Test your susceptibility to misinformation with this Cambridge test. Good luck.

[brewens]

https://yourmist.streamlit.app/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFusqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZDz4VUjXdqQtxzC66ylberVcBOXY2fXRsc6i6ruZ95r3FHji0vdVll47A_aem_yyDB1uqvAA9SldeOm2svfg

I got 19/20.

[LeftInTX]

1. So did I, but the site is slow and awkward to figure out.

[dflprincess]

36. 19/20 as well

I wish it would have told me which one I got wrong.

[Delarage]

2. 17/20

It was more challenging than I expected

[spooky3]

3. 20/20 for me! Thanks DU!

[MLAA]

14. Well done!

[BWdem4life]

31. Pls share correct answers, thanks in advance! nt

[spooky3]

45. I didn't make a screen cap of them. You make selections directly

On the website.

[LeftInTX]

58. You can take it over and over, but I can't figure out which one I missed because now I've got 20/20 correct.

I swear it's the same answers. Maybe I checked the wrong box and meant to check another one.?

[spooky3]

68. Iirc, those are the answers I selected too. Nt

[LeftInTX]

70. I can't figure which one I got wrong originally. It's weird!

I must have accidentally marked the wrong column on one of them.

[yardwork]

85. The site froze up on me so I didn't get my results. Looks like it was 19/20.

Comparing my answers to yours, I got 19/20 correct.

[robbob]

92. I don't see what this questionnaire proves:

I would have to say a lot of the questions have little or nothing to do with my exposure to disinformation; I would be just making a guess as I’ve heard nothing one way or another about the topic. Eye colour and intelligence? Could be, sounds unlikely. Hyatt removing small bottles? I doubt it, but they might have made them on-demand only to save money and wastage. US counties becoming majority non-white? On one hand, could be a GOP scare tactic (looking at YOU, JD), on the other, demographics are changing. What do I know about US counties?

Some of the questions are obviously conspiracy theorists talking points, but I’d say a good third are just questions I don’t really know the answer to…

[Ms. Toad]

103. Re: Hyatt - it is across the board.

It is to save wastage. They are using large locked-in multiple use bottles.

Re US counties becoming majority non-white - that's been a trend for at least a decade. Sometimes it's described as becoming majority minority, and a reason people have been predicting the end of the Republican party. (The entire use will be majority minority in around 2 decades.)

Eye color is probably a reference to two things: The Aryan norm, and the classroom experiment that instructed children to shun (IIRC) brown-eyed children

[robbob]

108. Thanks for that info,

but my point was, while taking the test I had not really heard anything about any of these stories, so I don’t see how it would be showing my susceptibility to disinformation. Unlike, for example, the question about chemicals and poisons in vaccines, which obviously is a conspiracy theory, on those three particular questions I had not heard or read anything and just had to guess whether it was true or not. Or, more to the point, did this particular question “sound” like something that people would be spreading as disinformation.

[Ms. Toad]

114. I don't know - but my guess is that it was testing exposure to news.

Exposure to relatively non-biased, in-depth news stories likely makes one more discerning/less susceptible to fake news. I used to read the newspaper daily before heading off to work. We no longer get the newspaper, so I have far less exposure than over my lifetime - but that lifetime of exposure had given me pretty good radar for identifying fake news. That lack of in-depth daily exposure is countered, to some extent, by the easy ability to use the internet to fact-check suspicious stories.

But even with less exposure, the only story I hadn't heard anything about was the King of Morocco question. I scored 20/20 - and I spend a fair amount of time on DU recognizing and debunking fake/misleading news that people have been posting as if it was the truth.
So I think there is a connection between exposure to breadth and depth of unbiased news and susceptibility to fake news.

[Crunchy Frog]

136. I marked it real if it sounded plausible and fake if it sounded implausible/crazy.

In reality I have no clue about the veracity of most of those headlines.

[robbob]

137. And how did you do?

🤔

[Crunchy Frog]

138. 20/20.

