tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/april-fools-35558/articlesApril fools – The Conversation2023-03-30T22:07:13Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1984052023-03-30T22:07:13Z2023-03-30T22:07:13ZClout-lighting: pranking your partner for likes is a surefire way to get dumped this April Fools’ Day<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515720/original/file-20230316-28-tzkiuq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C2960%2C1822&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Media Whale Stock/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What would you do to get more likes or shares on your favourite social media platform this April Fool’s Day?</p>
<p>Would you blast an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3osL4QmOL8">airhorn in your partner’s ear</a> while they’re sleeping, record and upload their reaction online? Would you put hot chilli in their food, then film and share their distress?</p>
<p>Online prank videos are nothing new, and while many are lighthearted, a concerning sub-genre called “clout-lighting” has been <a href="https://nypost.com/2018/12/05/cloutlighting-is-the-toxic-social-media-trend-no-one-asked-for/">emerging across the internet</a>.</p>
<p>But in case you might be planning to clout-light your partner this April Fool’s Day, research shows it’s a surefire way to get dumped.</p>
<h2>What is clout-lighting?</h2>
<p>Clout-lighting is a combination of the word “clout” (to have social influence) and “gaslighting” (<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting">systematic manipulation</a> that leads victims to question their own beliefs and feelings).</p>
<p>The term was first used by British journalist <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/27/cloutlighting-is-the-obnoxious-and-abusive-social-media-trend-that-youve-probably-retweeted-8181469/">Jessica Lindsay</a> to describe the practice of intimate partners playing extreme practical jokes on one another and posting their reactions on social media.</p>
<p>Clout-lighting is related to, but different from an online prank. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08874417.2016.1241683?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab">Pranks</a> target unsuspecting people, often strangers, whereas clout-lighting involves intimate partners.</p>
<p>Both clout-lighting and online pranks represent “<a href="https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2149&context=tqr">aggressive humour</a>” or “<a href="https://www.chapman.edu/business/_files/journals-and-essays/jbm-editions/13-1175-jbm-journal%20v19no3_final.pdf#page=9">negative humour</a>” and its subcategory “<a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4612-5572-7.pdf#page=92">disparagement</a>” – they mock, tease, or ridicule innocent victims to entertain an audience.</p>
<p>Clout-lighting is also different from cyberbullying. “Clout-lighters” appear motivated by their emotional needs – attention seeking and gaining popularity on social media. By contrast, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0886260518819882">cyberbullies</a> relentlessly target individuals to cause harm or distress, hidden by the cloak of <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2014-33478-001">anonymity</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-ok-to-prank-your-kids-do-they-get-it-and-wheres-the-line-195932">Is it OK to prank your kids? Do they get it? And where’s the line?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why is clout-lighting an emerging trend?</h2>
<p>There is nothing new about filming and publishing a practical joke. US reality show <a href="https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/shows/candid-camera">Candid Camera</a> first aired in 1948; like the more recent <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/Punkd">Punk’d</a> and similar shows, they feature footage captured by a hidden camera of everyday people (sometimes celebrities) caught up in pranks or hoaxes.</p>
<p>However, social media has created a platform for people to use pranks as a means of generating more clicks and social media popularity: clout. Today, anyone can be a comedic celebrity, and YouTube is full of them.</p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSQqICVqcW8?wmode=transparent&start=13" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>YouTube prank channels provide a platform for <a href="https://www.myheen.com/youtube/top-pranksters-youtube">pranksters</a> to amass followers and popularity.</p>
<p>However, to get more likes, shares or followers, clout-lighters need to publish extreme (sometimes even cruel and painful) pranks inflicted on their closest people.</p>
<p>One example reportedly involved <a href="https://nypost.com/2018/12/05/cloutlighting-is-the-toxic-social-media-trend-no-one-asked-for/">rubbing chilli on a tampon</a>, with the resulting video reaction viewed by millions online. Others have involved secretly adding <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJnApnf36nY">laxatives</a> or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsqW6byqotE">hot chilli sauce</a> to food, or tormenting a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXMNGIsHE90">girlfriend with a spider</a>.</p>
<p>While many of the skits appear highly produced, the genre of clout-lighting pushes beyond the boundaries of comedic entertainment, towards promoting intimate partner abuse and misogyny.</p>
<h2>Passive voyeurism</h2>
