Outsourcing truth and importance to the comments
June 26, 2024 12:42 PM Subscribe
"Within a week of actual research, we just threw out the term information literacy," says Yasmin Green, Jigsaw's CEO. Gen Zers, it turns out, are "not on a linear journey to evaluate the veracity of anything." Instead, they're engaged in what the researchers call "information sensibility" — a "socially informed" practice that relies on "folk heuristics of credibility." In other words, Gen Zers know the difference between rock-solid news and AI-generated memes. They just don't care. from Google studied Gen Z. What they found is alarming. [Business Insider; ungated]
Includes: 13 slang words Gen Zers are using in 2024 and what they really mean
Includes: 13 slang words Gen Zers are using in 2024 and what they really mean
As a Gen Xer, I'm inherently skeptical of broad pronouncements about the up-and-coming generation. You should have heard some of the stuff boomers said about us. (Not that we cared. Like, whatever.) But I'll confess that I worried about the idea that Gen Z checks the comments to decide what to believe.
a “Gen Xer” who essentializes others based on marketing terms. ok boomer. delulu is the solulu
posted by HearHere at 12:52 PM on June 26 [14 favorites]
a “Gen Xer” who essentializes others based on marketing terms. ok boomer. delulu is the solulu
posted by HearHere at 12:52 PM on June 26 [14 favorites]
Where older generations are out there struggling to fact-check information and cite sources
Have these people ever met...people?
posted by mittens at 12:52 PM on June 26 [39 favorites]
Have these people ever met...people?
posted by mittens at 12:52 PM on June 26 [39 favorites]
seriously, though, it is kind of fascinating to see what's basically the information environment of a pre-industrial village (where gossip is news and vice versa) scale up beyond geography, and to wonder what extent "broadcast" (whether via newspaper, radio, tv, website, blog, etc, essentially where the technology forces the information flow to be many-to-one because capex) will turn out to be a five-century historical blip just because the tech hadn't caught up yet.
That's probably a utopian viewpoint to take though; I'm guessing the influencer-to-audience graph on TikTok looks pretty broadcast-y in the end.
posted by Vetinari at 12:59 PM on June 26 [12 favorites]
That's probably a utopian viewpoint to take though; I'm guessing the influencer-to-audience graph on TikTok looks pretty broadcast-y in the end.
posted by Vetinari at 12:59 PM on June 26 [12 favorites]
I also love how this article/essay frames Gen-Z as the problem and while digital literacy is important, I think the onus should not just be placed on all of the kids or the rest of us, the consumers, rather it should be placed on the evil media/tech/businesses out there intentionally overwhelming everyone with information, disinformation, terrible UI, fake advertisements and horrendously shitty moderation that puts all of us at risk. But what do I know, I'm an elder millennial typing this while I'm at work ignoring a ticketing queue.
posted by Fizz at 1:01 PM on June 26 [53 favorites]
posted by Fizz at 1:01 PM on June 26 [53 favorites]
Well, I know that when I was 13 to 24, I was diligently reading long-form articles and checking my sources, as were virtually all my peers whether nerdy speech team types or not. I certainly didn't spend my time trying to amuse myself. Also, I wasn't loyal to information from a magazine, fanzine, musician or writer that I liked or anything. I got my news from the Financial Times, Foreign Affairs and Le Monde Diplomatique like all my friends.
~~~
I think there's some differences in how people access and understand news that have to do with readily available sources - I couldn't have gotten my news from social media as a teenager even if I'd wanted to. But frankly, I'm way more worried about older, richer, voting-er folks looking at god knows what on Facebook and Fox than I am about some seventeen-year-old trying out a diet without checking the science (also something no one ever did when I was young, of course.)
posted by Frowner at 1:03 PM on June 26 [43 favorites]
~~~
I think there's some differences in how people access and understand news that have to do with readily available sources - I couldn't have gotten my news from social media as a teenager even if I'd wanted to. But frankly, I'm way more worried about older, richer, voting-er folks looking at god knows what on Facebook and Fox than I am about some seventeen-year-old trying out a diet without checking the science (also something no one ever did when I was young, of course.)
posted by Frowner at 1:03 PM on June 26 [43 favorites]
Things do change - it's different being a teenager now than it was in the nineties, subjectivities differ, shared assumptions differ. It's not that everything is identical and therefore it's a waste of time to try to study generational differences. But when I read an article that seems premised on the believe that teens and young adults were diligent fact-checkers in previous generations, I really would like to see more data for comparison.
