Summary of Information Science. The summary is mostly in English, but it is possible that there are Dutch pieces in it. It is a summary of all the material (articles and videos) of the exam Information Science.
Data bestaat al heel erg lang. Bijv. 75 streepjes 30.000 jaar geleden op een muur, je weet
niet wat het betekent maar het is wel data.
Digital: je kan het tellen.
Data:
D: Different
Door data van verschillende bronnen te combineren kun je een multidimensionaal plaatje
krijgen. Bijv. als je een neurowetenschapper vraagt of hij geïnteresseerd is om alle data van
hersenenscannen te gebruiken. Maar dat noem je large data. Big data is wanneer je deze
hersenscans samenvoegt met een andere bron: bijvoorbeeld medische dossiers van deze
mensen en bijvoorbeeld waar ze hebben gewoond en het weer. Dan kun je een geheel
nieuwe vraag stellen. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan: wat is de relatie tussen het aantal zonuren en
de hersenen.
A: automatisch. De manier waarop data wordt vekregen door een deffault. Bijvoorbeeld een
fitbit, je smartphone etc.
T: Time. Omdat de data in realtime is verkregen, kan je met data bijvoorbeeld data
voorspellen. Bijvoorbeeld wanneer de trein het druktste zal zijn.
A: AI (artificial intelligence): Bijv. een computerprogramma die patronen in data kan vinden.
Bijvoorbeeld kattenfoto’s van hondenfoto’s onderscheiden.
Positief aan big data:
- Insecten tracken om zo ziektes te vinden zoals malaria.
- Vliegtuigfouten ontdekken voordat er ongelukken kunnen gebeuren.
- Nieuwe antibiotica onderzoeken.
Negatief aan big data: Wanneer je het aan mensen koppelt wordt het link
- Veranderd big data de politieke stem? Door advertenties aan te sturen die voor de
persoon zelf aantrekkelijk zijn. Zo komt men in een filterbubbel.
1
,Artikel: This article won’t change your mind
Cognitive dissonantie: the extreme discomfort of simultaneously holding two thoughts that
are in conflict. “A men with a conviction is a hard man to change (ook al laat je ham facts or
figures zien; dan zal hij twijfelen aan jouw bronnen).
Te doubling down in the face of conflicting evidence is a way of reducing the discomfort of
dissonhence, and is part of a set of behaviors known in the psychology literature as
“motivated reasoning.” Motivated reasoning is how people convince themselves or remain
convinced of what they want to believe—they seek out agreeable information and learn it
more easily; and they avoid, ignore, devalue, forget, or argue against information that
contradicts their beliefs.
It starts at the borders of attention – what people even allow to breach their bubbles.
(voorbeeld: als je rookt lees je liever over artikelen die zeggen dat het misschien wel
helemaal geen kanker veroorzaakt en als je niet rookt lees je liever artikelen die zeggen dat
roken waarschijnlijk wel kanker veroorzaakt). selective exposure (je kan gewoon de radio
uitzetten en alleen die dingen op FB liken die jij persoonlijk aantrekkelijk vindt).
People see evidence that disagrees with them as weaker, because ultimately, they’re asking
themselves fundamentally different questions when evaluating that evidence, depending on
whether they want to believe what it suggests or not, according to psychologist Tom Gilovich.
“For desired conclusions,” he writes, “it is as if we ask ourselves ‘Can I believe this?’, but for
unpalatable conclusions we ask, ‘Must I believe this?’” People come to some information
seeking permission to believe, and to other information looking for escape routes.
“The real enemy of truth is not ignorance, doubt, or even disbelief,” he writes. “It is false
knowledge.” Religious faith is one domain that, by definition, requires a person to believe
without proof.
Still, all manner of falsehoods—conspiracy theories, hoaxes, propaganda, and plain old
mistakes—do pose a threat to truth when they spread like fungus through communities and
take root in people’s minds. But the inherent contradiction of false knowledge is that only
those on the outside can tell that it’s false. It’s hard for facts to fight it because to the person
who holds it, it feels like truth. Survival is more important than truth (bv. Als je een tijger denkt
te horen ren je weg, ook al weet je nog niet eens of dit wel echt een tijger is).
Some researchers have suggested motivated reasoning may have developed as a “shield
against manipulation.” A tendency to stick with what they already believe could help protect
people from being taken in by every huckster with a convincing tale who comes along.
Spreading a tall tale also gives people something even more important than false expertise—
it lets them know who’s on their side. If you accuse someone of being a witch, or explain why
you think the contrails left by airplanes are actually spraying harmful chemicals, the people
who take you at your word are clearly people you can trust, and who trust you. The people
who dismiss your claims, or even those who just ask how you know, are not people you can
count on to automatically side with you no matter what.
“Having social support, from an evolutionary standpoint, is far more important than knowing
the truth about some facts that do not directly impinge on your life.”
Shaw describes the motivated reasoning that happens in these groups: “You’re in a position
of defending your choices no matter what information is presented,” he says, “because if you
don’t, it means that you lose your membership in this group that’s become so important to
you.”
2
,In one particularly potent example of party trumping fact, when shown photos of Trump’s
inauguration and Barack Obama’s side by side, in which Obama clearly had a bigger crowd,
some Trump supporters identified the bigger crowd as Trump’s. When researchers explicitly
told subjects which photo was Trump’s and which was Obama’s, a smaller portion of Trump
supporters falsely said Trump’s photo had more people in it. It’s not that they really believed
there were more people at Trump’s inauguration, but saying so was a way of showing
support for Trump. “People knew what was being done here,” says Kahan, a professor of law
and psychology at Yale University. “They knew that someone was just trying to show up
Trump or trying to denigrate their identity.” The question behind the question was, “Whose
team are you on?”