<p>Concerningly, many of these cruel and embarrassing clips have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times, suggesting our appetite for passive voyeurism. Just as reality television illustrates <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40660-2_3">suffering and loss</a> and a preoccupation with personal trauma for the sake of entertainment, clout-lighting videos do the same thing.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-people-delighted-by-disgusting-things-191053">Why are so many people delighted by disgusting things?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Studies have indicated viewers who are drawn to extreme forms of entertainment have the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08838151003734995">sensation-seeking</a> personality trait – a tendency to constantly seek varied and intense viewing experiences. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/1527476408315496">Passive voyeurism</a> of human pain increases as our compassion fades, and we become desensitised to the footage. Accordingly, we watch even more extreme footage to attain the same level of sensation.</p>
<p>By that token, clout-lighters need to post even more painful and humiliating content to keep driving traffic to their channel.</p>
<h2>Who are clout-lighters?</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://www.ojcmt.net/download/perception-of-pranks-on-social-media-clout-lighting-6280.pdf">2020 study</a> found that regardless of age, clout-lighters tended to have low self-esteem and were “higher social media users”. Males were over four times more likely to engage in clout-lighting than females.</p>
<p>The study also indicated that couples engaged in clout-lighting were more likely to have “low levels of satisfaction” in their relationship, and more likely to break up.</p>
<p>Canadian researchers found some online pranksters tended to be motivated by <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11031-017-9651-5">sadism</a> – a desire to harm others to boost their own positive feelings.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.communicationtheory.org/relational-dialectics-theory/">Relational dialectics theory</a> explains contradictions in relationships – the point between harmony and possible separation. As two people come together as partners, they begin to experience internal tensions – they each want different things, express different values and life goals. Research finds that people perceive <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2019-0097/html?lang=de">negative relational humour</a> as a sign of diminished relationship satisfaction. </p>
<p>Relating this theory to clout-lighting, pranking a partner and posting the results on social media can increase the level of perceived insecurity in a relationship, especially when the prank is demeaning and socially embarrassing. Hence the likelihood the partners will separate.</p>
<p>These studies reject the notion that clout-lighting is nothing more than light-hearted pranks directed at a loved one. At a much deeper level, such pranks could be indicative of relationship dissatisfaction.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/498128/original/file-20221129-22-imtnz0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/498128/original/file-20221129-22-imtnz0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498128/original/file-20221129-22-imtnz0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498128/original/file-20221129-22-imtnz0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498128/original/file-20221129-22-imtnz0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498128/original/file-20221129-22-imtnz0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498128/original/file-20221129-22-imtnz0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><br><em>The Conversation is commissioning articles by academics across the world who are researching how society is being shaped by our digital interactions with each other. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/social-media-and-society-125586">Read more here</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198405/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Pranking your intimate partner to gain clout online is not as innocent as it might seem.Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of TechnologyLouise Grimmer, Senior Lecturer in Retail Marketing, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/995652019-03-27T16:16:44Z2019-03-27T16:16:44ZPrinciple behind Google’s April Fools’ pigeon prank proves more than a joke<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264444/original/file-20190318-28499-66kcrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=513%2C2506%2C3294%2C2255&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Consider the wisdom of the flock.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/hPOFScEaZcA">Zac Ong/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://archive.google.com/pigeonrank/">Google’s 2002 April Fools’ Day joke</a> purportedly disclosed that its popular search engine was not actually powered by artificial intelligence, but instead by biological intelligence. Google had deployed bunches of birds, dubbed pigeon clusters, to calculate the relative value of web pages because they proved to be faster and more reliable than either human editors or digital computers.</p>
