6 ms·
I was shocked by your "people remember 20% of what they read vs 80% of what they see" statistic. I followed chain of sources, which led to a broken hp page [1].
by unwoundmouse 6y ago
I was shocked by your "people remember 20% of what they read vs 80% of what they see" statistic. I followed chain of sources, which led to a broken hp page [1]. It looks like HP pulled this number out of their ass [2]. Making a claim without a source is one thing; making a claim with a false source is another. This sort of practice is very damaging to the authenticity of information on the internet.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20111117203151/http://www.hp.com/large/ipg/assets/bus-solutions/power-of-visual-communication.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20111117203151/http://www.hp.com...
[2] https://policyviz.com/2015/10/21/more-statistical-fallacies/ https://policyviz.com/2015/10/21/more-statistical-fallacies/
- lemonspat 6y ago> This sort of practice is very damaging to the authenticity of information on the internet. If you ever inspect Wikipedia, you'll soon realize that most of the internet has already destroyed its own reputation, and worse still is people seem not to care. Wikipedia is full of misinformation, false or misleading sources, people's opinions and biases, broken links, etc.
- birdyrooster 6y agoIf Wikipedia has a problem, the problem was pre-existing. There are innumerable examples of misleading textbooks and journals in history and today. At least Wikipedia has meta commentary for each article about its biases that you can investigate to read further between the lines.
- tomaszs 6y agoI am shocked as well. Thanks for bringing it up!
- tomaszs 6y agoI have removed the claim. Thanks for checking it out. Thanks to you the product page is more accurate and does not contain unproven fact. Have a great day!
- unwoundmouse 6y agoRespect