Debunking and Prebunking: How to Fight Misinformation

It’s the final episode of our three-part series on health misinformation, and we want to spend these few minutes with you talking more about the best strategies for countering misinformation and how we can best deal with misinformation when we come face-to-face with it online.
Thanks in part to the National Institute for Healthcare Management, that’s the topic of this week’s Healthcare Triage.
Related HCT episodes:
A History of Misinformation: • Misinformation About H...
How to Talk about Misinformation: • How to Talk About Misi...
Bad News: The Fake News Game: www.getbadnews.com/books/engl...
Be sure to check out our podcast!
• Podcast
Other Healthcare Triage Links:
1. Support the channel on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr
2. Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3. We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
4. Aaron's book "The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully" is available wherever books are sold, such as Amazon: amzn.to/2hGvhKw
Credits:
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Tiffany Doherty -- Writer and Script Editor
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Mark Olsen - Art Director, Producer

[@SpeakShibboleth]

So, for non-specialists, don't feed the trolls.

[@theautisticguitarist7560]

That probably explains why no one saw the Trolls movie.

[@migooknamja]

Obey orders from the Democratic Party. I repeat, obey orders from the Democratic Party. Failure to obey orders from the Democratic Party will result in the Democratic Party pressuring your employer to fire you. *Neither The Democratic Party nor Big Pharma will be held liable in the case that complications arise from not following their orders. #norefunds

[@7QHook]

don't feed the trolls - but don't use the troll label to dismiss legitimate disagreement either.

[@SpeakShibboleth]

@@7QHook sure, but that's not what this video is about. On the other hand, if your legitimate disagreement is that the earth is flat or climate change isn't real, I'm happy to dismiss it.

[@7QHook]

@@SpeakShibboleth I dismiss earth is flat too. In fact I'm skeptical that outside the m*slim community there are in fact any real flat earthers and it's not just a joke, or a grift that generates revenue from hate clicks. Not so sure about climate change, seems to me it could be a drop of truth with in a pool of lies. But I have no interest in debating it. What does interest me is that the policies to 'fight' this thing - no cheap energy and no real replacement power source - are almost certain to result in mass death in the west and no activists seem to realize this. (not in China tho because they are building power plants at a rapid pace.) But the v*x? That is a disaster. And mass delusion? Also very interesting stuff. I'm guessing you have been 'prebunked' on those, in which case - are you among the 3% uptake that is still getting c19 booster injections? If so, you really should stop. Take care.

[@shantanusapru]

it must be noted that most of the methods dealt with in this series are effective against misinformation, not disinformation, where almost nothing may work...But, for disinfo, 'don't feed the trolls' dictum applies more...

[@user-lv2me1cc8o]

Question everything. Trust no entity. We've been lied to constantly.

[@stevetures]

I'd recommend publishing the videos directly on facebook and instagram and other places attempting build video watching platforms. It's sad, but I'm pretty sure the youtube links posted on facebook are immediately deranked by Facebook algorithm and shared very narrowly on that platform (which is honestly a great place to show a video like this). I know it's a pain but would love to be able to reshare this in a place where others could see.

[@beaudavis3808]

Thankfully, here is one piece of advice, don't spend a lot of time on social media. Personally, I will get bored with social media and go do something else, such as looking up information on jet engines or COVID-19. Looking it up on a search engine should make sure that my information leans to be more correct.

[@Odima16]

I mostly agree, but that last part heavily depends on which search engine you use. Google, for example, personalizes your search results based on the information they've gathered about you over time. That information includes your biases, and so your Google search results will be skewed in favor of things that already confirm your currently held beliefs. This can result in a filter bubble that's just as strong as the filter bubble you experience on social media. A way to avoid the filter bubble is to use a search engine that does no such personalization, like DuckDuckGo.

[@beaudavis3808]

@@Odima16 Thankfully, most of my searching is to stuff that I am interested, in that has been established for years. There should not be any sort of misinformation on how a Turbofan engine works since that information has been available to the public since the 1960s.

[@Odima16]

@@beaudavis3808 Fair point, but I still think my point is worth considering when doing searching on topics with a lot of misinformation, like COVID-19.

[@DeltaNovum]

"Should"

[@RevTox]

The primary search engines curate results with political agenda playing a large role in how it's curated.

[@poozlius]

I feel...engaged!

[@sssdddkkksss]

"The quality of information shared by those users improved by nearly 5%" - what does that even mean?

[@christopherrobinson7541]

They lied less.

[@TakeWalker]

it's unfortunate that appeals to expert opinion and scientific consensus in the debunking part specifically make it harder to get information to some people :/

[@SocietyNeedsImprovement]

It doesn't help that expert opinion and scientific consensus are sometimes wrong.