[Mossfern]

99. Thanks for this!

It helped me see which question I got wrong. I wasn't sure about the answer .....it's the one regarding America being less respected globally. I thought that TSF had ruined our reputation beyond repair. Glad to see that I was wrong on this one!

[sdfernando]

109. These are not the same questions that I had.

Some are the same but there are different ones in there. Also the Real and Fake buttons on my list were reversed. Real on the left and Fake on the right.

I got 17/20. Not bad really, but honestly thought I would do better.

[Quixote1818]

83. What was your answer on the eye color question? I was reluctant to say yes but I'm sure I had seen studies saying

some eye colors have higher intelligence.

Snip: There is some evidence that people with blue eyes may be more intelligent, but there is no scientific consensus to support this claim:
A University of Louisville study found that people with blue eyes may be more studious, strategic, and focused than people with brown eyes. The study also found that people with blue eyes may perform better on exams.
A University of Louisville paper found that people with light eyes may perform better at behaviors that require delay, self-pacing, and non-reacting.

I'm wondering if that is one that I missed. If I missed it then I'm not sure it's a good question since there are several studies that suggest this.

[spooky3]

84. Yes, on the quiz they call it false.

In addition to your concern, I think the quiz could be criticized that it could be measuring lack of exposure to certain info and doesn’t allow “don’t know” as an option. For example, if you never heard about the King of Morocco’s action or that some hotel chains are discontinuing the little bottles (or don’t stay at those hotels these days), it’s not that you are resistant to the truth or that you accept misinfo, it’s that you just haven’t come across that bit of info.

[Quixote1818]

89. Agree. I got the hotel bottel one wrong too but I stay in hotels for work all the time.

The ones I stay at haven't changed in that regard.

[LeftInTX]

94. The Hyatt thing was in the news. So, I guess it was an "info" question.

It does kinda seem fake, but it isn't.

[spooky3]

111. All of them were, but it may not be appropriate to assume that

Everyone was exposed to every bit of info and remembered it.

[LeftInTX]

93. The question was "CLEARLY". Not based on one study.

It would take numerous studies. If the question states SOME studies show a correlation between eye color and intelligence, then it would be real. I had also read something similar.

[Quixote1818]

95. Yeah, I should have gone with my gut feeling. I was probably more inclined to believe the limited studies becaues

I have blue eyes. LOL

[paleotn]

106. Our truth detector.

Well done!

[luvallpeeps]

4. 18 out of 20.

Pretty interesting. Thanks.☺️

[petronius]

5. 19/20 as well

I was waffling on the one (I think) I got wrong...

[EllieBC]

6. 19/20 but damn that site is slow. NT

[AZJonnie]

7. I love tests like this, thank you

🎉 Congratulations!
You're more resilient to misinformation than 96% of the US population!

📈 Your MIST-20 results: 20/20

I admit I cheated on one because it was SO obscure (question about the King of Morocco doing something). I suspected (correct answer) and looked it up and confirmed that . So I think I deserve the 100%

Be nice if they'd bump up their server's CPU and memory config that's for sure. Slowest site I've seen in years. But still a good test.

[Ms. Toad]

26. I guessed on that one.

I decided not to cheat - so I just made what seemed to me about the most logical answer.

[AZJonnie]

91. I know, I know ...I was bad, but at least I admitted I kinda cheated :)

Hey technically the rules didn't say you couldn't look anything up I only did on that one, and like I say I was going to put (correct answer) if I guessed.

[Ms. Toad]

100. Sometimes I cheat -

Sometimes I put what I would have answered; sometimes I change my answer.

But here I was curious about the tool here, so I didn't. I'm still not sure why they included that obscure question, in terms of the overall summation of the quiz.

[LeftInTX]

52. I concluded it was likely factual based on how it was worded.

That's because we are bombarded with so much info that we don't have time to fact check everything that comes our way.

It also seemed logical to me.

For instance "CLEAR relationship about eye color and intelligence." The word CLEAR stood out to me as fake. If it had said "possible", then I would have had a harder time with it.

