S21CEC12- Part 3ExtraYellow

Hi, everyone.

Sorry about giving you another video to watch, but I

did want to get to the questions that I received

over the weekend.

So I'm kind of doing this in a hurry for

you. Uh, let's take a look at your questions for

article number four.

Um, we look here closely.

I've kind of color coded by your groups, but it

doesn't matter.

Um, again, just like with the other questions I've, um

I've highlighted the parts that I can actually answer again.

A lot.

You guys ask a lot of really good questions.

Um, but But if the if the question cannot be

answered by what's in the text, including inferences made from

the text, uh, then I can't really give you an

answer. That's any better than yours.

So I'm not going to try, Really?

But some of these questions are direct questions that I

can answer from the text like this one.

How does the first one at the top of how

does Paul altering relate to the gray area between truth

and lies?

Yeah. In the story, it says it says the gray

area between truth and lies.

And that's just referring to the common kind of idiom

that we have mentioned before, which is black or white,

black and white or black or white.

Okay, if you say something is black and white or

you say it's black and white.

Oh, you know, if you if you kind of criticize

someone and say, Oh, that's black and white thinking that

means that they they're not considering the details of something.

They're kind of just saying it's all or nothing, right?

So it's again.

It's a kind of simple way of thinking that it's

often incorrect.

It's too general.

So if if something is either black and white, yes

or no up or down, the gray area between tells

you that faltering relates to to an area that is

a detail that that puts it in between the white,

which which would be the truth and the lies, which

would be the black.

So it's gray because it contains a little bit of

the white and a little bit of the black as

well. So it's a little bit truthful, but it's a

little bit of a lie as well.

So that's what they mean the gray area between Okay,

the next one here that I saw was whether you're

asking whether I think the author is being biased.

Do I think the author is being biased again?

You can.

I like your question here when you're talking about framing

and you're saying it seems like the impression the overall

impression was negative and she focuses on the manipulation.

But then the author mentions the innocent examples of faltering

I agree with you that that there's there seems to

be a kind of an attitude and perspective of the

of the author.

There seems to be, uh, kind of both sides being

presented here.

And just like I said before, it's up to you

to decide whether you think overall, this author is being

positive or negative critical of this of this idea, it

helps to keep in mind the structure.

When I'm trying to figure out the author's attitude, I

bring into into the thinking the structure and the structure

I thought for for this article was it's mainly descriptive.

It's mainly describing this new concept of faltering has a

lot of compare and contrast in it, though, right?

So if I think the structure is kind of descriptive

and there's a lot of comparing contrast with again with

with, like, faltering amongst, um, politicians and other public figures

and what we do in our own lives that when

I take into consideration all of that, I think that

the author clearly well, I I don't know.

I wouldn't say clearly, but I would say that the

author is not biased.

I wouldn't use the word biased.

Okay, but what I would say is that it's It's

hard to determine whether the authors, um attitude and the

way they speak about it is more objective or not.

But I think clearly the the author is fairly objective

because they're presenting both sides.

But the author can be a little loose in the

way they refer to it.

So I'm going to leave it like that.

And this goes into the next question here from Group

D R R simplifications all soap altering and this question

that you're asking about here, um, that that the simplifications

again, whether it's being simple about something, is actually faltering.

I think this is really this is really good thinking

from Group D.

Um, the in this article, you can see there's actually

a bit of an issue with that isn't there that

when the authors talking about Paul altering the author seems

to include a lot of things into faltering that may

not actually beep altering.

For example, what you mentioned here is that when when?

When there's a kind of case where the where the

author wants to tell you.

Or I should say the speaker wants to wants to

say something in a more kind of general sense so

that people can understand it.

You know, like when the UK Labour Party talks about

talks about what they're talking about, you know, whether you

can you know about voting and whether you can, whether

you can join the Army or whether you can get

married. All of those things are an oversimplification, and that

doesn't really matter.

It doesn't map well.

We say it doesn't fit well on to the idea

of faltering, because it's not a classic example of faltering.

But it is, I think, notable that the author doesn't

really talk about that distinction between whether at what point,

if you just kind of simplify something and say it

more generally more generally, at what point does that become

kind of misrepresented misrepresentation?

When does it become a lie?

And by the way, this is very related to the

idea of stereotyping.

Do you know stereotyping?

That's a really simple I mean, that's a really big

problem by being overly simple, really, is what the issue

is when you stereotype, you say all of these things

are the same when actually they're not, and the details

matter often.

So I agree with you.

I think that's kind of a red flag from the

author. Actually, that the author didn't distinguish a lot of

differences between different ways of kind of, of speaking, like

over, you know, like giving generalizations or simplifications of of

of information without trying to actually mislead.

Okay, um, this question here, number 11.

What does the phrase we give our kids very mixed

messages mean mixed messages means that it confuses.

It's a message that someone says to someone that is

very confusing because it contains both two things that seemed

like the opposite.

So the two messages here are You shouldn't lie, And

then the other messages I'm lying to you and it's

okay. So again, if you're trying to tell kids that

you shouldn't lie, you're trying to give them examples of

that. And yet you tell them that there is a

Santa Claus, which is a lie.

So what's which one is true?

Can I can I know that the child wonders?

Are you telling me that it's okay to lie?

Sometimes? Are you telling me it's never okay to lie?

Those are two competing or contrasting.

I, you know, ways to act, uh, and speak about

truth. So they're mixed.

It's a mixed message.

So the result of a mixed messages confusion.

Okay, The next one is why the author dealt with

so many different examples and mentioned different experts.

Well, this is, uh, you're talking about credibility.

