Why we accept fake easier than truth

What I listened to / read

I am the one who always challenges my own ability especially language. This time, I compete myself with the more difficult reading article form Businessinsider.com. I select one mini-article of Dr. Michael Shermer titled "4 reasons why people ignore facts and believe fake news".

_____________________________________________ 

What it says

In this article, Michael gave the reasons why people believe the fake news easily and have a strong confident on those news rather than the real one. he told us that, in fact, there are four main reasons including cognitive simplicity- the quick and natural way of the fake news accession similar to the beliefs, cognitive dissonance-the truth can make us a lot of tension leading to leave it out, backfire effect - the effect of emphasizing on their own belief caused by news, and tribal unity- constantly agreement to the group or society.

_____________________________________________ 

My response 

Once the reading is concluded, I have no doubts why we are always lied from fake news or even certified-free advertisement. our brains were designed to absorb the simply, without understandable, information since the brain use only one step which is absorption. it is unnecessary to analyze the fake because they allure us via stimulating the rewarding program in brain leading to comfortably accept information, On the other hand, the truth utilizing the different brain system called pain and disgusting system which is directly associated with the false and uncertain statements, and data analysis. This system has been found to use a multiplex process which is not only unfavorable, but creates a lot of stress, for brain leading to data rejection which is consistent to the second factor of  Shermers.

In term of mind state, we will have more and more confident on their own beliefs, if we receive the data which familiar to the beliefs again and again. Those data strengthen your thought which is a peculiar phenomena which I may say that it could be an extraordinary theory of the classical repeating data memory program theory. Even they play in the different ways and approaches, but the result comes up with the same deepest beliefs.

Focusing to the social issue, as human, all of us has their own expectations to have a position in the society because of loneliness fear. One way to be there is to agree with the majority of the group or society so we need to make their own mind to be consistent with the core group thoughts. it seem like you do a self-hypnosis.

As my point of view, I think that we could try to overcoming with the pain and disgusting system to make a precise analysis of each data we receive, and try to be neutral- do not make a rush decision. These ways will help you to a precise and accurate information. Let's live in the reality.     

Roads to good laws

What I listened to 

I chose to listen to (to watch, really) "Why do the British drive on the left?" for a couple of reasons: it was on the BBC News front page, so I saw it, and the title immediately brought a response to mind. 

___________________________________ 

What it says

The narrator explains that the tradition of driving on the left might date from Roman times, when riding your horse on the left meant your right hand could hold a weapon towards passing strangers. Two explanations are suggested for the common modern habit of driving on the right: French nobility in the late 18th century wanted to blend in with people in the middle, while in the US, the larger carriages were drawn by teams of horses with a rider sitting on the back, left horse, making it safer for passing to drive on the right. 

_____________________________________________ 

My response 

First, I didn't find the first suggested explanation for driving on the right very convincing. If the French nobles wanted to blend in a bit more with ordinary people, I don't see how riding their horses or carriages in the middle of the street would help that: having a carriage or expensive horses was already a sure sign of being of the increasingly hated nobility, and where you rode on the road does not seem to me likely to change that, so the explanation for the French habit of driving on the right doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, the explanation from the New World makes a lot of sense. Those inventive new people in the recently formed United States of America, freed of their colonial masters in the Old World, were doing things differently and already starting to lead the world with radical new thinking, including larger carriages and more of them, so since these made it safer for the leading riders to pass on each other's left side, they drove on the right side of the road.

But my first idea idea on seeing the title was about the rule of law, which sort of also connects with those radical Americans making the world new from the mid-18th century on. Some laws are purely matters of convention, with no particular moral foundation: there is no obvious moral reason, nothing to do with justice, for making up a law that everyone must drive on the left not the right, or vice versa. All that matters for safety is that there is a law dictating one way or the other. Traffic laws are not based on good morals, just on choosing from the options and then making it a law.

In contrast, marriage laws, for example, should follow good morals. This is why many nations have been changing their marriage laws in recent years: the old laws inherited from traditions based on religion, custom or whatever, were seen to be morally wrong, so they were changed to make them more just. My own country, Australia, was very slow to do this, but after defeating the religiously inspired bad morals of people who wanted to keep the bad old traditional laws, even Australia finally legalised same-sex marriage just before Christmas last year, so that all Australians are now legally able to marry the person they love without regard to sex.

This is a sign of moral progress. We see the same moral progress in laws that made slavery illegal, in laws that allowed women to vote and in laws that protect the basic human right to free speech, where the excellent US Constitution has again set a good moral example to other countries since 1789 – the same year the French had their revolution.

Making it up, again

What I listened to

I found two fun things on the BBC News this morning, one to read one to listen to. The video story I watched and listened to is "Male make-up: Korean men have started a beauty revolution".

___________________________________ 

What it says

The video is mainly a young Korean man explaining why he makes how-to videos for young men who aspire to look like K-pop idols, with some comments on Korean society's traditional disapproval of men wearing makeup in public. 

_____________________________________________ 

My response 

This wasn't really listening practice for English, because the speaking is all in Korean, with English subtitles, which makes it reading practice. But it was fun.

The closest I come to makeup these days is my chap stick, and that's colourless. Occasionally I think of getting a tinted one, but for years have stuck with the boring colourless one that does its job of protecting my lips. When I was younger, much younger, I used to be a bit more adventurous, adding the odd touch of subtle colour, and sometimes something more outrageous for a special night out. I sometimes even went to the extremes of rock stars like David Bowie or Queen. Sadly, I don't have any photographs of myself from those days of my youth.

As the video came to an end, the comments about traditional attitudes to men wearing makeup, and the obvious suspicion that only gay men would do that, made me think a bit. I'm not sure how true that is for my own society. Of course, men in Australia in the 1970s did not normally wear blush, mascara, or cheerful lipstick, but they certainly dyed their hair and I suspect used other beauty aids. Then I remembered scenes from historical movies and paintings: the men in these were often heavily made up, with powdered faces and painted lips. Perhaps it has always been common, and socially acceptable for hi-so type men to wear makeup?

My final thought just came to me: the wonderfully full on makeup of drag queens was an inspiration long before I was even born. I remember reading, for example, Quentin Crisp's autobiography The Naked Civil Servant (sadly,  not available for Kindle!), when I was in high school, and he was writing about his adventures in lipstick in London during the Second World War! And then there are the stunning examples in that great Aussie film Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.
The opening scenes in the film, such as in this YouTube clip, were shot on location at one of the Sydney pubs I used to go to back in my days at university. I suspect that they might not be so glamorous these days, but I haven't been to check them out for decades.  Unlike the BBC's video, this one does practice listening in English.