[Disaffected]

8. Also 20/20 but

I was unsure about a couple.

[MerrilyMerrily]

65. Me too 20/20 but two where I was not certain I was right

[Fla Dem]

9. 17/20 Better than I thought I would do.

[PurgedVoter]

10. 19/20 The test says I am bit skeptical about the news

Well I have seen CNN and Fox so yes, I think I am a bit skeptical, thank you.

[SalviaBlue]

11. 15/16

I think most DUers would do well.

[ecstatic]

96. Same.

Apparently I got the Hyatt one wrong. I tried to use common sense - I'm wondering what the alternative is? Big bottles where all guests use the same bottle and you don't know if the contents have been tampered with? 🤔

[Blaukraut]

12. 19/20. I'd hate to see a MAGAT's score n/t

[spooky3]

46. Actually, I'd enjoy that. Nt

[RidinWithHarris]

53. A MAGAt or other tin-foil-hat wearer would tell you the test was designed to test...

...how "well indoctrinated" you were.

[AZJonnie]

121. IT'S RIGGED!!!

[MLAA]

13. I got 19 of 20 also.

Interesting.

[Tesha]

15. 100%

🎉 Congratulations!
📈 Your MIST-16 results: 16/16
Veracity Discernment: 100.0% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 100.0% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100.0% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: 0 (ranges from -8 to +8, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You are neither too skeptical nor too gullible when it comes to the news.

[Lifeafter70]

112. I took that one with same results

[duncang]

16. That was a surprise

I didn’t think I would get 100%.

[Ned Low]

17. 20/20

Distrust/Naivite 0

[Big Blue Marble]

18. 20/20 correct.

Amazing. I guessed at two. Just said they should be correct. LOL.

[BWdem4life]

32. Pls share correct answers, thanks in advance! nt

[BWdem4life]

19. 19/20 but

why don't they tell you which one(s) you got wrong?

[Timewas]

20. 18/20

Went back and too the 16 and got 16/16

[NewHendoLib]

21. 18/20. 100 % IDing fake news.

[hunter]

22. I got a perfect score. I've always been good at true / false tests.

I'm not sure how well that translated to success in the "real world."

Sometimes it's a bad idea to say the first thing that pops into your head even if it's true.

I've got a knife scar on my arm that reminds me of that.

🎉 Congratulations!
You're more resilient to misinformation than 96% of the US population!

📈 Your MIST-20 results: 20/20
Veracity Discernment: 100% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: 0 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You are neither too skeptical nor too gullible when it comes to the news.

[BWdem4life]

33. Pls share correct answers, thanks in advance! nt

[Imalittleteapot]

23. 17/20

[Ms. Toad]

24. 20/20

Three were only two I wasn't completely certain of - one based on ambiguous wording (better/worse - but with no time frame (i.e. better or worse compared to when?)), one because it was a news issue I hadn't heard of.

[Ping Tung]

25. 19/20 Being a cynic can be positive.

[jmbar2]

27. 20/20 Bit surprised

Had a couple of wild-assed guesses

[BWdem4life]

35. Pls share correct answers, thanks in advance! nt

[jmbar2]

55. I didn't save anything - sorry.

[IzzaNuDay]

28. 18/20

Yeah, I was given grief for being a skeptic. Nice to know it’s a desired trait!

[Enter stage left]

30. 18/20, a couple I wasn't aware of.

[brewens]

33. Yup. Pretty much a waste of time around here. As I suspected. MAGAts would be afraid to take it, so this

was my only option.

[Alliepoo]

37. Me too-19 /20!

[Sanity Claws]

38. Really slow site

I couldn't get it to load and gave up

[Phoenix61]

39. 17/20 there were some I had no idea about. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

40. 19/20

Slightly too trusting of the news…

[ret5hd]

41. mine: 19/20

Your MIST-20 results: 19/20
Veracity Discernment: 90% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 90% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: -1 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit skeptical when it comes to the news.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

42. Guess I'm very skeptical

👍 Good try!
You're more resilient to misinformation than 44% of the US population!