When I was a teen, I didn't check the comments because there were no comments, but was I therefore more conscious about how reliable my sources were?
Similarly, among older people, how many of us are extremely diligent about news sources and are persistently unswayed by comments? Weren't we the generation that invented TL;DR? I'm prepared to believe that some older people are more diligent, but I need to see whether they became more diligent with time and whether all or most older people are substantially more diligent than teens.
Frankly, unless it was in The Progressive or the Village Voice or a fanzine, current events made very little impression on me until I had regular access to the internet. I knew quite a lot about a handful of events, but very little about most. I read a lot more news now.
posted by Frowner at 1:24 PM on June 26 [8 favorites]
When I was a teen, I didn't check the comments because there were no comments, but was I therefore more conscious about how reliable my sources were?
Similarly, among older people, how many of us are extremely diligent about news sources and are persistently unswayed by comments? Weren't we the generation that invented TL;DR? I'm prepared to believe that some older people are more diligent, but I need to see whether they became more diligent with time and whether all or most older people are substantially more diligent than teens.
Frankly, unless it was in The Progressive or the Village Voice or a fanzine, current events made very little impression on me until I had regular access to the internet. I knew quite a lot about a handful of events, but very little about most. I read a lot more news now.
posted by Frowner at 1:24 PM on June 26 [8 favorites]
I think the biggest thing is that the general trend is away from consensus 'reality', - or an ever-increasing number of consensus realities - with all of the good and (IMHO mostly) bad that implies.
posted by lalochezia at 1:27 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 1:27 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
So, after a therapeutic clutch at my pearls, I figured I'd better check it out. To evaluate Jigsaw's research, I performed a scientific gut check: I looked at Google Scholar to see how many other researchers had cited the study. That's a standard metric for how much a field values any given journal article.Yes! Comment sections can be so good at refuting or adding nuance or context to shared content. I just hope people are engaging critically with the framing of the sharer.
And then I realized: I was basically checking the comments. We all do it — we look for lots of links, for 5-star reviews, for what the replies say. These are all valid ways to surf the modern social-informational ecosystem. The kids are all right, and all right.
For example, recently there was some publicity around redesigned bedrooms that will be used for athletes' dorms in the next Olympics. Once some people noticed the beds were small and flimsy and not suited for all the sex that Olympic athletes have together, someone speculated (or confidently imputed) that that was the reason for the redesign- to reduce the sex-having among Olympians. This was the angle the story needed to attract shares and comments; people are more interested when they think the story is about sex, and get to demonstrate their savvy by dunking on designers silly enough to think they can stop the most gifted athletes with a flimsy bed. I'm not aware of any evidence, though, that the design was motivated by a desire to stop sex; the story was just framed that way- not even by the author of the article, but by the people sharing it on social media.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 1:27 PM on June 26 [11 favorites]
Instead, they're engaged in what the researchers call "information sensibility" — a "socially informed" practice that relies on "folk heuristics of credibility."
But everyone does that. It's printed in the New York Times? That's a heuristic of credibility. Boomers don't read something in the Times and then try to "fact-check information and cite sources"- they read it in the Times!
posted by BungaDunga at 1:28 PM on June 26 [19 favorites]
But everyone does that. It's printed in the New York Times? That's a heuristic of credibility. Boomers don't read something in the Times and then try to "fact-check information and cite sources"- they read it in the Times!
posted by BungaDunga at 1:28 PM on June 26 [19 favorites]
anyway this research very specifically didn't interview anyone over 24- "they relied on intense interviews with a handful of 13- to 24-year-olds"- so making broad pronouncements that Gen Z are different seems unwarranted. You'd need to perform the same interviews with millenials and up to even begin to know.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:32 PM on June 26 [10 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 1:32 PM on June 26 [10 favorites]
Boomers don't read something in the Times and then try to "fact-check information and cite sources"
Presumably this is the main reason why the Times opinion pages are able to continue their consent manufacturing work rather than being universally seen as the instantly compelling reason to cancel one's subscription that they've been for at least as long as David Brooks has been able to get a gig there.