High levels of knowledge make someone more likely to engage in motivated reasoning—
perhaps because they have more to draw on when crafting a counterargument. People also
learn selectively—they’re better at learning facts that confirm their worldview than facts that
challenge it. And media coverage makes that worse. While more news coverage of a topic
seems to generally increase people’s knowledge of it, one paper, “Partisan Perceptual Bias
and the Information Environment,” showed that when the coverage has implications for a
person’s political party, then selective learning kicks into high gear.
Fact-checking erroneous statements made by politicians or cranks may also be ineffective.
Nyhan’s work has shown that correcting people’s misperceptions often doesn’t work, and
worse, sometimes it creates a backfire effect, making people endorse their misperceptions
even more strongly.
“It’s not just that I’m reading news that confirms my beliefs, but I’m sharing it and friending
other people, and that affects their media. I think it’s less important what a news story says
than what your friend says about the news story.” These silos are also no longer
geographical, but ideological and thus less diverse The sheer scale of the internet allows you
to find evidence (if sometimes dubious evidence) for any claim you want to believe, and
counterevidence against any claim you don’t want to have to believe.
In areas where you lack expertise, you have to rely on trust. Even Clifford acknowledges this
—it’s acceptable, he says, to believe what someone else tells you “when there is reasonable
ground for supposing that he knows the matter of which he speaks.” The problem is that who
and what people trust to give them reliable information is also tribal. Deferring to experts
might seem like a good start, but Kahan has found that people see experts who agree with
them as more legitimate than experts who don’t. “The more that people trust those who are
like themselves—the more they trust people in their own town, say—the more they distrust
strangers.”
It becomes unclear whether the person really believes that the false statement is true, or
whether they’re using it as a shortcut to express something else. “This is why we need to
teach critical thinking, and this is why we need to push back against false beliefs, because
there are some people who are still redeemable, who haven’t made that full slide into
denialism yet. I think once they’ve hit denial, they’re too far gone and there’s not a lot you
can do to save them.” So much of how people view the world has nothing to do with facts.
That doesn’t mean truth is doomed, or even that people can’t change their minds. But what
all this does seem to suggest is that, no matter how strong the evidence is, there’s little
chance of it changing someone’s mind if they really don’t want to believe what it says. They
have to change their own.
Of course, the wisdom of groups is probably diminished if everyone in a group already
agrees with each other. “One real advantage of group reasoning is that you get critical
feedback,” McIntyre says. “If you’re in a silo, you don’t get critical feedback, you just get
applause.”
3
, Serie: Crash course navigating digital information
Aflevering 1: Introduction to Crash Course Navigating Digital Information
Access to digital devices and high-speed internet is stall a real barrier to entry for many
people, which means unequal access to information. Voordelen internet:
- Connect across geographical and political boundaries
- Create organizations and communities
- Find people with similar interests
- Lift people up when they feel alone
Nadelen internet:
- Misinformation (unintentionally incorrect information)
- Disinformation (information that’s wrong on purpose)
- Hate speech
- Propaganda
- Filterbubbels
We zijn slecht in het bepalen van de kwaliteit van informatie op het internet. Uit onderzoek
blijkt dat een website design (het uiterlijk) het meest bepalend is in de betrouwbaarheid
terwijl dit ongerelateerd is aan de content. Of mensen focussen op dingen die een website
makkelijk kan veranderen (zoals de url bv). Mensen bekijken te weinig de bronnen, zeker
wanneer er een grafiek of tabel in staat. Statistics and infographics are often easy and
effective ways to communicate facts and evidence. But that does not mean all charts are
trustworthy.
Factcheckers: the people who go through each bit of copy in a news story to make sure that
all the facts are accurate. dit is het beste.
Aflevering 2: The Facts about fact checking
Question: How can I make the internet a more positive force in my live, and the live of
others? Better information leads to better decision making which leads to a better world.
3 questions:
1. Who is behind this information? (wie deelt de information met jou? En waarom?
2. What is the evidence for their claims? (factual claim, opinion claim)
3. What do other sources say about the organization and its claims?
Some sources are more credible than others, but all sources have their limits, so it is
important to seek multiple trustworthy sources when fact-checking.
Skeptical: not easily convinced
Cynical: Generally distrustful of everyone else’s motives.
Aflevering 3: Check yourself with lateral reading
Who made this and why? (wat denk jij er van en wat denkt de auteur er zelf van?)
Om hier achter te komen moet je op een bepaalde manier lezen. Nu lezen we verticaal; dit
weten de makers van websites, dus zij spelen hier op in. Websites hebben vaak: well
designed logo, references and citations, professional photography, geen grammatica of
spelfouten. Omdat ze weten dat wij dit belangrijk vinden.
We kunnen beter niet verticaal lezen, maar op een andere manier. Als je een nieuwe website
bent, moet je weggaan een nieuw tabblad openen en zoeken voor meer informatie: lateral
reading. Dit wordt zo genoemd omdat je in plaats van boven naar beneden van tab naar tab
beweegt en leest. (.org = non-profit vaak). (voorbeeld alec; lijkt betrouwbaar, maar wanneer
je het gaat zoeken kom je erachter dat er alex exposed etc. bestaat; dus het is eigenlijk
helemaal niet betrouwbaar als je verder zoekt. Zoek bijvoorbeeld in kranten (ook al hebben
deze wel hun eigen view: liberaal of conservatief bijvoorbeeld). Fact-checking websites
4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller pleunvcol. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.29. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
