The article explores how higher intelligence generally increases trust, but early childhood hardship can weaken this effect, reducing the trust gains associated with cognitive ability by about half. It also considers how disadvantaged upbringings shape cognitive development and social outlook, influencing how intelligence translates into trust.

This topic is of interest to psychology enthusiasts because it highlights how early environmental factors interact with cognitive traits to shape social behavior, illustrating the complex pathways between development, cognition, and trust.

Article Title: Intelligence makes people more trusting, but early hardship cuts this benefit in half

Link to PsyPost Article: https://nolinkpreview.com/www.psypost.org/intelligence-makes-people-more-trusting-but-early-hardship-cuts-this-benefit-in-half/

#trust #cognition #earlychildhood #socialpsychology #intelligence #adversity #environmentalimpact #trustworthiness #policyimplications #inequality

Strategic advice from LLM's is "trendslop", say researchers

최근 연구에 따르면 경영진들이 전략적 조언을 위해 LLM(대형 언어 모델)을 활용할 때, 모델들이 제공하는 조언은 'trendslop'이라 불리는 경향적 편향을 포함해 신뢰도가 낮을 수 있음이 지적되었다. LLM은 복잡한 정보를 요약하고 명확한 주장을 제시하는 데 강점을 보이나, 전략적 의사결정에 필요한 깊이 있는 분석과 신뢰할 만한 조언 제공에는 한계가 있다. 따라서 AI를 경영 전략에 활용할 때는 모델의 한계를 인지하고 보완하는 접근이 필요하다.

https://hbr.org/2026/03/researchers-asked-llms-for-strategic-advice-they-got-trendslop-in-return

#llm #strategicadvice #bias #trustworthiness #generativeai

Hallucinations Undermine Trust; Metacognition Is a Way Forward

본 논문은 LLM에서 발생하는 허위 정보(환각)가 신뢰를 저해하는 문제를 다루며, 기존의 사실성 향상이 지식 확장에 집중된 반면 모델의 메타인지 능력, 즉 자신의 불확실성을 인지하고 표현하는 능력은 부족하다고 지적한다. 저자들은 환각을 확신을 가진 오류로 보고, 단순한 답변 또는 회피 대신 불확실성을 정직하게 표현하는 '충실한 불확실성' 개념을 제안한다. 이는 메타인지의 한 형태로, LLM이 신뢰성과 능력을 동시에 갖추기 위해 필수적이며, 향후 연구 과제로 남아있다.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01428

#llm #hallucination #metacognition #uncertainty #trustworthiness

Who owns that news company?

In this age, when our mainstream news media is now polluted more than ever with misinformation, disinformation and outright lies, maybe you’re wondering who is behind these various media and news companies? You might be surprised to find that it isn’t exactly who you might expect. You might also be surprised to find these owners’ political affiliations. Let’s explore.

Preface

It is important to understand that news media corporations are never-ending targets of acquisition by the wealthy billionaires of the world. What that ultimately means for this article is that because conglomerate ownership is liquid and constantly in a state of flux, it falls upon you, the reader, to verify that what is presented here in this article is still accurate at the time you are reading it. Inevitably, one or more will have been sold… again.

What this also states is that Randocity is a Blog publisher and not a Wiki. Randocity does not revisit and/or significantly modify or alter content of articles once written and published (other than for corrections, grammar and mechanics). These articles remain a point-in-time snapshot of how these companies existed at the time of publication. This information is important and relevant for readers at the time in and around when it was written and published. However, this information may become old and outdated years after publication. Again, it falls to you, the reader, to validate that what is stated here, which was accurate at the time of publication, is still accurate at the date you read this article. 

On a separate but related note, it is presently unknown why these maniacal billionaires are willing to so completely trash and destroy the reputations of their own investments in these very newspapers, websites and TV stations. It is these very businesses that have spent decades building trust and ethical journalistic reputations, all gone in the blink of an eye because of single crazed billionaire. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Which mainstream media outlets presently exist?

There are a wide array and types of mainstream media outlets including cable, broadcast TV and print publications. This article will provide a large number of these mainstream media outlets, but there are well more that exist, particularly those that also exist outside of the United States. This article will focus on various mainstream news media in the United States and that primarily intend to deliver news to American audiences.

Legend

=> Should be read, left side company owns the right side company.
<= Should be read, right side company owns the left side company.

What does the Main Investors column predict?

The Main Investor column potentially predicts the bias of the publication or TV news production. When there are one or two main investors in any business, they tend to have extraordinary input in the functioning of the business at the micromanagement level. To keep these investors happy and on board, management often bends over to the whims of these investors.

