Why the internet isn't making us smarter – and how to fight back

April 15, 2016 by David Dunning, University Of Michigan, The Conversation
Do you ever feel like this? It’s not helping you get smarter… Credit: Chris Hope, CC BY-SA

In the hours since I first sat down to write this piece, my laptop tells me the National Basketball Association has had to deny that it threatened to cancel its 2017 All-Star Game over a new anti-LGBT law in North Carolina – a story repeated by many news sources including the Associated Press. The authenticity of that viral video of a bear chasing a female snowboarder in Japan has been called into question. And, no, Ted Cruz is not married to his third cousin. It's just one among an onslaught of half-truths and even pants-on-fire lies coming as we rev up for the 2016 American election season.

The longer I study human psychology, the more impressed I am with the rich tapestry of knowledge each of us owns. We each have a brainy weave of facts, figures, rules and stories that allows us to address an astonishing range of everyday challenges. Contemporary research celebrates just how vast, organized, interconnected and durable that knowledge base is.

That's the good news. The bad news is that our brains overdo it. Not only do they store helpful and essential information, they are also receptive to false belief and misinformation.

Just in biology alone, many people believe that spinach is a good source of iron (sorry, Popeye), that we use less than 10 percent of our brains (no, it's too energy-guzzling to allow that), and that some people suffer hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation (for which there is no scientific evidence).

But here's the more concerning news. Our access to information, both good and bad, has only increased as our fingertips have gotten into the act. With computer keyboards and smartphones, we now have access to an Internet containing a vast store of information much bigger than any individual brain can carry – and that's not always a good thing.

Better access doesn't mean better information

This access to the Internet's far reaches should permit us to be smarter and better informed. People certainly assume it. A recent Yale study showed that Internet access causes people to hold inflated, illusory impressions of just how smart and well-informed they are.

But there's a twofold problem with the Internet that compromises its limitless promise.

First, just like our brains, it is receptive to misinformation. In fact, the World Economic Forum lists "massive digital misinformation" as a main threat to society. A survey of 50 "weight loss" websites found that only three provided sound diet advice. Another of roughly 150 YouTube videos about vaccination found that only half explicitly supported the procedure.

Rumor-mongers, politicians, vested interests, a sensationalizing media and people with intellectual axes to grind all inject false information into the Internet.

So do a lot of well-intentioned but misinformed people. In fact, a study published in the January 2016 Proceedings of National Academy of Science documented just how quickly dubious conspiracy theories spread across the Internet. Specifically, the researchers compared how quickly these rumors spread across Facebook relative to stories on scientific discoveries. Both conspiracy theories and scientific news spread quickly, with the majority of diffusion via Facebook for both types of stories happening within a day.

Making matters worse, misinformation is hard to distinguish from accurate fact. It often has the exact look and feel as the truth. In a series of studies Elanor Williams, Justin Kruger and I published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2013, we asked students to solve problems in intuitive physics, logic and finance. Those who consistently relied on false facts or principles – and thus gave the exact same wrong answer to every problem – expressed just as much confidence in their conclusions as those who answered every single problem right.

For example, those who always thought a ball would continue to follow a curved path after rolling out of a bent tube (not true) were virtually as certain as people who knew the right answer (the ball follows a straight path).

Defend yourself

So, how so we separate Internet truth from the false?

First, don't assume misinformation is obviously distinguishable from true information. Be careful. If the matter is important, perhaps you can start your search with the Internet; just don't end there. Consult and consider other sources of authority. There is a reason why your doctor suffered medical school, why your financial advisor studied to gain that license.

Second, don't do what conspiracy theorists did in the Facebook study. They readily spread stories that already fit their worldview. As such, they practiced confirmation bias, giving credence to evidence supporting what they already believed. As a consequence, the they endorsed burrowed themselves into like-minded Facebook communities who rarely questioned their authenticity.

