“Cite?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I can sorta understand where Jeff is coming from. Having said that, one of the most off-putting things about this website is the amount of garbage that is spewed out as fact when a quick google search proves it wrong. I don't see much of a difference between "cite?" and "what do you based that on? do you have a link?"

But it's Jeff's website.

I agree that OP is being super petty. I also feel strongly that the real problem isn't with the posters asking "cite" but the posters spewing out the garbage that leads to the request.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

What would be the proper way to request that a poster stating something as a fact provide some evidence to support their statements? Are we to simply accept as true anything anyone posts?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What would be the proper way to request that a poster stating something as a fact provide some evidence to support their statements? Are we to simply accept as true anything anyone posts?

The very best way is not to ask them to support their claim, but rather present a different claim that you support with links to sources. If you are authentically baffled and honestly don't know whether what they are saying is accurate, then simply, write "Could you please provide a link that supports what you are saying? Posting "Cite?" has become mostly passive aggressive these days.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The issue is not about posters asking others to support their arguments with valid sources. The issue is the repetitive and almost reflexive one word response of "cite?". It seems that for some posters this is all the discussion that they are capable of mustering. I've seen "cite?" is response to the most obvious observation. Someone could write, "If you eat 4 boxes of Girl Scout cookies in one setting, you are going to gain weight" and someone will reply "cite?". That's not exactly going to appear in any medical journal, but I think most of us will accept it as fact anyway.

If you eat four boxes in one setting, once per year, no, I would not accept that as factual proof you will gain weight. You need to persistently overeat to gain weight.

Citation: https://www.prevention.com/weight-loss/diets/a20468935/weight-gain-from-one-day-of-overeating/

Please don't bother to clarify that you meant temporary weight gain due to water retention to process the additional food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How absurd OP. You can’t expect to just state something as fact and not expect people to ask you to support it. Maybe the one-word post is lame but the concept is not. Sometimes I say that when I actually wonder what their basis for believing the assertion is if I think they may have info I don’t have.

Argue with Jeff at this point. The question was about the one-word posts (or their equivalent).

I don't think he wants the forum to devolve into a series of posts that are essentially just "Says who?"

With all the bullsh*t on this forum it’s weird that you would focus on this.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The issue is not about posters asking others to support their arguments with valid sources. The issue is the repetitive and almost reflexive one word response of "cite?". It seems that for some posters this is all the discussion that they are capable of mustering. I've seen "cite?" is response to the most obvious observation. Someone could write, "If you eat 4 boxes of Girl Scout cookies in one setting, you are going to gain weight" and someone will reply "cite?". That's not exactly going to appear in any medical journal, but I think most of us will accept it as fact anyway.

If you eat four boxes in one setting, once per year, no, I would not accept that as factual proof you will gain weight. You need to persistently overeat to gain weight.

Citation: https://www.prevention.com/weight-loss/diets/a20468935/weight-gain-from-one-day-of-overeating/

Please don't bother to clarify that you meant temporary weight gain due to water retention to process the additional food.

Ah, but your research was insufficient. According to your source:

"In order to gain weight, you’d have to eat 3,500 more calories than you typically eat"

A box of Girl Scout Exploremores has 180 calories per serving and 7 servings per box. That's 1260 calories per box. Four boxes would be 5040 calories, which easily exceeds the 3,500 calories required – according to your source – to gain weight.

Therefore, your attempt to provide a "cite" to prove me wrong actually showed that I was correct. You could have saved yourself the effort.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the proper way to request that a poster stating something as a fact provide some evidence to support their statements? Are we to simply accept as true anything anyone posts?

The very best way is not to ask them to support their claim, but rather present a different claim that you support with links to sources. If you are authentically baffled and honestly don't know whether what they are saying is accurate, then simply, write "Could you please provide a link that supports what you are saying? Posting "Cite?" has become mostly passive aggressive these days.

And if you know they are full of sht or misrepresenting “research”?

Or if they use NY Post as a “source” for some click-bait claim?

I ask for citations to actively fight misinformation. Nothing passive about it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the proper way to request that a poster stating something as a fact provide some evidence to support their statements? Are we to simply accept as true anything anyone posts?

The very best way is not to ask them to support their claim, but rather present a different claim that you support with links to sources. If you are authentically baffled and honestly don't know whether what they are saying is accurate, then simply, write "Could you please provide a link that supports what you are saying? Posting "Cite?" has become mostly passive aggressive these days.

And if you know they are full of sht or misrepresenting “research”?

Or if they use NY Post as a “source” for some click-bait claim?

I ask for citations to actively fight misinformation. Nothing passive about it.

If you think that typing "Cite?" is an effective method of combatting misinformation, you are likely a victim of misinformation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the proper way to request that a poster stating something as a fact provide some evidence to support their statements? Are we to simply accept as true anything anyone posts?

The very best way is not to ask them to support their claim, but rather present a different claim that you support with links to sources. If you are authentically baffled and honestly don't know whether what they are saying is accurate, then simply, write "Could you please provide a link that supports what you are saying? Posting "Cite?" has become mostly passive aggressive these days.

And if you know they are full of sht or misrepresenting “research”?

Or if they use NY Post as a “source” for some click-bait claim?

I ask for citations to actively fight misinformation. Nothing passive about it.

If you think that typing "Cite?" is an effective method of combatting misinformation, you are likely a victim of misinformation.

People post stupid clickbait nonsense constantly. I don't have the time or energy to fight it all of with extensively-researched retorts. I guess I can report all of the stupid clickbait posts if you'd prefer that. I already do report the most egregious ones.

IMO, people should be prepared to back up wild claims with facts. But I guess that's just me.

