Is there a rule governing the choice of two- or two-X in compound words? How can you guess that bilingual is written without an X, and bilingual, for example, with an X? Thank you very much.
It is difficult to guess this without a dictionary. In most cases options with the first part two- And two- are equal, but a check against a dictionary is still required (for example, against the “Russian Spelling Dictionary” in “Word Check” on our portal).
| Question No. 235966 | ||
I always thought that German surnames declined. For example, in Hitler, about Hitler, etc. However, I have Russian German acquaintances who assure that their surname is not inclined. What should I do? Thank you in advance.
Russian help desk response
The declension/non-declension of surnames depends primarily on what sound (consonant or vowel, stressed or unstressed) the surname ends with. At the same time, the linguistic affiliation of the surname In most cases doesn't matter. If we talk about surnames ending in a consonant, then the following rules apply: male surnames are declined, female surnames are not.
| Question No. 234104 | ||
Hello, please answer me if ( In most cases) “first of all” as an introductory phrase, and whether it is necessary to highlight it with commas in the middle of the sentence. I already asked this question 2 days ago, I did not receive an answer. For clarity, I will give an example: “The choice of learning technologies depends primarily on the age of the students.” Are commas needed before and after “first of all”? Best regards, Olga.
Russian help desk response
Words _first of all_ can act as introductory words and as members of a preposition, but it is often difficult to distinguish between these cases, and the decision to separate them is made by the author of the text. In the example given, it is better not to use commas.
| Question No. 232988 | ||
1. The company is preparing gifts for the coming (N)new year. 2. In what cases is THANKS separated by commas. Thank you
Russian help desk response
1. Correct spelling with a capital letter. 2. If we mean the gerund _thanks_, then it (with or without dependent words) In most cases stands apart. If we mean constructions with the preposition _thanks to_, then their isolation is optional.
| Question No. 230294 | ||
Hello! I would like to know why in Soviet times most words had only one stress, and now these same words have acquired so-called acceptable meanings? I am already afraid to criticize people for the fact that they pronounce this or that word incorrectly, because at any moment someone from the famous Russian Academy of Sciences will take up and allow the second emphasis. I, of course, understand that the language must constantly develop, but at this rate we will soon reach a time when any word will have several acceptable stresses, and the phrase “correct pronunciation” will be an empty phrase. Thank you!
Russian help desk response
Indeed, in recent years the literary norm has softened somewhat. Although in Soviet times many words had equal stress options, the general trend you noticed was correct. In recent decades, there has been a kind of “democratization” of the norm: much of what was previously prohibited by dictionaries has now become acceptable, and sometimes even preferred. There are several reasons for this.
Firstly, spelling dictionaries were previously aimed not only at a wide range of native speakers, but also (and even primarily) at radio and television announcers, whose speech should not have any inconsistency. Therefore the options In most cases not specified; double stress in words was given only when, with all the desire, it was impossible to give preference to one of the options. Now many dictionaries strive to reflect the dynamics of the literary norm, so sometimes they list as acceptable options that are not yet aesthetically acceptable for all native speakers (for example, _agreement, no socks_), but will undoubtedly become so in the future.
Secondly, the attitude of lexicographers to the variation of the norm has changed. Here, for example, is a quote from the preface to the 1959 edition of the orthoepic dictionary of the Russian language: “The presence of hesitations (variants) often violates the correctness of speech and thereby reduces its intelligibility. This is especially intolerable for various forms of oral public speech.” Now such intolerance has passed; According to many linguists, lexicographic activity should not be reduced to “neither the artificial preservation of language remnants, nor the uncompromising prohibition of linguistic new formations” (K. S. Gorbachevich).
Finally, changes in language came after changes in socio-political life. Now there is an understanding that following the norm includes the ability to choose according to the situation of verbal communication. In other words, along with unambiguous rules, the norm also presupposes the possibility of choice. This difference was very successfully formulated by B. S. Schwarzkopf (in his article on quotation marks) as the difference between rule And right. The right to choose (including the choice of a variant of a language unit) and recognition of the right of another native speaker to make a different choice is the most important component of speech communication.
| Question No. 230196 | ||
I asked a question about the spelling of the word "Allocation" (one or two "l"), which is derived from the English "Allocation". Is there any rule in Russian spelling about writing such derivatives? In the literature that I come across, there is a spelling with both one and two “l”. Please kindly respond. Best wishes! Anatoly.
