Evaluating Information

With the rise of social media the past decade, it is now more possible than ever to share information. Sure, we've been doing long before social media came out or even before email became widespread, but now it's easier than before. I have often said that as much as we live in the "Information Age", we also live in the "Disinformation" and "Misinformation" Age too. Yes, being able to spread information is quick and easy, but it's just as quick and easy to spread false information, whether intentional or not, too.

We all remember back when email was still new for most people who those forwards would work. They usually involved some kind of conspiracy theory or "secret" that someone didn't want you to know. Even today I occasionally get email forwards and almost all of them are false. They're really a form of electronic gossip.

On social media, I frequently notice many of my friends posting articles on topics they are either passionate about or interested in. The places I tend to see the most questionable information is with health and diet, though politics is another popular one, especially near elections. Many very well-intentioned people want to spread what appears to be good information, but are instead passing along information that is either partially or completely false, or is just based on outdated and/or anecdotal evidence.

What's interesting, and somewhat sad, is that when I or someone else brings to the poster's attention that the article likely has blatantly false or otherwise questionable information (with an explanation or link to show why we think that), it's often met with disdain or open hostility from the original poster or others who are following. It's too often a classic case of "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up."

On sites like Facebook, these false or misleading information sources can be in the form of links to articles, blog posts, or images. Why do these persist? Because the average person assumes they're true without any kind of examination and then passes them along. The solution to this isn't restricting what we can post or send, but rather, educating people to know how to evaluate information so they don't pass along things that aren't true.

There are several websites available that are devoted to fact checking, such as Snopes.com and HoaxSlayer.com, both of which have Facebook pages. But you know what? You don't need either of those sites to spot a garbage article or post, though they are helpful. These are points I look at when evaluating information. Ask yourself these simple questions:

1. Do the claims sound outlandish or too good to be true?

• If yes, it most likely is! It's garbage and not worth your time or anyone else's!
• As old as it is, if it sounds too good to be true, it more than likely is.
• If no, move on to the next question.
• Even if you may not agree with some of the claims, if they seem at least plausible, perhaps they might be true!

2. Does this have any sources?

• If no, then it most likely garbage and isn't worth your time or anyone else's!
• Anything that is worthwhile, especially if it's a health or diet-related article, will take the time to include sources.
• If yes, move on to the next question.

3. What kinds of sources does this have?

• If from personal blogs or from any kind of special interest group, then it's most likely biased and/or garbage and isn't worth your time or anyone else's! 
• Despite their best intentions, when advocacy groups are the only source, they are inherently biased since they clearly have an interest in what your opinion is. They're not presenting the information for you to make a balanced decision, they're presenting it so you choose their position. Always look for more neutral sources of data to draw conclusions from.
• If from established news sources and peer-reviewed journals, move on to the next question. 
• News outlets are hardly free from bias and false information, but there is at least some degree of editorial oversight. Peer-reviewed journals and publications are even better sources, especially for any type of health or diet-related article or statistics.

4. How are the sources used?

• If they are present but don't appear to support any of the claims of the article or graphic, then guess what? It's GARBAGE and not worth your time or anyone else's! 
• Many times an article will have a bunch of sources listed, but the sources don't actually support what is in the article. For instance, an article might state that "many people" had a particular reaction to a food but the actual source gives a specific number, like 15 of 200 in the study group. 
• If they support the claims with legitimate research and documentation, you have a winner! 
• Share it with your friends and family to spread GOOD information and to help them see what GOOD information looks like!

Now, there will always be articles that look genuine and appear to have good sources and even legitimate studies attached to them, but in reality, aren't. Not all studies are conclusive and many simply don't follow any kind of proper procedures (like the sample size, for instance) to get trustworthy results. Just because an article has sources, even many, doesn't mean anything. The sources have to be evaluated as much as the content. If you're ever not sure about an article or graphic, like it appears to be trustworthy and legit, but you can't say for sure, say so in your post or just don't post it.

