COMM 166 Group Exam Study Guide

Standard deviation

the measurement of how the data are dispersed from the mean

Z-score (from class discussion)

the Z score is how many standard deviations from the mean

Similarly why the present-day use of the phrase "fake news" is so dangerous

"Fake news" is also dangerous because it discredits facts and labels them as fake just to appeal to one's emotion and personal beliefs. One of the most dangerous ramifications of fake news and the post-truth era: the marginalization of legitimate news stories whose narrative does not suit power. These efforts attempt to subvert the role of investigative journalism in democracy by using "fake news" as an excuse to push their own version of events, turning the public against the mainstream media in the process. While fake news is dangerous, the real risk is that power uses the existence of fake news to justify an agenda of media control and censorship under the guise of curtailing the phenomenon. Fake news attempts--and often succeeds--in deceiving the public to not believe the mainstream media to fulfill a certain agenda; aim is to appeal to the consumer's emotions rather than provide facts

What it means to "follow bibliographic trails" and "use citation indexing" (these are technically opposite strategies but they serve similar purposes)

"Follow bibliographic trails" means when you find a book that seems useful, skim its bibliography or works cited which will list the authors cited most often. By following this bibliographic trail, you can navigate the most difficult research territory because one source always leads to others, which leads to others... "Use citation indexing" means to look up other sources that cite one you already know through online databases. Instead of searching for sources that a given source cites, backward citation, you can search for sources that cite a given source, or forward citation.

Why the tobacco industry's use of the phrase "junk science" was so dangerous

"Junk science" is dangerous because it's discrediting scientific evidence and labeling it as junk just so they could continue to sell a product that is life-threatening. If people can't believe in science, what can we believe in?

Impossible Expectations (in Climate Disruption)

"The scientific debate remains open...Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." Such is the caution of the professional scientist that the IPCC now speaks about human-induced global warming as "very likely," leaving a margin of doubt that allows people like Frank Luntz to point helpfully to the remaining element of doubt. Interestingly, however, no one on the Luntz team ever mentioned the obvious: that if scientists told you there was a 90 percent likelihood that your plane would crash, you would assuredly forego the trip. But when the conveyance of choice is planet Earth, as Luntz said, "You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

What the research cycle looks like (note: making generalizable theories is a more central goal for post-positivist research than for other types of research; we will discuss in more detail later)

--> Conclusions or research findings --> Theories/hunches/hypotheses--> observation and testing --> (continuous)

How to evaluate evidence

1. Report evidence accurately: if you point to evidence that seems to support your claim but then reject it as unreliable, you show yourself to be cautious, self-critical, and trustworthy 2. Be appropriately precise: The reader cannot assess substance with words like "a great deal," "many," "high probability," etc., can also represent researchers' laziness in not obtaining precise numbers 3. Provide sufficient, representative evidence: A claim cannot be proved with one quotation/number/example (although sometimes one piece of evidence may be sufficient enough to disprove a claim Even if you offer lots of evidence, your readers still expect it to be representative of the full range of variation in what's available 4. Consider the weight of authority Different fields define and evaluate evidence differently Failed arguments help you understand what counts as reliable better than successful ones do

Assuming a normal distribution roughly what percentage of observations are within one two and three standard deviations from the mean

95%

Why (critical) media literacy is important for a functioning democracy

A well-informed public is vital for democratic society, but democracy is a useless exercise if citizens do not have access to the truth to make well-informed decisions, and it is made further irrelevant if the truth itself cannot be trusted or verified. It is through developing media literacy that we can obtain the tools to verify or dismiss information. Critical media literacy: involves cultivating skills in analyzing media codes and conventions, abilities to criticize stereotypes, dominant values, and ideologies, and competencies to interpret the multiple meanings and messages generated by media texts. Media literacy helps people to discriminate and evaluate media content, to critically dissect media forms, to investigate media effects and uses, to use media intelligently, and to construct alternative media.

