For some of us, the all-consuming preoccupation with leaving cert exams have given way to other things. Our kids will soon be exposed to new ideas and unfamiliar sources.

Our kids learned that misinformation and disinformation exists, but it didn’t go as far identifying the more subtle (and common) forms of it. I’d appreciate any concrete ideas for what to teach them, and how to make it interesting. In my experience, if the message is in any way long winded I lose their attention.

I’ve drafted something which I’ll put in a comment below. But basically what served me well growing up was learning about how bias emerges in myself (fallacies, emotional reasoning, basic psychology) as well as in the media (journalists with a pattern of chanting for one perspective, absent or misinterpreted sources, history of credibility, “Chinese whispers” on social media, etc).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

More of a tip for adults, but maybe it can be adapted for kids?: to think what could be the intention behind the intention

For example, in a video where the content creator promotes a gacha (gambling) game, one could ask, "why would he/she do that"? Likely to promote it. But "why would he/she want to promote it"? Likely because he/she profits from it.

It's not a fail-proof method, but it helps seeing tendencies and attempts at social engineering, both in places you'd be normally against, or even in places you'd root for.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's critical thinking in action there. Very engaging for the kids too. It's probably more interesting for them than just watching the ad. Well done!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

By the by, a word of caution, the person doing the analysis could also be limited by his/her own tendencies.

For example, if I didn't know some things regarding violins, I could think them often being "dusty" and "greasy" is a sign of poor cleaning habits and would start my analysis from there, when instead this "dust" and "grease" is a single thing, a resin used in the bow to improve the friction with the violin's own cords, and by extension, improving the sounds themselves. And this resin comes off as you play the instrument. Sure, a bit of cleaning, or lack thereof, may be at play, but in the first line of thought, I'd already expect it to be the whole issue since the beginning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Great point, I had overlooked that. I had intended that all this good work would implicitly show that we have our biases too, but it's important to be explicit about it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I really like that approach, thanks for sharing!