eh?Google is a business, of course... they’re going to send you things they believe will keep you engaged, based on their understanding of you, and by extension, those things they have learned from the demographics of many people like you. It’s quite possible some people fall into a group that sees reminders, such as “don’t forget to vote” as helpful, and others do not. You can’t claim that it’s a nefarious attempt at not reminding grown-ass adults that it’s time to vote just one more time today.Also, what was the nature of the voting reminder itself? If I lean Democratic, I would expect to see paid-for Democratic ads during election season. If I’m Republican, I would expect to see paid-for Republican ads during the election season. My back of the napkin estimate is that 100% of the campaign ads I saw from Trump said “Trump”. Maybe 25% of the Biden campaign ads were just asking me to vote. So is that what’s being reported here? Any well-run study measures something, but without more details, you don’t know if it’s measuring what you’re being told it’s measuring, or if the researchers drew a fair conclusion. This is one huge reason that real scientific studies are peer-reviewed. All of them.And of course, the article you posted had so little to actually say about Dr. Epstein’s possible observations (but of course didn’t link any peer-reviewed paper he might have written to explain what he was really discovering), they started off showing a that Twitter had correctly tagged a Tucker Carlson rant about completely unproven conspiracy theories as “controversial”, which is the mildest form of language one could employ for such drek.But let’s take a closer look at what Epstein actually had to say. For one, he was writing about the 2016 election, not the 2020, so as you can see, you are already being manipulated by the article you posted. But you did the right thing! You asked about it, rather than just accepting it. Even if you asked the wrong question, the correct response is to ask… not the “right” question, not the “wrong” question, but every question until you understand a thing in full.Trump’s tweet on this, which seems to be Tucker Carlson’s entre into the discussion, was this:Now, in a later interview, Epstein said “I’ve never said Google manipulated the 2016 elections. The range of numbers [Trump] listed in the tweet is also incorrect.” In fact, Epstein’s paper was actually exploring what Google could do, if they chose to manipulate search results. Not what they actually did. And other researchers, such as Panagiotis Metaxas from Wellesley College, reinforces that many studies have shown that such bias did not actually happen.Also, what about Dr. Epstein’s bone fides… that’s another thing you ought to question. In fact, “appeal to authority” is one of the classic logical fallacies. You might want to learn all 15 or so … when you detect one or more of these, you can pretty much guarantee someone’s trying to manipulate you. Ok, he is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research, which seems to have only one other full time staff member, but a long list of interns. He is a real psychologist, including some time as editor-in-chief of Psychology Today. It’s disturbing that anyone’s actually quoting this paper, though, as Epstein’s paper was not peer reviewed, And it used far too small a sample of participants, 95 people, to be statistically relevant in any case. Perhaps most importantly, he failed to demonstrate that, even if one assumed biased search results alone, that would have been sufficient input for people to have actually have changed their voting preferences.Another factor is that Dr. Epstein had a tussle with Google back in 2012. Epstein’s site offered free psychological screenings and links to his books, but was apparently — at least according to Google — infected with malware. He spent considerable effort, apparently, resetting the site and arguing with Google. So it’s certainly possible he’s still got a grudge against Google. That’s one more reason to be skeptical, though not as strong a reason as his lack of peer-review on a supposed scientific paper.So who do you trust? Google? Epstein? The US Government? Facebook? My advice: trust yourself. Build the skill set to resist manipulations, because they are coming, and they’re never going to stop.Bottom line is that you are responsible for your vote. Every campaign ad you see is attempting to manipulate the vote in their favor. Every political meme actually posted by real Americans on Facebook is an attempt to manipulate the vote… much less anything that sneaks through from foreign botnets. If you watch a news or more likely these days, an infotainment program with a liberal or conservative slant, that, too, is probably trying to manipulate the vote. All of these things are overt attempts at manipulation, not something as simple as leaving out that 23nd “don’t forget to vote” from your day’s media input. If you listen to propaganda disguised as news, you are inviting political manipulation.The government can’t save you from manipulation, you can only save yourself. And in fact, throughout history, many governments have been the largest perpetrators of truth manipulation. So you shouldn’t even want the government entirely in charge of this. Working together, industry and government can perhaps filter out or at least call attention to the most egregious examples of “fake news.” But as soon as you trust them, you’re setting yourself up for manipulation.And most people who actually want to be free of manipulation don’t have to hear that from me — heck, I might be trying to manipulate you myself. And I am. I want you to practice critical thinking and skepticism. To read actual newspapers from real journalists, not just McNews on TV. Maybe toss in news from overseas on a regular basis, to hear of a few things you’re not hearing