[@TakeWalker]

@@SocietyNeedsImprovementalso unfortunate science especially is about having the best ideas at the moment while we figure out if there's anything better, and most people just don't get that

[@SocietyNeedsImprovement]

I agree. I think its an educational problem.

[@DoYouThinkForUrselF]

@@SocietyNeedsImprovement yes the funding mechanisms may have something to do with scientific consensus and experts being wrong.

[@AlexReynard]

Exactly. Like when I was citing actual doctors and researchers who disagreed with government healthcare organizations and news media on covid matters, mask inefficacy, lockdown inefficacy, and mRNA shot risks, but people would much rather trust consensus than expertise.

[@ddmannion]

We do want Netflix length episodes! The snippets are nice but so is complete information.

[@trevinbeattie4888]

I for one would welcome a Netflix-length episode.

[@DoYouThinkForUrselF]

but that would go against HIS ....the best way to combat misinformation is a simple explanation that explains things to people. Most search for that and simply never look any further as it fits their world view of experts told me.

[@rneliv1544]

Love this! thank you

[@JM-vb6zo]

Media literacy needs to be a required class in high school.

[@kusheran]

aka critical thinking.

[@RevTox]

Nah, they'd find a way to brainwash the kids into believing only the left-wing propaganda, as usual.

[@charlespentrose7834]

Agreed, though I think it's something that children should start learning much sooner than that.

[@DoYouThinkForUrselF]

You do know our schools are churning out less capable people right??? You guys may want to start there and how funding works in our system.

[@remy8587]

Funny how it’s taken for granted that truth is always on our side

[@MountainMitch]

Adding a comment to show engagement.

[@seanbrady2232]

Love this but most studies debunk the idea that exposing someone to counterfactual evidence produces a backfire effect. Each attempt has the effect of pushing someone in the right direction just in a very small way that does not have a lasting effect over time. Thats why it’s always important to repeat the message at length, to continue this effect and have it add up over time. Thats also why propaganda, conspiracy theories, and most persuasive rhetoric rely on constant repetition of information. Thats how people are persuaded to begin with, if we only became more entrenched when we heard counterfactual information, no one would be able to be persuaded at all because they would experience a backfire effect and become less willing to have their minds changed. Lewandowsky, Cook, and Lombardi, “Debunking Handbook 2020 Wood and Porter, “The Elusive Backfire Effect.” (2019) Broockman and Kalla, “The Impacts of Selective Partisan Media Exposure.” (2022)

[@thorkmunch]

Thanks for the information sir.

[@JosephDavies]

Honestly, each episode in this series feels at least a few minutes too short. Good work, hope there's more to come like this.

[@FindingGod365]

Or people could just think for themselves.

[@RevTox]

Who decides which science becomes "THE science?" The experts were very wrong on life-threatening issues, and the "misinformation" (that was banned on social media) turned out to be the truth. Of course, inclined individuals could read the actual peer-reviewed studies and use critical thinking to draw good conclusions, but the "experts" were spreading the actual misinformation, and many of the peer-reviewed studies were obviously paid for to sway public opinion in a particular direction. For example, they determined that someone sneezing openly through the air (like in the movie theater scene from "Outbreak") would be worse than someone sneezing into a mask, therefore, everyone should wear a mask (as if nobody knows to not sneeze up into the air for maximum hang time).

[@d_dave7200]

Scientific knowledge improves over time based on the available data. It sounds like you might be wrong even now on the specific topics you're referring to, but putting that aside, there WERE some such issues during the pandemic, where experts shared information that turned out to not be true. However, what you're missing is that scientists update their findings as more data is available. Sharing the CORRECT opinion, a year or two before we have data to *show* it's the correct opinion, is STILL misinformation. The correct take is to look at what the data suggests is most likely at every point, and adjust your view and advice as the situation develops. Being right about something after the fact doesn't mean the person was a genius -- it means they got lucky. Consider that the same person spreading the "truth" probably had all kinds of other unsubstantiated opinions that turned out to be absolute nonsense. I'd also like to push back very hard on the claim that scientists get paid to give false information. This is a thing that is incredibly rare, and a very damaging idea to promote. Having been around such people a lot, I can't think of many groups less susceptible to bribes than research scientists. These people are obsessed with accuracy and attacking each others research methodologies in pretty brutal ways.

[@eliljeho]

So important to let people know!

[@MrHeff]

Debate and public discourse should always be encouraged.

[@richielives]

no it shouldnt

[@MrHeff]

@@richielives afraid of having your perspective changed? It’s okay, it’s all part of growing up.

