Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Why People Fall For Misinformation

    Uploaded by

    abbyreader07
    1) The commonly believed "tongue map" showing different taste zones is incorrect, originating from a 1901 study that found small variations in taste sensitivity across the tongue but noted tastes could be perceived anywhere. 2) This study was distorted over time through simplification and lack of context, such as illustrations without credit to the original study, which was in German and more nuanced. 3) The tongue map spread due to its narrative simplicity appealing to our desire for clear stories, even if not fully accurate, showing how misinformation can arise and persist.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Why People Fall For Misinformation

    Uploaded by

    abbyreader07
    38 views2 pages
    1) The commonly believed "tongue map" showing different taste zones is incorrect, originating from a 1901 study that found small variations in taste sensitivity across the tongue but noted tastes could be perceived anywhere. 2) This study was distorted over time through simplification and lack of context, such as illustrations without credit to the original study, which was in German and more nuanced. 3) The tongue map spread due to its narrative simplicity appealing to our desire for clear stories, even if not fully accurate, showing how misinformation can arise and persist.

    Original Title

    Why People Fall for Misinformation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The commonly believed "tongue map" showing different taste zones is incorrect, originating from a 1901 study that found small variations in taste sensitivity across the tongue but noted tastes could be perceived anywhere. 2) This study was distorted over time through simplification and lack of context, such as illustrations without credit to the original study, which was in German and more nuanced. 3) The tongue map spread due to its narrative simplicity appealing to our desire for clear stories, even if not fully accurate, showing how misinformation can arise and persist.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views2 pages

    Why People Fall For Misinformation

    Uploaded by

    abbyreader07
    1) The commonly believed "tongue map" showing different taste zones is incorrect, originating from a 1901 study that found small variations in taste sensitivity across the tongue but noted tastes could be perceived anywhere. 2) This study was distorted over time through simplification and lack of context, such as illustrations without credit to the original study, which was in German and more nuanced. 3) The tongue map spread due to its narrative simplicity appealing to our desire for clear stories, even if not fully accurate, showing how misinformation can arise and persist.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Why people fall for misinformation

    Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.


    (Jonathan Swift)
    In 1901, David Hanig’s research led to what we know today as the taste map, an
    illustration that divides the tongue into 4 separate areas. Receptors at the tip of our
    tongues capture sweetness, bitterness at the tongue’s base, and along the sides, salty and
    sour sensations.
    The only problem with this map is that it’s wrong. The tongue map is a common
    misconception, something widely believed but largely incorrect. So where do
    misconceptions like this come from, and what makes a fake fact so easy to believe?
    As part of his dissertation at Leipzig University, Hanig analysed taste sensitivities
    across the tongue for the 4 basic flavours. He hoped to better understand the
    physiological mechanisms that affected these four flavours, and his data suggested that
    sensitivity for each taste did vary across the tongue.
    The maximum sensation for sweet was located at the tongue’s tip, bitter flavours were
    strongest at the back, salt was strongest around the outer edge, and sour at the middle of
    the tongue’s sides. But Hanig was careful to note that every sensation could also be
    tasted across the tongue, and that the areas he identified offered very small variations in
    intensity.
    The tongue map represents a distortion of its original source. However, the nature of
    that distortion can vary. Some misconceptions are comprised of disinformation, false
    information intentionally designed to mislead people. But many misconceptions,
    including the tongue map, center on misinformation, false or misleading information
    that results from unintentional inaccuracy.
    Misinformation is most often shaped by mistakes and human error, but the specific
    mistakes that lead to a misconception can be surprisingly varied. In the case of the
    tongue map, Hanig’s dissertation was written in German, meaning the paper could only
    be understood by readers fluent in German and well-versed in Hanig’s small corner of
    academia.
    Less than a decade after his dissertation, newspapers were falsely insisting that
    experiments could prove sweetness was imperceptible on the back of the tongue. The
    second culprit behind the tongue map’s spread were the images that Hanig’s work
    inspired. In 1912, a rough version of the map appeared in a newspaper article that
    cautiously described some of the mysteries behind taste and smell research.
    Featuring clear labels across the tongue, the article’s illustrations simplified Hanig’s
    more complicated original diagrams. Variations of this approachable image became
    repeatedly cited, often without credit or nuanced consideration for Hanig’s work.
    Eventually this image spread to textbooks and classrooms as a purported truth of how
    we experience taste.
    But perhaps the factor that most contributed to this misconception was its narrative
    simplicity. The map complements our desire for clear stories about the world around us,
    a quality not always present in the sometimes messy fields of science. Even the number
    of tastes we have is more complicated than Hanig’s work suggests. Umami, is now
    considered the fifth basic taste, and many still debate the existence of tastes like fatty,
    alkaline, metallic, and water-like.
    Once we hear a good story, it can be difficult to change how we see that information,
    even in the face of new evidence. So, next time you read a surprising anecdote, try to
    maintain a healthy skepticism, because misconceptions can leave a bitter taste on every
    part of your tongue.

    Comprehension questions
    1. Where on the tongue is sweetness?
    On the tip On the back At the sides All of them

    2. What is the difference between misinformation and disinformation?


    Misinformation is accidental, disinformation is intentional
    Disinformation is accidental, misinformation is intentional
    Disinformation is always false, misinformation can be true
    There is no difference

    3. What was important from this list in the tongue map’s spread?
    The uncredited illustrations that Hanig’s findings inspired
    The bad research used by Hanig
    A mistranslation of Hanig’s work from French
    Errors with Hanig’s original illustrations

    4. What is considered to be the 5th taste?


    Metallic Fatty Umami Water-like

    5. How many tastes do humans have?


    4 5 9 Unknown

    You might also like