How science as a process is communal and why this is important

All scientific evidence is provisional, meaning that science can revise these ideas if warranted by new evidence; Communal because of peer review--multiple people approve of a certain claim or theory; Important because scientists can collaborate and are in consensus

What an index is (in statistics) and according to Wheelan--what an index is particularly sensitive to

An index is a descriptive statistic made up of other descriptive statistics. Once these different measures of performance are consolidated into a single number, that statistic can be used to make comparisons. Any index is sensitive to the descriptive statistics that are cobbled together to build it, and to the weight given to each of those components

Mean

Average.

Why it is absolutely vital to check quantitative (numerical) research results for statistical significance

Because if the p-value is higher than .05 the data might not be significant to reject/accept the hypothesis

Why true experiments are relatively rare in social science

Because they are unethical/impossible/expensive; you cannot control what subjects do 24/7

What "bias" means in the context of this course

Bias: a systematic (meaning within the process) error that distorts our ability to create reliable knowledge

Unsound arguments

Cherry picking: Using only select evidence that supports the claim, rather than considering the totality of the evidence False balance: Asserting the need to give equal weight to "both sides" of an issue, instead of evaluating claims by the strength of their evidence

Why it's important for the sources that you read/see/hear in your everyday life to cite other sources. Be sure to be able to talk about this in terms of:

Claims and evidence: A claim without evidence is weak because it does not have any evidence, i.e an opinion/common sense thinking. The existing scholarly conversation: When a source neglects to reference from the ongoing scholarly conversation, they limit themselves by not being able to continue to contribute to the conversation. They also did not include information from the scholarly conversation so their work does not include the information from the scholars and scientists work that is credible.

Why common sense fails to construct reliable knowledge

Common sense mentality leads to a potentially false assumption of something because it comes from an unsupported opinion or attitude that is inspired by insufficient and unreliable information. Most people believe that they encompass the ability to accurately observers, and are not influenced by their own subjectivity. Overgeneralizations that are made from a distance lead to a common-sense viewpoint that generally is neither accurate or informed. Looking past the obvious and not indulging in your emotions to make an assumption by becoming familiar with the topic by entering the scholarly conversation.

What confirmation bias is generally (Craven refers to this as "confirmation bias proper")

Confirmation bias occurs when we only try to confirm what we already believe is right, rather than trying to challenge our ideas by testing other possibilities. Some of the many "flavors" of confirmation bias: Looking for evidence to confirm your beliefs, never to contradict them; Counting your hits but not your misses: paying attention only when an event confirms your belief; Belief polarization: giving more credibility to evidence that fits your ideas; Murphy's law of Research: enough research will reveal evidence to confirm any hypothesis

Why confirmation bias is problematic when it comes to important issues

Confirmation bias tricks you into being wrong with confidence. Takes your understanding further from physical reality precisely when you think you're getting close to it because of your research

Where did the source get its information? (i.e. What sources does this source itself cite?)

Consider where the source cites its information and who they consider credible authoritative references. Follow the money given to the researchers to identify potential motives. Ask yourself if the source stayed as close to the original source of information, because each time the information is interpreted it can be altered.

What is the purpose of constructivist research (in contrast with postpositivist research)?

Constructivist research seeks to understand the world through the eyes of the participants to understand how they engage with the world and make meaning of their experiences. The researcher will be involved in the study to gain perspective. The qualitative research is determined through the inquirers interpretation by generating meaning from data collected. Postpositivist research differently attempts to recognize that we cannot be positive about the claims of knowledge being made. Being unable to disprove the hypothesis that began with a theory, making claims using rational considerations to create knowledge. The research seeks to develop relevant, true statements to explain situations of concern and describe relationships while remaining objective and examining methods and conclusions for bias.

Transformative Worldview

Critical Mixed methods; Holds that research inquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and a political change agenda to confront social oppression at what levels it occurs.