[@richielives]

@@MrHeff hahaha sorry, i was just making a joke. "debate and public discourse should _always_ be encouraged."

[@gardenhead92]

The issue is that debate is not a good format for determining the truth. An audience who isn’t knowledgeable on the topic will be swayed by whoever has better rhetoric and persuasion skills, not which position is actually true. Debate can give a platform to crank ideas and help them to reach more people

[@MrHeff]

@@gardenhead92 The issue then is, if you don’t have debate and open discussion, you can also have people with agendas and biases who can use their “expertise” as a means of pushing an idea. If ideas cannot be scrutinized and challenged, then where can we get actual truth?

[@Eronpas]

Netflix documentary please!

[@lordofthestrings86]

It's called "The Social Dilemma."

[@AnRodz]

4

[@l01230123]

4 the algorithm! 👍👍👍👍

[@darfjono]

what does one do when the "consensus" and "experts" have burned all their credibility on the pyre of politics?

[@7QHook]

wash all that 'misinformation' out of people's brains.

[@randyhance4477]

So what happens when today's misinformation becomes tomorrow's truth?

[@yeetghostrat]

Take the L and be humble. Spread the real information. If someone calls you out for your redirect, apologize and explain that you're just following the science. Don't get into fights over it, you don't need to argue why you changed your stance. Only admit you were wrong and give the new information.

[@kusheran]

Or more likely, the opposite. "Truth" becomes obsolete, mis/disinfo. For example, the sun does not rise or set. Over 2, 300 years later, cultures and institutions still have not evolved. Dark does not mean bad. Socialism is good sometimes. Plows are more civilized than swords. Etc!

[@d_dave7200]

When that happens scientists adjust their opinions based on the new data. Even correct ideas, if spread before there's evidence to support it, is still misinformation. For every time an unqualified person gets lucky and their unproven hypothesis turns out to be true, there will be a dozen more times they were completely wrong.

[@joshuamanton]

​@@yeetghostrat Or how about you learn the meta-lesson of not pretending to have the final truth. "Take the L and be humble." This is fake humility if you go on to say "okay I was wrong before BUT NOW it's totally different, this one is the real truth."

[@mariposahorribilis]

Whatever happened to the vlogbrothers' strategy of adding a sign - I think it was a plus - to up the engagement figures?

[@SocietyNeedsImprovement]

The messages being laid out in this video are precarious at best. 1. The prebunking model that's put forth presupposes that the model's understandings are correct. What if the model believed that masking doesn't inhibit the spread of viruses, and worked instead to "vaccinate" me from that false belief? How would I verify that the model's assumptions are correct? That's exactly the information that we want to verify. 2. Not engaging with misinformation doesn't get rid of it. The cure for misinformation is education. One form of education can involve a back-and-forth discussion in the comments section of a social media platform. Not engaging with a belief that you think is incorrect is a sign of contempt, which in my mind outlines the pompousness of the person who's unwilling to engage in discussion. Sort of an attitude of "I'm right, I know I'm right, and you're not worthy of being engaged with." It's difficult to reach people when you have the presumption of guilt. More embarrassingly, you might be the one who's incorrect. 3. No one person or organization can identify precisely what information is misinformation because no one person or organization never contributes misinformation. Every belief or opinion, whether or not it is accurate, stands or falls based on its own merits, not based upon what one person or organization is conjecturing. That goes for the WHO, the CDC, and all the other public health organizations. They are just as imperfect as you and I. Believing them without question is not scientific. As far as I'm concerned, the data always comes down to the actual nitty gritty of the studies that uncover small bits of information that lead to healthier ways of living. Almost nobody has the intellectual capability or takes the time to read and understand these studies in detail. Hence, we're all projecting generalized opinions, perhaps none of which are factually accurately aligned with the actual world for which we live. And perhaps the creator won't engage with me because my comments are so far out of line that I'm not worthy of taking the time to dispute.

[@AlexReynard]

"Not engaging with a belief that you think is incorrect is a sign of contempt, which in my mind outlines the pompousness of the person who's unwilling to engage in discussion." *[TABLE-POUNDING AGREEMENT]*

[@jnzkngs]

I don't have any hope. I live in a rural former swing state, formerly known for it's common sense and education system, where my political party has handed over control of all but the few largest urban areas, to the Trumpers, on a silver platter. We can look at a person's chromosome structure under a microscope just as easily as we can scan the sky with telescopes and satellites, yet we treat people's desired gender the same as others treat the belief in an invisible kingdom in the sky run by a 2000 year old virgin-birthed karmah zombie and his dad. We blame violence committed by people suffering from mental health crises on inanimate objects and not the lack of mental health resources or the inability to force people in crisis to get the help the need. We tell kids that it's perfectly normal to be in inescapable debt just to have "the college experience". We do all this and wonder how anyone could possibly vote for an obvious lifelong proven conman. So no, I don't live in the hope neighborhood.