Instead, be a skeptic. Psychological research shows that groups designating one or two of its members to play devil's advocates – questioning whatever conclusion the group is leaning toward – make for better-reasoned decisions of greater quality.

If no one else is around, it pays to be your own devil's advocate. Don't just believe what the Internet has to say; question it. Practice a disconfirmation bias. If you're looking up medical information about a health problem, don't stop at the first diagnosis that looks right. Search for alternative possibilities.

Seeking evidence to the contrary

In addition, look for ways in which that diagnosis might be wrong. Research shows that "considering the opposite" – actively asking how a conclusion might be wrong – is a valuable exercise for reducing unwarranted faith in a conclusion.

After all, you should listen to Mark Twain, who, according to a dozen different websites, warned us, "Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint."

Wise words, except a little more investigation reveals more detailed and researched sources with evidence that it wasn't Mark Twain, but German physician Markus Herz who said them. I'm not surprised; in my Internet experience, I've learned to be wary of Twain quotes (Will Rogers, too). He was a brilliant wit, but he gets much too much credit for quotable quips.

Misinformation and true information often look awfully alike. The key to an informed life may not require gathering information as much as it does challenging the ideas you already have or have recently encountered. This may be an unpleasant task, and an unending one, but it is the best way to ensure that your brainy intellectual tapestry sports only true colors.

Explore further: North Korea now blocking Facebook, Twitter, other websites

Related Stories

The skills we all need to move past "anti-science" and "us"

April 4, 2016

If you didn't believe a prevailing scientific position, you used to be part of a small fringe. To get information on your side, you would hunt around a certain type of bookshop, and subscribe to newsletters with distributions ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...

48 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2016
Wow, this is the same charge I have been making against otto and Ira and Trumpy, who think reading and copying the words of others is a substitute for actual experience.
katesisco
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2016
Above criticism is correct as the way to get the best answer from the internet is to input the correct answer as a query. And to think this all started with PBS giving 'both sides of the story.'
Challenging ideas you already have sounds an awful like a cult. Lets try the Greek forum face-to-face discussions. Seems the best way.
EWH
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2016
This research is widely misinterpreted as meaning that belief that one knows what one is talking about is evidence of one's stupidity. Actually, people who actually know what they are talking about generally also believe that they know what they are talking about.

Another irony is that psychology has a terrible track record of confirmation bias, false certainty, irreproducible results, and stretching results to false generalizations. Some parts of it even presume the wildest conspiracy theories such as "patriarchy" and "white privilege". Thoroughly refuted theories such as environment being responsible for more variation in traits and outcomes than genetics are mandatory for untenured academics.

But another area of psychology, with by far the most evidence in the discipline, has as its focus the question of measuring the ability to make accurate judgements and find valid solutions - the psychometrics of intelligence. High IQ people are just much more likely to be right.
NIPSZX
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2016
Wow!!! Absolutely fantastic article. I have been trying to relay this information in my comments scattered across the internet like a troll. I totally agree, and I have been factoring this truth into my reads over the past 6 months. A couple additions I would like to add 1) in finance, stocks, investing news it is important to realize that the actual printed news is actually the exact opposite of what is actually happening. This is the reasoning for the past 6 years every news source has printed terrible doomsday recession fear mongering articles over and over again, meanwhile the stock market has remained in an upward ramp the entire time. People still believe we are in a recession because of the news and they have missed out a portion of one of the greatest wall street rallies of all time. Also, with medical articles, you must find a reliable source with the correct research funding that doesn't match the outcome. It is very difficult to filter through the internet print.
NIPSZX
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2016
2) Politics articles are the most difficult to decipher. Right-winged and left winged news sources and articles can give two totally different sides to every story. At least with finance, you know that every article is exactly false and untrue. With politics every other article is exactly the opposite of the next on the exact same matter. This is difficult to tell the truth, especially in politics, where the public doesn't have access to the true "hidden" facts. The problem with medical articles is that the same source, as with politics, can run the same research and come up with two totally different results. The only positive of learning on the internet is if you stick with learning the basics, such as math, language, spelling, and stay away from the news, gossip, & websites than you can learn. But, of course the latter is more fun.
yep
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2016
Wow, this is the same charge I have been making against otto, who thinks reading and copying the words of others is a substitute for actual experience.