Anyone who's connected to me on Facebook knows an article I posted a link to recently was one I thought was "garbage". It was entitled "Why the Amish Don't Get Sick" and was making its rounds on my Facebook feed from several well-meaning friends. While the article did have sources, it only had a few and some of the main points (particularly the claim that the Amish don't get vaccinated) didn't have any sources. Why not? Well, it's not true, for one, and is based on a misconception that the Amish simply avoid all modern medicine. They don't. In fact, many (if not the majority) of the Amish do get vaccinated. Just reading the article it was clear that the author was pushing a specific viewpoint, not just providing facts for a reader to make any kind of educated decision about.

Another interesting occurrence on that article was in reading the comments. Now, comments on an article should always be read with caution since anyone can say anything, but there were a significant amount of comments from people who claimed to live in or near Amish communities in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that refuted many of the claims of the article, not only on the vaccination issue but the very notion that the Amish "don't get sick" or even use completely natural farming methods (another tenet of the article which is simply not true). But really, the comments simply added to the already shaky "facts" the article was built on. In other words, I didn't need the comments to know that the article had some major problems; the comments merely confirmed my own analysis of the content. About the only truth in the article is that the Amish typically get more physical activity than a typical American just because of the manual labor they have to do on things that most of us have machines for. But stress free? All organic? No autism or cancer? Uh, no.

Another link I saw recently had to do with aspartame, which has been very controversial. The link was to what was purported to be a report from the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) about the dangers of aspartame. It cites several studies and other sources and appears legitimate, but there's one problem: it's not a report of the FDA. Yes, it can be found on the FDA website, but upon reading the very first lines of the document, it's clearly stated that the text is from an email to the FDA from a person named Mark D. Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, sent January 12, 2003. In other words, this isn't beyond the realm of bias as it's from an advocacy group which wishes to have aspartame banned in the United States. It certainly isn't a damning report on aspartame from the FDA itself as many seem to believe it is. No, being a Federal agency, an email to the FDA is public record.

Now, I don't present this to discredit Mr. Gold or his organization or to promote aspartame (I don't typically drink diet sodas simply because of the taste), but rather to caution readers as they evaluate information. This is an exercise in evaluating information and also presenting it correctly. If someone wishes to present this, it needs to be presented as an email from Mark D. Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, not a report from the FDA. I haven't been able to sit down and evaluate the content of his email either (how he used the studies, how legit the studies were, whether they actually support his claims, etc.); all I can tell you that aspartame is still legal in the US.

One final point in evaluating information is to watch out for anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is when we observe a certain behavior or occurrence either with our own eyes or reading about it. While anecdotal evidence can often be correct, it can just as often be totally wrong because we don't have all the facts or are just observing a very small group of people or things.

For instance, I saw a blog post dealing with diets in the early 20th century, 19th, and even 18th centuries. The basic premise was that people lived longer back then because of their diets. Unfortunately, the post failed the very first test about sources because, well, it doesn't have ANY to support scientific and diet claims. The only "evidence" offered is COMPLETELY anecdotal. Examples? To prove that people back then had less stress, the author uses a single journal entry from a relative in the early 20th century. A single journal entry. Really? From that we can determine without a doubt that people back then were under less stress than we are today? Huh? Never mind that people back then had to worry about all sorts of things we don't even think about today and that people deal with stress differently.

Another example of anecdotal evidence was showing some of the lifespans of the author's and her husbands ancestors. She uses two of her ancestors and two of her husbands. TWO! Since they both had relatives who lived into their 70s and 80s back into the early 19th century, well, obviously it was because of their diet AND the lifespans of everyone around them were just as long. Never mind how small a group that sample is coming from, any role genetics played there, or if other family members actually lived that long.

To top it off, there's even a generalization that the reason our life expectancy has increased (and continues to do so) is simply from improvements in infant mortality. Actual health experts have attributed several factors to life expectancy (see the Wikipedia article and the many sources it has!), among them better diet and of course, improved medical care. Yes, infant mortality plays a role in that average, but so does the fact that people, particularly children, aren't dying from things like a ruptured appendix that couldn't be detected in time, or cholera in the water supply, or even a simple bacterial infection that wasn't dealt with properly.  In other words, simply attributing the rise in life expectancy only to improvements in infant mortality is simplistic and inaccurate.

