Video: https://www.tiktok.com/@distilledscience/video/7499234137899879711
Transcript
This video has over 36 million views, but all of them were fooled. In a perfect example of what might be the biggest problem with today's internet, and by extension, society as a whole. First, watch. New study finds that friends who often playfully insult each other are 300% more honest and loyal. Research shows that we should all absolutely relentlessly roast our friends. Contrary to popular beliefs, psychologists believe that friends who grill each other with frequent, good nature jokes might have stronger friendships after all. Have I told you how much older you are than me lately? Very funny, seemingly innocuous, but dangerous. It comes from a popular news podcast with over a million combined followers that covers real news in a lighthearted fun way. A 2024 report found that over half of American adults at least sometimes get their news from these types of sources, and their audience trusts them. But however lighthearted, this was still a statement about scientific research. She doesn't say what source she was reading from, but you trust her. It sounded sciencey and that statement makes intuitive sense. Let's look at the source. word for word, title and caption from this Instagram post which went viral last month, which itself never cites a source. But the account has over half a million followers, so she probably just trusted it. And she wasn't the only one. I found over 50 different accounts that made their own posts with their own AI-generated images, but almost identical language, sometimes with a few minor tweaks, but always that same new study and 300%, which makes it sound legit. Many of these accounts have millions of followers, and their posts got up to 10, of millions of views, and yet they almost never give credit to even that original Instagram post, let alone cite any actual scientific study, which makes sense because no such study exists. And that 300% number is totally made up, as is the main claim. This original post is an exaggerated version of a 2020 blog article, which paraphrases a 2016 Elite Daily article, whose only sources are a 2012 New York Times article and a 2013 Psychology Today article. And the only study that these cite is a 2006 one that found that Teasers often underestimate how negatively their teasing is perceived. Sometimes pro-social teasing can be light-hearted and fun and bonding. But other times, it's just bullying and the receiver is not really willing to complain. And yet now, tens of millions of people think that their potential bullying is justified by science. Because the statement sounds sciencey, and these days people look to follower counts for credibility rather than actual evidence and citations. Sure, this time and this topic wasn't too bad. of chains of misinformation are spread every single day, every hour. Sometimes they can lead to greater political polarization and division. Other times they can make people do things that harm their own health. The platforms love it because they're just insatiable beasts hungry for our attention. Ideally, I think that large accounts like these shouldn't be allowed to make any factual claims without citing a source, like I do for everything. But that's a pipe dream because it doesn't make money. So instead, the responsibility must ultimately lie with you, the viewer. All three of you who made it this far into the video. Thanks for being here, guys. Drop me one of these in the comments to prove it and confuse the other people. When you see posts like this, or any post that makes a factual claim, immediately look to see if they cite a source. If not, don't believe and don't share. If you are going to comment, give them one of these guys. Let's make it a thing. For science.
Additional notes
- Who saw some version of this post going around? If you did, did you just assume it was true and keep scrolling? (Or share it?) I made a video about that original post when it came out, but as I started seeing more and more viral posts quoting the exact same misinformation, I wanted to use this as an example of the larger problem. For a written version of the breakdown on this post, with all cited links, check out my newsletter! (This topic coming soon) 📚 The original study was called “Intentions in Teasing: When “Just Kidding” Just Isn’t Good Enough” by Kruger et. al (2006) - DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.412 #science #misinformation #health #psychology #citeitorshutit
References
- Intentions in Teasing: When “Just Kidding” Just Isn’t Good Enough. Kruger et al. (2006). DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.412, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.412
- 2024 report on news sources, 2020 blog article, 2016 Elite Daily article, 2012 New York Times article, and 2013 Psychology Today article mentioned in transcript; direct URLs not listed in workbook.