Russian help desk response
There is no clear rule regarding such cases. Since this word, according to sources, is derived from _Latin Al "about" and Locatio "placement"_ and In most cases written with two _l_, we recommend spelling _allocation_.
| Question No. 228431 | ||
Please tell me if " is separated by commas " In most cases", if yes, then in what cases Sincerely, Elena
Russian help desk response
Words _ In most cases _ do not require punctuation.
| Question No. 225107 | ||
Hello. Help us differentiate between the introductory word and the conjunction. Doesn't the same moment apply here as with HOWEVER (at the beginning of the sentence - a conjunction, in the middle - an introductory word)? Thank you.
Russian help desk response
HOWEVER - a conjunction and an introductory word.
1. Union. The same as “however, nevertheless, nevertheless.”
_Little by little, everyone joins their society, having completed quite important homework, such as: having talked with their doctor about the weather and about a small pimple that had popped up on the nose, having learned about the health of horses and their children, who, however, showed great talents, having read the poster and important article in the newspapers about those arriving and departing, finally drinking a cup of coffee and tea... N. Gogol, Nevsky Prospekt. _
2. An introductory word indicating that the author is moving on to another thought or, while expressing his thought, experiences indecision or doubt. As a rule, the introductory word can be removed from the sentence.
Akakiy Akakievich began to make excuses, but everyone began to say that it was discourteous, that it was simply a shame and disgrace, and he absolutely could not refuse. However, he later felt pleased when he remembered that he would have the opportunity to walk around even in the evening in his new overcoat. N. Gogol, Overcoat. “I wished with all my soul to be what you would like me to be; but I never found help in anyone... However, I myself am primarily to blame for everything. Help me, teach me and maybe I will...” - Pierre could not speak further; he sniffed and turned away. L. Tolstoy, War and Peace. Today the chairman of the house committee was looking into a complaint about a dog. Bim won. However, my guest judged like Solomon. Nugget! G. Troepolsky, White Bim Black Ear._
In most cases the word “however,” located at the beginning of the sentence, serves as an introductory word and is separated by a comma from subsequent words. The word “however,” located at the junction of two parts of a complex sentence, usually acts as a conjunction.
| Question No. 222316 | ||
About the answer to question 222254. About the book “Rules of Russian spelling and punctuation. Complete academic reference book" (ed. V. V. Lopatin). It is not entirely clear what you mean by “It can be used as a reference guide.” Does this book replace D. E. Rosenthal's "Handbook of Spelling and Literary Editing"? Both books are reference books. Previously, the main book of the editor/proofreader was "rosenthal". Now we should forget about it and switch to “lopatina”? Which of these authors should we believe in cases of disagreement?
Russian help desk response
As old Muller said, in our time you can’t trust anyone, sometimes even yourself :)
The fact is that the last lifetime edition of Rosenthal’s reference book was published in the early 1990s, and all further reprints of this book were prepared by editors and proofreaders after the death of Dietmar Elyashevich. And some of the recommendations offered in this directory (for example, writing _to Ukraine_) seem very controversial. In addition, Rosenthal's reference book lags somewhat behind modern writing practices.
As for the complete academic reference book “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation”, among its authors are leading researchers from the V. V. Vinogradov Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences and other linguistic institutions, who have prepared more than one reference guide. Thus, N. A. Eskova is the author of the “Concise Dictionary of Difficulties of the Russian Language”, L. K. Cheltsova is one of the authors of the “Reference Book of the Publisher and Author” (together with A. E. Milchin), N. S. Valgina is one one of the leading modern experts on syntax and punctuation.
