back to article 'Tree Octopus' proves journos no smarter than 13-year-old Americans

During Saturday – at least to this writer, it may have started Friday in the lagging time-zones – a story started to take off on Twitter, news sites and blogs. Picking up – either marginally re-written or verbatim – a wire release, journalists were gratified to discover that the Internet makes kids stupid. Specifically, the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Winkypop Silver badge
    Joke

    SAVE the North West Pacific Tree Octopus!!

    www.greenpeace.org

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Snipe Hunt

    Yeah, a text book snipe hunt. Not very meaningful.

    I think most seventh graders know that a lot of crap is on the internet, they create a lot of it themselves!

  3. Mike S

    Its the kids' sense of humor that's suffering

    But its also pretty clear that journalists are a bunch of hacks that don't bother to fact check the material they report!

    (Wait, did I just comment on an article without following the links it contains? Is it possible el Reg is pulling one over on me to demonstrate something about its readers?)

  4. Gwaptiva
    Thumb Down

    Is this a test of gullible reg readers?

    The study by Professor Lau is old. Inkling magazine published a report on it in March 2007 according to its website

    http://www.inklingmagazine.com/articles/tentacled-tree-hugger-gets-legs-up-on-twelve-year-olds/

    Obviously it's a web site, so its timestamping has probably been doctored...

  5. Chemist

    Think this needs rephrasing

    I know what you means but there really is something very wrong with :

    "used to prove the link between vaccination and autism."

  6. Parax
    Boffin

    Internet not required...

    Homeopathy, Astrology, Chinese Medicine, Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, Fake Moon Landings, etc...

    The Internet really does not make people bad researchers.. that comes naturally.

  7. MJI Silver badge

    Tree octopus

    We all know they live on a Pacific island and don't let them think you are a coconut!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Next..

    You'll be telling me that Drop Bears don't exist!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      No worries there mate...

      http://australianmuseum.net.au/Drop-Bear

      Pay particular attention to the habitat map.. and remember to smear Vegemite behind your ears..

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Kids these days cant even use Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest_tree_octopus

    so much for being unreliable...

  10. Tigra 07
    Coat

    Found a flaw in your research mr scientist...

    These kids believe a massive fat man brings them presents once a year all in one night, doesn't claim benefits, isn't bogged down by health and safetly laws, exploits a garden gnome population in a place of the world they can't escape, and does all of this for FREE.

    And this scientist is surprised they believed there's a species of octopus that can climb TREES!

  11. Stanislaw
    Boffin

    Depends on how the question was asked

    Looking at the ppt, it appears mostly to be statements of the bleeding obvious - which leads me to think that there is still a species of academic extant that thinks this stuff is interesting and clever research, and not merely modern life skill that people acquire anyway. That, however, is beside the point.

    It would be interesting to know exactly what the students were actually asked to do. The mere fact that 24 out of 25 students recommended the cited web site as a source of information tells us very little. They might have been very well aware that it is a hoax, but if they had been told to produce a report on this tree octopus then the natural thing to do would be to write one, regardless of whether or not they believed that the thing actually exists. The site then becomes a useful tool.

    The crucial info we are not given, at least in this ppt, is whether or not the students believed the data on the web site to be true or not. It is entirely consistent that the students would recommend the site without believing a word of it.

  12. Aldous
    FAIL

    or is it

    that most schools in my day ( 10 years ago) rammed facts down your throat and asking a question was seen as dissent? if this trend continues no wonder the kiddies cant tell the difference after all if someone says it, it must be true!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      yes..

      It was often frowned upon to ask how planes could fly upsidedown, whilst the physics teacher was explaining that aerofoils provided the lift...

  13. Floot

    The proper context

    "To put this in context: a sample of 25 students is almost double the sample size that Andrew Wakefield used to prove the link between vaccination and autism."

    I'm sure you are aware of the actual context, but unfortunately there are still a lot of people who genuinely believe that Andrew Wakefield's proof is valid : I guess that is the point of writing this the way you did, but the fact remains that the consequences for the children of the believers is often quite appalling and I would suggest that a more plain and straightforward statement of the context would do these children a favor.

  14. Kevin Johnston

    Plausibility

    Anyone remember reports about the original War of the Worlds broadcast causing panic amongst supposedly adult members of the population?

    What would you rather believe, a beautiful theory or an ugly fact?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I know

    I've been a research fellow for 10 years. Here is how it works:

    1 - Find a bullshit subject (anything whatsoever goes, so don't think too much)

    2 - Bullshit a public organisation (that's easy) and/or private company (easy if the public organisation brings most of the cash, but less stupid if it's their money) to obtain funds. If you have a long history in bullshitting, you should be prof, thus increasing considerably your chances to obtain new funds for more bullshit research.

