Norms change with every president. There is a reason why people criticized Obama's and Trump's use of executive orders and Trump's pardons.
"Do your own research."
Ah, the age old distrust in institutions. The idea of conspiracy. The idea that bias is somehow exclusive to one side. The idea that people without years of experience in an area somehow compete against those who do.
I will eventually be a part of these institutions you distrust so much. Sometime soon (hopefully this year, fingers crossed) I will be studying what is known as political psychology. The most well known finding is what is known as motivated reasoning. I won't bore you with how it works at the cognitive level, but basically it finds that all individuals have an internal fight between accuracy and ditectional motives. For politics, these directional motives win out. This means that all partisans think they seek the "truth," when really they simply seek to serve their ideological beliefs and identity.
Because of things like peer review, empiricism, and training to mitigate these biases, institutions are much less prone to this. Billions are pumped into these institutions, not to serve some ideological goal (grants are based on impact and need).
Experts come from this process. Fact checkers come from this process. I've spoken with one before (Factcheck.org) and learned the process. They literally ask the person who made the original claim to explain and defend themselves. Amd they ask the people affected as well (like Coomer from Dominion systems). And they ask witnesses. Then, the fact check is fact checked itself, eventually published. Bias is out the equation as well, once you learn the hiring process and how they decide what to fact checks (user requests and media use).
Meanwhile, what sources do these conspiracies use? Someone like Ron and (Paul?) Watkins, 8chan administers who got their money from porn. Or Sidney Powell, who has a clear bias. Or Lin Wood, same thing. All who make claims, without definite evidence.
In the absence of clear evidence, complete ambiguity, partisans have split responses. Some simply accept that the truth will come later, when explained by people who spend their entire lives on subjects such as fraud. Some can't accept it, mapping their own truth or seeking alternative "truth" to serve their ideological needs. Which one is you?
Norms change with every president. There is a reason why people criticized Obama's and Trump's use of executive orders and Trump's pardons.
"Do your own research."
Ah, the age old distrust in institutions. The idea of conspiracy. The idea that bias is somehow exclusive to one side. The idea that people without years of experience in an area somehow compete against those who do.
I will eventually be a part of these institutions you distrust so much. Sometime soon (hopefully this year, fingers crossed) I will be studying what is known as political psychology. The most well known finding is what is known as motivated reasoning. I won't bore you with how it works at the cognitive level, but basically it finds that all individuals have an internal fight between accuracy and ditectional motives. For politics, these directional motives win out. This means that all partisans think they seek the "truth," when really they simply seek to serve their ideological beliefs and identity.
Because of things like peer review, empiricism, and training to mitigate these biases, institutions are much less prone to this. Billions are pumped into these institutions, not to serve some ideological goal (grants are based on impact and need).
Experts come from this process. Fact checkers come from this process. I've spoken with one before (Factcheck.org) and learned the process. They literally ask the person who made the original claim to explain and defend themselves. Amd they ask the people affected as well (like Coomer from Dominion systems). And they ask witnesses. Then, the fact check is fact checked itself, eventually published. Bias is out the equation as well, once you learn the hiring process and how they decide what to fact checks (user requests and media use).
Meanwhile, what sources do these conspiracies use? Someone like Ron and (Paul?) Watkins, 8chan administers who got their money from porn. Or Sidney Powell, who has a clear bias. Or Lin Wood, same thing. All who make claims, without definite evidence.
In the absence of clear evidence, complete ambiguity, partisans have split responses. Some simply accept that the truth will come later, when explained by people who spend their entire lives on subjects such as fraud. Some can't accept it, mapping their own truth or seeking alternative "truth" to serve their ideological needs. Which one is you?