Funny made the same charge against some of that rightious clown posse earlier tonight.
Eikka
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2016
The article itself falls prey to confirmation bias

For example, those who always thought a ball would continue to follow a curved path after rolling out of a bent tube (not true) were virtually as certain as people who knew the right answer (the ball follows a straight path).


That being "not true" is not true.

It depends on how the tube imparts spin on the ball. If the ball leaves the tube spinning like a top, it will curve. That in turn depends on how the ball went through the tube - did it roll through slowly along the bottom, or did it take the curve fast up the bend - those affect the direction of the ball's axis of spin, changing it from vertical to horizontal and all options in between.

And in fact, the ball always comes out of the curved tube with the spin axis slightly off horizontal, so it will in fact always curve - slightly - which at slow speeds would be imperceptible and judged as if the ball was going straight, but that would be technically incorrect
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2016
The effect of the spin can be directly demonstrated with airsoft guns.

They employ a mechanism called "hop-up" which imparts a fast spin on the ball which flattens out the trajectory of the ball and makes it fly further away because of the Magnus effect. When the gun is held upright, the Magnus effect causes lift forces on the ball to carry it along.

Here's the effect demonstrated on a basketball: https://www.youtu..._bh2lMXc

The Magnus effect happens when the ball is spinning in air - it's a similiar effect when a ball is spinning against a tabletop. In fact, it's very very difficult to get a ball to come out of a tube - straight or curved - without any spin which is why smoothbore guns are inaccurate.

The ball almost always has spin, and therefore almost always curves after coming out of the tube. The point of rifling then is to introduce a spin in the direction of travel so the ball goes around in a spiral and on average goes straight.

Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2016
So the problem is this:

In particular, many students believed that even in the absence of external forces, objects would move in curved paths.


I think the problem is in communicating the lack of external forces. If you get the student to apply Newton to the problem, it automatically follows that the ball will not curve, but if you've got them mentally hanging with aerodynamic and friction forces, you can't expect them to come up with the right answer. You've set them a trap.

It's got nothing to do with confirmation bias. It's to do with cognitive priming. Intuitively, and in the real world, the ball will curve - no question about it. In the question, you've got a highly abstract situation, and the difficulty is in getting the students to accept the boundaries of that abstraction for a case where the conditions are in mismatch to reality.

Eikka
3.1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2016
Wow, this is the same charge I have been making against otto and Ira and Trumpy, who think reading and copying the words of others is a substitute for actual experience.


They're not substituting actual experience. They're pointing to someone else's actual experience. They're pointing to existing knowledge.

When a wise man points at the moon, an idiot stares at the finger. Your criticism against someone copy/pasting information, or your disdain for "wiki-knowledge" is just that - an idiot staring at a finger instead of what it's pointing at. Shooting the messenger, blaming the pigeon for the bad news... however you want to express it.

You attack the medium of transmission rather than the information it carries whenever it contradicts your claims, and in doing so you claim direct experience as the only valid source of information, and thereby yourself as the only valid authority - which is basically insanity.
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
Better access doesn't mean better information.

This access to the Internet's far reaches should permit us to be smarter and better informed. People certainly assume it. A recent Yale study showed that Internet access causes people to hold inflated, illusory impressions of just how smart and well-informed they are.


