Let me tell you a little bit about my friend, Sandra.
She’s very smart, very cute, very single... and very liberal. :(
She sends me e-mail “forwards” from time to time that tend to “set me off.”
As a real, legitimate conservative, I’m not afraid of ideas.
Facts don’t unsettle me.
Opinions don’t unsettle me, either.
What does get me stoked up is the display of opinions as if they were facts, the relaying of questionable information as if it were authoritative, and people getting defensive when I “call b.s.” on them for trying to engage me in a false premise.
I apologize in advance: I can’t come up with the correct quote, here... it’s along the lines of “would you rather be right, or popular?”
The implication is that you should “go along to get along” and not put a too-fine point on accuracy, lest your friends leave you because you’re bull-headed. Unfortunately, I’m much better at being “right” than I am at being “popular.” That is not to say that I’m just so doggone intelligent that nobody can keep up with me. Not at all. The point is that I value the truth above just about all else, including – oftentimes – other people’s feelings.
My physiological makeup, as well as my experiences, and my line of business – one aspect of which is forensic analysis of technical data – lend themselves to this mindset: facts don’t lie. It seems many people want to cast a wide net and call everything under that net “opinion” – as in, “you believe what you believe, and I’ll believe what I believe.”
Unfortunately, that mindset simply collapses under scrutiny.
“Agree to disagree” simply does not fly, when it comes to facts. Opinions are another matter: we can agree to disagree on which football team is better, whether a certain restaurant is great or horrible, or whether dope should be legalized. If I see it a different way than you, it might be appropriate for you to try to change my mind... but the only way you’ll succeed is by giving me some facts — not by giving me more opinions, and not by ridiculing my current position.
Additionally (again – we’re talking my work again, here) a lot of people consider me an authoritative source of “is this true?” when they get something unusual in e-mail. I’ve been researching and debunking questionable information for years.
I have a knack for this: I call it the “smell test” – something just doesn’t smell right. This comes very naturally to me, and it aggravates people — some, more than others — that I am so readily able to snap to a conclusion about a lot of things.
But — and this is a big one — I don't like being a hypocrite. For that reason in particular, I don’t like being a reactionary when I encounter something that rubs me the wrong way.
I don’t like getting “all in a huff” or “righteously indignant” over some real or imagined harm or injustice – I want the facts first.
Nevertheless, I suspect it’s human nature – or maybe just my nature – to have an urge to launch into a tirade of “in your face” correction and/or derision.
But, if you compare the paragraph above, with the paragraph directly above that, you’ll see that if I do indulge in such responses, I’m guilty of the same offense to which I took offense.
I value Sandra’s friendship, so I don’t want to provoke her with grandstanding and “you’re wrong/I’m right” attitude... but at the same time, I simply can’t tolerate the kind of things in the message below.
Here’s her e-mail, and below that is my response. See how many errors and inconsistencies you find. The text is copied verbatim.
From: Sandra
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:08 PM
Subject: FW: snopes.com
Who is snopes.com? We now know. I always wondered who owned and ran the site, but never questioned who was the big group behind it. I had same thoughts with Wiki, factorfiction.com and others. after finding this out I’d be careful using snopes.com as the truth. We know Wiki is not a credible site for checking. Anyone can change/add info on Wiki. It is not a site with ANY cred. Now I have the same thoughts with snopes.com and factorfiction.com.
The point is be careful not to use just one as a fact check.
Do you find the following interesting? Is it true? Where do now go to find out the truth? checked on yahoo.com, and verified owned by the two people mentioned in the following article........ David and Barbara Mikkelson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Stop for a moment. Ardency here. Sandra has committed a mortal sin of “forwarding”... did you spot it? You notice how the top part of this e-mail looks like she wrote it? I suspected she didn’t, and sure enough, she later confirmed this fact for me. When you forward something (if you must!) make sure you don’t give the impression you wrote it. Clean it up, and get rid of all of those annoying >> at the beginning of every line, but leave the “From” and “Date” — at least of the original sender. Back to the e-mail. The change in typeface, below, is from the original message. The impression is that someone other than Sandra wrote the part below. That much is true, but of course, someone other than Sandra also wrote the part above.
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell all final word’ on any comment, claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticism- is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelson’s were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch or that complaint.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are Jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com http://www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...’proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their ‘not’ fully looking into things.
My response:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:ardencylive@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 5:07 PM
To: Sandra
Subject: Re: snopes.com
Sandi, did you write the part at the top of this e-mail? Hope not.
There’s pretty much no accurate information in this e-mail... in fact, there’s a lot of ironic self-contradictory information here...
First, Wikipedia is trashed as being not credible... but then it’s cited later as an accurate source... (of information on snopes.com)?!