Our recommendation is to use both books; there are not many discrepancies between them, and in case of discrepancies in the recommendations, in our opinion, it is preferable In most cases refer to the complete academic reference book.
| Question No. 219686 | ||
In what cases is “of course” separated by commas, and in what cases is it not? Thank you
Russian help desk response
In most cases words are _of course_ separated by commas. However, as the reference book on punctuation by D. E. Rosenthal points out, “sometimes the word of course, pronounced in a tone of confidence, conviction, takes on the meaning of an affirmative particle and is not punctuated: _Of course it’s true! Of course it is."
| Question No. 217432 | ||
Are the -nyi endings spelled correctly? Or should I write -nye? “And in unity with him I walk in life” “So that it can be seen from a distance that I am your child” “Waiting patiently in tedious waiting” “The soul hurts, is tormented by anxiety”
Russian help desk response
Forms in -ye are colloquial, but in poetic speech In most cases they are precisely what are used (to facilitate reading and rhyming).
| Question No. 216313 | ||
“of course (,) problems arise...” is there a comma? If so, in what cases is a comma not placed after “of course”? Thank you
Russian help desk response
In most cases words are _of course_ separated by commas. However, as the reference book on punctuation by D. E. Rosenthal points out, “sometimes the word _of course_, pronounced in a tone of confidence, conviction, takes on the meaning of an affirmative particle and is not punctuated: _Of course it’s true! Of course it is." In this case, in our opinion, it is better to put a comma: _Of course, problems arise_.
| Question No. 215093 | ||
Please help me place the emphasis in the following words (this is necessary for dubbing the video). 1) Development of heavy and high-viscosity oil resources? (oil?). In general, oil workers tend to use noun. oil in plural h, would this be a mistake? 2) Multilayer deposits. 3) does capillary pressure bury? (buries?) residual oil. 4) NenutOnovsky? liquids
Russian help desk response
1. The stress falls on the first syllable. The use of the plural form is possible in professional speech. In most cases It is better to use the words _...grades of oil_. 2. Correct: _multi-layered_ (the emphasis falls on _ы_). 3. Correct: _bury_. 4. There are two possible options: _non-Yutonovskie_ and _non-Yutonovskie_.
| Question No. 214306 | ||
Good afternoon again. Please tell me how to write - Our Lady Intercessor, Our Lady Intercessor, Our Lady Intercessor? Thank you.
Russian help desk response
In most cases correct: _Our Lady Intercessor_, but in some cases a different spelling is possible, for example in the title of the icon: _Our Lady Intercessor_.
| Question No. 214111 | ||
Why is a person writing on an Internet blog called a “blogger” (with two “g”). In most cases This is exactly the spelling that appears. Is this true?
Russian help desk response
Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for that
that you are discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us on Facebook And In contact with
There are still a lot of secrets hidden in the halls of human consciousness, but scientists still managed to figure out some of them.
website I collected the most interesting ones: we bet you didn’t even suspect most of them?
- People with high testosterone levels enjoy the anger of others.
- Research has confirmed that some people are born with natural abilities and some are not.
- The brain “rewrites” the monotonous speech of boring people that we sometimes hear to make it more interesting and memorable.
- Singing reduces feelings of anxiety and restlessness, and also helps fight depression.
- The nervous system of the gut and the brain are connected to each other: this is why some emotions immediately affect our digestive system, especially stress.
- Not having friends can be as dangerous as smoking: Scientists have found a link between loneliness and levels of a clotting protein that can cause heart attack and stroke.
- Some people are genetically predisposed to pessimism: they perceive negative events more vividly than others.
- But optimism can be learned, and not just born with such an outlook on life.
- We are only able to choose from a limited number of options, even though we constantly demand more variety. This explains why large menus, thick catalogs and huge supermarkets with a wide range of products create confusion in our minds.
- When you try to remember an event from the past, you are essentially remembering your last memory of that event, not the event itself.
- Food that we didn’t prepare ourselves seems tastier: in the process of preparing a dish, we become “saturated” with its aroma and anticipate the taste, as if we were already half full. It's also been found that we're more likely to eat less if we cook our own food - so what's the idea for a diet?
- Scientists are increasingly paying attention to the connection between sarcasm and intelligence: for example, it was recently discovered that sarcasm develops creative abilities.
- People born blind do not have schizophrenia.
- Many studies show that people tend to exaggerate their own positive characteristics. A typical example: most drivers believe that they drive much better than the average driver.
- When we play it safe and develop a backup plan B, most of the time we fail at plan A.