    3 - Spend the money.

    4 - VERY IMPORTANT: disseminate your bullshit through conference and journal papers and a couple of thesis. Remember that what matters is not what you say, it's the way you say it, so use words that sound big and clever. Never say "I was wrong" but say "the empirical results do not seems to support the original hypothesis", and say "further research is required to refine our results and reach a conclusion" rather than "I don't know" so that you sound smart AND you hint that you need more money (always a bonus).

    5 - Repeat from step 1 until retirement.

    Once upon a time, in a distant past, research involved genuinely smart people doing some incredible work that changed the way we view the word. Unfortunately, this is now very rare, and any idiot can get a PhD in something (and I know what I'm talking about). I'm actually glad the gov chopped research funds, hopefully that will help focusing on genuinely good work (I'm not holding my breath though), and let us see it shine within the overwhelming pile of crap.

  16. Matthew 3

    Panorama...

    Anonymous John has already alluded to this but, for the benefit of those not from the UK, way back in 1957 the BBC documentary Panorama ran an elaborate spoof for 1st April.

    (http://tinyurl.com/3f5gq)

    Does this perhaps mean that all televised research of the last half-century has also affected children's abilities? Or perhaps that, once they've been shown this valuable lesson, they won't be caught out again?

    I'd say that the conclusions drawn here should only apply if these children are still believing everything they read the third time they've been asked to research something online.

  17. deshepherd

    Double bluff

    > However, link #3 is Wikipedia page which in the summary you can see from the google search results (i.e. you don't even need to follow the link) includes the word Hoax.

    ... but then my son's schools have started to teach children to employ a degree of scepticism over Wikipedia articles (due to the number of well known hoaxes there) and as a result the fact that Wikipedia says this is a hoax might actually make them believe the story to be true!

  18. Tom 38

    The hardest thing you learn in school

    is that your teachers are often full of shit. Most kids take a long time to understand this, and don't question. If a teacher told them to research an animal, they would trust the teacher that the animal exists, particularly if they are only 12 (grade 7 == 12, right?)

    Anyone who studies chemistry or physics sufficiently will get there; it's hard not to when each year your teacher explains that they were lying about what they taught you last year.

  19. Peter Galbavy
    FAIL

    sponsored by a well known global brand...

    I assume that the study was actualy a confidential one sponsored by a leading (insert name here) global brand company that wanted to make sure that 11 years olds were just as wide eyed and gullible as before the internet - to make sure their marketing will continue working.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Republic of Cascadia

    But it must be true, it lives in a real country!

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Main Point

    The main point here is not that the internet makes people credulous, it's that people need to be trained on how to use the internet as a research tool.

    BITD kids were taught how to use the library as a research tool. Generally speaking you could trust the school library a lot more than the internet. For a start the books in the school library had presumably been selected by the school, which should make it less likely that false (particularly what might be termed malicously false) information would find it's way in there. Secondly we were taught not to rely on a single source of information, cross checking with other sources was drummed into us. If two sources disagreed then we should find more sources. And we were always taught to check bibliographies where available, if one source cited one of our other sources or two of our sources cited the same source then we knew we weren't cross checking, but repeating the same information.

    Some exampled of where research can fall down pm the internet: Information is repeated many times by people who don't bother to check - hoaxes and genuine errors are therefore compounded. Sources are often not cited, making it hard to check. Cited sources are often false in the case of hoaxes. Kids should be taught to be wary of any information that doesn't cite a source. They should also be told to follow up on any cited sources, if the trail goes cold it could well be a hoax. There are also circular references where two or more sources cite each other.

    That kids fall for this is a sign of bad teaching, not a sign that there is anything wrong with the internet as a research tool. That adults fall for this is more understandable as they were never taught how to use the internet as a research tool.

  22. Harry

    Mummy, can I have Octopus for dinner ?

    No you can't. Do you think octopus grows on trees ?

  23. Max_Normal

    Interesting

    I wonder whether this was inspired by the "Squibbon" from the 2005 "The Future Is Wild" documentary? Or will squid and octupi follow different aboreal evolutionary pathways.

  24. rciafardone
    Thumb Up

    Congratulations to El Reg.

    If only the simple analysis that spears at the end of the article was somehow also done by people who report on homeopathy and similar stupid stuff...

    Yes i am looking at you Deepack Chopra fanbois reporters...

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.