The above quoted sub-title & the first sentence following says it all. Perfect applicability to neophyte aficionados of pop-sci living on this site who have never earned an hour of credits in a science based curriculum. These who imagine they are geniuses because they've learned how to Copy & Paste and put up prolific profanity laced & name calling Commentary, imagining that's how they raise their IQs to make up the difference..............right on the money Author. You'll know who they are by their 1 Star votes on this post.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2016
They readily spread stories that already fit their worldview. As such, they practiced confirmation bias, giving credence to evidence supporting what they already believed. As a consequence, the theories they endorsed burrowed themselves into like-minded Facebook communities who rarely questioned their authenticity.

Astrophysics and theoretical peer review in a nutshell. Scientists are in fact people too, and they suffer from the same psychological failings as the rest of us.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
"When a wise man points at the moon, an idiot stares at the finger."
-------------------------------

You are the only one who thought of looking at the finger.

My point is for those who think pasting in the words of someone else is a debate. Most of the time, they are unaware of the topics being discussed, not familiar with the implications of those words, or the consequences, leading to attacks against others who correct them.

Once found out, they become hateful and nasty trolls, following you around to award ones, like Grumpy today. They did it for so long, I thought it was supposed to be done that way, so I do it too.

Here is another one for Trumpy and Ira and vietvet and Willie.
Estevan57
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
Gkam, does it really not occur to you that Eikka's point about the messenger applies to you more than anyone else here?

"You attack the medium of transmission rather than the information it carries whenever it contradicts your claims,..." - Eikka

"Once found out, they become hateful and nasty trolls, following you around to award ones, like Grumpy today. They did it for so long, I thought it was supposed to be done that way, so I do it too.
Here is another one for Trumpy and Ira and vietvet and Willie." - Gkam

Open your eyes, DUMBASS. Eikka knows you better than you know yourself. You should be awarded an assist for demonstrating his point so perfectly.

But that's' enough about you, lets talk about you, instead.

ps. Talking about others in a comments section, when they are not present or part of the conversation, - THAT is being a Troll.

Benni
3 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2016
April 16, 2016, 9:46 am 2.3 EWH <5> Captain Stumpy <1> Vietvet <1>

Open your eyes, DUMBASS


when they are not present or part of the conversation, - THAT is being a Troll.


........I never mentioned their names making them a part of the conversation in my first post, so what gave Stumpy & Vietvet the impression I was referring to them that they would cast a 1 Star for my first post?

The fact is, the guilty know who they are because the guilty have a very lengthy foul mouthed track record as do you. In fact your own track record for being such a base foul mouthed person is as recent as your above post from which I just quoted you, thus precluding you from credibility as a paradigm of exemplary behavior for labeling anyone else on this site a "Troll" or "DUMBASS".

Estevan57
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2016
@ Benni - I was not referring to you, or anything that you have posted in this comments thread.

By the way, a person doesn't have to be a "paradigm of exemplary behavior" to call out anyone else on this site for being a "Troll" or "DUMBASS".

That's "an idiot staring at a finger instead of what it's pointing at". To quote Eikka.

Ever notice that the list of gkams' enemies grows longer every month? And he still comes here. Must be lonely.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
Nope.

Just fishing for abusive and cowardly internet trolls here.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2016
What isn't mentioned is the mechanism that allows people to embrace so many lies. Or even errors.
It actually rakes on many forms. Sheer gullibility, the tendency of many to accept as unquestioned whatever someone with a lab coat or a lot of money or popularity says. These don't think for themselves, too addicted to drugs and video games. There are those who embrace garbage simply because it promotes the agenda they support, even though they won't be the beneficiary, just their multi millionaires leaders. And there are those who adopt notions simply to be annoying, to intrude on the truth with viciously promoted lies. Some even self lobotomize, knowing it's a lie but engaging in actions of someone who knows it's true, like breaking into conversations and using the lie to "explain" what is known to be occurring.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2016
Wow, this is the same charge I have been making against otto and Ira and Trumpy... substitute for actual experience
The internet is on the way to making us smarter. At present we have to do our own research; but soon enough AI will begin to do it for us.

Wiki will become a service, automatically checking claims for authenticity. Sites like physorg will opt to subscribe to this service. Liars and cheaters and bullshit artists will automatically be banned or at least flagged.