My favourite bit of young slang: "The centrist has entered the chat".
posted by flabdablet at 1:35 PM on June 26 [23 favorites]
Presumably this is the main reason why the Times opinion pages are able to continue their consent manufacturing work rather than being universally seen as the instantly compelling reason to cancel one's subscription that they've been for at least as long as David Brooks has been able to get a gig there.
My favourite bit of young slang: "The centrist has entered the chat".
posted by flabdablet at 1:35 PM on June 26 [23 favorites]
For Gen Z, the online world resembles the stratified, cliquish lunchroom of a 1980s teen movie.
What a nightmare.
posted by doctornemo at 1:41 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
What a nightmare.
posted by doctornemo at 1:41 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
Give it a while. It will resemble the stratified, cliquish lunchroom of a 2050s nursing home soon enough.
posted by flabdablet at 1:45 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 1:45 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
"Gen Z values authenticity more than older generations did." (from the "Gen Z slang" article).
I'm Gen X and was told it was my generation that valued authenticity. It's as if these journalists will say that about any generation. That strikes me as…inauthentic.
posted by adamrice at 1:45 PM on June 26 [17 favorites]
I'm Gen X and was told it was my generation that valued authenticity. It's as if these journalists will say that about any generation. That strikes me as…inauthentic.
posted by adamrice at 1:45 PM on June 26 [17 favorites]
On the slang front, I’m very interested in slang that stays vs slang that goes.
Slang that stayed:
Cool
Gnarly
Emoji
Slang that went:
Wicked
Da bomb
Slang that will stay but too early to tell (my guess):
Sus
Bra (broooo)
Cringe
Slang that will go (prediction):
Face card
Rizz
Please add yours!
posted by St. Peepsburg at 1:47 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
Slang that stayed:
Cool
Gnarly
Emoji
Slang that went:
Wicked
Da bomb
Slang that will stay but too early to tell (my guess):
Sus
Bra (broooo)
Cringe
Slang that will go (prediction):
Face card
Rizz
Please add yours!
posted by St. Peepsburg at 1:47 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
Genx - we didn’t value authenticity we valued not selling out.
Very different… now as an olde I prefer authenticity
posted by St. Peepsburg at 1:48 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
Very different… now as an olde I prefer authenticity
posted by St. Peepsburg at 1:48 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
Gen Z values authenticity more than older generations did. Chad Kessler, who was then global brand president at American Eagle, told Business Insider in 2019, "Gen Z wants to support and participate in brands that they believe in and that reflect them."
Gee, I wonder what other pithy insights a global brand president can share with us about authenticity? Perhaps he could explain what it means to "believe in" a brand and how this is authentic? I know that one is supposed to distrust and patronize the young, but I don't personally think that they're dumb enough to believe that global brands are "authentic" in some way other than "yes, this brand will sell you affordable, acceptable-quality jeans in an American fashion vernacular, they are indeed blue jeans". I can believe that someone would feel that these affordable American-vernacular jeans are part of a style that reflects their personality, but that really isn't about the brand, it's about the person choosing the jeans - if American Eagle went radically upmarket and trendy, their stuff would no longer reflect the person's style.
Like, I think that you could probably elicit from teens the idea that brands are "authentic", but if you dug in a little bit about whether they thought that a giant corporation was deeply concerned with morality and values more than with profit, or was deeply attached to a style rather than following fashion, etc, they wouldn't be that stupid.
I've seen some marketing research, and while interview-based stuff is better, a lot of this palaver comes from showing five hundred teens the American Eagle logo and asking them to rate on a scale of one to seven how "authentic" they find it, then how "relatable", etc. This doesn't tell you anything; it's all nonsense designed for publication and/or branding VPs.
posted by Frowner at 1:54 PM on June 26 [15 favorites]
Gee, I wonder what other pithy insights a global brand president can share with us about authenticity? Perhaps he could explain what it means to "believe in" a brand and how this is authentic? I know that one is supposed to distrust and patronize the young, but I don't personally think that they're dumb enough to believe that global brands are "authentic" in some way other than "yes, this brand will sell you affordable, acceptable-quality jeans in an American fashion vernacular, they are indeed blue jeans". I can believe that someone would feel that these affordable American-vernacular jeans are part of a style that reflects their personality, but that really isn't about the brand, it's about the person choosing the jeans - if American Eagle went radically upmarket and trendy, their stuff would no longer reflect the person's style.