It comes down to how much garbage are you comfortable having on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The issue is not about posters asking others to support their arguments with valid sources. The issue is the repetitive and almost reflexive one word response of "cite?". It seems that for some posters this is all the discussion that they are capable of mustering. I've seen "cite?" is response to the most obvious observation. Someone could write, "If you eat 4 boxes of Girl Scout cookies in one setting, you are going to gain weight" and someone will reply "cite?". That's not exactly going to appear in any medical journal, but I think most of us will accept it as fact anyway.

If you eat four boxes in one setting, once per year, no, I would not accept that as factual proof you will gain weight. You need to persistently overeat to gain weight.

Citation: https://www.prevention.com/weight-loss/diets/a20468935/weight-gain-from-one-day-of-overeating/

Please don't bother to clarify that you meant temporary weight gain due to water retention to process the additional food.

Ah, but your research was insufficient. According to your source:

"In order to gain weight, you’d have to eat 3,500 more calories than you typically eat"

A box of Girl Scout Exploremores has 180 calories per serving and 7 servings per box. That's 1260 calories per box. Four boxes would be 5040 calories, which easily exceeds the 3,500 calories required – according to your source – to gain weight.

Therefore, your attempt to provide a "cite" to prove me wrong actually showed that I was correct. You could have saved yourself the effort.

From the article:

There’s even more scientific evidence that it’s pretty hard to gain real weight after one day of overeating: "Although people typically say they gain five to 10 pounds over the six-week holiday period, the best study to date, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that, on average, most people gained just one," says Cassetty. "Fewer than 10% of the study participants actually gained more than five pounds between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day."

One day of overeating is not going to cause weight gain. Temporary weight gain? Yes. Permanent, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the proper way to request that a poster stating something as a fact provide some evidence to support their statements? Are we to simply accept as true anything anyone posts?

The very best way is not to ask them to support their claim, but rather present a different claim that you support with links to sources. If you are authentically baffled and honestly don't know whether what they are saying is accurate, then simply, write "Could you please provide a link that supports what you are saying? Posting "Cite?" has become mostly passive aggressive these days.

And if you know they are full of sht or misrepresenting “research”?

Or if they use NY Post as a “source” for some click-bait claim?

I ask for citations to actively fight misinformation. Nothing passive about it.

If you think that typing "Cite?" is an effective method of combatting misinformation, you are likely a victim of misinformation.

People post stupid clickbait nonsense constantly. I don't have the time or energy to fight it all of with extensively-researched retorts. I guess I can report all of the stupid clickbait posts if you'd prefer that. I already do report the most egregious ones.

IMO, people should be prepared to back up wild claims with facts. But I guess that's just me.

It comes down to how much garbage are you comfortable having on DCUM.

🎯 We shouldn't have to spend 1/2 hour or more trying to dig up research, or try to master a new subject, in order to refute some wild claim. The burden should be on the poster who makes the wild claim to back it up.

FWIW, I do research for a living, and citations are my bread and butter. Although I don't think I've used the word "cite" here recently, lol. Jeff does a good job with hyperlinks in his blog/op-eds on the home page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the proper way to request that a poster stating something as a fact provide some evidence to support their statements? Are we to simply accept as true anything anyone posts?

The very best way is not to ask them to support their claim, but rather present a different claim that you support with links to sources. If you are authentically baffled and honestly don't know whether what they are saying is accurate, then simply, write "Could you please provide a link that supports what you are saying? Posting "Cite?" has become mostly passive aggressive these days.

And if you know they are full of sht or misrepresenting “research”?

Or if they use NY Post as a “source” for some click-bait claim?

I ask for citations to actively fight misinformation. Nothing passive about it.

If you think that typing "Cite?" is an effective method of combatting misinformation, you are likely a victim of misinformation.

People post stupid clickbait nonsense constantly. I don't have the time or energy to fight it all of with extensively-researched retorts. I guess I can report all of the stupid clickbait posts if you'd prefer that. I already do report the most egregious ones.

IMO, people should be prepared to back up wild claims with facts. But I guess that's just me.

It comes down to how much garbage are you comfortable having on DCUM.

🎯 We shouldn't have to spend 1/2 hour or more trying to dig up research, or try to master a new subject, in order to refute some wild claim. The burden should be on the poster who makes the wild claim to back it up.

FWIW, I do research for a living, and citations are my bread and butter. Although I don't think I've used the word "cite" here recently, lol. Jeff does a good job with hyperlinks in his blog/op-eds on the home page.

Yup.

Guess we are sliding into a post-truth world...

[jsteele]

Man, this thread is turning into a demonstration of how stupid everyone can collectively act. Nobody is saying that you can't challenge unsupported facts. The issue is simply replying with the one word response "Cite?". If that is all that you can muster, you are not really going to accomplish what you think you might. In that case, it is better not to reply.

Now, let's see how many of you can willfully misunderstand this post.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the proper way to request that a poster stating something as a fact provide some evidence to support their statements? Are we to simply accept as true anything anyone posts?

The very best way is not to ask them to support their claim, but rather present a different claim that you support with links to sources. If you are authentically baffled and honestly don't know whether what they are saying is accurate, then simply, write "Could you please provide a link that supports what you are saying? Posting "Cite?" has become mostly passive aggressive these days.

I get having some standards for DCUM quality and appreciate that. “Cite” alone could be annoying. I guess I do post that sometimes because I feel like the person making a factual assertion should support it so I know what to respond to. Also sometimes I am genuinely unsure of where they have gotten a fact from and not being a subject matter expert, can’t always just find a citation I think is better. I would rather see how OP supports their view. If it is supported by a NEJM peer reviewed RCT or a Cochran analysis then probably no more questions. But if it’s like a wellness influencer blog then I would dig in more.

[Anonymous]

The notion that instead of posting cite it's required to say
Forsooth me thinketh thou art confabulating prithee give cite
Is absurd.