"In this paper the authors analyzed the symptomatic differences observed between two groups: (1) people who effectively discriminated online fake news, and (2) people who ineffectively discriminated online fake news. The symptomatic differences were based on four personality disorders, symptoms that characterize psychotic spectrum disorders (PSD), anxiety, and addiction disorders. The main objective of the study was to find out whether symptom levels of the disorders analyzed increased or decreased as a function of the individual's ability to detect fake news online."
Maybe they should be profiling the purveyors of disinformation, the propagandists, instead. In fact, they explicitly take the role of a propagandist themselves in this piece, supplying the participants with information they've concluded to be false. Besides, a lot of questionable assumptions and papers cited. Given the situation during the pandemic, the approach is completely bogus to begin with:
"The COVID-19 fake news test consists of 18 statements about coronavirus; 6 false (fake news), 6 true, and 6 indeterminate (i.e., due to lack of evidence, it was not possible to establish content veracity). To ensure validity, statements were worded according to the World Health Organization (2020) guidelines for identifying true and false news. After reading each statement, participants indicated whether content was true (“YES”), false (“NO”), or whether they were uncertain (“?”). For each correct response a point was awarded, other answers received no points (errors were not penalised). Correspondingly, total scores ranged from 0 to 18 points."
"The duration of the sample collection was 7 months (from March to September 2021)."
Now, at minimum, they should disclose what were the true and false statements in 2021. In other words, the "correct" answer during that time would have probably been "uncertain" (?) to all items asked.
I am not an expert in COVID-19, but, yes, I think in 2021 everything was uncertain to everyone, including scientists, physicians, and political leaders alike.
So I checked the paper linked. I thought it dealt with questions about face masks, quarantines, and such, but instead there were some silly things like "coronaviruses can spread more quickly through electromagnetic fields".
Nevertheless, to my limited understanding, I think this is questionable because it tends to indicate an absolute answer instead of a probability:
"Coronaviruses can be deadly at any age."
I think this also turned out to be false according to the latest in media, if I recall correctly:
"Coronavirus can be prevented through vaccination."
Someone also linked a paper on these "stimulant substances", but I have no idea about that.
And as said, you have to reflect all this during the uncertainty in the middle of the pandemic in 2021.
"In this paper the authors analyzed the symptomatic differences observed between two groups: (1) people who effectively discriminated online fake news, and (2) people who ineffectively discriminated online fake news. The symptomatic differences were based on four personality disorders, symptoms that characterize psychotic spectrum disorders (PSD), anxiety, and addiction disorders. The main objective of the study was to find out whether symptom levels of the disorders analyzed increased or decreased as a function of the individual's ability to detect fake news online."
Maybe they should be profiling the purveyors of disinformation, the propagandists, instead. In fact, they explicitly take the role of a propagandist themselves in this piece, supplying the participants with information they've concluded to be false. Besides, a lot of questionable assumptions and papers cited. Given the situation during the pandemic, the approach is completely bogus to begin with:
"The COVID-19 fake news test consists of 18 statements about coronavirus; 6 false (fake news), 6 true, and 6 indeterminate (i.e., due to lack of evidence, it was not possible to establish content veracity). To ensure validity, statements were worded according to the World Health Organization (2020) guidelines for identifying true and false news. After reading each statement, participants indicated whether content was true (“YES”), false (“NO”), or whether they were uncertain (“?”). For each correct response a point was awarded, other answers received no points (errors were not penalised). Correspondingly, total scores ranged from 0 to 18 points."
"The duration of the sample collection was 7 months (from March to September 2021)."
Now, at minimum, they should disclose what were the true and false statements in 2021. In other words, the "correct" answer during that time would have probably been "uncertain" (?) to all items asked.