Lying cheating bullshit artists like george kamburoff will be identified and we will be able to click on hotlinks and review the process of debunking if we so wish.

Soon enough this will extend into the real world and psychopaths will be tagged without having to test them psychologically.

People like George kamburoff will be given a lifetime trust rating similar to a credit score.

Compulsive liars like poor george will hang themselves.

HR for the masses.

AI karma.

Brave new world.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
Outgrow your fixation on me, otto.

Yeah, I know, it is that "grow up" part again.
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
@ Benni - I was not referring to you, or anything that you have posted in this comments thread.

By the way, a person doesn't have to be a "paradigm of exemplary behavior" to call out anyone else on this site for being a "Troll" or "DUMBASS".

That's "an idiot staring at a finger instead of what it's pointing at". To quote Eikka.

Ever notice that the list of gkams' enemies grows longer every month? And he still comes here. Must be lonely.


E57.......I just gave you another 1 Star for irrelevancy. Why are you invoking Eikka's Comment (one of the most decent of the current crop of those contributing to the Commentary on PO)? You trying to somehow look relevant via attaching your post to something somebody said about someone else present in the Commentary? That was the manner in which I read your post, but not the manner in which I understood it initially, but let Eikka speak for himself, we don't need your interpretation.


Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2016
Wow, this is the same charge I have been making against otto and Ira and Trumpy, who think reading and copying the words of others is a substitute for actual experience.


That's a good theory Skippy, except for you must not have read the article. Again.

The article is a warning against taking the word of peoples like you who say wrong things almost all the time. And get it wrong even with the basics, but have no other authority but "I have experience". Peoples like you on the interweb is what is making peoples dumber.

The article tells how to not get suckered by peoples like you. You know, check if you question the source, and double triple check if the source is glam-Skippy.

The article is about reading the stuffs like you postum Cher, but you knew that and was hoping to get the first swing in so nobody would notice. It's about not just taking the word of new-agey blogs and slogans.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
It is about those of you with no experience trying to do battle with those with experience in the field, Ira. Don't get so jumpy. Remember what your mommy said about thinking first.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
those with experience in the field


You mean like the guy who DIDN'T know,,

THz radiation is the same infrared? Got him wrong four times.

FM radio and AM radio works on two completely different principles? Got that wrong MORE than a dozen times.

Difference between the formula for force and the formula for kinetic energy? Got that wrong two times.

That differential equations are not the same thing as quadratic equations? Got that wrong three different times on different days and articles.

The difference between apparent, reactive and true power? Got him wrong dozens of times too.

That Btu's and kWh's are measures of the same thing? Wrong three times.

What Fourier Analysis, Transforms and Series are? Thought I was talking about some kind of transformer.

That is just a few of the things that "I-Have-Experience-Skippy" got wrong. There is over 530 pages of postums like those things from the "I-Have-Experience-Skippy". The article is about you Cher.
TehDog
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2016
@ogg_ogg

"I whole-heartedly agree with the recommendation to avoid confirmation bias, since it is exactly what I was already thinking."

Too subtle I fear :)
(Yeah, I'm late to this thread, so what etc... :)
Benni
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2016
That differential equations are not the same thing as quadratic equations


gk...............did you really say that?
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2016
@VietPet
those with experience in the field
Killing fields, perhaps. Experience smoking weed in the jungle, trying not to absorb too many Soviet bullets
TehDog
5 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2016
Oops, I failed to read the next two comments. So, not subtle at all. Just luck that the words formed an almost perfect example of the concept of confirmation bias/circular reasoning.
.
.
(I'll get me coat...)

gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
Give it up, Ira, if you understood the fields, you would not have screwed it up so badly that you had to blame it on me. You banter around words you do not understand, then think you have outsmarted somebody.

Ira handles the ropes on a big boat, so he knows all about them-there technical things.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
That differential equations are not the same thing as quadratic equations


gk...............did you really say that?


