शैडोइंग अभ्यास: How to Tell What’s Real Online - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

I've been thinking a lot lately as an educator and especially as a scientist, when you search online for answers and knowledge,

wisdom and insight, what do you trust?

How do you trust it?

What is involved to decide whether something is true or not true?

And it's not easy at all.

I know a lot about a lot of stuff, But when I look things up that I don't know, it's like, you know, this doesn't seem to feel right.

There's something odd about it.

Let me keep checking.

But let me first off the top say

so many people are now using some variant of AI to answer their questions that they might have.

When I search things where I fully know the answer, AI gets it right 85% of the time.

15% of the time it's flat out wrong or didn't fully understand what's going on.

Of course, large language models are, they don't think really, they're just assembling words

that have appeared next to other words that various people have written and posted on the internet.

And so there's no guarantee that what people have posted is correct.

What I encourage people to do is don't trust what the large language model AI is giving you.

If it's worth its weight in salt, it'll give links to where it got that information.

Just like the old days, when you did a search, you'd have a list of websites.

And then you would click on the websites and assemble your own answer, which is what AI is doing for you now.

So I don't rely on AI, just based on the errors I know it makes when I already know the answer to something.

So what is objectively true really matters to everything I do say

and think and produce and so I check things double-check them triple-check them verify

if my bias isn't is influencing what I'm finding am I

just choosing what I like versus what I don't like all of

that matters which is why finding the truth is a hard thing

so in my experience extracting that which is objectively true from the internet.

I have found that websites that are .edu, which is typically a university or otherwise educational institution,

that you are more likely to get correct information.

So if it's not from those, I would put up a yellow flag.

How about somebody's online and they're defending the actions of an industry in which they work?

Yellow flag.

Not a red flag.

There are people who will just discount it just because the person's paid by the industry.

They could be telling you the truth.

So it's a yellow flag.

It means whatever they tell you, listen with caution.

Because they have a vested financial interest in having their view match that of the industry.

So what's an example of this?

Uh, hmm.

We went through decades with the tobacco industry telling us there was nothing wrong with tobacco.

Meanwhile, other sources of information said that there was.

The industry is not always lying to you.

You put up a yellow flag and then you look deeper to verify or falsify it.

Here's another case.

Podcasts are everywhere.

There's millions of them.

Millions.

That's Starktalk just one of them.

Some podcasts, the host just tries to get really cool people on, and in the interest of views,

clickbait, public interest, to get someone with a kind of fringy view that's still kind of fun to listen to.

Maybe someone got abducted by aliens and you're listening to them.

If the host has insufficient expertise to probe and to inquire and to criticize what they're listening to, yellow flag.

If you really like what's being said, find another place to verify that information.

Here's another one.

When someone is handing you their opinion, Yellow flag.

If the source, the internet source, tells you how you should feel about information,

in that case they are handing you their opinion on the expectation that it will become your opinion.

Instead of finding sources that contain objective information, then you assimilating that, digesting it,

and then forming your own opinion independent of people coming at you with their opinions.

It may be that the person says things that resonate with you.

I never thought about it that way.

I agree with that.

That feels good.

I don't have a problem with that.

But what you're not in control of is what information they're basing their opinion on.

And it could be that if you had access to other information, you'd arrive at a different opinion than they did.

The internet overflows with people handing you their opinions.

And I've never seen that as a healthy landscape on which to glean objective knowledge about this world.

Here's how I look at opinions.

Have whatever opinion you want, but work really hard to base it on objective truths that you obtain for yourself.

Let me throw out another.

If there's content that has been lifted from its original source and reposted, there's a yellow flag.

First, you don't know if it's out of context.

Usually there's commentary that surrounds it because they want to get you to think about

that clip what they think about that clip And

if it's not in its original platform in its original format in its original length That's a yellow flag.

Maybe it's just an innocent.

I'll check this out.

It's funny I enjoyed it, but if it starts containing information that you need to absorb to make your own decisions about things

Then go back to the original source.

I once gave a two-hour public talk and and 90 seconds of it was clipped and reposted, and someone railed on it.

Say, how does he dare he say this?

What, he doesn't ever, without knowing what preceded those 90 seconds.

The whole analysis was completely false because he didn't see the rest of it.

But he's bringing his following into it so that he can hand them his opinions of a snippet of something I said.

So that's my first hand example of that.

But of course, this would apply to anybody at any time.

Go back to the original source.

And some content is longer than others.

Yes, it's easier to see the 30 second clip, the two minute clip.

But if you care about what is objectively true in the world, the yellow flag tells you, go find the original source.

I got another one that's kind of in between a yellow and a red flag.

Here's how science works.

When you're on the frontier, We're scratching our head, we don't know what is true yet,

but I can have a scientific result that hints at something, or declares that one thing is true rather than something else.

If there's no other research to verify it, that's a yellow flag.

That's interesting.

That's worthy of further research to see if this result holds true.

And generally, if it makes it into the news, it's a result that's unexpected.

100

If it's a completely expected scientific result, no one is going to talk about it.

101

This might ultimately prove to be true when verified by other results, hence the yellow flag.