- Dutch scientists asked 5,000 people and found that on average a woman
We tend to consider ourselves open-minded and think that we are ready to accept new information regardless of whether it contradicts our worldview. But the paradox is that when new facts refute our most cherished beliefs, faith in them only strengthens. In psychology, this phenomenon is called the rebound effect. Journalist David McRain examines the phenomenon using scientific research as an example and explains why we selectively perceive the truth and persist in our delusions.
Wired, The New York Times, Backyard Poultry Magazine - it happens to everyone. Sometimes they make mistakes and get the facts wrong. And then, be it a well-known printed newspaper or an online news resource, the editors admit their guilt. If a news publication needs to maintain its good reputation, the editors publish corrections. Most of the time, this technique works, but what news outlets don't consider is that correction can further distance readers from the truth if the false report matches their beliefs. In fact, those pithy notes on the back page of every newspaper draw our attention to one of the most powerful forces influencing the way we think, feel and make decisions - the mechanism that prevents us from believing the truth.
In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler of the University of Michigan and Georgia State University wrote several articles about key political events. The contents of these articles confirmed widespread misconceptions about some controversial issues in American politics. To begin with, the subject was offered a false article, and then another, which refuted the message of the previous one. For example, one of the articles said that the United States had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next one said that the US never found him, which was true. Pacifists or adherents of liberalism generally rejected the first article and agreed with the second. The militarists and conservatives agreed with the first article and categorically did not accept the second. This reaction is not surprising. What was truly unexpected was the reaction of conservatives when they learned the truth. They admitted that after reading the material that in fact no weapons were found, they were even more convinced that in fact there were weapons in Iraq and that their initial beliefs were correct.
“Being confused, you strengthen your beliefs even more, instead of challenging them. When someone tries to correct you, to dispel your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens your confidence."
The experiment was repeated, this time focusing on stem cell research and tax reform, and again it was found that corrections actually reinforced the misconceptions of study participants if the corrections contradicted their beliefs. People on different sides of the political fence read the same articles and the same corrections, and if new information went against their beliefs, they began to defend their point of view with redoubled tenacity. The corrections unexpectedly led to the opposite results.
When a thought becomes part of your worldview, you try to protect it from outside influences. This happens instinctively and unconsciously as soon as the brain encounters information that is incompatible with its attitudes. Just as the mechanisms of justificatory thinking protect you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect protects you when the facts come to you, attacking where you are most vulnerable. In your confusion, you strengthen your beliefs even more, instead of challenging them. When someone tries to correct you, to dispel your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens your confidence. Over time, thanks to the rebound effect, you begin to look less critically at the facts that allow you to continue to consider your beliefs true and legitimate.
In 1976, when Ronald Reagan was on the presidential campaign trail, he often told voters about a Chicago con artist who made her living by scamming insurance companies. Reagan said the woman had 80 names, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards, which she used to receive food stamps and benefits from health insurance companies. The future president said that the woman drove around in a Cadillac, did not work and did not pay taxes. He talked about this woman, whom he never named, in every small town, and the story infuriated his listeners. Thanks to her, the concept of the “Social Security Queen” entered the American political lexicon and influenced not only the political discourse of America for the next 30 years, but also the government’s social policy. But this story was just a canard.
Of course, there have always been people who stole from the government, but no one who fit the description of Ronald Reagan actually existed. The woman who many historians suspect may have served as the model for the presidential heroine was an actress-con artist who used four false names and moved from place to place, changing her appearance each time, not some housewife mother surrounded by a pack of whiners. children.
Despite the fact that the story was publicly refuted and a lot of time has passed, it is still alive. The fictional lady who wallows in luxury and languishes over mountains of meal tickets while hard-working Americans go on strike is still a fixture in online newspapers these days. The mimetic stability of the word is impressive. Some version of the story appears weekly in blogs and magazine articles about legal violations, although it only takes a couple of clicks to find out it's false.
“When evidence confirms beliefs, people tend to see what they expect to see and draw conclusions that are consistent with their expectations.”
Psychologists call such stories narrative scenarios - these are stories about exactly what we want to hear, confirming our beliefs and giving us the right to adhere to the opinions we have already formed. If belief in safety net queens protects your worldview, you accept the myth and move on with your life. You may have found Reagan's tale disgusting or laughable, but without question you believed stories like these about medical companies interfering with research, or warrantless searches, or the benefits of chocolate. You watched a documentary about the dangers of... something you don't like, and you probably thought it was about the soul. For every Michael Moore "absolutely true" documentary, there are exactly the same documentary with the exact opposite content, in which the champions of the idea argue that their version of the truth is better.