I could go on an entire post about some of these specific instances, but the bottom line is evaluate your information before you decide to pass it on to others. I certainly don't like passing on bad info and misleading others, even if I had all the greatest intentions in the world. Even if an article seems to fit your personal views on something, if it doesn't have decent sources, good heavens, don't pass it on unless you can verify reality. The more we as a general public demand out of our sources of information, the better they will get in terms of quality. If we want others to be persuaded by our opinions and interpretations, we need to make sure what we're spreading is actually substantiated. Spreading nonsense helps no one.

Live and learn

I've had some experiences recently that have been weighing on my mind. I am someone who believes that things do happen for a reason; that there's always a lesson to be learned from everything we experience, even the mundane routines of life. The experience itself isn't what is most important, but what we learn from it.

The other night I had an experience that really had me thinking more about things that I think about on a regular basis: the concepts of forgiveness and judging. From a Latter-day Saint and Christian perspective we know we're supposed to do one (forgive others) and not the other (judge others). But we all know how hard it is to forgive and how equally hard it is to not judge. Along with that, though, it seems many do not have a grasp of what it means (and what it does not mean) to forgive and to judge.

Forgiveness
First off, what is forgiveness and why is it important? I've noticed a lot of people, Christian and not, don't really understand the concept of forgiveness, usually in very large matters like murder or other cruelty. Forgiveness does not excuse someone from facing the consequences of their action(s). I've seen on one hand people saying they won't forgive someone because they "don't deserve it" and on the other, people trying to argue that a punishment (such as the death penalty) is no longer warranted because the person has been forgiven by the family of the deceased or something like that. Nope, sorry, both are incorrect applications.

In short, forgiving someone means you no longer harbor that negative attachment to the offender and basically, you leave it to God to decide. This is incredibly difficult for most people and I am certainly no expert. How quick that can happen depends on the person but also the offense. Obviously some things are easier to "get over" than others. There is no time limit on when people need to forgive others, other than in this lifetime. The Doctrine & Covenants tells us that we are "required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10) There is no qualifier or exception to that regardless of who you are or what is done to you. We are required to forgive all people. The interesting beginning to that statement in the D&C is that the Lord states "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive...", meaning he is the one who will ultimately decide whether someone has truly repented of whatever wrong they committed and thus, worthy of forgiveness. That, of course, ties right into the next topic of judging.

Now, while we are required to forgive all, forgiveness does not excuse anyone from the consequences of their action, whether it is something as small as having trust damaged to something as large as being put to death for their crimes. As the offender truly understands the whole process of repentance, he will gladly welcome the consequences and understand their role in helping him to make amends as best he can and hope for the forgiveness he needs from God. While being merciful is important, we also know that "mercy cannot rob justice." This means that being forgiving (merciful) on the part of the offended does not excuse an offender from the consequences of his or her action (justice). Plus, since we want to be forgiven for our trespasses against God and others, it is necessary that we are forgiving as well (see the parable of the wicked servant in Matthew 18:23-32 as well as D&C 64:9, which states: "...he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.").

A great example of forgiveness was one of the fathers of the children killed in the Connecticut school shooting back in December 2012. He had every right to be angry and vengeful at the shooter and his family, but instead he went the path of forgiveness and understanding. This doesn't mean he excused what the shooter did or that it didn't bother him or even that he wouldn't have supported proper consequences had the shooter lived, it just meant that he had decided to not harbor that negative attachment to and feelings for the shooter and the shooter's family. And really, what good would those negative feelings really do for the father? Would he have been as forgiving if the shooter hadn't been killed? No one can say for sure, but my guess is he would've been just as forgiving. Again, because he understood that forgiveness is as much for the offended than the offender. It allows people to move on with their lives and not be bogged down by negative emotions. It's something I know I have a lot to work on. Like I said, it's not a quick process and depends on a lot of other variables.