about here in the USA.And part of critical thinking is that every source of information created by humans can contain potential bias. As the great Dr. Hunter S. Thompson sought to do with his Gonzo Journalism: by including himself in the story, he could expose his own biases to the reader even as he reported the story. You can’t get that on TV or in a typical newspaper (maybe a bit in Rolling Stone, still), but you can understand what it is you’re reading, where their general biases are, and avoid those that leave behind objective reality and bend into pure editorial, propaganda, or outright fiction.George Carlin… that’s a guy you could trust… trust me! Learn to be skeptical. Learn to question everything. You can’t easily be fooled by the things you suspect might be trying to manipulate you. You can be easily fooled by the things you trust. Think like a scientist and you’re going to be far more immune to this sort of manipulation than the average person.Read MoreFact-Checking Trump’s Claim That Google ‘Manipulated’ Millions of Votes for Clinton (Published 2019)Why the Bogus Study About Google Manipulating Votes Is a Powerful Weapon for the RightThe new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 peopleOne Man's Fight With Google Over a Security Warning15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a DebateCritical Thinking: Where to Begin7 Ways to Improve Your Critical Thinking SkillsEssential Critical Thinking SkillsMaking healthy skepticism happen in teaching and learning5 Reasons It’s So Hard To Think Like A Scientisthttps://www.masterclass.com/classes/neil-degrasse-tyson-teaches-scientific-thinking-and-communicationSkepticism

Because Wikipedia is open source, meaning that anyone can enter or edit data, it is not a trustworthy or reliable source of information. I do not recommend that my students use or cite it for research purposes, except for possibly locating additional information sources via the citations, if they are provided. It’s well known that individuals, corporations and and even countries have edited entries with less than honest content to benefit their causes.Tertiary or 3rd level sources, such as the popular press or news articles, Wikipedia, textbooks, encyclopedias, and most websites, etc. are generally not considered the best authoritative sources and should not be used for academic research. Tertiary sources may be an appropriate place to start research, but more reputable primary and secondary sources should be sought.Along with primary sources, an essential aspect of professional publishing is the vast and varied system of peer-reviewed journal publications. Many times, the first appearance of a new study will be in a peer-reviewed journal. This specialized kind of journal uses “peers” or other professionals in the same field to review manuscripts before they are published. Usually working with the journal’s editor, the peers may not know who the originating author is or the other peers reviewing the work. This is known as a “blind” peer review. These peers will look at the thesis, along with the evidence being presented in support of the thesis. If these do not match well or evidence is lacking, or the explanation is not sound, the journal may reject the manuscript for publication. It sometimes takes a very long time, possibly years, to get published. This peer-review system of publishing serves to build professional reputations, achieve scholarly consensus within a field of study, and disseminate new ideas and discoveries that might influence the progress of others. Also, peer-reviewed journalism is a way to expose controversy and encourage respectful debate.Very many peer-reviewed journals are now available online. They can be searched for and found online by publication title, by the publisher, by a research institution, author name, and on the many indices of peer-reviewed manuscripts. For example, https://www.plos.org, claims to have 215,000+ peer-reviewed articles that are free to access, reuse and redistribute. Among many other categories, Plos Journals includes such topics as biology, computations biology, neglected tropical diseases, medicine, genetics, and pathogens. Plos authors include 64 Nobel Laureates. Unfortunately, direct access to many professional journals is difficult because of the professional organization’s membership or payment requirements. Libraries at many colleges and universities have access to professional journals, but these may be limited to the institution’s research interests. Sometimes, inter-library loan programs between libraries significantly broaden an institution’s access to professional journals, or even to rare and hard-to-find publications. The message here is to seek out the many research resources available at libraries.Even Goolge search results should not be trusted, because Google’s stated mission is to, “To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.” It should be noted that Google does not say anything about returning justifiably truthful information.Distressingly, there are many examples of bad ideas, items of misinformation, and disinformation on the Internet, especially on social media websites, including pseudoscience (false science), conspiracy theories, and flat out lies. To put this into perspective, the Pew Research Center for Internet and Technology said in a 2017 report entitled The Future of Truth and Misinformation Online:Experts are evenly split on whether the coming decade will see a reduction in false and misleading narratives online. Those forecasting improvements place their hopes in technological fixes and societal solutions. Others think the dark side of human nature is aided more than stifled by technology.Anderson, J., Raine, L. (2017, October 19). The Future of Truth and Misinformation Online. Pew Research Center: Internet & Technology. Retrieved from The Future of Truth