The dangers of being overly skeptical vs. not being skeptical enough

Dangers of being overly skeptical: --Reject unreliable knowledge & reliable knowledge; --"Stubborn fool"; --Prisoner to cognitive biases. Dangers of being not skeptical enough: --Accept unreliable knowledge & reliable knowledge; --"Gullible sucker"; --Prisoner to cognitive biases. Being too skeptical or not skeptical enough are both dangerous because you're either going to accept information that you shouldn't (has insufficient evidence), or you will not accept information that you should (has sufficient evidence). Both instances disregard the simple basis of arguments: claims supported by reasons and evidence; you either are accepting insufficient claims/evidence or not accepting sufficient claims/evidence

Be able to use the Frank Harris study (Deconstructing Masculinity: A Qualitative Study of College Men's Masculine Conceptualizations and Gender Performance) in connection with the above questions

Deconstructing Masculinity: Study interviewing 12 men on college campus intentionally sought out to identify a range of men's viewpoints and conceptualizations of masculinity. This study allowed them to elaborate on topics as the participant saw fit, with only a guiding framework to direct the conversations.

What the authors mean when they say that science is "subversive"

Definition: seeking or intended to subvert an established system or institution.

How well do these research findings fit with those of other studies?

Does the research enter the conversation credibly while acknowledging the prior research and expanding by filling a gap.

What dualistic thinking means and why it is a problem

Dualistic thinking is trap of thinking binarily. There are multiple positions within any argument, each position has a different level of validity due to the supporting evidence behind the claim. When you get stuck thinking there is only two sides, you may begin to believe that you need to be completely black and white and disregard all the possibilities of the gray in between and the opportunity to unite and find a solution that attempts to appease all points of view.

Misrepresenting the scientific process

Impossible expectations: Insisting on absolute certainty in science Insufficient credibility: "Experts" commenting beyond their areas of expertise, particularly outside of the peer review process

Verification

Follows from the theory and is supported, or generalizations the theory makes are found to be accurate in several different settings.

False balance (in Climate Disruption)

Four "prestige" dailies in the United States--the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times--were analyzed for their coverage of climate change between 1998 and 2002. It found that while the scientific press was coming down 928 to zero in accepting/not denying climate change, in 53 percent of their stories these four newspapers quoted a scientist on "one side" of the issue and a spokesperson on the other. "Spokesperson" rather than scientist for two reasons. First, the deniers were very often not scientists, but rather political ideologues or self-appointed "experts" from think tanks. Second, even when the experts had scientific credentials, in most cases those credentials were not relevant to the topic at hand. The experts were geologists or economists commenting outside their field of expertise, not climate scientists reporting on up-to-date peer-reviewed science. (Insufficient credibility)

Avoiding false balance

Gives Weight to "Both Sides," This approach is undoing the work of scientists who have already weighed and tested the evidence otherwise. We also discussed that Journalists can fall to the "both sides" idea to give them an easy story because it is hard to stay up to date on scientific news.

How partisanship influences selected media exposure

Heavy bias creates a news environment that caters to emotion before fact, this created a situation where news is biased and partisan, thus, so are the viewers. Partisan media makes consumers feel well informed and emotionally appealed to, as it feeds their biases and validates their views without requiring them to participate in any dialogue or investigation themselves to form their own opinion. Instead, partisan media offers ready-made political views and ideologies that its consumers can subscribe to. It is through the consumer's search for perspective validation, and blind subscription to others' views, that fake news can take hold in the absence of investigation, scepticism and critical thinking; tools that are abandoned through the consumption of partisan media

Evidence

How do you know? Can you back it up? Evidence is data deployed to support a reason. Unlike a claim or a reason, evidence is not always framed as an assertion: a data table documenting rising ocean levels over the past decade would be a form of evidence. To count as evidence, a statement must report something that readers agree not to question, at least for the purposes of that argument.

Warrant

How does that follow? What's your logic? Can you explain your reasoning? Even when readers agree a reason is true, they may still object that it isn't relevant to your claim. You must offer a general principle that justifies relating your particular reason to your particular claim.

Selection bias

If each member of the relevant population doesn't have an equal chance of ending up in the sample, we are going to have a problem with whatever results emerge from that sample. Selection bias can be introduced in many ways: a survey of consumers in an airport is going to be biased by the fact that people who fly are likely to be wealthier than the general public; a survey at a rest stop on Interstate 90 may have the opposite problem. Both surveys are likely to be biased by the fact that people who are willing to answer a survey in a public place are different from people who would prefer not to be bothered.

