How does misinformation manage to continually perpetuate, even in the face of accurate information?

and that's uninformed, OP said misinformed

besides that's only true for America (I hope).

True, true but I imagine OP isn't talking about the academic level disputes on niche topics - just about having an accurate historical overview of things. I think it's because people get taught specifically picked "high points" of history with very little regard for the context in which they emerged (eg. industrial revolution straight to ww1 straight to ww2). And if they get taught any world history, it's typically even more disjointed so it almost encourages a "dont ask questions" attitude from the students. It's a case of solely examining a select few pieces of a puzzle while having no interest in trying to fit all these parts together. If you asked a question about those "interperiods" you'd get the worst kind of generalisation as your average answer.

>sir how did roman adopt greek culture?
>that's because they traveled there at some point
>at what point sir?
>when they were at their peak
>oh, I-I see...t-thanks

yet instead of educating people on all the topics of history posters would rather shill their politics and post memes

Veeky Forums needs a sticky of historical subjects wiki can only do so much.

A general lack of critical thinking in the general public. Most education doesn't expose people to it, so the ability to evaluate a source, and the impulse to check the accuracy of something aren't common.

Also this.

>How does misinformation manage to continually perpetuate

Because the possibility of "accurate" information has disappeared. Read simulacra and simulation

>accurate information
Kek.

I honestly don't understand what even makes something true. Whenever I read history, I feel like I can hardly believe any of it, because a lot of it probably came from second-hand accounts or biased reports.

DUE TO UNDEVELOPED CONSCIOUSNESS; UNDEVELOPED CONSCIOUSNESS PERPETUATES A CONDITION OF IGNORANCE, CAUSES DEFICIENT DISCERNMENT, AND A LACK OF COMPREHENSION, THUS, THE CONSCIOUSLY IMPAIRED INDIVIDUAL, INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENSION, OF DISCERNMENT, AND IGNORANT, WILL INEVITABLY PERVERT ANY FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT HE/SHE APPREHENDS, PRODUCING DOXES/OPINIONS.

DOXA/OPINION HAS THE APPEARANCE OF TRUTH, BUT IT LACKS ESSENCE —IT IS PURE APPEARANCE, THUS, IT EVENTUALLY LEADS TO FALSITY.

FACTUAL INFORMATION IS MERE DATA; IT IS NOT TRUTH, NOR DOES IT NECESSARILY LEAD TO TRUTH; ONLY SELFCONSCIOUS INDIVIDUALS ARE CAPABLE OF DISCERNING TRUTH, AND FACTUAL INFORMATION IS COMPLEMENTARY, BUT UNNECESSARY.

>People don't want accurate information, they want information that caters to their world view.
This.

Also, an individual is generally part of a tribe/group/culture, and his perceptions and thoughts have been shaped by the tribe/group/culture. The tribe/group/culture has a sort of emergent intelligence above the level of the individual... this intelligence doesn't care at all about truth. Only individuals, from what I can tell, care about truth. The tribe collective intelligence, having been shaped by natural selection, only cares about growing its own power. If most people being hypocritical loyal morons serves the tribe interest better than most people being individualist free-thinkers genuinely seeking truth, natural selection operating on the mass level where cultures compete with each other will favor hypocritical morons.

Nonsensical

We live in the information age and are the first generation in all of history to have unlimited access to all the world's knowledge at our fingertips PLUS the ability to instantly discuss it with anyone on the planet.

It's no small wonder that everything is being re-evaluated and looked at again.

>It's no small wonder that everything is being re-evaluated and looked at again.
This, shitposting is actually highbrow academic discourse.

Yes, we do have access to all of the world's knowledge. But how can you know if any of that knowledge is true? How is one person's "re-evaluation" of information more accurate than another person that does it and gets the opposite conclusion?

It takes time to understand something and there are usually "barriers" that make it difficult, most notably emotions, then there is "white noise" that makes it difficult to discern accurate information, then there are logical fallacies. Low intelligence plays a role as says, though this doesn't explain some of the more zany beliefs.

People don't decide "I know this is the truth, I prefer to believe this".

People don't decide "I know this is the truth but I prefer to believe something else because it makes me feel better".

That's what vigorous discussion lends to the process.

Shooting down bad ideas and poking holes in what can be poked.

I rue the day when I come to Veeky Forums to find an echo chamber. That would terrify me.

Discussion happens constantly, yet truth will never be established. All that happens is people exchange information between one another, and afterwords think to themselves that they have come closer to some truth, but in reality no such thing exists.

What you say is not true by your own admittance.

What a paradox.

Historical truth is a process of approximation

First and foremost: Internet and the new media, where everyone can happily live inside their safe space without getting their views challenged
Then postmodernism: Then the human natue: since only 10-20% percent of men are capable of making decisions for themselves

Yes it is paradoxical. Your point is?

>muh will to truth
Apollonian nonsense. Your own motivations for wanting the "truth" are almost certainly ideological.