Judging
Now, to judging. What does that mean? I have noticed some people take this far too literally by basically believing that we should never come to any kind of conclusion. That's just not realistic. In our day-to-day activities, we have to come to conclusions hundreds of times a day. That's how we make decisions: by judging between various facts and opinions around us. What judging means (in terms of "what not to do") is to make a final decision about how someone is. In essence, it's referring to the final judgement. For instance, we see someone who is poorly dressed and we make assumptions about their character, lifestyle, background. This is where we get "prejudice", meaning to "pre-judge" or judge without any type of fair analysis. Stereotyping and profiling fall into this, as does racism.

Now, some of those initial assumptions may be 100% accurate, but others may be completely wrong. In reality, what we're not supposed to do is make final conclusions on someone without all, or even most of the facts. Even with those facts, we should still be open-minded enough to understand we still may have come to an incorrect conclusion or conclusions and understand that there are likely things we may never (or should never) know about someone since it isn't our business. Many conclusions can simply be from misinterpretations (written, verbal, and physical) and sometimes just a clash of different cultural norms (yes, even within the same country...here in the US, we have many very subtle cultural differences between different parts of the country and even between families). Not being judgmental is as much about being a little laid back and understanding as it is being tolerant, fair, and open-minded. It's also recognizing that we almost always don't have a full picture of someone else and what they may be going through (or have gone through), even someone we may know very well (and certainly not those we don't know well!).

We are counseled against judging not because we should never make assumptions or come to any kind of conclusions, but to understand how often we can be totally wrong about or miss key elements in why someone is the way they are, why they act a certain way, or why they look the way they do. We shouldn't let our assumptions, even if created over a period of time, be our final judgement of another person, to the point that we are never willing to alter our perception or understand someone better. Think of how many quality relationships never materialize or are sabotaged because of unrighteous judging? And that ties into forgiveness too, like sometimes how someone treats us my be a misinterpretation or misunderstanding on our part, their part. or both. In the end, we have a very limited vantage point from which to fairly judge people. This where the whole concept of "walking a mile in someone else's shoes" comes in, experiencing everything through a completely different perspective and understanding. It is also why we leave that final judgment to God, who is completely fair and can weigh all the variables accurately and justly, something that is really beyond our capabilities as human beings at this point.

In conclusion, being forgiving and not judgmental are very difficult. By our very nature, we tend to be unforgiving and judgmental. But as I said before, think about how many relationships we prevent, diminish, or even destroy because of our pride in not wanting to forgive and/or not wanting to look past our judgments. We must strive to be open-minded about everyone, be patient, long-suffering, and understanding. This will not only improve our relationships with others (not that we'll all be best friends, but we will be at least more understanding and patient) but our lives in general. How many of the world's problems stem from misjudging and being unforgiving?

Fair criticism?

To start off, as of yesterday (May 14), it's been one year since we left the house for the last time as we headed down to Maryland for Heather's graduation. I can't believe it's been that long already and had hoped I'd have a more permanent situation in place by now, but life is what it is. I certainly can't complain too much about my current situation, though. While I'm hardly living a life of luxury, I do have a nice place to live and my needs are met with people I love and care about. That said, I'm hoping a full-time job is on the horizon, even if it isn't a teaching job so I can move on to the next stage of my life. Of course I still think about the house and the whole situation with moving, but I find they are becoming fewer and further in between. Part of the problem is living with so many reminders. Much of our stuff is still in boxes in the basement, so every time I or Mom needs something that we haven't unpacked, we have to go searching down there or in other boxes. Every time I have to go searching through the boxes, it's just a reminder why so much of our stuff is in boxes.

Anyway, that was on my mind the last few days but that's all I have to say about that. Another thing I've been thinking about concerns a lot of criticism I've been seeing from friends and strangers about Ohio in general. It was troubling to see so much of it, so I started thinking about the criticisms I've laid out about Idaho and Utah on this blog and in my discussions with people. Was this a case of "what goes around comes around" and just getting a taste of my own medicine? I really thought about this and analyzed what people were criticizing about Ohio, how I felt about it and why, and what my criticisms of Utah were and why. What I came up with is that, no, this isn't a case of karma at all. Why? Well let me explain!