<p>The joke hinged on the silliness of the premise – but the scenario does have more than a bit of the factual mixed in with the fanciful.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264443/original/file-20190318-28512-g4b3sl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264443/original/file-20190318-28512-g4b3sl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264443/original/file-20190318-28512-g4b3sl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264443/original/file-20190318-28512-g4b3sl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264443/original/file-20190318-28512-g4b3sl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264443/original/file-20190318-28512-g4b3sl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264443/original/file-20190318-28512-g4b3sl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264443/original/file-20190318-28512-g4b3sl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A screenshot of Google’s explanation of how PigeonRank supposedly worked.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://archive.google.com/pigeonrank/">Google</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The prank had taken a page out of 20th-century behaviorist B. F. Skinner’s <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863">operant conditioning</a> playbook by allegedly teaching pigeons to peck for a food reward whenever the birds detected a relevant search result.</p>
<p>It also adapted Victorian polymath Francis Galton’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/075450a0">vox populi</a> – or the voice of the people – principle by purportedly putting the web search task to something of a vote. The more the flocks of pigeons pecked at a particular website, the higher it rose on the user’s results page. This so-called PigeonRank system thus rank-ordered a user’s search results in accord with the pecking order of Google’s suitably schooled birds.</p>
<p>More than a decade later, we integrated elements of this spoof into <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141357">our own serious research project</a> using a real mini-flock of four pigeons. Our research team included <a href="https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/providerbio/search/11653">a pathologist</a>, <a href="https://winshipcancer.emory.edu/bios/faculty/krupinski-elizabeth.html">a radiologist</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SIl5WVYAAAAJ&hl=en">two experimental</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CiWDe9EAAAAJ&hl=en">psychologists</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264174/original/file-20190315-28483-11dzk01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264174/original/file-20190315-28483-11dzk01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264174/original/file-20190315-28483-11dzk01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264174/original/file-20190315-28483-11dzk01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264174/original/file-20190315-28483-11dzk01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264174/original/file-20190315-28483-11dzk01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264174/original/file-20190315-28483-11dzk01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264174/original/file-20190315-28483-11dzk01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The test chamber provided pigeons with an image to classify for the reward of a food pellet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141357">PLoS ONE 10(11): e0141357</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Exploiting the well-established <a href="http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/pigeons-arent-just-rats-with-wings">visual and cognitive prowess of pigeons</a>, we taught our birds to peck either a blue or a yellow button on a computerized touchscreen in order to categorize pathology slides that depicted either benign or cancerous human breast tissue samples.</p>
<p>In each training session, we showed pigeons several slides of each type in random order on the touchscreen. Pigeons first had to peck the pathology slide multiple times – this step encouraged the birds to study them. Then the two report buttons popped up on each side of the tissue sample. If the tissue sample looked benign and the pigeons pecked the “benign” report button or if the presented tissue sample looked malignant and the pigeons pecked the “malignant” report button, then they received a food reward. However, if the pigeons chose the incorrect report button, then no food was given.</p>
<p>After two weeks of training, the pigeons attained accuracy levels ranging between 85 and 90 percent correct. Granted, this accomplishment falls short of their reading human text – although time will tell if that too is within <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607870113">the ken of pigeons</a> – but the pigeons were quite able to make such highly accurate reports despite considerable variations in the magnification of the slide images.</p>
<p>We went on to test the pigeons with brand-new images to see if the birds could reliably transfer what they had learned; this is the key criterion for claiming that they’d learned a generalized concept of “benign/malignant tissue samples.” Accuracy to the familiar training samples averaged around 85 percent correct, and accuracy to the novel testing samples was nearly as high, averaging around 80 percent correct. This high level of transfer indicates that rote memorization alone cannot explain the pigeon’s categorization proficiency.