A great example of selective disbelief is Literallyunbelievable.org. Its creators publish comments from Facebook users who believe in articles from the satirical magazine The Onion. Articles about Oprah Winfrey inviting a select few to be buried with her in a luxurious grave, news about the construction of an abortion center for hundreds of millions of dollars, or NASCAR's announcement about awarding bonuses to drivers for homophobic statements - users leave outraged comments on such news in full seriously. Psychologist Thomas Gilovich wrote: “When evidence confirms beliefs, people tend to see what they expect to see and draw conclusions that are consistent with their expectations. If the conclusion matches our attitudes, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe it?”; if the conclusion disappoints us, then we ask ourselves, “Should I believe it?”
That is why particularly ardent critics who believe that Barack Obama was not born in the USA will never believe the hundreds of facts that clearly prove the opposite. When the President's administration released the full text of his birth certificate to the public in April 2011, the reaction of Obama's opponents was exactly what the backfire would suggest. They carefully studied the date of issue of the document, its appearance, its form - and as a result they gathered at the forum and ridiculed it. Their confidence increased even more. This has always been the case and will always be the case when it comes to conspiracy theories or any other incredible facts. A refutation will always only strengthen a person’s belief in the opposite. It is always considered part of a conspiracy, and the lack of facts is attributed to concealment of the truth.
This explains how strange, outdated and downright crazy beliefs survive the fight against science, common sense and facts. However, the truth of the phenomenon lies deeper, because none of us considers ourselves crazy. We do not believe that lightning is sent by a deity who wanted to launch a couple of charges into the ground. You don't wear special underwear to protect your libido from the moonlight. Your beliefs are rational, logical and factual, right?
Fine. Let's talk, for example, about corporal punishment. Is it good or bad? Harmless or harmful? Can corporal punishment be considered a lack of love or, conversely, a manifestation of parental care? Science has its answer, but we'll get to that later. Now try to realize how you feel about this, and you will understand that you yourself want to fall under the influence of others, you passionately want to be enlightened about a great many issues, but you avoid some topics.
The last time you got into or witnessed an online argument with someone who was convinced they knew absolutely everything about health care reform, gun control, gay marriage, sex education, drug wars, Joss Whedon, or whether the number 0.9999, repeated ad infinitum, is equal to zero - remember how it all happened? Have you taught your opponent a valuable lesson? Have you been thanked for helping to understand all the intricacies of a controversial issue after cursing your opponent for his past ignorance? Has a virtual hat been taken off to you for making a better person?
“It is impossible to win an argument on the Internet. When you start throwing around facts and names, hyperlinks and quotes, your opponent actually becomes even more confident that he is right than before you started the argument."
Most likely no. Most online battles unfold according to the same scenario: each side rushes to attack and fishes out more and more evidence from the depths of the Internet to strengthen its position until one of the sides, disappointed, decides to go all in and gets personal . If you are lucky, the comments will be deleted, and you will have time to preserve your honor and dignity, or some third-party commentator will help set a pack of indignants against your opponent.
Research into the backfire effect shows that it is impossible to win an argument online. When you start throwing around facts and names and hyperlinks and quotes, your opponent actually becomes even more confident that he is right than before you started the argument. When he starts contradicting you, the same thing happens in your mind. The reverse effect causes both of you to become even more locked in the belief that you are right.
Have you ever noticed a strange feature: we practically do not pay attention to praise addressed to us, but any criticism strikes us on the spot? Thousands of positive reviews may go unnoticed by us, but one single remark like “sucks” can stick in our heads for several days. One hypothesis to explain why this happens and why the backfire effect works is that we actually spend much more time thinking about information with which we disagree than we do about information that is close to us. Information that confirms our beliefs fades from our consciousness, but when we encounter something that challenges the truth of our beliefs, something that contradicts previously acquired knowledge about how the world works, we stop and Let's take note of this. Some psychologists argue that the explanation for this lies in the theory of evolution. Our ancestors paid more attention to negative stimuli than to positive ones, because negative events need to be responded to somehow. Those who could not adequately respond to a negative stimulus could not survive.
