Scientific Study Shows 75% of Internet Users Believe a Story Without Fully Reading it - General

This was a study that was performed from March last year, up until March this year. During the time they collected over 3 million reponses to a several fake news stories that were put on the internet, here's the quoted article: [quote]How well do you read a news story? According to a recent study, it may not be well enough. The study took place from the 5th March 2007, up until the 8th March 2008. With the results of the study being released today. The project has been criticized as being a "waste of time" by fellow scientists, but we were assured that with this astonishing final result, naysayers will be silenced. The result? 75% of internet users believe a story, without fully reading, or understanding it. Of course that isn't all, they also noticed that the longer a story is, the less likely the user is to read it fully. Instead, they will read the title, and perhaps the first few lines, or a paragraph. From that they will be confident in their own deductions and claim to understand the news story in it's entirety. The study also showed that of the 75% guilty of this, 50% had a comment on the story that caused controversy. This comment would either take parts of the story out of context, add their own spin on it, or purely be a complete falcity. The study was conducted by members of the Berlin Philharmonic University. A prestigious university that ranks top 10 in the world. Senior Professor - Wolfgang Amadeus Makart claimed that doing this study, was putting his entire career at risk. "When you decide you're going to do a study like this, it can really backfire. This is not the sort of thing that the scientific community takes very seriously, but I decided that I wanted to prove them wrong, and I'm sure this is going to turn some heads." His prized student, Ludwig von Bearhaten had nothing but praise for his teacher. "He's an incredible man, a genius. He started performing scientific studies at the age of 5, and has produced over 600 to date. I believe that this study is the crowning achievement of his entire career, and I'm honoured to have worked under him in this endeavor." A fellow professor at the University - Sigmund Fraat hypothesised that it was a psychological effect that caused internet users to display this unusual behaviour. "The average internet user was abused as a child, this abuse took place mostly when the user wasn't learning enough. That's all the user wants to get back to, he wants his father to notice that he didn't learn a piece, and can't wait for him to drop his trousers. It's extremely common." Mr. Fraad urged users to stop the behaviour, or it may end badly. He also hypothesised that the least read part to a story would be the middle section. Apparently a writer could write complete nonsense, and only a few would notice. He urged those that noticed not to give the game away, because it could be funny, but asked them to play along by making a comparison to dinosaurs in their comments. Naturally of course, this study isn't without it's critics. President Augustus of San Marino was certainly not impressed at all. "Why do these know it alls decide to perform studies in the most useless areas on earth? We have global warming barking at our door, threatening to kill us all. We have North and South Korea on the verge of firing nuclear missiles at the west, and the United States of America is in a major food crisis and in need of humanitarian aid. Why on earth did they decide to see how stupid internet users are?" Latest reports from internet users suggests that they don't actually care. The group called "Anonymous", famous for being the terrorist group that is hassling Scientology denied the study completely. We could not get an interview with the spokesperson, nor could we get to even talk to him via the phone. Instead we were sent a series of cryptic e-mails. It seems that significant though this finding is, it shouldn't have an effect on the daily lives of internet goers. It is thought that those aged 12-21 were the biggest culprits. They were the ones who had the largest emotional response, and were expected to try and post at the first possible chance with their opinions on the story. Out of all the places that the study was performed, it was declared that "internet forums" were the biggest culprits. A dangerous subculture, and internet fad of "threadshitting" basically guaranteed that at least half of the posters in the thread would post without even reading the article. This of course was in a vain attempt to gain respect over the internet from their peers, a precious commodity I was told. Makart had this closing comment on those. "These are the people that are the most important in this study. The ones that are actually directly cheapening the effect of news over the internet, I call out for every single person to stop this foolish behaviour, before 75% ends up being 100%." The study is set to be released into the public domain in the coming weeks. Until then you can attend seminars that explain the study, if you are interested, you can see if your city is one of the destinations by checking at the City Hall.[/quote] [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7535280.stm]Original Link[/url] You know, this really doesn't surprise me at all, you can't go on a newspaper's website, or Myspace, or anywhere on the internet without comments that are purely wrong. I don't believe this is a matter of stupidity, I think it's just a matter of laziness. with people not bothering to read things that they judge as too long.

+1 Irony. [quote]"The average internet user was abused as a child, this abuse took place mostly when the user wasn't learning enough. That's all the user wants to get back to, he wants his father to notice that he didn't learn a piece, and can't wait for him to drop his trousers. It's extremely common."[/quote] Hahahahaha.

86.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.

In your thread, ruining your joke: "Mr. Fraad urged users to stop the behaviour, or it may end badly. He also hypothesised that the least read part to a story would be the middle section. Apparently a writer could write complete nonsense, and only a few would notice. He urged those that noticed not to give the game away, because it could be funny, but asked them to play along by making a comparison to dinosaurs in their comments."