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264435/original/file-20190318-28487-14ykryc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264435/original/file-20190318-28487-14ykryc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264435/original/file-20190318-28487-14ykryc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264435/original/file-20190318-28487-14ykryc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264435/original/file-20190318-28487-14ykryc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264435/original/file-20190318-28487-14ykryc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264435/original/file-20190318-28487-14ykryc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264435/original/file-20190318-28487-14ykryc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pigeons were able to generalize the skill of classifying tissue samples.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141357">PLoS ONE 10(11): e0141357</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finally, we put Google’s PigeonRank proposal to the test. With an expanded set of breast tissue samples, we assessed the accuracy of each of four pigeons against the “wisdom of the flock,” a technique we termed “flock-sourcing.” To calculate these “flock” scores, we assigned each trial a score of 100 percent if three or four pigeons correctly responded, and we assigned a score of 50 percent if two pigeons correctly responded. Three or four pigeons never incorrectly responded.</p>
<p>The accuracy scores of the four individual pigeons were 73, 79, 81 and 85 percent correct. However, the accuracy score of the “flock” was 93 percent, thereby exceeding that of every individual bird. Pigeons <a href="http://news.mit.edu/2017/algorithm-better-wisdom-crowds-0125">thus join people</a> in evidencing better wisdom from crowds. Playing on Galton’s original term, you might call this vox columbae – or the voice-of-the-pigeons principle.</p>
<p>Although all of this may seem to be a bit of feathery fluff, over the past several years our report has resonated across several fields, going beyond pathology and radiology to include the burgeoning realm of artificial intelligence. It has been recognized in several articles including one <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/ai-versus-md">quoting Geoff Hinton</a>, a key figure behind modern AI: “The role of radiologists will evolve from doing perceptual things that could probably be done by a highly trained pigeon to doing far more cognitive things.” In other words, machines may eventually be programmed to match what pigeons can do, leaving the more interesting and challenging tasks to humans.</p>
<p>What began as an elaborate April Fools’ prank has thus proved to be more than a joke. Never underestimate the brains of birds. They’re really <a href="https://www.activewild.com/bird-intelligence/">brainy beasts</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After Google suggested PigeonRank was at the root of its search function, a group of researchers put a small flock of the birds to a different classification test in real life.Edward Wasserman, Professor of Experimental Psychology, University of IowaRichard Levenson, Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, DavisVictor Navarro, Graduate Student in Psychology, University of IowaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1133122019-03-15T11:07:16Z2019-03-15T11:07:16ZTitania McGrath: Twitter parody of ‘wokeness’ owes a lot to satirists of the 18th century<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263974/original/file-20190314-28499-1y4h74i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C3%2C752%2C459&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Titania McGrath: not for the easily offended.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Depending on who you are, Titania McGrath’s tweets offend, baffle or inspire you – or you just might find them hilarious. Since April 2018, McGrath – who <a href="https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">describes herself</a> on her Twitter page as: “Activist. Healer. Radical intersectionalist poet. Selfless and brave” has been, tweeting several times a day from the perspective of a young and “woke” left-wing, woman. At the most recent count she has 242,000 followers.</p>
<p>But she isn’t real. McGrath is, in fact, the invention of comedian <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unmasked-twitter-satirist-who-pokes-fun-at-woke-bm20vbwcf">Andrew Doyle</a>, a columnist for Spiked magazine and co-writer of the scripts delivered by the equally fictitious news reporter, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DDM9MffjoVgk&sa=D&ust=1552583616674000&usg=AFQjCNECXlA-WeuhLniPM_-UA9JSUIGpTw">Jonathan Pie</a>. </p>
<p>It might seem that the Titania McGrath phenomenon could only happen in the social-media obsessed world of 2019, but this kind of satirical hoax has been happening since the 18th century. </p>
<p>The McGrath story recalls that of 18th-century astrologer <a href="http://hoaxes.org/bickerstaff.html">Isaac Bickerstaff</a>. In February 1708, Bickerstaff published an almanac in which he foretold the death of John Partridge, a controversial social commentator who had recently offended many with his criticism of the Anglican Church. This was followed on March 31 by a pamphlet confirming that Partridge had indeed now died.</p>
<p>But Partridge wasn’t dead. When he awoke on April 1 he was met with questions about his own funeral. He quickly published a pamphlet asserting that he was alive, but Bickerstaff coolly rejected it as a ghoulish hoax. He claimed that anyone who spoke to Partridge’s wife would hear that he had neither “life nor soul”. Unfortunately for Partridge, the public believed Bickerstaff.</p>