Hypothesis

If then statement. Also can be considered as an educated guess.

Constructivist Worldview

Interpretivism; qualitative, open-ended questions, goal to find subjective meanings, find theory through participants and can possibly construct a new understanding, relatable.

Not misrepresenting or blowing controversy out of proportion

Is the entire community blowing the conversation out of proportion, or is the researcher alone?

What it means to ask "Is the sample representative of the population?"

Is the spoonful of soup like the contents of the pot; means you are asking if the group that was studied representative of the whole group. This is important because if the sample isn't representative of the population, then selection bias is occurring; if the sample doesn't represent the population, you cannot make conclusions about the population at large

Validity

Is what you say you did, actually what you did. Ex:

What is the goal/purpose of the source?

It is important to consider why the given source article/book/blog was posted. Examining the potential agenda & bias is crucial when deciding to place trust in that information.

Why peer review is essential to science

It is important to science because it is how we can know if a claim or theory is legitimate. Since we can never know the "truth," peer review is how we can lessen the uncertainty behind a concept. Without peer review, a claim isn't worth much.

Generally speaking--what causes cognitive biases

It is necessary sometimes to rely on some mental shortcuts that allow you to act quickly--these mental shortcuts are known as heuristics, that often play a major contributing role in cognitive biases. While they are often accurate, they can also lead to errors in thinking. Social pressures, individual motivations, emotions, and limits on the mind's ability to process information can also contribute to these biases

What it means to view research as an ongoing conversation

It matters to view research as an ongoing conversation because when you are delving into research, you understand that you must have an understanding of what has already been said, and what further questions you have. Process provides progression and contributes to fill gaps in the conversation.

What it means to say that science is a systematic process

Knowing that the process has steps that lead up to the conclusion. Science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is not merely opinion or preferences, it is designed to challenge ideas through research.

Where to look in a scholarly article for the information you need (e.g. for determining whether the article is relevant to you)

Looking at the abstract, introduction and conclusion will help you gain the overall goal of the article. Next looking at who the author is pulling their information from to see if they are close to the original source of information. Findings/Results will lead you to the

The principles of an ideal experiment (in other words the key ingredients to designing an experiment)

Manipulate/observe one variable; keep other variables as similar as possible

What a normal distribution means

Mean and median will be similar, without serious outliers. Data that are distributed normally are symmetrical around their mean in a bell shape that will look familiar to you.

Under what conditions it would be more responsible to use the median rather than the mean and vice versa

Mean usage: to look at the overall picture of results of data to find the average; Example: GPA calculation to find a student's average academic performance. Median usage: when there is outliers

What selected media exposure means

Media consumption has become an exercise of selected exposure, where one looks at media to have their opinions or views reinforced, rather than challenged. Therefore, perspectives become more hardened in their own ideological camps, supported by the media they choose to follow and dismissive of media that doesn't share their view.

Median

Middle —> in order and find the middle number

Pragmatic Worldview

Mixed methods; Not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality; pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity--truth is what works at the time. Opens the door to multiple methods, different worldview, and different assumptions

Survivorship bias

Occurs when some or many of the observations are falling out of the sample, changing the composition of the observations that are left, therefore affecting the results of analysis. Ex: the mutual fund industry uses this to make returns look better to investors than they really are

Why this is incredibly dangerous (note: this was also a bullet point for week 2; it is crucial that you can discuss this in depth)

One of the most dangerous ramifications of fake news and the post-truth era: the marginalization of legitimate news stories whose narrative does not suit power. These efforts attempt to subvert the role of investigative journalism in democracy by using "fake news" as an excuse to push their own version of events, turning the public against the mainstream media in the process. While fake news is dangerous, the real risk is that power uses the existence of fake news to justify an agenda of media control and censorship under the guise of curtailing the phenomenon. Fake news attempts--and often succeeds--in deceiving the public to not believe the mainstream media to fulfill a certain agenda; aim is to appeal to the consumer's emotions rather than provide facts