What this ultimately means is that newspapers and media can be unduly influenced by such investors into writing articles with certain political slants that favor some political candidates over others and which do not allow the journalist to remain unbiased while reporting.

This micromanagement negatively influences both the trustworthiness level of the news reporting itself and of the political leaning of the news media outlet as a whole.

Additionally, investors who intentionally don’t disclose their political affiliations, either through donations or via disclosing party membership, tends to indicate that these investors are more likely to be reeds-in-the-wind. What a reed-in-the-wind means is that whichever political party is in power, these “reeds” will favor that party by blowing generally in that direction. The reason “reeds” tend to do this is because it allows them to always favor their business’s success by ceding to and feeding the party in power. While being a “reed” may seem like a good business strategy, it can easily backfire on any company when the political party in power is generally disliked by the majority of the populous.

Credibility Ratings and Bias

This next table a few paragraphs below encompasses the same media outlets listed above. The below list includes ratings and commentary of trustworthiness and bias level based on that outlet’s factual reporting versus misinformation, among other factors. This trustworthiness rating is an aggregation of the observable characteristics of various media’s publishing behaviors by Randocity, but it also factors in such ratings from sites like MediaFactsBias.com, OpenSecrets.com (showing political contributions by various owners, operators and investors of the site) and also factors in various other potential and future bias which may influence how a site’s editors operate their news products.

News outlets feature both reporting of actual and, hopefully, factual news information, but also feature opinion and speculative pieces designed to sway audiences to a particular point of view. These ratings encapsulate and aggregate both of the News and Opinion sections into one single rating of trustworthiness. Additionally, a separate news bias rating is also presented that describes how biased any news outlet is or may become in the future.

Recently, many news sites have begun mixing and conflating factual news reporting with opinion news pieces, often marrying the two together into one single segment for the sake of brevity at the cost of drastically increasing bias and simultaneously reducing trustworthiness.

Trustworthiness?

What exactly is trustworthiness for a news media outlet? Simply put, it is a media site’s ability to be believed. You read an article and you either believe what it says OR you do not, or you may land somewhere in between. In the early days of journalism, yellow journalism became important for one reason alone; it sold papers. However, yellow journalism is the practice of embellishing or even fabricating information in an attempt to make the news more sensational than it actually is. Yellow journalism is a stain on journalism and remains so to this day. Yellow journalism is considered unethical journalism. It tarnishes the reputation and trustworthiness of any newspaper, news outlet or any news organization that willfully employs such misinformation and disinformation tactics solely in an attempt at gain more readers, subscribers or followers. 

If you’re into TikTok or YouTube shorts, you may recognize the equivalent as ragebait, clickbait and clout chasing.

Some newspapers gained such followings on the backs of yellow journalism papers, like the San Francisco Chronicle, owned by the Hearst Corporation. Other yellow journalism includes the grocery store tabloids like The Sun, The National Enquirer, The National Examiner, The Star and even to a certain degree, People and Us magazines. These tabloid papers, found near your local grocery checkout stand, are not included in these listings because they are not consider news organizations. These “magazines” (ahem) are essentially written almost entirely based on rumors, innuendo, including paparazzi photos of celebrities taking shopping trips along with other inane, but completely not newsworthy articles (if you can even call them articles). I liken these grocery tabloids to adult versions of comic books. When you read something in these tabloids, the trust level is so low as to be nonexistent. When you buy these tabloids, you should go into the purchase knowing that it’s essentially the same as reading a comic book.

Bias?

What exactly is bias? It’s when a writer or news host uses specific words or phrases to lead you into believing that something is true, when in fact, that information may either be only mostly true, mostly false, entirely false or entirely fabricated. In other words, a news host or news writer has a fiduciary and ethical journalistic responsibility to write and report on factual news only. However, because opinion pieces have become the norm on various news channels, opinion is always subject to bias, to the whims of the news host or news writers. Often these opinion shows tend to lead viewers towards liberal or conservative views based entirely on the host’s (and/or channel owner’s) political leanings.

Because many news stations and newspapers have begun serving up opinion as factual news, this leaves viewers and readers in a quandary. This means that what you’re now reading or watching is simply a news host’s opinion. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion! It doesn’t matter if it’s your best friend’s opinion or a random news anchor’s opinion, it doesn’t mean that information is in any way factual or accurate. Why would you want to trust an opinion coming from a random news journalist? You don’t know them personally. So, why trust them?