📈 Your MIST-20 results: 14/20
Veracity Discernment: 40% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 40% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: -6 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is good! You might be very skeptical when it comes to the news.

[LudwigPastorius]

43. "Veracity Discernment: 100% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)"

Just wait until AI really gets in the game, though.

[fierywoman]

44. 19/20; I want to know which one I missed!

[Mariana]

47. 20/20

I did guess on a couple.

[Kaleva]

48. 16/16

Congratulations!
📈 Your MIST-16 results: 16/16

Veracity Discernment: 100.0% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 100.0% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100.0% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: 0 (ranges from -8 to +8, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You are neither too skeptical nor too gullible when it comes to the news.

[Delphinus]

49. Thanks!

16/16

[RidinWithHarris]

50. 19/20, but I thought I'd get lower...

...because I was just guessing at a couple that sounded fake-ish but weren't totally impossible to be true, or sounded true but I'd never heard about one way or another.

[moonscape]

51. 18/20 but ...

Wish it told me which I missed.

[ravjav]

54. 18 of 20. NT

[hibbing]

56. 17/20, said I'm cynical about news, true n/t

[NYFlip]

57. I got 18 out of 20

[harumph]

59. 20/20

[hedda_foil]

60. 19/20

.
🎉 Congratulations!
You're more resilient to misinformation than 89% of the US population!

📈 Your MIST-20 results: 19/20
Veracity Discernment: 90% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 90% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: -1 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit skeptical when it comes to the news.

[DemonGoddess]

61. 17/20

[Luciferous]

62. 19/20

[brewens]

63. I think I missed the trust question. I was thinking big picture as in the last few decades and losing trust because

Trump even became president. Had they asked if the US was more trusted internationally since we threw Trump out, I would have answered yes.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the one we missed most.

[Ms. Toad]

101. That was the other one I wasn't certain about -

Largely because it was ambiguous. More/Less compared to when? Historically? Last year? A decade? The answer would have changed, depending on time. US is probably more trusted the last 3 years (because of Biden's leadership), less compared to a decade ago (because we elected Trump once, and are close to electing him again).

Less trusted is the answer they were looking for (I only know since I got them all right).

[brewens]

102. Hmmm. I said they didn't remove the small bottles from the bathrooms. Maybe that was it. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

104. That's the one.

The entire chain has gotten rid of single-use bottles. They now have multi-use dispensers in the shower stalls for shampoo and conditioner.

[LeftInTX]

115. Oh yeah. I stayed at boutique hotel called Hotel Indigo

It was in a rehabbed building, so it's newer. They had multi-use. Their website says they're part of Holiday Inn.

We also stayed at chain motel and they still had little bottles. (Americann Inn)

However, when I read about the little bottles thing, I assumed they would stop supplying toiletries altogether.

[Ms. Toad]

116. I don't recall the specific wording of the question

but I recognized that they were talking about replacement with multi-use bottles, rather than doing away with the bottles.

There's a growing awareness of microplastics invading everything, so it's an easy (and less expensive) way for hotels to brag about doing something to address a problem. I have encountered the multiple use bottles at least twice in the last 2 years, so even if I hadn't been specifically aware of Hyatt's change in policy, that encounter (coupled with the concern about microplastics) would have pointed me at the correct choice.

[LeftInTX]

118. I don't mind multi-use. Unfortunately, I likely just read the headline and I interpreted it as: "Pack soap & shampoo"

[iemanja]

124. Then that's the one I got wrong.

I took it to mean under Biden.

[Ms. Toad]

127. It's the only question that didn't, from my perspective, have a correct answer.

When the question is ambiguous, both answers are correct based on how the ambiguity is resolved.

[Lulu KC]

131. Good to know

That's the one I missed. I said it was fake because it's what DT says all the time! Don't tell me he's right about something. I need some context, people.

[indigovalley]

64. 18/20

[prodigitalson]

66. nice try

[Disaffected]

67. Poor that they don't tell which were missed. nt

[spooky3]

69. The right answers were posted above in this thread (leftinTx #58). If you can

Remember your answers you can compare them.