In 1992, Peter Ditto and David Lopez conducted an experiment in which subjects had to dip a small strip of paper into a cup of saliva. The paper was completely ordinary, but the psychologists told one half of the participants that it would turn green if a person had serious problems with the pancreas, and the other half that this would happen if they were completely healthy. Both groups were told that the reaction would take about 20 seconds. Typically, people who were told that the piece of paper would turn green if they were healthy waited much longer for the result than the 20 seconds they were warned about. If the color did not change, 52 percent tried again. In another group, where green was supposed to mean bad news, people were mostly content with 20 seconds, with only 18 percent trying to put the paper in the bowl again.
When you read a negative comment, when someone trashes something you love, and when your beliefs are challenged, you scrutinize the information, looking for weaknesses. Cognitive dissonance blocks your thinking until you can cope with the situation. In the process, you form more neutral connections, construct new memories, and generate some effort—and when you finish thinking about the subject, your original beliefs are stronger than ever.
Psychologist and New York Times columnist Dan Gilbert observes the opposite effect in the fight against excess weight: “It happens that the number on the bathroom scale goes off scale. Then we get off and stand back up again to make sure we see the result correctly and don't lean too heavily on one leg. If we are satisfied with the result, we go into the shower with a smile. Without any further questions, we accept on faith the number that we like, and try again and again if we don’t like the result, thereby, as if unobtrusively, tipping the scales on our side.”
The backfire effect continually rearranges your beliefs and memories, swaying you to one side or the other through a process psychologists call assimilation bias. Decades of research into various types of cognitive distortions have shown that people typically perceive the world through a thick lens of faith, clouded by attitudes and worldviews. In 1996, scientists showed a group of subjects the Bob Dole-Bill Clinton debate and found that before the debate, everyone believed their candidate had won. In 2000, when scholars began studying Clinton supporters and opponents through their reactions to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, they found that Clinton supporters tended to view Lewinsky as an untrustworthy home-wrecker and had difficulty believing that Clinton had lied under oath. Of course, the president's opponents experienced exactly the opposite feelings. Fast forward to 2011, when Fox News and MSNBC were vying for cable territory, each promising a message that would never challenge the beliefs of any given segment of the population. That's biased assimilation in action.
Biased assimilation does not only work in relation to modern events. A group of academics conducted a 2004 study asking liberals and conservatives to weigh in on the 1970 Kent State University shooting, in which National Guard soldiers opened fire on anti-Vietnam War demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine. .
As is usually the case with any historical event, the details of what happened at the University of Kent began to become distorted within a few hours. Years later, books, articles, broadcasts and songs wove an impenetrable web of reasons and motivations, conclusions and assumptions, in which every opinion was somehow justified. In the weeks following the shooting, psychologists surveyed Kent State University students who witnessed the events and found that 6% of liberals and 45% of conservatives believed the National Guard had been provoked. Twenty-five years later, they surveyed the then-students again. In 1995, 62% of liberals said that soldiers committed murder, while only 37% of conservatives agreed with this statement. Five years later, students were given the questionnaire again, and the researchers found that conservatives were still inclined to say that protesters had overstepped their bounds in relation to the National Guard, while liberals saw the soldiers as aggressors. Strikingly, the more people surveyed said they knew about events, the stronger the strength of their beliefs. That is, a person supported the National Guard or protesters the more vehemently the more he knew about what happened. People who were only generally aware of what happened were less likely to experience backlash when evaluating events. The same effect caused those more knowledgeable to deliberately ignore controversial details.
“The mind of man does everything to support and agree with what he has once accepted, either because it is an object of faith or because he likes it. Whatever may be the strength and number of facts that testify to the contrary, the mind either does not notice them, or neglects them, or rejects them through distinctions with great prejudice, so that the reliability of those previous conclusions remains unimpaired. Francis Bacon
In 1997, Geoffrey Munrow and Peter Ditto released a series of false articles. One study said that homosexuality is most likely a mental disorder. Another argued that any sexual orientation is natural and normal. The subjects were then divided into two groups: some considered homosexuality a disease, while others did not. Each group was given fake articles with fictitious facts and evidence, claiming that their point of view was incorrect. After both groups read materials that refuted their beliefs, no one said they suddenly saw the light, realizing that they had been wrong all these years. On the contrary, everyone began to argue that the solution to such problems was beyond the reach of science. When the subjects were later given other topics to discuss, such as spanking and astrology, the same people said they no longer trusted science or its ability to establish truth. Instead of reconsidering their beliefs and facing the facts, people chose to dismiss all science altogether.