Healthy user bias

People who actively engage in activities that are good for them (taking prescribed medications; following a healthy diet) are fundamentally different than those who don't. This can potentially confound any study trying to evaluate the real effect of activities perceived to be healthful; i.e. eating kale

Availability heuristic

Placing greater value on information that comes to your mind quickly; you give greater credence to this information and tend to overestimate the probability and likelihood of similar things happening in the future. Ex: after seeing several news reports about car thefts, you might make a judgment that vehicle theft is much more common than it really is in your area

How the accusation of "fake news" serves the needs of those in power

Power has found a useful application for the fake news phenomenon. It has enabled the dismissal of legitimate news stories that speak against the narrative of power to be marginalized and labelled as fake news.

What the key difference is between primary secondary and tertiary sources (not all disciplines use the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction so it's the general principle that's important)

Primary sources: "original" materials that provide you with "raw data" or evidence that you will use to test, develop, and justify your hypothesis or claim. Secondary sources: books, articles, or reports based on primary sources and are intended for scholarly research; are peer reviewed. Tertiary sources: books and articles that synthesize and report on secondary sources for general readers; ex: textbooks, encyclopedias (including Wikipedia); are good for early stages of research but they are limited

Why "What scholarly conversations is this study joining?" is one of the most important questions you can ask about any research study

Purpose: trend on a larger scale; Problem identified —> how these ideas influence social ideas and how they play out

What the following research approaches are (note: research approaches answer the question--what kind of data?)

Quantitative: NUMBERS, the data are numerical and can be seen as graphs, charts, and we see statistics pulled into play to apply significance to the numbers. Used to test objective theories by examining the relationship amongst variables that can be measured, quantified, and analyzed using statistical procedures. Qualitative: The data are WORDS. Used to explore and understand the attributions the individual/group has on a social or human problem. Mixed methods: Used to approach inquiry by collecting both quant/qual data. This approach allows for a more complete understanding of a research problem if the situation calls for it.

Why Deitering and Gronemyer argue that requiring untrained students to cite peer-reviewed articles is problematic (note: be sure that you can discuss this intelligently at length)

Requiring students to use scholarly articles alone can set students back in the research process because a lot of articles are written in a way to continue where the last conversation/article left off. This leaves students confused and unable to grasp the entirety of the claim the author is making.

What it means to engage a source actively

Researchers don't read passively, they actively engage their sources by entering into conversation with them: First, read generously. Pay attention to what sparks interest, reread passages that puzzle you, don't look for disagreements right away or you may be tempted to emphasize its weaknesses if it presents an argument that rivals yours (confirmation bias). Then, if the source seems important or seems to challenge your own position, read it a second time more critically, recording your responses and understanding. Don't accept a claim just because an authority asserts it. Check the accuracy of everything important to your argument.

What these terms mean (note: these are relatively minor compared to the other group exam topics)

Science cannot accept, without testing, the explanation of the status quo offered by the powers that be

What methodology means and why it's important to understand a study's methodology

Science is cumulative, one alone can't build information without reliable measurement tools. No instrument is perfectly reliable, however, understanding that objectivity is the goal, researchers should conduct their social research in a way that allows readers to replicate and obtain the same results.

How science as a process is progressive (always improving) and self-correcting

Science is progressive and self-correcting as long as you are looking for errors in your understanding rather than just trying to find supportive evidence; Being open to the possibility that you may be wrong is how you get less wrong over time

How science as a process is designed to overcome some of the failings of common sense and construct more reliable knowledge

Scientific method is a process for constructing reliable knowledge. Having many checkpoints, and peer revision, the knowledge has gone through "severe pummeling"

Postpositivist Worldview

Scientific method; quantitative, close ended questions, goal is objective truth, set out with a theory to see if it applies, big picture (what is likely)

According to Gray et al. what it means to adopt a critical perspective in social research

Scientists can't accept claims that are without evidence. Because of this critical perspective, scientists are drawn to challenging even their own knowledge produced to ensure that their data is accurate. Scientists do this by actively seeking evidence that challenges their own to test their theory fully.