News stations have slowly begun dropping reporting of factual news in replacement for opinion shows. Some news stations have even begin mixing what appears to be factual news into opinion news segments. The host launches into their show discussing something that appears factual, but then dives into opinion segments. Often, only the most prominent news hosts get to air their opinions directly (Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Hannity, etc).

Less prominent news hosts rely on talking-head (see talking-head section at the bottom) pundits to provide opinions; opinions and speculation wrapped in the guise of discussing factual news. The format is completely predictable. The news host asks a question of the “panel” and then allows one person on the panel to answer that question, often the news host sways the question in a specific direction using specific leading arguments. This question’s bias is intended to draw out that pundit’s opinion, even as stupid as that opinion may end up being. Sometimes the news host may allow several to answer the same question, but most often it’s limited to one specific pundit (often hoping to gain a specific point of view in the answer). Pundits almost never answer questions factually and simply draw on their own personal “experience” (or not) to offer their opinion and assessment of any specific situation.

You’ll also notice that news hosts never respond to the answers from the pundits. The host asks the question. The pundit answers. The host moves to a new question without even acknowledging that pundit’s answer. It’s fairly bizarre. Why ask a question if you’re not intending to respond to the answer either to agree or disagree?

News hosts also often ask questions involving speculation of what might happen in a month or two or even next year. No one possesses a crystal ball, not even the pundits! Any host that postulates such inane future looking questions should immediately be turned off as useless. Newspapers don’t have the luxury of pundits or of talking-head segments, but those single opinion writers may offer up information that’s just as inane. In fact, often these talking-head segments may use those very same print newspaper pundits by inviting them onto TV news segments. Do with this information what you will.

News sites that are moving towards to a mostly opinion format are considered far less trustworthy than news sites still featuring mainly factual news reporting when combined with limiting or eliminating their opinion shows. The more opinion shows on the air OR the more opinion pieces in print, the less amount of publishing that can be done on factual news. Newspapers might argue this aspect, but there are a limited number of people contributing to a newspaper. Those people can contribute factual news articles or they can contribute opinion pieces. Attempting to do both may not be feasible in the allotted time before the next daily paper is printed. In a 24 hour TV news format, those 24 hours have to be filled with something.

The bottom line is that bias is always derived from opinions. When news is reported accurately and timely, it tells of whatever happened exactly as it happened. When opinion gets involved, it is designed by its very nature to distort facts, some more than others. Opinion intentionally ignores some facts, disguises some facts and twists some facts into a pretzel. This is the exact opposite of factual reporting, with that exact opposite being bias.

Ratings Systems Used

There are two ratings systems involved and presented just below. Trustworthiness ratings are on a 1 to 10 scale with 1 being least trustworthy and 10 being most trustworthy. There is also a second rating system involving political and/or social engineering using an L to R bias for left or right leaning ideologies presented. The scale is from L10 to L1, C, R1 to R10, with L10 being maximum left leaning, L1 being one left of center, C being exactly center, R1 being one right of center and R10 being right most leaning. For visualization purposes, the bias chart appears as follows:

[L10 L9 L8 L7 L6 L5 L4 L3 L2 L1 C R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10]

Because this chart is too long to fit into the Bias cell below, the cells are filled solely with the letter+number.

Right vs Left Trustworthiness

While news media outlets can range from fully trustworthy to fully untrustworthy with any bias level, it is pretty much understood that the more right leaning a publication is, the less likely those writers are to consider facts when writing articles. The same may be somewhat true for hard left leaning outlets, but to a lesser degree and frequency.

It is unknown why hard right leaning outlets tend to be more delusional than less right leaning outlets or even hard left leaning outlets, but that’s not for this specific article to uncover. You, the reader, must simply must acknowledge that this phenomenon exists.

Bias Chart

Immediately below is the bias chart:

Far Right Leaning

Sites like Fox News, OAN, Breitbart and NewsMax are so far right leaning, this author has only included OAN and Fox News as two far right wing examples. There’s no reason to include any other far right media in this list above when Fox News and OAN can serve as both a poster-child and placeholder for all of them. When you see either here, you can simply substitute any of the other far right media using the same level of trust and the same level of bias as Fox News or OAN.

These far right leaning media aren’t in business to offer you accurate or factual information. They’re in business to gaslight you into believing lies, untruths and falsehoods. If you choose to read any of these far right newspapers, sites or watch their TV news programs, you must do so with your eyes open. Know that what they are peddling is almost assuredly inaccurate and often downright false. Believe the far right lies at your own peril.

AllSides Media Ratings

Another chart that is mostly correct, but doesn’t factor in additional elements is the below AllSides Media Bias Chart. For example, CNN is listed as left leaning, but CNN is more right leaning these days than appears in this chart. I wouldn’t put CNN in center. Based on this chart, CNN should be in the same column with Fox Business and Just News. In fact, Fox Business should move to the far right column. CBS news is now also miscategorized. CBS news has recently shifted from its former left leaning position to a right leaning position, again in the same column with the New York Post and Just News.

Axios is a conflicted site. It’s listed as left leaning by the below infographic, but its political news area regularly and specifically pulls Trump news front and center and seemingly tries to paint it in a positive light.

MSNow has been spun off recently and it is unclear exactly where on the bias spectrum they will land. At the moment, AllSides lists them as far left. While this left leaning aspect may be true of Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Nicolle Wallace and Jen Psaki, the news programs aren’t nearly as far leaning. These above hosts mentioned are opinion hosts. While MSNow is left leaning, it isn’t an L10.

Disclosures involving certain information / investors listed above

Institutional investors are designed to allow many people to all hold investments in funds that that fund company manages. Since these institutional investments aren’t held by one or two individuals alone, these funds don’t seek to sway news media outlets into covering favored, biased or politically charged topics.

The Vanguard Group is an institutional fund. This is a fund (or set of funds) managed by Vanguard and opened up to investors who choose to invest in Vanguard’s funds either through Vanguard itself or through brokerage firms like Charles Schwab or through 401k investment vehicles. Blackrock is similar to Vanguard, but some brokerage firms may be blocking Blackrock orders.

Leon Black (Apollo) is in midst of a securities fraud lawsuit alleging that Black (as an executive of Apollo Global Management, Inc.) may have been involved in concealing payments to Jeffery Epstein, which also implies that Leon Black had business ties to Epstein. This lawsuit seeks remedies for those investors in Apollo who may have suffered losses as a result.

The AP and Reuters both serve as news agencies that perform similar functions, but do it in somewhat different ways. The AP works as a conglomerate news organization, aggregating and publishing articles written by its news station members and affiliates. The AP employs many staff and journalists for the company to function. Reuters directly employs many journalists who seek out and write articles on a wide array of news topics, but Reuters does not offer an affiliate system like the AP. Both of these news agencies seek to write factual news based reporting, but not opinion pieces.

Unbiased Reporting

Are there any sites that presently offer unbiased reporting? There are a few that come close. These news outlets include Spectrum News, Local TV news stations, Reuters and any other news sites that focus strictly on reporting breaking news without including any rhetoric or opinion pieces. Sites that intentionally stay far away from opinion reporting are the closest you will find unbiased news reporting.

Even though a site may offer unbiased reporting, their factual aspect of reporting may still suffer. Reducing or eliminating opinion and op-ed pieces from a news outlet is the first step towards eliminating unnecessary bias. However, the producers and editors must still shore up fact-checking to ensure that all news pieces have been properly fact-checked and are fully free of unnecessary opinions.

Are news aggregators like Google News and Apple News unbiased? No.

The sheer act of aggregating and curating news articles can introduce and produce bias strictly based on the types and amounts of curated articles included. For example, site curators may choose to include incredibly poorly written, highly biased opinion pieces over properly fact-checked well-written articles that are free from opinion. By a curator intentionally choosing poorly researched and badly written articles over much better written content, that biases these news aggregator sites and reduces the content trust levels. Curators must prioritize curating the best written, most trusted articles over poorly researched and badly written articles. And no, poorly written articles have no place in Journalism or as breaking news at all.

Talking-Heads: Do they help or hurt news segments?

The results are mostly negative on the use of talking-head analyst-pundit-guest segments. The vast majority of the time, these talking-head segments are a severe and worthless waste of time. The analyst-pundits offer less than worthless feedback, throw out useless drivel, regurgitate the news information multiple times over, potentially suggest useless advice and occasionally offer up outright disinformation. Ultimately, these pundit talking-head segments tend to be huge time wasters and a burden for TV news reporting segments. These segments are now essentially being used as time fillers, solely to lead into commercials. As time fillers, I supposed they work for that purpose. As for offering up relevant, useful information (the reason why they should exist), that happens maybe 10% of the time, perhaps less depending on who has been invited.