Wikipedia is, in fact, a very credible source of information, for a variety of reasons. It has very strict standards -- such as No Original Research (you can’t just post something “you know from experience” -- you have to cite your sources), Neutral Point of View (articles must maintain a neutral, facts-only perspective), and Verifiability (facts cited must be verifiable and from reputable sources). Wikipedia is community-policed -- yes, “anyone” can edit an article, but others can roll-back those edits. It is not a free-for-all. If you don’t believe that, select an article and edit it by adding a controversial point of view, and watch what happens... your edit won’t be there for long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
“For several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com” ... they did? Really? They didn’t try very hard.
The bottom of every page on snopes.com says:
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2008“We now know?”
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
The material on this site may not be reproduced without permission.
What-ever!
It’s ironic that the reactionary who wrote the e-mail below overlooks the fact that if someone “always wondered,” that must mean they never scrolled down to the bottom of any page at snopes.com.
Or, you could check the registration record for the “snopes.com” domain name... easy enough, right?
Registrant:
David Mikkelson
P.O. Box 684
Agoura Hills, CA 91376
US
Domain Name: SNOPES.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Mikkelson, David snopes@best.com
P.O. Box 684
Agoura Hills, CA 91376
US
(702) 988-4047 fax: (818) 261-3054
Record expires on 08-Jan-2011.
Record created on 09-Jan-1997.
Huge mystery, there!
So I’ll say that as for the Mikkelsons, their ownership of snopes.com has never been a secret. I’ve known it for years... I (Michael, the guy writing this e-mail to you, Sandra) actually corresponded with Barbara via e-mail back in 1999.
Wikipedia isn’t an entity -- it’s not something like CNN, Fox News, the Washington Post, the Miami Herald, that “gets to the bottom” of things -- Wikipedia is a repository. It has no agenda.
As for the rest of this... what agenda is the author taking, anyway? Conflicting points: The Mikkelsons are “Jewish, very democratic, and very liberal.” I take offense to the person’s mention of them being Jewish. That’s relevant... how? They’re “greedy liberal Jews” seems to be the impression the writer is trying to leave with us.
Okay, so let’s say they are liberal... that impacts their article on the topic... how? Read the article. I see no agenda. What agenda would they have? That State Farm made him take it down because they are part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? Well, that’s not it... because they cite a spokesman saying that management requested that it be taken down because they did not endorse it ... and that Mr. Gregg did not call them back.
The writer of this e-mail makes a number of unsubstantiated claims -- none of which would be tolerated, incidentally, on Wikipedia -- such as that “I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com had ever contacted anyone with State Farm.” That statement is ridiculous on its face -- how would Bud Gregg know whether anyone at State Farm had been contacted by Snopes? Did he call every single person at State Farm and ask, “hey, did Snopes ever call you?” It’s a preposterous claim that could never be substantiated.
— 2009-08-12 17:30 ETA: In spite of being very weasely (which may alternately be spelled “weaselly,” if you prefer, but not “weasly”), this is not actually an example of “weasel words,” also prohibited on Wikipedia, but the word “weasel” is just a funny word and if you’ve never heard of “weasel words,” I thought you needed to. Once you’re familiar with the concept, you’ll be amazed how often you encounter them.
I agree that liberals seem to have an agenda to discredit anything conservative, and I’m sure the liberals feel the same way about us -- but what I do NOT see is how this article does that in any way. Mr. Gregg put up a sign. They acknowledged it.
The article is very straightforward, to the point, and cites its sources. Oh... and the whole point of the article is this: “Did an insurance agent post this sign?” Their answer... yes. Yes, he did. “True.”
The article even mentions this e-mail:
An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject. We did in fact attempt to contact both Bud Gregg and State Farm; only the latter responded to us, and provided the information cited on our page. Similar information was reiterated by a State Farm Public Affairs Specialist in a letter to the Teche News:
I would like to respond to the article that appeared in the Teche News regarding the political sign displayed at the Bud Gregg insurance agency. Mr. Gregg is an independent contractor to State Farm®, and his views do not reflect those of State Farm Insurance Companies. Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns.
Moreover, the author of the e-mail and Mr. Gregg provided conflicting information: The former claimed Mr. Gregg took down the sign because he received threats about it, while the latter told other inquirers he had removed the sign because he discovered the quote it displayed was erroneous.
— http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chicken.asp
Our anonymous e-mail author wrote, “In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.” Okay, Mr. Expert, then why did you not mention what did take place?
The true irony is that people are forwarding this without checking snopes.com, Wikipedia, or doing any other research on the matter for themselves.
Hugs and kisses as always. Tell your friends.
Sandra, classy lady that she is, took my e-mail in stride, even so far as to say she was “...impressed with [my] knowledge and [my] opinion…” and that in spite of the fact that “we do not always agree...” she wrote, “...I cannot disagree with you here...”