Is there a problem with credibility with using so many

sources? I don't think so.

I don't think so.

I think the more you can put into your story

is usually the better.

It helps to make your story more believable.

However, we did talk about the idea of over doing

it, putting too many sources in our too much instead

of in other words, instead of speaking for yourself as

the author you're having other people speak for you.

If you use too many quotations or too.

Too much.

Write too much outside information and not enough of your

own. Well, again, this is up to you to decide.

Is this a red flag?

Is this author using too many things and not really

expressing their own opinion?

And it is kind of hard to tell what the

author is kind of perspective is of this of this

story a little bit because they present so from both

two different sides a little bit.

And they talk about politicians or public figures, lives in

people's lives, and and also, um, the, you know, the

idea of of of experts being brought in to to

in many different, you know, little pieces all throughout This

is up to you to decide whether you think that's

a red flag.

Personally, I I don't really see it as a problem.

I think that the experts are okay that the amount

seems alright to me, although I could see someone arguing

in certain places where it's not needed.

So yeah.

Okay. This one, um, this question here is this the

last question We got something down at the bottom.

But this this question here is about paragraph 19 when

Rogers is talking about.

It's how human cognition works.

Yeah, So what does this mean?

The idea.

What is this, this cognition that he's talking about in

paragraph 19?

So if we look at the story in paragraph 19,

Um, yes, I would be over here, going down, Baby

Barber. Yeah, it says here, lying can and does, um,

it does.

He lying can and does clearly serve a devious social

purpose so that the author clearly is saying, it's bad.

It's people use it for bad.

It can help someone paint a better picture of the

truth or help so we could do something good, kind

of paint something better.

Or it can kind of let politicians not answer a

question they don't want to.

It's unethical, and it makes our democracy worth worse.

But it's how human cognition works.

Human cognition means how we think, how we operate in

real life.

And so in other words, this is a way human

cognition. It's how human cognition works.

Another way to say that would be that this is

just natural.

It's just human nature.

It's just the way we are as humans.

We can't help it.

We lie.

Sometimes it's just part of the way human brains work.

We don't always tell the truth perfectly.

Is what the author is saying here.

Okay, so you can see Rogers.

I should say, saying this, um saying and then the

the examples that follow are examples.

These examples here about Santa and the tooth fairy, these

mixed messages, the way that we're saying that you shouldn't

lie. But then here, look, we're going to lie to

you. Well, again, This is just the way people are.

They don't.

In other words, people are not robots.

They're not logical.

They should.

They should be consistent, but they're not.

Parents tell things to their Children that are confusing because

they're opposites, right?

Is it okay or not?

Okay. But they mix and mixed messages saying sometimes it's

okay, sometimes it's not.

Okay. Uh, this question here, why is it challenging the

spotlight in real time?

This is Yeah.

This is a question I asked in self study for,

um they talk about in real time.

I wanted you to focus on the idea that in

real time means actually, as it's happening when you see

the in real time, that implies that the person who

is the actor?

You know, you're trying to spot the lies, the or

the faltering.

You're trying to spot them.

It's hard because you're not just a scientists who doesn't

have to interact.

You can't just sit back with a lab coat and

watch what happens and listen and look at the transcript

like like in research.

You can't do that in real time.

You are in it.

You're a participant, so people are talking to you.

You feel nervous?

Maybe. Maybe you you ate too much that day and

you kind of burping or you feel kind of uncomfortable.

Maybe you're thirsty.

You're Maybe you got to use the bathroom.

I mean, all of these real life things play into

your ability to spot to actually pay attention carefully to

what people are saying and when they are faltering or

lying. In other words, it's hard to do when you

have all of these other things that you have to

think about and care about, including your physical body and

interactions with other people.

Okay. Uh, why Second question 12.

Why are most people not comfortable challenging someone in that

way again?

You can read that and you can go watch that

video of Paxman and Howard.

Most people are not comfortable repeating the same question when

someone doesn't answer.

So if I say, uh, you know if he hears

you and here's your mom and you know, let's not

use your mom because you would never do that.

But imagine here's your friend.

And here's you.

You were You're waiting for your friend and she's an

hour and a half late and she comes up and

goes, Oh, hi.

I'm here.

And then you say, Well, where were you and then

your friend, uh, you go Wait a minute.

Where were you?

And then your friend says something.

Oh, you know, I'm sorry I'm late.

It's okay.

Let's just get started.

No. Why are you late?

Well, you know, I it's very busy outside the road

is traffic, you know?

No. Why are you late?

You know, people are uncomfortable acting like that being a

robot. They just keep asking the question over and over

until that person gives a direct answer.

Uh, that that doesn't again.

That's uncomfortable.

Okay, The last one there looking like a blimp.

Yes, it does mean looking fat.

A blimp is a big, long thing shaped like a

watermelon. So if you look like that, if you look

like a blimp, it means you're really fat.

So you don't want to tell somebody they're really fat.

So instead of saying they look like a blimp, you

might Paultre, they say and tell them Oh, no, you

look fine.

Yeah, you look, you look, you know, you might think

of something.

Oh, yeah.

You look thinner than before, you know?

Maybe they do.

But it's not thin and no admission.

What is?

No admission of guilt?

No. Admission of guilt means that you don't admit that

you did something wrong in this example.

Trumps trumps organization.

Did something wrong?

They discriminated against, you know, they were racially discriminating against

certain African American people and they, but they wouldn't admit

it in court.

Even though they did it and they got caught, they

wouldn't say.

They wouldn't say I did it.

Okay, good luck on the exam.

S21CEC12- Part 3ExtraYellow

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated