We have recently started discussing sources and how reliable they are and how one can tell. A recent reading we had was called “Yes, I’d lie to you” was published by The Economist. After doing some digging I discovered it was started in 1843 by a hatmaker to campaign against the protectionist corn laws. They now talk about things like science, tech, business, financial markets, and politics. In the article they go over the term “post truth”, this is when they don’t care if it bares any reality, just what will fire up the voters. Appealing to their emotional side rather than relying on factual evidence. We also read an article called “This article won’t change your mind”. This article was done by Atlantic Daily, where they believe in honest reporting. They are known for challenging assumptions and pursuing the truth. They talk about cognitive dissonance where the extreme discomfort of simultaneously holding two thoughts that are in conflict. They say groups are usually better at coming up with correct answers to reasoning tasks than individuals. One passage talks about how the internet is so large that is has evidence for both sides of a claim. But many will seek out the side that supports their opinion. They use the fact that it was on the internet to support that the claim they have is more known, the more people who believe it the more convincing it is. The article as a whole is discussing confirmation bias, they refer to it as motivated reasoning. They also say how it isn’t as important to what the information is saying, but what people are saying about the information. I think that people have a preference for the sources that support their position. That doesn’t mean that they’re never encountering what the other side is saying. They’re just dismissing it when they do.