The biggest reason the majority of criticisms I see of Ohio bother me is because they are almost always about things that cannot be helped, most often the weather. No amount of moaning and groaning is going to change the climate, make it sunnier, warmer, less rainy, or less humid. The weather is what it is. Yeah, we all complain here and there, but some people it seems can't find anything else but bemoan a cloudy day (but are largely silent on sunny days...hmmmm). If you're going to put a lot of energy into criticizing something, at least make sure it's something that can actually be changed! When was on my mission in Arizona and New Mexico, I didn't enjoy the desert at first. Too dry for my taste, hardly any green, and to be honest, having the same weather virtually every day got boring! I definitely learned to appreciate cloudy days and RAIN! When it's cloudless for 2 months straight and it's 100 degrees, for someone like me it lacked variety and interest. I got used to the whole climate and desertscape of course, but in the end it made me appreciate the green here in Ohio and in the east in general. Even now, when we have rainy days here I say I enjoy them because that's how things grow. Sure is nice not having to worry about irrigation! That's not to day I didn't enjoy short-sleeve weather in January! :)

While Utah's desert climate is something I don't particularly care for, it is the least of my criticisms and is far more secondary than anything. In fact, I always enjoy the mountains, especially when they still have snow on them. As for the weather, it's really not a whole lot different than Ohio since, while it is still desert, it is around the same latitude so temperatures are similar. As I started thinking, no, my main criticisms at Utah are all culturally related. In other words, they are things that could potentially (and in my opinion should) be changed. Remember, having lived in even harsher desert climates than Utah, I hardly have the same criticisms for Arizona and New Mexico as I do for Utah. Why? Because Arizona and New Mexico largely had cultures that were close enough to what I was used to (though still different...there is definitely a difference between west and east in this country!). As I have explained many times, it's not all of Utah culture that bothers me, it's the parts that are so intertwined with LDS doctrine that too many inside and out cannot recognize the difference between cultural traditions and actual doctrine. Arizona had a smaller version of that with many of the Mexican immigrants and the Catholic faith. It was very hard for them to separate what was actual Catholic doctrine from culture as they have become so melded.

There are definitely things about the culture here in Ohio that people don't like. For some it's too conservative; for others it's too liberal. Some complain it's too slow, too boring, too political, etc. Most of these criticisms are valid (based on one's experience), though at the same time they are hardly unique to Ohio. With Utah, and Idaho to an extent, much of the cultural problems I have are because I am the same religion as so many out there, so I guess I expect certain--and higher--standards from members of the Church, particularly in how we treat each other. Indeed, it's much more of a Utah LDS cultural problem than just a Utah cultural problem (remember, I have many friends who are Utah residents and natives!). It's not so much a problem because of Utah, but more because of the high concentration of members and the history of isolation in the late 19th century which allowed many of these cultural meshes with doctrine to really develop and take strong root. In other words, it could've happened anywhere. I would imagine it would've happened in Illinois had the Saints not been forced out, though it would've obviously been different since the Nauvoo area in the late 19th century wasn't nearly as isolated as Utah was.

To close, let me reiterate: yes, too much criticism can be a bad thing, but if you're going to complain, at least make sure it's something that could actually be changed if the right person or people heard you or that you could change yourself. Nowhere is perfect; everywhere we go we're going to find things we don't like about certain places and certain groups of people. The key is understanding not only what we feel by more importantly why we feel that way. If we can't rationally understand and explain why, then perhaps we're just being overly critical. On the other end, in hearing criticism we need to understand the why and lend a listening and sympathetic ear. Maybe the person would benefit from some "local advice" on how we deal with this or that (which is why it doesn't bother us as much) or maybe it's something we've never even considered and now have an additional viewpoint! Critical thinking is key!!