Properly portraying the level of confidence

Scientists limit themselves to what they can say with a decent level of confidence. And also define the level of certainty they are able to say. Confidence in the claim remains trustworthy if the source has been peer reviewed and highly revised to consider the already ongoing conversation.

Insufficient Credibility (in Climate Disruption)

Scientists were being paid well, not for conducting climate research, but for practicing public relations. Petitions were signed/forged by celebrities, political spokespersons, or "scientists" who were in a totally different field than climate science. There were also signatures of actual climate scientists that were forged and didn't reflect the beliefs of these climate scientists.

The relationship between science and (un)certainty

Since nothing can ever truly be "proven," science helps us lessen the uncertainty behind what is unknown. We choose to trust science because as it goes on, it works to make the uncertainty attached to it's answers smaller and smaller until the uncertainty is small enough for the task at hand.

How we can protect ourselves from confirmation bias including identifying red flags

Some red flags to look for: only looking for evidence to support your view, not contradict it; you really really hope something is true; you stop investigating once you find the answer you agree with; you are very confident of your views; you can't come up with a reasonable answer when asked what it would take to change your views. Once you realize your confirmation bias may be occurring, you can back up and start over; ask yourself if you could be wrong; deliberately search for evidence to contradict your beliefs, etc.

What statistical significance means

Test for significant difference (p-value)

Reliability

Test to see if you get the same results.

What the (worldview) backfire effect is

The backfire effect is the biological way of protecting a worldview and why we react so intensely to information that goes against our core beliefs. (Core beliefs--beliefs which people cherish most deeply, are developed through childhood and compounded by life experiences.) Our brains love consistency. Therefore we reject information that isn't consistent with our worldview/core beliefs.

Generally--what the best method is for selecting representative samples

The easiest way to gather a representative sample of a larger population is to select some subset of that population randomly. The most attractive feature of this methodology is that each observation in the relevant population has an equal chance of being included in the sample. The bigger the sample the better. However, a bigger sample will not make up for errors in its composition or "bias." A bad sample is a bad sample. The sample should be representative of the larger group/population.

Examples of different types of research methods--how to collect data?

The forms of data collection, analysis, and interpretation that researchers propose to their studies. Quantitative data: instrument, sample surveys, experiments, and observational studies. Qualitative data: focus groups, in-depth interviews, and case studies.

What kinds of knowledge does constructivist research create (in contrast with postpositivist research)?

The knowledge that is created through constructivist research is up close and personal, subjective. The knowledge is constructed through what the participants choose to share and elaborate on. Postpositivist researchers are attempting to be as objective as possible to get as close to the truth as possible without "contamination" by the researchers judgements and personal experience. The data are numerical and seek to locate a generalization with a deterministic philosophy of cause and effect.

What the peer review process is

The peer review process involves multiple scientists reviewing another scientist in a similar field's research journals for legitimacy, accuracy, etc. Usually 2-3 scientists will review one journal. The journal will continuously try to find flaws and error.

Misinformation effect

The tendency for post-event information to interfere with the memory of the original event. It is easy to have your memory influenced by what you hear about the event from others. Influencing factors of the misinformation effect: Time--if the misleading information is presented sometime after the original memory, it is likely to be much more accessible in the memory. This means that the misleading information is easier to retrieve, effectively blocking the retrieval of the original, correct information. Discussing the event with other witnesses--talking to other witnesses following an event can distort the original memory of what really happened. News reports--news stories of an accident or event might mistakenly make one believe that a piece of information was something they observed personally when really it was something they heard in a post-event news report. Repeated exposure to misinformation--the more often people are exposed to misleading information, the more likely they are to incorrectly believe that the misinformation was part of the original event

Anchoring bias

The tendency to rely too heavily on the very first piece of information you learn, which can have a serious impact on the decision one ends up making. Ex: if you learn the average price for a car is a certain value, you will think any amount below that is a good deal, perhaps not searching for better deals. You can use this bias to set the expectations of others by putting the first information on the table for consideration

How selected media exposure relates to confirmation bias

The things we own and subscribe to are a result of our own confirmation bias of our self image, due to the search of ideological validation of one's views. We are reinforcing our worldviews in a comfortable bubble.