[Disaffected]

79. OK, thanks but

I got 20/20 so was thinking of others who were wondering which they got wrong.

[GoodRaisin]

71. 17/20 for me.

100% on fake news detection
80% on real news detection
A bit skeptical of the news.

I would think that DUers would probably do pretty well on a test like this, especially on spotting fake news. It’s a pretty well informed group here.

[Jeebo]

72. Much to my surprise, I got them all right.

There were seven of them that I was not sure about, so I made educated guesses on those. I don't know anything about Morocco's king or that country, for example, so my response to that one was a guess. I just went with my instincts. So getting all of them right seems improbable to me. It would be like tossing a coin seven times and it coming up heads every time. Statistically improbable. Although, my guesses were probably better than 50-50 chances, because, as I said, I trusted my instincts. Still, it surprises me that I got ALL of them right.

-- Ron

[jfz9580m]

73. I did poorly :-( 15/20

👍 Good try!
You're more resilient to misinformation than 53% of the US population!

📈 Your MIST-20 results: 15/20
Veracity Discernment: 50% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 70% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 80% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: -1 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is good! You might be a bit skeptical when it comes to the news.


I had no idea if Morocco even had a king and if so whether they would be likely to take an action like that.

I got the Trump one wrong because I thought (wrongly) that Republicans are rarely divided on Trump.

The govt officials trying to manipulating stock prices one confused me because I don’t have a US or EU centric perspective. That did sound like a headline that is plausible in some parts of the world with overtly corrupt governments. However, maybe it would also be unlikely to get press coverage in those parts.

I got the attitudes towards EU one wrong because my stereotype of Europeans is that they are generally unenthusiastic about everything including themselves ;-/.

One of the 5 I got wrong was a simple click error. These are the four where I really didn’t know.

[LAS14]

74. Got 19/20. I know which one I got wrong. SPOILER

I said Morocco's king did not appoint committee chief to fight poverty and inequality. If Reuters is to be believed, they did just that. I think that was the question I debated about the most. On the side of Real is the argument, why would anyone bother with fake news like this? On the Fake side was the totally ignorant and prejudicial assumption that a middle east country probably wouldn't do this.

I was very surprised at the score. I struggled over a good half dozen questions.

I did take screen shots if anyone has specific questions.

[yardwork]

86. I don't think you did poorly.

You sound like a skeptical person, and that's a good trait to have in these times.

This test blurs the difference between believing conspiracy theories and having rational skepticism.

[jfz9580m]

90. Thank you yardwork

That is very kind of you. I too think individual performances on tests like these are not necessarily hard metrics of people’s susceptibility to misinfo -at least not under all circumstances.

Interestingly their results indicate that age is a factor. On this test older adults did better. Gen Z and millennials were the worst performers. I am Gen X whereas DU mostly consists of boomers. To that extent it tracks with their findings.

However, the polling found that younger adults are worse than older adults at identifying false headlines, and that the more time someone spent online recreationally, the less likely they were to be able to tell real news from misinformation.

This runs counter to prevailing public attitudes regarding online misinformation spread, say researchers – that older, less digitally-savvy “boomers” are more likely to be taken in by fake news.

[Conjuay]

75. DO - OVERS !

I was hoping for a response something like “Damn! You really are suspicious and cynical, aren’t you?”

[Shermann]

76. 16/16

[kcr]

77. My ability to detect fake news is 100%

I got 18/20 overall. I was distressed to find that my score was better than 81% of the population, though.

[Aviation Pro]

78. 20/20

[North Shore Chicago]

80. 19/20

📈 Your MIST-20 results: 19/20

Veracity Discernment: 90% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 90% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: +1 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit trusting when it comes to the news.

[North Shore Chicago]

81. Okay

I know which one I got wrong. The Hyatt bottle question.