Like, I think that you could probably elicit from teens the idea that brands are "authentic", but if you dug in a little bit about whether they thought that a giant corporation was deeply concerned with morality and values more than with profit, or was deeply attached to a style rather than following fashion, etc, they wouldn't be that stupid.
I've seen some marketing research, and while interview-based stuff is better, a lot of this palaver comes from showing five hundred teens the American Eagle logo and asking them to rate on a scale of one to seven how "authentic" they find it, then how "relatable", etc. This doesn't tell you anything; it's all nonsense designed for publication and/or branding VPs.
posted by Frowner at 1:54 PM on June 26 [15 favorites]
Consuming media so you can "perform (as) part of an in-group and can perform specific social signals" is not authenticity. It's cowardice.
posted by spudsilo at 2:04 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
posted by spudsilo at 2:04 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
I think that if I were Gen Z, I would find the experience of being given the anthropological once over by a pack of boomers and Xers so clearly motivated by trying to crack the generational advertising code to be somewhere between hilarious and cringe.
I would do my best to maintain a poker face while telling them whatever outrageous pack of lies their primitive pre-comments-informed judgement resources would have them most eager to believe.
With any luck, they'd end up spending a few billion running some insanely annoying and yet somehow completely ignorable campaign that achieves bupkis but has them all convinced that it was money well spent to stop the competition getting the jump on them.
posted by flabdablet at 2:05 PM on June 26 [6 favorites]
I would do my best to maintain a poker face while telling them whatever outrageous pack of lies their primitive pre-comments-informed judgement resources would have them most eager to believe.
With any luck, they'd end up spending a few billion running some insanely annoying and yet somehow completely ignorable campaign that achieves bupkis but has them all convinced that it was money well spent to stop the competition getting the jump on them.
posted by flabdablet at 2:05 PM on June 26 [6 favorites]
Wow, that was the worst moral panic get off my lawn piece of bullshit analysis I’ve seen in a while, and I read the Times everyday.
posted by Galvanic at 2:05 PM on June 26 [10 favorites]
posted by Galvanic at 2:05 PM on June 26 [10 favorites]
Consuming media so you can "perform (as) part of an in-group and can perform specific social signals" is not authenticity. It's cowardice.
It's also Fox and Friends.
posted by flabdablet at 2:06 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
It's also Fox and Friends.
posted by flabdablet at 2:06 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
Slang that went:
Wicked
F'get you!, from Maine
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 2:22 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
Wicked
F'get you!, from Maine
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 2:22 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
See also: The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing
posted by maggiemaggie at 3:02 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
posted by maggiemaggie at 3:02 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
Most people don’t check sources carefully — they accept stories told by friends, authority figures they respect, and information sources they value, all of whom do the same thing. I’ve taught information literacy at the university level, and most students won’t become information literate; they will do what’s necessary to pass the assignments and go on. Those headed for careers where demonstrable accuracy is important pay more attention, but there are fewer of those careers now. Blaming Gen Z when the fault is with their elders cynically turning their backs on the truth is kind of harsh.
Next you’ll be telling me that they are “digital natives,” you faddish meme-follower.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:03 PM on June 26 [16 favorites]
Next you’ll be telling me that they are “digital natives,” you faddish meme-follower.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:03 PM on June 26 [16 favorites]
Gen Zers know the difference between rock-solid news and AI-generated memes. They just don't care.