More than this, some hosts simply don’t know how to frame proper questions, often uttering incredibly pointless, insipid or stupid questions. Questions that often even a teenager could answer. The news host might as well be asking the guests the time of day or what day it is. Often, too many news hosts drone on and on, dragging out their lengthy and wordy question so long that it leaves the pundit less than a few seconds to actually answer the question. That assumes the pundit can even follow that long chaotic train of thought. If your question is required to be so wordy, then move on and ask another. Questions need to be concise and quick. Let the pundit spend the majority of the time answering. Why even invite guests on if the questions fill the majority of the time?

I do understand why pundit segments are used. It allows a news network to platform and voice what might be otherwise considered unpopular points of view and opinions. By having a guest spew this information, it takes the legal burden (or at least this is the hope) off of the network when or if disinformation is spread, misinformation is shared or defamation is traversed. Because this person is an “invited guest”, the theory is the legal responsibility falls onto the guest and off of the network. The jury is still out on this aspect. After all, the guest wouldn’t have been on the news segment speaking without that network invitation.

More than this, these news segments use the host to ask incredibly leading questions. Questions that hope to take the pundit-guest-analyst into territory that might be controversial. Often, guests refuse to bite. Instead, the answer tends to go in a completely different direction, often answering something that wasn’t even asked.

When there is a panel of 3 different talking heads together, things tend to get especially dicey, particularly when the guests are allowed to interact with one another. Being effectively a Zoom call among 4 people who don’t know one another, it can easily turn into a talking-over-one-another or even a one-guest-fighting-with-another problem. This author has seen this outcome all too often. This may be why news sites are now limiting talking heads to one at a time. This guest limiting means producers have determined that these talking-head segments are more of a burden than a help.

Still, the fundamental problem remains. How useful are these talking-head segments to imparting quality news? The short answer is, these segments absolutely are not necessary! News can be imparted without the need for these pointless superfluous pundit segments. The time is now to rethink the use of these segments and finally get rid of them. Let the news speak for itself. We don’t need pundits regurgitating the exact news we’ve already heard several times over.

Closing Statement

If you have questions about a specific media company not included, please leave a comment below. This author is willing to update this article for a limited time to add new companies that may be of interest to readers. A comment will be added when update submissions are closed. Until then, requests for updates remain open.

Media bias exists in just about every news network out there. Every journalist employed holds an opinion. It can be near impossible to extract all of that opinion from the written word. Only with careful editing and consideration of the written and spoken word can bias be removed from news reporting. The first step is to remove the useless opinion pieces from newspapers and television news programs. The second step is to accurately require fact checking and verification of sources. Only by reintroducing both steps back into news reporting can media outlets get back to reporting news accurately. 

The third and final step is to reintroduce separate political segments or pages. These clearly labeled “Politics” segments or printed areas specifically confine politics to a single TV program and/or a single printed area of a newspaper. There is no need for news programs and newspapers to continuously and constantly report on politics as front page news every single waking moment. It’s time to put politics back into its own designated corner, leaving headline and front page news to news other than politics.

Linkification of Sites

This article has intentionally refrained from linking to any of the above named media sites. If you wish to visit any of them, it is on you to head to a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo to find and visit them yourself. This article is here to provide who owns what site and to disclose their trustworthiness and bias levels. It falls on you to decide if, based on these ratings, you wish to find out more about any specific site.

If you enjoy reading Randocity articles, please like, follow, comment and subscribe by email so you never miss an article.

↩︎

A quotation from Josh Billings

Josh Billings (1818-1885) American humorist, aphorist [pseud. of Henry Wheeler Shaw]
Josh Billings’ Farmer’s Allminax, 1874-11 (1874 ed.)

More about this quote: wist.info/billings-josh/83752/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #joshbillings #character #distrust #humannature #misanthropy #mistrust #projection #skepticism #suspicion #trustworthiness #untrustworthiness

1. #Authors shouldn't be using #LLMs to create #reference #lists, bcz LLMs #hallucinate often.

2. Every #science #journal should run authors' ref lists through the @retractionwatch Database. https://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx

Doing both things would improve #science #trustworthiness.

Trust Signals as Sparklines for Hacker News

https://hn-trustspark.com/

#HackerNews #TrustSignals #Sparklines #HackerNews #DataVisualization #Trustworthiness

A quotation from The Bible

The Bible (The Old Testament) (14th - 2nd C BC) Judeo-Christian sacred scripture [Tanakh, Hebrew Bible], incl. the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals)
Book 20. Proverbs 28:20 (Prov 28:20) [GNT (1992 ed.)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/bible-ot/82625/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #bible #oldtestament #proverbs #avarice #getrich #greed #honesty #scheming #trustworthiness