[QUOTE=GunFox]In your thread, ruining your joke: "Mr. Fraad urged users to stop the behaviour, or it may end badly. He also hypothesised that the least read part to a story would be the middle section. Apparently a writer could write complete nonsense, and only a few would notice. He urged those that noticed not to give the game away, because it could be funny, but asked them to play along by making a comparison to dinosaurs in their comments."[/QUOTE] You're pretty cool, guy.

That article is full of crap, and that's what makes it so truly accurate.

[QUOTE=KillerTV]You're pretty cool, guy.[/QUOTE] Oh, sorry, forgot my dinosaur reference.

I don't believe this article, and i haven't read it or properly understood it.

Dude I didn't read the article, but 75%? That's a damn lot of stupid people :downs:

[QUOTE=Confused]Dude[B] I didn't read the article[/B], but 75%? That's a damn lot of stupid people :downs:[/QUOTE] That 75% includes you. [b]Edit:[/b] Is it me or am I the only one who thinks that this is a FAKE article and a bogus study trying to make people go, 'Oh my God, 75% is a lot' when they believe the story without fully reading it? Hence unleashing epic irony? [B]Edit:[/B] Haha it is! The "ORIGINAL LINK" leads to some bullshit article.

Nice try, OP, but I read. :eng101:

[QUOTE=thereisno131]That 75% includes you. [b]Edit:[/b] Is it me or am I the only one who thinks that this is a FAKE article and a bogus study trying to make people go, 'Oh my God, 75% is a lot' when they believe the story without fully reading it?[/QUOTE] That 75% includes you too then cap'n.

Why should I distrust the Onion?

Love how the article itself has some subtle digs at people not fully reading: [quote] His prized student, Ludwig von Bearhaten had nothing but praise for his teacher. [/quote] [quote] "The average internet user was abused as a child, this abuse took place mostly when the user wasn't learning enough. That's all the user wants to get back to, he wants his father to notice that he didn't learn a piece, and can't wait for him to drop his trousers. It's extremely common." [/quote] [quote] Mr. Fraad urged users to stop the behaviour, or it may end badly. He also hypothesised that the least read part to a story would be the middle section. Apparently a writer could write complete nonsense, and only a few would notice. He urged those that noticed not to give the game away, because it could be funny, but asked them to play along by making a comparison to dinosaurs in their comments. [/quote] Also, going to the link is about Beijing, not the article. Oh, the Onion. I see.

[QUOTE=GunFox]That 75% includes you too then cap'n.[/QUOTE] I didn't read it fully, but then again, I didn't believe it. :sci101:

[QUOTE=Jon-Ace]Nice try, OP, but I read. :eng101:[/QUOTE] If you couldn't predict what was going to happen from the title alone, I have doubt about your claimed abilities.

I do'nt trust it.

[QUOTE=GunFox]In your thread, ruining your joke: "Mr. Fraad urged users to stop the behaviour, or it may end badly. He also hypothesised that the least read part to a story would be the middle section. Apparently a writer could write complete nonsense, and only a few would notice. He urged those that noticed not to give the game away, because it could be funny, but asked them to play along by making a comparison to dinosaurs in their comments."[/QUOTE] You know most people won't even read that so it doesn't matter.

I doubt this. You can see what an article is going to be like after the title and a few lines. The general writing style stays the same. There is no other way to gather information, there is so much, I can't read it ALL! I may not be as smart as let's say a paleontologist or the wise old stegosaurus, but I know that for sure. In school they taught us how to leave unimportant stuff out and how to concentrate on important things.

I believe that story. [B]Edit:[/B] I believe any wall-of-text.

[QUOTE=CookiePoo] A fellow professor at the University - Sigmund Fraat hypothesised that it was a psychological effect [...] [/QUOTE] Sigmund Fraat ? Psychanalyst ?

Haha! This is great! The entire article is full of bogus. (that will probably be overlooked by people posting it for extreme irony)

[QUOTE=GunFox]Stuff[/QUOTE] Way to be an asshole.

I couldn't be arsed reading it. But I believe it.

[QUOTE=Killuah]I doubt this. You can see what an article is going to be like after the title and a few lines. The general writing style stays the same. There is no other way to gather information, there is so much, I can't read it ALL! I may not be as smart as let's say a paleontologist or the wise old stegosaurus, but I know that for sure. In school they teached us how to leave unimportant stuff out and how to concentrate on important things.[/QUOTE] It's a pity they never [b]taught[/b] you correct spelling and grammar.

Hilarious thread, is hilarious :v:

Tragically, internet users are about as attentive as the dinosaurs were in "how to survive potentially deadly disaster" class.

Haha, brilliant

75% of the internet is HUUGGE. It's just a lame statistic made by a bunch of biased faggots.

[QUOTE=Killuah]Way to be an asshole.[/QUOTE] I think you mean Diplodocus.