Anyone who assures themselves that they can tell the difference but don't actually care about the difference is just fooling themselves and getting fooled. You can't just magically know the difference without caring about how to do it.
posted by straight at 3:45 PM on June 26 [6 favorites]
Anyone who assures themselves that they can tell the difference but don't actually care about the difference is just fooling themselves and getting fooled. You can't just magically know the difference without caring about how to do it.
posted by straight at 3:45 PM on June 26 [6 favorites]
And anyone like me who just tosses off a bon mot based on the pull quote without reading the article is, just like the article, making up some kid in their head to wring their hands at.
posted by straight at 4:00 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
posted by straight at 4:00 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
The thing that gets me about this article is the idea that Gen Zers trust influencers. Is that for real? All the influencers with the biggest audiences seem like a) The Worst People Ever and b) 100% for sale to the highest bidder
Can you imagine sourcing your opinions from Logan Paul? Dr. Disrespect? Gross.
Anyway, I'm sure they'll do fine. I'm one of those annoying elder millenials and I think my generation could have done a lot more to improve society and a lot less shitposting, so I'm certainly not gonna sit in judgement of people cuz they spend money on vbucks and say things like "no cap"
posted by signsofrain at 4:12 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
Can you imagine sourcing your opinions from Logan Paul? Dr. Disrespect? Gross.
Anyway, I'm sure they'll do fine. I'm one of those annoying elder millenials and I think my generation could have done a lot more to improve society and a lot less shitposting, so I'm certainly not gonna sit in judgement of people cuz they spend money on vbucks and say things like "no cap"
posted by signsofrain at 4:12 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
What do you think fellow kids, is this article sus or cool beans?
posted by credulous at 4:18 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
posted by credulous at 4:18 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
"Where older generations are out there struggling to fact-check information and cite sources, Gen Zers don't even bother."
What an astonishing thing to claim about the older generations. I've seen no evidence of anything of the sort. And we are quite ironically supposed to allow this claim to pass unchecked while consuming the rest of the article.
posted by teh_boy at 4:32 PM on June 26 [13 favorites]
What an astonishing thing to claim about the older generations. I've seen no evidence of anything of the sort. And we are quite ironically supposed to allow this claim to pass unchecked while consuming the rest of the article.
posted by teh_boy at 4:32 PM on June 26 [13 favorites]
Everyone outsources their trust, to some degree. Boomers outsourced to Walter Cronkite. This how our brains deal with TMI. It's why stereotypes exist. What has changed is the information landscape, so it's hardly surprising that the techniques for dealing with it have changed.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:01 PM on June 26 [12 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:01 PM on June 26 [12 favorites]
I would do my best to maintain a poker face while telling them whatever outrageous pack of lies
swingin’ on the flippity flop, which I haven’t heard used seriously, though I think I have heard “lamestain”.
posted by clew at 5:39 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
swingin’ on the flippity flop, which I haven’t heard used seriously, though I think I have heard “lamestain”.
posted by clew at 5:39 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
True, CheeseDigestsAll, but the evolutionary analogy should remind us that a whole lot of novel strategies fail.
posted by clew at 5:40 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 5:40 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
The fact that using shortcuts and relying on confirmation bias is not unique to Gen Z doesn't make it better -- it makes it worse! I see a facade where Gen Z is at once purported to be more progressive and accepting, but it is the appearance of being so for clicks and likes. What I see in real life, aka offline, is a backlash to acceptance and racism framed as jokes. Like we've said, it is no different than other generations.
TikTok is no less toxic or misleading than Fox News. But the fact that it's their peers stating the lies, and that resharing it gets likes and views, gives value to the lies.
posted by ichomp at 6:08 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
TikTok is no less toxic or misleading than Fox News. But the fact that it's their peers stating the lies, and that resharing it gets likes and views, gives value to the lies.
posted by ichomp at 6:08 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
swingin’ on the flippity flop, which I haven’t heard used seriously, though I think I have heard “lamestain”.
Harsh realm, bruh. Harsh realm.
posted by jonp72 at 6:30 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
Harsh realm, bruh. Harsh realm.
posted by jonp72 at 6:30 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
I learn all my slang from Gen Z pharmacist Dr. Kati.
posted by emjaybee at 6:36 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
posted by emjaybee at 6:36 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
Slang that went:
Wicked
As a hockey fan, I am offended. How dare you.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 7:14 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
Wicked
As a hockey fan, I am offended. How dare you.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 7:14 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
Can you imagine sourcing your opinions from Logan Paul? Dr. Disrespect? Gross.