102

It means don't rearrange your life just yet, but keep an eye on it.

103

It becomes a red flag when there are other research projects that conflict with that one result.

104

And at that point, you're cherry picking from the moving frontier of science

105

because that particular result is what you need it to be, what you want it to be, or what's consistent with your religion,

106

your politics, your culture, or just your mood.

107

some case studies of this.

108

There was a research paper that suggested certain vaccines caused autism.

109

Suggested it.

110

That's an interesting result.

111

Oh my gosh.

112

That spawned a lot of other research to check that.

113

And it has never been verified.

114

And hundreds of papers have shown that it is a false correlation.

115

And there is no cause and effect.

116

But people looking for something to blame, kept going back to that original research paper,

117

cherry picking it from the frontier that had already achieved consensus and was moving on.

118

That's an example.

119

If someone has a video,

120

and anywhere in that video they mention conspiracy, red flag.

121

It doesn't mean there's never been conspiracies in the history of the world.

122

Of course there have been.

123

I'm just saying the likelihood of something being true when someone needs the conspiracy for it to be true is very low.

124

What all conspiracy theories have in common is

125

that the person already knows the outcome

126

and they assemble the data trail until the data do not agree with the outcome they seek.

127

If it doesn't agree, they still have to gap that somehow.

128

And the way to do that is to say, it's a coverup.

129

It's a conspiracy.

130

They're withholding this information.

131

They're stopping you from knowing it.

132

So invested were they in the outcome that they needed,

133

that they wanted, they were in denial of the release data from the authorities that they said were hiding the data.

134

And they just said, oh, this is just fake data because they don't really want you to know this result.

135

Red flag, 100% of the cases.

136

Do some more homework on this.

137

A lot more homework.

138

Red flag, if someone wants you to think that there's something wrong with mainstream thinking, and they alone have the answer.

139

Since when did mainstream become a bad word?

140

When Einstein published the theories of relativity, mainstream physics was like classical physics.

141

Quantum physics comes around, relativity comes around.

142

It is not mainstream.

143

It was published in peer-reviewed journals and it transformed physics.

144

The difference is all of classical physics is still correct in the regimes over which it was tested.

145

And relativity and quantum physics absorbed classical physics within them.

146

Point is, if someone gets on social media or anywhere on the internet and says, mainstream is wrong and they're suppressing my view,

147

which is correct, red flag, pure and simple, red flag.

148

Mainstream is not your enemy.

149

Just a couple more, thanks for hanging with me here.

150

Anytime someone indicts an entire demographic,

151

red flag, they say, the Jews, the gays, the blacks.

152

If you hear that out of anybody's mouth, red flag.

153

They want to declare they know everything they need to know about you without actually having a conversation with you.

154

That takes effort, by the way, to learn who people are, to learn the nuances that distinguish one person from another,

155

one person's thoughts, behaviors, actions, motivations, from another.

156

One of the greatest travesties of what it is to be human is to tribalize in that way.

157

Generally, if someone feels comfortable categorizing demographics in that way, it means they don't know many people from that demographic.

158

That's really all that means.

159

You've led an isolated life.

160

For the same reason, if someone lumps an entire industry together and indicts them for any reason at all,

161

that should be a red flag.

162

Especially huge industries where there might be some companies within there that have a moral code that distinguishes them from others.

163

Surely you've heard people say, I hate big pharma.

164

Like, really?

165

You just wanna put them all together as one monolith?

166

By lumping them together, you are denying that possibility within a huge range of business practices.

167

It doesn't mean there isn't a practice that they're all doing that you indict,

168

But to indict all practices of all companies that are part of a sector, that should just simply be a red flag.

169

It is way too easy to just lump everybody together and declare that you understand who and what they are.

170

Someone posted a video, there's less of this out there, but just there's less of it.

171

Someone says that they've discovered some process phenomenon, material, that defies the known laws of physics.

172

Red flag.

173

Do I need to go further on this one?

174

One more to round out an even dozen.

175

Somebody tells you they invented something that will render an entire industry obsolete and that you better buy it now,

176

otherwise that industry is gonna close down their channel.

177

Red flag.

178

Baker's dozen.

179

If someone says they've met the aliens, red flag.

180

Hold them to a higher standard than just their eyewitness testimony.

181

Hold them to a higher standard than fuzzy video taken in Twilight.

182

Hold them to a higher standard.

183

Again, we're after objective truths here.

184

And in that higher standard, have them bring forth the alien of which they speak.

185

It's tough today because AI can just create that in a video.

186

So meet me in Times Square or in Speaker's Corner

187

or in Venice Beach with the alien at this time and we can all look at your alien.

188

That's how you establish objective truths.

189

That's my baker's dozen list of cautions

190

as you proceed to establish that which is objectively true supported by evidence and that which is not.

191

And this has been another What's Up With That?

192

Trying to cope with the modern ocean of information that's out there.

193

Until next time, keep looking up.

194

Thank you.

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: How to Tell What’s Real Online - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

संदर्भ और पृष्ठभूमि

प्रतिदिन संवाद के लिए 5 मुख्य वाक्य

कदम-दर-कदम शैडोइंग गाइड

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?