[Quixote1818]

82. 17 out of 20 I wonder if I got the one about eye color wrong but I had seen several studies on this

Snip:

There is some evidence that people with blue eyes may be more intelligent, but there is no scientific consensus to support this claim:
A University of Louisville study found that people with blue eyes may be more studious, strategic, and focused than people with brown eyes. The study also found that people with blue eyes may perform better on exams.
A University of Louisville paper found that people with light eyes may perform better at behaviors that require delay, self-pacing, and non-reacting.

[Mountainguy]

88. There is a hidden variable there

That better explains the results than eye color does.

[intheflow]

87. 19 of 20.

Wish they gave the answers, but if I had to guess which one I missed, it was probably the on about Morocco king and DEI.

[Montauk6]

97. The word "Analytica" isn't lurking in the background, I hope...

Can't be TOO careful, these days.

[LeftInTX]

113. Yeah, I didn't submit my email. But sites have cookies.

[Mossfern]

98. I hit submit and nothing happened

Then I made sure that I answered all the questions - several times.
It still won't accept my answers.

Did I break the study?

eta:
🎉 Congratulations!

You're more resilient to misinformation than 89% of the US population!
📈 Your MIST-20 results: 19/20

Veracity Discernment: 90% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 90% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: -1 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit skeptical when it comes to the news.

[Red Mountain]

107. Got the same....19/20

-1 on the d/n.

[iemanja]

122. I'm having trouble with the site too

Though I haven't even gotten to the questions.

[paleotn]

105. 19/20 100% spotting fake news. Seems to be the trend here.

We are a pretty well informed group after all.

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

110. 17/20

Congratulations!

You're more resilient to misinformation than 71% of the US population!
📈 Your MIST-20 results: 17/20

Veracity Discernment: 70% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 70% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: -3 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit skeptical when it comes to the news.

[11 Bravo]

117. 20 for 20, but I guessed on the NGO question.

I was fairly certain of my other responses.

[Native]

119. 17/20

You're more resilient to misinformation than 71% of the US population!

📈 Your MIST-20 results: 17/20
Veracity Discernment: 70% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 70% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: -3 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit skeptical when it comes to the news.

[Emrys]

120. 19/20

🎉 Congratulations!

You're more resilient to misinformation than 95% of the UK population!

📈 Your MIST-20 results: 19/20

Veracity Discernment: 90% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)

Real News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify real news)

Fake News Detection: 90% (ability to correctly identify fake news)

Distrust/Naïvité: +1 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)

👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit trusting when it comes to the news.

They only asked where I was after completing the test. I don't know if being from the UK has any bearing.

I haven't checked through it all, but I did choose "Real" for "The Government Is Manipulating the Public's Perception of Genetic Engineering in Order to Make People More Accepting of Such Techniques", which they apparently think is fake. I'd be willing to defend (and die on a hill for) my response there.

[iemanja]

123. 19/20

Wish I knew which one I got wrong. It might have been the one about counties becoming majority non- white. I voted true for that.

[NoveltySocks]

125. 20/20, woohoo!

Thanks for the link!

[Abolishinist]

126. I wasn't sure on 3 or 4 questions, but I ended up with 20/20.

Let it be noted that I would gladly trade this in to upgrade the vision in my right eye to 20/20.

[Aussie105]

128. There goes my delusion of intelligence!

16/20.

I guess I fluffed up local US knowledge questions.

"Veracity Discernment: 60% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)
Real News Detection: 60% (ability to correctly identify real news)
Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)
Distrust/Naïvité: -4 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)"

[happybird]

129. Ayyy! 20/20

Figured I'd get a couple wrong.

[woodsprite]

130. 19/20 here. It was much faster when I chose not to be considered in their study. n/t

[Freethinker65]

132. 18/20, 15/16

[ms liberty]

133. I got an 18/20; there were a couple I was not sure about.

[okaawhatever]

134. 20/20 last time was 19/20. Nt

[Crunchy Frog]

135. I got 20/20.

I answered real if it seemed plausible and fake if it seemed implausible.

[sinkingfeeling]

139. I only did the 16 question one. Got 16/16.