and Misinformation OnlineAlso, the significance of false information was officially recognized by the Oxford Dictionaries (OED) when:After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion that appeals to emotion and personal belief.’Staff. (2016), Word of the Year 2016 is… Oxford Word of the Year 2016 | Oxford LanguagesAll of the above points to the essential need to teach critical thinking skills. This new information age spawned by the Internet phenomenon has turned publishing on its head. It can be argued that “freedom of the press” had been the special province of the owners of printing presses, those who owned the equipment or had unfettered access to such equipment. Pre-Internet publishing methods carried a certain ethic of editorial responsibility, albeit often abused, because, in part, it was expensive to print and distribute a book, magazine, or other publication in sufficient quantities to reach a broadly targeted audience. Broadcast media, with first radio and then television, extended the reach of publishers, but access to these channels was similarly limited because of technology and cost. Today, we have all become publishers of thoughts and ideas in both written form and via images on the Internet. The challenge this presents is how do we sort out the illogical arguments, flat-out lies, libel, fake news, disinformation, propaganda, pseudoscience, and the like, from justifiable truth.See my eBook (ISBN: 978-1-7924-0855-7): Critical Thinking in a New Information Age: The Nature of Intellectual Inquiry

I am always reminded of the phrase "Conviction, no matter how fervently held, does not create truth." I think of this when I argue with someone and find myself fervently defending a position I KNOW to be correct. The fact that I "know" it to be correct doesn't make it so. Unless I can back it up with facts I can trace and verify, it is just an opinion, a value judgement I am applying to a specific circumstance.At one time I was ardently against gay marriage, but the arguments of others and the dissection of the facts for and against forced me to reconsider my stance. My opinion changed. As Tip O'neill once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts."There is a large segment of the population who are lead-pipe certain that Obama wasn't born in the US. No amount of fact checking changes their minds. But they cannot accept that this is their OPINION. The preponderance of evidence leads reasonable people to realize that in all likelihood Obama was born in the US, but we will never truly, really, completely KNOW. But the same is true for a dozen other men who were president of the US, and if Ted Cruz were elected President, many of the same people who question Obama would be content to accept Cruz (in my OPINION).If this is so, then the fundamentals must be questioned as to why this is so. There is an expression that goes "People with closed minds know what they like and like what they know." They are unable to question their fundamentals. It's too difficult for them to think or consider they might be wrong. We are all close minded about certain things.Unlike in the recent past, we have amazing tools at our fingertips that allow us to do wide-ranging research in minutes that would have taken entire staffs weeks to collect in the past. But there is always doubt. For example, I have never been to Alaska. How do I know that Alaska even exists? I've never seen it. It could be a construct. Did WW2 happen? How do we KNOW? There are people who believe there was no attempted genocide of the Jews (and others) during WW2 despite ample "proof", which to them was fabricated or mis-interpreted. They strive to change history to one that appeals to them.At one time there was a German philosopher named Arther von Rahnke who generated the ideas of recording history that we use today. He postulated that there are three kinds of history. The first is the actual events as they happened and the "truth" of those events is lost forever. The second is the history painstakingly recorded by diligent, objective, peer-reviewed research that encompasses many sources and can be re-created at great expense in time, money and effort and is rarely done and the third is what is written in history books in the way the people in power want us to believe it happened. We see this all the time. One need only look at the conservative outcry against Howard Zinn's "History of the United States" to see this in action.Another example is the constant churn for and against Thomas Jefferson, one of the key founders of America, who was an intriguing figure for his views, his ownership of slaves, his approach to slavery, his feelings about religion and how this all impacted government. His words have been used by everyone to support whatever opinion they wish to push as FACT and taken out of context, all may be correct. People use the words they like (Facts) to form the opinions they want to espouse, be it for revolutionary change by violence, or that the US is a Christian nation, among others. It is as David Bryne said in a "Talking Heads" song in the 1980s, "Facts aren't simple and facts aren't straight. Facts aren't lazy and facts won't wait. Facts all come with points of view. Facts won't do what you want them to."Context is important because how we live tomorrow comes from how we assemble our facts to form knowledge today. If we perform real science and conclude Climate Change is going to affect our lives, we can choose to change our behavior to in order to change the future, or we can look at that science and decide it is not knowledge and do nothing. In either case, we are creating knowledge that will accepted or rejected and on its basis our future will be decided one way or the other. Facts lead to knowledge; knowledge helps us form opinions that allow us to take actions that affect our lives and our future.