Science and literature once painted the future in which we now live. Books, movies and comics of the past depicted cyberpunks surfing the endless expanses of information, and personal communications devices enveloping a person in a cloud of beeps and calls. The stories and midnight chatter on the radio predicted a time when the sum of human knowledge and artistic production would be continuously available on demand and millions of human lives would be interconnected and visible to all who wanted to be seen. And now the very future has arrived, in which we are surrounded by computers that can tell us everything that humanity knows, explain how to perform any task, teach us anything and reveal the essence of any phenomenon on earth. So one day a fictional life became everyday life for us.
And if this promised future has already arrived, why don’t we live in the kingdom of science and reason? Where is the most socio-political and technical utopia, empirical nirvana, the abode of the gods of analytical thought (only without overalls and neon headbands), where everyone knows the truth?
Among the many prejudices and misconceptions that block our path to the realm of microprocessors and skinny jeans, lives a huge monster of our psyche - the reverse effect. He was always there, always influenced the way we and our ancestors saw the world, but the Internet unleashed the beast, greatly increased its persuasiveness, and over the years we have not become any wiser.
As social media and advertising evolve, it will become increasingly difficult for us to overcome people's desire to confirm information that aligns with their beliefs and the counterproductive effect. A person will have more opportunities to choose from the general flow exactly the information that fits into his vision of the world, and, in his opinion, reliable sources that will supply him with such information. To top it off, advertisers will continue to adapt, not only by creating ads based on what they know about a person, but by generating advertising strategies based on data about what has or has not already worked for a person. The advertising of the future will be distributed not only based on your preferences, but also on who you voted for, where you grew up, what mood you're in, what day or year it is - any information about you that can be measured. In a world where everything you want is available, your beliefs will never be questioned.
Three thousand spoilers were tweeted hours before Barack Obama ascended to his presidential pulpit and told the world that Osama bin Laden was dead. A Facebook page, get-rich-quick sites, and millions of emails, text messages, and instant messages announcing the terrorist's death preceded the official announcement on May 1, 2011. Stories and comments poured in one after another, search engines went white-hot. Between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. on the first day, Google searches for bin Laden increased by 1 million percent compared to the previous day. Videos of Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood performing on YouTube took the leading positions in the ranking. Unprepared news sites were scrambling to write news at full speed to supply the insatiable public with more and more informational food.
“In a world where new knowledge flourishes, where scientific discoveries are made every day, illuminating seemingly all aspects of human life, we, like most people, still perceive information very selectively”
It was a stunning demonstration of how the world of information exchange has changed since September 2001, but one thing was predictable and, apparently, inevitable. Within a few minutes after the publication of the first materials about the Seal Team Six special forces, tweets about the shooting of bin Laden and the hasty burial of his body at sea, conspiracy theories bloomed in full bloom in the fertile soil of our prejudices. A few years later, when it became clear that photographic evidence of the incident would not be provided, the conspiracy theories took shape into complete and irrefutable facts.
And although information technology does not stand still, the behavioral patterns that a person uses when it comes to faith, indisputable facts, politics and ideology seem to remain the same. In a world where new knowledge flourishes, where every day scientific discoveries are made that illuminate seemingly every aspect of human life, we, like most people, still perceive information very selectively, even if the fact is supported by scientific data and is based on centuries of research.
Well, what about corporal punishment? After you've read all this, do you think you're ready to find out what science has to say about this topic? A secret source reports that psychologists are still studying this phenomenon, but it is already known that regular spanking makes children under seven years of age more docile if it is not done in public and only by hand. And now attention - a small correction: other ways of influencing behavior: positive reinforcement, symbolic savings, free time, and so on - can also be effective and do not require cruelty.
So, you read these lines and they most likely evoked a strong emotional response in you. Has your opinion changed now that you know the truth?