[@PhysicsPolice]

You need to speak at a constant volume. This video has your voice ducking badly at the end of some sentences. I can't understand your mumbling. The overall sound amplitude is too low in this video. Please put more effort into the audio quality of these videos. The content is already spectacular and they deserve it!

[@SterbsMcGurbs]

There's a well publicized replication issue in science. But if someone is skeptical, they need to just "trust the science".

[@Odima16]

Even with the replication issue, "trusting the science" is still more likely to lead you to the truth than trusting other sources because at least some study needs to be performed. A bad study is more likely to be replicable than a good anecdote.

[@natashawiebe8351]

How do you fight the medical establishment when they lie about obesity? They have nothing more than correlation and plenty of contradictory evidence but they insist that obesity causes bad outcomes. It seems they have never heard of the Bradford Hill criteria.

[@stephenlee5929]

If the correct thing to do is not engage, does that mean the premise of this channel is wrong? I'm guessing I should not be posting this question either, oh well, C'est la guerre!

[@mojojojoplus2]

Don't engage in this context means not to engage (comment, dislike, etc) in misinformation posts, since that causes the algorithm of the social media site to post it more broadly. Engaging with something, like this video, that is about best known practices with how to deal with misinformation should cause it to be posted more broadly, which is, in this case, desirable.

[@terryhollands2794]

Prebunking could be seen as propaganda. Most misinformation is rooted in rumors, which grow as a result of a void in the truth .

[@markomus1]

This whole channel is propaganda. 😄

[@Jay-ho9io]

That is a statement that comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what propaganda is. Intentionally or otherwise.

[@markomus1]

@@Jay-ho9io Nope. In fact, "prebunking" (made up word much?) is EXACTLY what propaganda is about: using made up words--invented for the purpose of obfuscating the fact that by doing exactly what he's describing, you are, in practice, peddling propaganda. QED. ✌

[@Jay-ho9io]

@@markomus1 Webster's says you're wrong. They get the deciding vote.

[@markomus1]

@@Jay-ho9io Nope. Webster's is just run by other human beings who are no more or less intelligent than others. Besides, this isn't about defining propaganda so much as illustrating and describing it. "Prebunking" is a made up word and is a fine example of using flowery or clever language to hide manipulative techniques and psychological ops.

[@DoYouThinkForUrselF]

What happens if you come to realize the consensus and experts are wrong or worse? What if all that you thought comes to pass and hindsight shows you were correct via the experts you followed and the consensus groups that threatened the scientists you followed were wrong. I noticed in your debunking it mentions a easily understandable alternative explanation. Well i sure noticed a surplus of simple explanations when the science i was looking at was not as SIMPLIFIED. So i have to ask was that simplified science for those who are appeased easily with simple answers, in times of stress people often just want to be told what to do to alleviate stress. Prebunking? Seems like you give wrong answer on purpose and then lead people to the consensus answer. What if the consensus answer from these groups is incorrect or have motives that hold corporate interests first and foremost. What if gov't bodies are merely captured regulatory bodies....captured by the corporations or corporate donors that seem to dominate our political systems? Debunking also seems to imply people are stupid and need to be told how to think critically. Love your example of how we may see a inaccurate story but brush that aside if it does not conform to the group of our dominant social group. Very interesting, so if you spent 100 k and eight years in school plus a decade on climbing the ladder within medical institutions would you jeopardize it all by questioning or going against your peer / social group in your industry. Especially if your license was threatened? I would guess few would. Oh so i sound like a reasonable person.....don't engage with me, just trust in the science. Not asking you to take my word for it, look at the science and how many people are saying NO to bivalent vaccines. Even the average person figured out much of covid was not as portrayed. Also seems to imply don't think again....... Your whole premise starts with we understand everything, does not ask for engagement from others and science is a consensus, just trust us. Does not sound like science, sounds like a sales pitch that leaves people within our communities in danger due to consensus by the said groups above i now doubt STRONGLY.

[@7QHook]

so much excellence in one comment. you just debunked this channel for me. thank you.

[@DoYouThinkForUrselF]

@@7QHook thank you, that was largely how that time period played out for me.

[@davidgentz1731]

You mean lies not misinformation what is with you people trying to be nice it's freaking lies that's what it is not misinformation it's downright freaking lies