He did three times talking to you. You asked if he could do "differential equations". On three different days, on different articles. His answer each time was "there is nothing special about quadratic equations, most of us can do them".
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
Give it up, Ira, if you understood the fields, you would not have screwed it up so badly that you had to blame it on me


So you got all those things wrong (and tons more wrong too) and somehow I screwed up? Is that how it works with you guys with "experience"?

Skippy, it wasn't just typing mistake or a misspeak, you always doubled down (and most time quadrupled down) and repeated them.

What you are saying is that when you are wrong (and you are more than you right) it doesn't count because you "have experience in the field". But all the times I was right it doesn't count because I "don't have experience in the field".

Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
"When a wise man points at the moon, an idiot stares at the finger."
-------------------------------

You are the only one who thought of looking at the finger.


No, he wasn't. It's an old saying.
Used to hear it from my grandfather...
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
So your grandfather looked at the finger?
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2016
So your grandfather looked at the finger?


Says a man who accuses others of being nasty trolls.

Disrespecting his grandfather by implying he's the idiot is nothing but malice on your part and has no bearing on the discussion.

Your insistence that "experience" trumps knowledge obtained by other means is ridiculous, becuse you're in contradiction with yourself. Isn't knowledge the product of experience? How then can you claim to have been a teacher holding seminars and sessions if you also claim that knowledge cannot be transmitted?

If you can transmit knowledge to your students by words, diagrams and text, then anyone and everything else can, and therefore your experience does not have any special authority. If not, then what on earth were you doing at those seminars?
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2016
Furthermore, experience can be misleading, resulting in no-knowledge.

Suppose we're having tea, and there's a bird in a bush outside the window. You see the bird just as it was flying off and I don't. I ask you what kind of a bird it was, and you say "It was a red robin".

Meanwhile my ornithologist neighbor is walking by, sees the bird and identifies it as a bluejay, writes it down in his blog, "Today at 5 pm I saw a bluejay flying out of the bush in front of Eikka's house".

So I happen across his blog and show it to you with a claim that it was in fact a bluejay, not a red robin. Now, if we were to follow gkam-logic and say direct experience always trumps second hand knowledge, we would have to maintain that it was a red robin.

If we follow common sense and reason, we would say an ornithologist was probably better at identifying birds, regardless of the means of transmission of the knowledge, and say it's a bluejay.

Benni
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
That differential equations are not the same thing as quadratic equations


gk...............did you really say that?


He did three times talking to you. You asked if he could do "differential equations". On three different days, on different articles. His answer each time was "there is nothing special about quadratic equations, most of us can do them".


gk.......if you don't answer my question I may be forced to do the almost unthinkable, give Ira a 5 Star.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
So your grandfather looked at the finger?

No. He said - don't put it in your nose - and don't put your thumb up yer arse...
And definitely don't put that thumb back in your mouth...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2016
gk.......if you don't answer my question I may be forced to do the almost unthinkable, give Ira a 5 Star.

Benni,
You got a 5 just for saying that. Thanks for a good laugh on a Sunday morning...
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
Come on, kids, outgrow this personal nonsense. If you are jealous of others just say it, do not pretend he made "mistakes" while it is you who do not understand the field.

This is about how some folk substitute wiki for knowledge, pretending they knew all about it all the time, but subject to gross errors because either they did not read the entire post in Wiki or failed to understand the characteristic lingo.

It takes experience.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2016
So your grandfather looked at the finger?
No. He said - don't put it in your nose - and don't put your thumb up yer arse...
And definitely don't put that thumb back in your mouth...
-----------------------------------

Well then, I guess he learned from experience.

Thanks for making my point.

Benni
3 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2016
gk.......if you don't answer my question I may be forced to do the almost unthinkable, give Ira a 5 Star.

Benni,
You got a 5 just for saying that. Thanks for a good laugh on a Sunday morning...


