Gloomy

but considering how many people get a large soda in the morning and sip on it all day,

I am European and this sentence broke something in my soul.

What is this, lost earth?

Reading random studies

I searched for related studies and found this one relevant. That is not random.

you find on news sites

It’s from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?

that are outside your area of expertise

While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It’s not hard to understand for lay people.

an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.

That’s why you read more then one study. You know, like I specifically called out that this one links to a lot of related work?

In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates

It indicates that republicans are more likley to belive fake news.

Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.

Yes, but nobody did that here? I’m confused what you are getting at.

It doesn’t answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.

Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.

In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045

There is very little evidence for the idea of persistence hunting ever beeing a thing.

Despite the idea’s foothold in popular culture, however, there is no hard evidence that ancient humans were persistence hunters, much less that persistence hunting shaped evolutionary traits. In fact, what evidence there is doesn’t support the notion that early humans acquired their meaty meals through feats of running endurance; it flatly contradicts it.

https://undark.org/2019/10/03/persistent-myth-persistence-hunting/

Yes, let’s have exponensial groth instead.

The report by the special rapporteur also accuses Palestinian militias, including those involved in the October 7 massacres in Israel, of violating human rights. Albanese states that the Israeli occupation and the Gaza blockade does not justify the actions of Palestinian armed groups. The report further implies that their indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and children can be viewed as war crimes. However, the report concludes that Israel’s brutal reprisals on Gaza’s densely populated residential areas also cannot be justified.

This sums up this whole mess rather well.

I know you are making fun and all, but things like this are indeed reproduced.

Basicly it’s a process of cultural and collective copy and pasting, where media and indivulas reproduce a concept by either activly using it (or not) or passives acepting it.

It’s a bit more complex than that, but you probably get the idea.