I'll see you those and raise you Ross Douthat or David Brooks.
posted by straw at 7:21 PM on June 26 [12 favorites]
I'll see you those and raise you Ross Douthat or David Brooks.
posted by straw at 7:21 PM on June 26 [12 favorites]
> Importantly, participants had different stopping-points on information journeys based on their individual comfort with uncertainty, since many of their journeys did not quickly yield definitive answers. The more comfort they felt dwelling in that uncertainty, the more likely they were to conclude a search with a decision that not knowing for sure was “good enough.”
...
The central finding in this work is that online information processing is fundamentally a social practice…
box, thank you
posted by HearHere at 7:41 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
...
The central finding in this work is that online information processing is fundamentally a social practice…
box, thank you
posted by HearHere at 7:41 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]
Yup. An open acknowledgement of making decisions/judgments based on "vibes" has been pretty much my most consistent observation out of interacting with Gen Z. It's no different than any other generation except here the "vibes" are being algorithmically generated by large social media companies.
posted by lock robster at 10:08 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
posted by lock robster at 10:08 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]
I hope they repeat this study in a few more years when the generation raised on iPads graduates high school / goes to college.
posted by polymodus at 10:49 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 10:49 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]
Vibes is also a shorthand for the things you aren't allowed to say out loud.
"I trust her because she's gay and young and not a known pick-me" gets converted to "good vibes" in some settings because well, either you get the same good vibes from her, or you don't, and if you don't, I might be penalised for saying some of those things out loud.
posted by Audreynachrome at 12:26 AM on June 27 [7 favorites]
"I trust her because she's gay and young and not a known pick-me" gets converted to "good vibes" in some settings because well, either you get the same good vibes from her, or you don't, and if you don't, I might be penalised for saying some of those things out loud.
posted by Audreynachrome at 12:26 AM on June 27 [7 favorites]
TikTok is no less toxic or misleading than Fox News. But the fact that it's their peers stating the lies, and that resharing it gets likes and views, gives value to the lies.
Not at all sure that that "But" belongs in there.
The Fox and Sky After Dark viewers that I know personally all maintain parasocial relationships with their preferred influencers that are every bit as strong as anything I've seen happening on TikTok, absolutely see those people as peers, are more than willing to parrot their corporate-endorsed opinions without a second's apparent reflection, and never mention their bloated salaries in any non-aspirational context.
As for likes and views, those seem to me to be mere formalizations of the in-group signalling that's the practice of all humans always and everywhere. When it comes right down to it, well-established membership of an in-group is more valuable to most people than an advertiser lottery payout that they're never likely to see.
posted by flabdablet at 12:38 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]
Not at all sure that that "But" belongs in there.
The Fox and Sky After Dark viewers that I know personally all maintain parasocial relationships with their preferred influencers that are every bit as strong as anything I've seen happening on TikTok, absolutely see those people as peers, are more than willing to parrot their corporate-endorsed opinions without a second's apparent reflection, and never mention their bloated salaries in any non-aspirational context.
As for likes and views, those seem to me to be mere formalizations of the in-group signalling that's the practice of all humans always and everywhere. When it comes right down to it, well-established membership of an in-group is more valuable to most people than an advertiser lottery payout that they're never likely to see.
posted by flabdablet at 12:38 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]
swingin’ on the flippity flop
I hadn't seen that story before, and it made me laugh. I think I would enjoy swingin' on the flippity flop; it sounds fully queech.
posted by flabdablet at 12:49 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]
I hadn't seen that story before, and it made me laugh. I think I would enjoy swingin' on the flippity flop; it sounds fully queech.
posted by flabdablet at 12:49 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]
Slang that went:
Wicked
Guess you don't live round here.
posted by Dysk at 2:43 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]
Wicked
Guess you don't live round here.
posted by Dysk at 2:43 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]
After a quick look at the actual paper’s abstract, I suspect the researchers themselves didn’t make any of the comparisons to other generations and those were all inserted by the Business Insider author.
