tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7424038.post112015786607758730..comments2023-11-16T18:28:45.786+08:00Comments on Rambling Librarian :: Incidental Thoughts of a Singapore Liblogarian: To learn from the web, one must unlearnUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7424038.post-1120588837140216042005-07-06T02:40:00.000+08:002005-07-06T02:40:00.000+08:00Ah! The point being, that training and learning is...Ah! The point being, that training and learning is the key! Exactly my point.Ivan Chewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02727226573817276108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7424038.post-1120461380549245382005-07-04T15:16:00.000+08:002005-07-04T15:16:00.000+08:00I'm a scientist by training, so taking published s...I'm a scientist by training, so taking published scientific materials by the neck and wringing to see if it's correct is inherent in us. We are almost anal in our distrust with things we read, especially online articles. in fact, we also distrust our own work enuff to repeat over and over again. :) I guess we are taught to question our logic and other's logic every step of the way, which is the reason I do what i do. At some point in Life, i feel that everyone should have this type of attitude towards the world.Ang Ku Kuehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15729886232663784286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7424038.post-1120298458135112822005-07-02T18:00:00.000+08:002005-07-02T18:00:00.000+08:00"my observation is that people still inherently ta..."my observation is that people still inherently take what they read from websites and blogs at face value."<BR/><BR/>I tend to have a different feeling about this: it seems that most people will adopt a very 'efficient' approach to assessing online information (blogs/websites etc). They'll give it a quick scan, and if it fits well with what they already believe in or think, then they will accept the information (reinforcing effect). If the info doesn't fit with their existing thoughts, they will just click and move on - dismissing the info completely, rather than engaging with it. So this is quite the opposite of 'taking things at face value', I feel.Heavenly Swordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05144267334516849506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7424038.post-1120267419265476392005-07-02T09:23:00.000+08:002005-07-02T09:23:00.000+08:00Interesting perspective... but no, I don't see "sm...Interesting perspective... but no, I don't see "small blurb = digestible truth" and "bigger article = more thinking required" as a good yardstick. <BR/><BR/>I would think:<BR/>*Small blurb = Digestible info (like headlines)<BR/>*Longer article = More reading required (but not necessarily thinking).<BR/><BR/>But definitely agree with you that "psychology of design" plays a part. That's why Phishing sites work :)Ivan Chewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02727226573817276108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7424038.post-1120180267962943322005-07-01T09:11:00.000+08:002005-07-01T09:11:00.000+08:00I like how you are trying to structure the people ...I like how you are trying to structure the people value risks... in this case, how worthwhile information is before someone tediously checks on it. From academic papers to magazine articles to web reviews, I think we're getting to complacent and take things at face value because most information we see nowadays in condensed into "titbit" sizes. This can mislead us to think of it as a factoid than a myth since we don't see the immensity of the whole investigation or research. Psychology of design definitely plays a part in this... <BR/><BR/>small blurb = digestible truth <BR/>vs. <BR/>bigger article = more thinking required<BR/><BR/>What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com