So now you're putting in a bid for my 5 Star? We'll see.

So far Ira has only submitted his bid for it. However both gk or Ira holds the key here, Ira can get a 5 Star by linking to the post in the Comment section, or gk by an otherwise unambiguous response of affirming or disavowing Ira's claim.

Sunday morning entertainment on parade.......
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
gk.......if you don't answer my question I may be forced to do the almost unthinkable, give Ira a 5 Star.

Benni,
You got a 5 just for saying that. Thanks for a good laugh on a Sunday morning...


So now you're putting in a bid for my 5 Star? We'll see.

So far Ira has only submitted his bid for it. However both gk or Ira holds the key here, Ira can get a 5 Star by linking to the post in the Comment section, or gk by an otherwise unambiguous response of affirming or disavowing Ira's claim.

Sunday morning entertainment on parade.......


Glad to oblige. Don't care nothing about the karma vote though.

gkam 2.2/5 (24) Jun 07, 2015
Those of us who have solved quadratic equations know it is not a big deal, and anyone who makes such a big deal out of it is unaware of the fact.

Bragging about it is like counterfeiting one-dollar bills.

Ignore userQuoteReport
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2016
So your grandfather looked at the finger?
No. He said - don't put it in your nose - and don't put your thumb up yer arse...
And definitely don't put that thumb back in your mouth...
-----------------------------------

Well then, I guess he learned from experience.

Rather harsh there, George. Bad mouth a very smart dead man... Classy.

Thanks for making my point.

LOL... You don't get directed metaphor very well, do you...
You need to take your own nose out of your butt for a bit..

Benni,
Not bidding, just appreciating a little Sunday morn humor...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2016
Outgrow your fixation on me, otto.

Yeah, I know, it is that "grow up" part again.
The internet was invented to share information. Liars, cheats, and fabricators like george kamburoff reduce its value in that respect.

Of course it's only a matter of time before this problem is solved.
Come on, kids, outgrow this personal nonsense. If you are jealous of others just say it
George kamburoff has to lie about his education and experience in order to feel good about himself.

In doing so he has inadvertently shared very sensative personal info on the internet which has exposed he and his family to ridicule, abuse, and crime.

He has demonstrated a distinct lack of good judgement, personal restraint, and connection with reality, as well as a severe mental deficit, in a venue where this behavior is visible to potential employers, clients, friends, neighbors, family members, and criminals.

Who would be jealous of that?
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
That was to you, not your grandfather. I respect them, but not jokers like you.

Why don't you keep with the topic?

It is about how those without experience go to what others have written, which is a good thing, as long as they do not assume they really understand what is written. When corrected, they look for little ways semantically to try to protect their little egos.

It is like when I sent Ira the front page of the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center with a heading "Kamburoff Named Center Airman of the Month". Little Ira portrayed it as an invitation to the Rotary Club. It was all his little ego would let him do.

We went on like that through many topics, from Power Quality to NASA reports.

Stumpy is another one: Bruised ego, no verifiable experience, big mouth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2016
George, again, your education and experience, real or imagined, does not give you the right to lie and make up facts as you regularly do here.

George kamburoff enjoys posting on physorg because its the one place he can't get fired from and he can't hear people laughing at him.

He can go on pretending that the people who rightfully take exception to his lies and fabrications, are only jealous of him.

It's the only place he's got left.

He exposes his quiet desperation in every post.

George, why don't you just go down to the mall and run around naked screaming "I'M GEORGE KAMBUROFF!!!"?

It's what you're doing here.

It's just as embarrassing.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2016
That was to you, not your grandfather. I respect them, but not jokers like you.

You don't show it with your words. And as to being a joker? Better than being the joke...
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2016
What is it with you nasty folk? Is it because you are anonymous? It affords cover for bullies and cowards?

I am deeply disappointed in what happens to folk when they think nobody knows who they are. Look at yourselves.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.