Also, interestingly, the research had a focus on how young people evaluate and use generative AI content, which didn’t seem reflected in the article. The key points from the abstract:
First, when online, we found participants fluidly shifted between mindsets and emotional states, which we term "information modes." Second, these information modes shaped how and why participants trust GenAI and how they applied literacy skills. In the modes where they spent most of their time, they eschewed literacy skills. Third, with the advent of GenAI, participants imported existing trust heuristics from familiar online contexts into their interactions with GenAI. Fourth, although study participants had reservations about GenAI, they saw it as a requisite tool to adopt to keep up with the times. Participants valued efficiency above all else, and used GenAI to further their goals quickly at the expense of accuracy. Our findings suggest that young people spend the majority of their time online not concerned with truth because they are seeking only to pass the time.
(adding this to my reader as the paper seems like it will be genuinely interesting, and not inter-generational clickbait (ha!) like TFA seems to be)
posted by learning from frequent failure at 6:52 AM on June 27 [9 favorites]
Also, interestingly, the research had a focus on how young people evaluate and use generative AI content, which didn’t seem reflected in the article. The key points from the abstract:
First, when online, we found participants fluidly shifted between mindsets and emotional states, which we term "information modes." Second, these information modes shaped how and why participants trust GenAI and how they applied literacy skills. In the modes where they spent most of their time, they eschewed literacy skills. Third, with the advent of GenAI, participants imported existing trust heuristics from familiar online contexts into their interactions with GenAI. Fourth, although study participants had reservations about GenAI, they saw it as a requisite tool to adopt to keep up with the times. Participants valued efficiency above all else, and used GenAI to further their goals quickly at the expense of accuracy. Our findings suggest that young people spend the majority of their time online not concerned with truth because they are seeking only to pass the time.
(adding this to my reader as the paper seems like it will be genuinely interesting, and not inter-generational clickbait (ha!) like TFA seems to be)
posted by learning from frequent failure at 6:52 AM on June 27 [9 favorites]
Do you mean young people are impulsive, easily bored and desperate for the approval of their peers? Why, I never
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:56 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:56 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]
Well, unlike these young whippersnappers with their Tick Tocks and their YouTubing, I only trust objective news sources such as *checks URL* MSN.com's summary of a Google subsidiary's marketing study which...
Jigsaw's research doesn't purport to be statistically significant. They didn't poll a large group of Gen Z users about their digital habits.
...which doesn't purport to be statistically significant. Because unlike Gen Z, I am not so easily fooled by propaganda.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:00 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]
Jigsaw's research doesn't purport to be statistically significant. They didn't poll a large group of Gen Z users about their digital habits.
...which doesn't purport to be statistically significant. Because unlike Gen Z, I am not so easily fooled by propaganda.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:00 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]
Slang that will stay but too early to tell (my guess):
Sus
Too early to tell? This was UK slang in the early to late 70s, it appears to have made a comeback. Sus (suss) was a multi-purpose term which was highly context dependent. "I've sussed it out" meant I figured something out. "He/she is sussed" meant that person knows what they are doing. The "Sus laws" were the cause of much unrest amongst the Black community, especially in London, referring to police powers to stop and search someone under the suspicion that they may have committed an offence.
posted by epo at 8:06 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]
Sus
Too early to tell? This was UK slang in the early to late 70s, it appears to have made a comeback. Sus (suss) was a multi-purpose term which was highly context dependent. "I've sussed it out" meant I figured something out. "He/she is sussed" meant that person knows what they are doing. The "Sus laws" were the cause of much unrest amongst the Black community, especially in London, referring to police powers to stop and search someone under the suspicion that they may have committed an offence.
posted by epo at 8:06 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I don't see how this is tremendously different from me bringing some kind of news to my parents and them saying "But so-and-so told me while we were drinking our coffee in the donut shop parking lot that..."
Besides the shifty foundation of the research itself, it all kind of feels like "same as it ever was" with slightly different scenery. A matter of scale perhaps? But that's about it.
posted by eekernohan at 12:49 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]
Besides the shifty foundation of the research itself, it all kind of feels like "same as it ever was" with slightly different scenery. A matter of scale perhaps? But that's about it.
posted by eekernohan at 12:49 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]
« Older The Rare Archival Photos Behind ‘Killers of the... | May and June 2024 in space Newer »
posted by Vetinari at 12:49 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]