Why thinking of the world in terms of "opinions" (and even "facts") is problematic

The word "opinion" can be problematic because it can be used to denounce someone: "That's just your opinion," or "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion." When using the word "opinion" you need to be mindful and only use it to point out that someone is saying an opinion rather than a claim that has and evidence. "Facts" can also be problematic because science never claims to be 100% making "facts" not always the best word to use because science is not set in stone.

How to interpret the most common measurement of statistical significance--the p-value (or significance level)

Think of it as drawing a line of what we are accepting as statistically significant; the p-value is a measure of statistical significance. Ex: p=0.05 or p=0.01. Lower p values mean to reject the null hypothesis with more confidence

The general outline of how a peer-reviewed scholarly article in the social sciences is structured

Title/author/abstract --> introduction (why?) --> review of literature --> methods (how?) --> results (what?) --> discussion/conclusion (so what?) --> references

What it means to view knowledge as constructed

To "construct" you must use multiple materials and expertise to build an understanding. Knowledge is not merely stumbled upon, it has gone through a systematic process that requires credible methodology, and peer revision prior to engaging into the ongoing scholarly conversation. Jamison's Metaphor: Think of knowledge as building a house, you are not going to build a house with just wood. You need nails, saw, metal beams, tape measure, and many other things. If you view knowledge as taking other materials and adding them to your repertoire can make building you knowledge easier.

The purpose of a descriptive statistic (hint: this is also its main strength and its main weakness)

To give us a manageable and meaningful summary of the underlying phenomenon. It summarizes making it easy to understand but also simplifies and misses out on certain details. Example: bowling score, and GPA

What it means to live in a post-truth society

To live in a post-truth society means we live in a world where we lead with emotions and personal beliefs rather than with objective facts and evidence. This is why phrases like "junk science" and "fake news" are effective—they appeal to negative emotions in order to discredit factual evidence

What Type I and Type II errors are

Type I Errors: false positive; falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. Type 2 Errors: false negative; falsely accepting the null hypothesis

How our brains react to information that threatens our worldview

We react to information that threatens our worldview in the same way that we'd react to being attacked by a predator (we respond to intellectual threats in the same way we'd react to a physical threat)

Claim

What do you want me to believe? What's your point? A claim is an assertion (which can be a single sentence or more) that demands support: (i.e. Climate change is threatening coastal cities.) Your main claim is the assertion your whole research argument supports. Some call this assertion your thesis.

What statistical inference tells us

What is more likely to happen by drawing conclusions about cause and effect based on statistics. Example would be jacking up rates for young men because statistics say that they get in the most accidents

Which important questions statistical significance does not answer for us

What the size of the association is.

Why evidence/reasons should come before the claim not the other way around

When given the evidence/reasons first you are told why a claim is relevant and not having someone attempting to persuade you right off the bat. The evidence serves as support for the reasons offered and helps compel viewer/listener to accept claims.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

When people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are when they can't recognize their own incompetence; poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities. Ex: the relative at the Thanksgiving dinner table that goes on about a topic at length, boldly proclaiming that he is correct and everyone else's opinion is stupid, uninformed and wrong--even though it's probably evident to everyone else that he has no idea what they are talking about, but he goes on and is oblivious to his own ignorance

What is gained by instead considering claims that are backed by evidence/reasons

When you are able to see/hear why the claim is made based on evidence and reasons, you are gaining the explanation. Then you can make judgements if you believe that given the evidence or reason, if you believe the claim being stated.

Reason

Why do you say that? Why should I agree? A reason is an assertion that supports a claim: (i.e. [Because] climate change is causing ocean levels to rise.)

Theory

a set of principles that tells why people do what they do; has survived "serious sledgehammering" over and over; develops a hypothesis

What a null hypothesis is

no effect/no difference "nothing going on here." When rejected it implies that the alternative is accepted. The null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are logical components; if one is true the other cannot be true.