Now... the interesting point that may be lost on you, my beloved reader, is this:
This has absolutely nothing to do with me “being right.”
People say to me, in a very accusatory way, “you always have to be right.”
I disagree with that. (Marie would probably say, “see? You even have to argue about whether you have to be right.”)
I disagree with you, because on matters of fact, there’s no argument, and there’s no opinion involved.
Ironically, what’s happening here is the complete and polar opposite of me “wanting to be right.” The fact is that I want you to be right. I want you to look good. I wanted Sandi to be right. I wanted her to have all the facts, so that she wasn’t participating in the spread of misinformation.
I want the truth to speak for itself and I want errors and inaccuracies to be given no voice.
It’s not about me. It’s about truth.
If you’ll hear what I’m saying, and accept the facts, we’ll both be right... on the other hand, if you have facts to contradict my opinion, I’ll evaluate your facts, and change my position.
It’s not about me. It’s about truth.
I know, I already said that twice, but it bore repeating.
As I remember, this was junior high school... they tried to teach us to differentiate “fact” from “opinion.” I was frankly always baffled by the very idea that one had to “learn” this at all.
Fact: Baseball is a sport.
Opinion: Baseball is entertaining.
Just how tricky is this? Whether or not you agree with the fact that baseball sucks (joke! That’s an opinion!), it should still be obvious that the opinion is an opinion — regardless of how widely-held it may be, or how widely-held you might think it is, or should be.
I believe that “critical thinking” is the phrase I’m referring to, here…
Critical thinking consists of mental processes of discernment, analysis and evaluation. It includes possible processes of reflecting upon a tangible or intangible item in order to form a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense. In contemporary usage “critical” has a certain negative connotation that does not apply in the present case. Though the term “analytical thinking” may seem to convey the idea more accurately, critical thinking clearly involves synthesis, evaluation, and reconstruction of thinking, in addition to analysis.
Critical thinkers gather information from all senses, verbal and/or written expressions, reflection, observation, experience and reasoning. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual criteria that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance and fairness.
I wasn’t taught this in school… and I most certainly wasn’t taught this growing up – if anything, it was the opposite: I was taught to roll over, accept, buy in, and then vehemently defend… without actually doing the critical thinking to see whether what you’re defending is actually able to stand on its own.
And that, my friends, is the ultimate point: If it is able to stand on its own, it has no need to be defended... and yet, it should be defended for exactly the same reason: it’s able to stand on its own.
I think I always knew this intuitively, but it’s taken me years to develop it as far as I have to date... but I call it progress.
I welcome your feedback!
— 2009-03-10 18:00 ETA: I received a different version of this e-mail today, forwarded to me by a friend of a known Snopes-hater who had forwarded it to him, as if to say, “See!?”
Interestingly (and believe me, I use the term in a very loose sense), this “new” version has some words added and some words deleted... so which one is the original? No, I don’t really care which one it is... but it’s an interesting insight into human nature — we tweak things... even things that aren’t our own creation:
At the end of the paragraph that reads, “...not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues...” the sentence, “I can personally vouch for that complaint” is missing.
Then, there’s an insertion:
When I saw that Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama’s Birth Certificate had been properly validated, I realized something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both.
Aside: I didn’t vote for him, because he was absolutely transparent from the get-go. I, like Rush, want him to fail at implementing his socialist agenda, but facts are facts and it’s difficult to argue with the logic Snopes used in analyzing and debunking the various “wishful thinking” claims.
The next sentence is changed from “A few months ago...” to “Then a few months ago...”
Then we see “the Mikkelson’s are Jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal” has been changed to “the Mikkelson’s are very Democrat and extremely liberal.” Did somebody find the Jewish reference offensive or irrelevant and remove it, or did somebody add it? Sadly, I’m not sophisticated enough as a linguist/profiler — or whatever specialty one would be — to successfully deduce which was the earlier version.
— 2009-08-12 19:30 ETA: I was egosurfing today and came across this post. I enjoy reading good prose, and if I also happened to have written it, then that’s all the better. In retrospect, I suspect the “...Jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal” version is the earlier version of this e-mail. I’m still no textual critic, but it seems to me that it would be illogical to change “Democrat” to “Democratic (party)” because the former is a simpler and better expression of the point, considering the ironic dual meaning of the word “democratic” when applied to philosophy and the “blue state” party. The original author likely wrote “democratic” and clarified with “(party)” because he or she realized it was ambiguous, but didn’t have the mental stature to express himself more clearly (also evidenced by the “Jewish” reference). So from this apparent textual evidence, I’ll speculate that someone with a bit of sensibility edited the original “...Jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal” to read “the Mikkelson’s are very Democrat and extremely liberal.” So there.
No comments:
Post a Comment