<p>Bickerstaff was later revealed to be a fictional persona created by the celebrated satirist Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver’s Travels. Swift, concerned by what he considered to be Partridge’s dangerous views on the church, had decided to take him down a notch or two. As April’s Fool jokes go, Swift’s perhaps went too far.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-surprising-things-its-time-you-knew-about-gullivers-travels-88061">Eight surprising things it's time you knew about Gulliver’s Travels</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Unspeakable thoughts</h2>
<p>Bickerstaff and McGrath were both created to critique views that their creators objected to. Doyle has said that McGrath was <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/12/why-i-invented-titania-mcgrath/&sa=D&ust=1552583616675000&usg=AFQjCNHunDya4w0lIAfM_DtOqlBJIDG5oA">designed to satirise</a> a perceived obsession with identity politics and social justice. </p>
<p>The name Titania is a conscious reference to Shakespeare’s Queen of the Fairies in <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.britannica.com/topic/A-Midsummer-Nights-Dream-play-by-Shakespeare&sa=D&ust=1552583616675000&usg=AFQjCNHq27TL2gfQwAOqGfRJOswhdS38Bw">A Midsummer Night’s Dream</a>, said Doyle. She – or people like her – live in a fantasy world that is so powerful in its policing of language and thought that many things <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/12/why-i-invented-titania-mcgrath/&sa=D&ust=1552583616676000&usg=AFQjCNFvJygRr83xooWvXJlXujCfMPvtVg">have become unsayable</a>.</p>
<p>Wherever our sympathies might lie in response to such claims, the McGrath account and the responses to it have much to tell us about the current climate for satire and about satire’s history.</p>
<p>The Titania McGrath project was helped by the speed with which Twitter allows its users to post and retweet. One of the account’s <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1104556853550374913&sa=D&ust=1552583616672000&usg=AFQjCNFFDosN0SkgVQm5wUsc2kLZbMAfFg">most “liked” tweets</a> amassed more than 20,000 likes in 11 days, not to mention nearly 2,000 comments.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1104556853550374913"}"></div></p>
<p>It’s easy to assume that this could only happen in the age of the internet – but Swift’s readers were in a very similar situation. Along with lapses in licensing rules, cheap print – much like social media – meant that <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4286515?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">suddenly more and more people could publish material</a>. This explosion of print was directly responsible for a literary period often heralded as the <a href="http://www.uh.edu/honors/Programs-Minors/honors-and-the-schools/houston-teachers-institute/curriculum-units/pdfs/2008/comedy/green-08-comedy.pdf">great age of British satire</a>. For Swift, Alexander Pope, Lady Mary Montagu and many other satirists, print provided their targets, their platform and their audience.</p>
<p>Reading 21st-century social media, like reading 18th-century print, sometimes means not knowing whether you are reading fact or fiction – or indeed whether the person who wrote what you are reading is really who they say they are. Under these conditions, a Bickerstaff or a McGrath can emerge all too easily.</p>
<h2>You can fool some people …</h2>
<p>Many Twitter users realised quickly that McGrath was intended as satire, and indeed sought to join in with the joke. Others took the picture of a young woman as a representation of reality and sought to correct and edify her. Others still frequently ask: “Is this satire?” – a response which can indicate genuine confusion, but which is also itself a rhetorical move (“this is so stupid it <em>must</em> be satire!”)</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This must be satire … right?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All three of these categories of response enabled the McGrath account at least partly to fulfil its mission: to shine a light on – and invite ridicule of – the folly Doyle perceives in society. Similarly, Swift used Bickerstaff to articulate his concerns with Partridge’s rhetoric in a way he never could as himself. </p>
<p>It sometimes seems like our world is more complicated than ever, but it’s useful to remember that so much of this has happened before. Doyle and Swift each created personas, exploiting a media climate where truth is hard to verify. At the same time, though, they used these fictional personas to speak a truth they felt they couldn’t convey otherwise. Perhaps the most crucial element in the success or failure of personas like these is how receptive the audience is to the message that the would-be satirist wishes to convey.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113312/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam J Smith is affiliated with the Labour Party and the University and College Union. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jo Waugh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Spoof Twitter accounts carry on a grand tradition of satire that has its roots in the 18th century.Adam J Smith, Lecturer in 18th-century Literature, York St John UniversityJo Waugh, Senior Lecturer in English Literature, York St John UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/724122017-03-30T19:15:16Z2017-03-30T19:15:16ZWhy are some people more gullible than others?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160252/original/image-20170310-3669-1xpnyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lies, pranks and April Fool's Day jokes show how gullible we can sometimes be.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/264869639?src=P8llrgaF3cO709IB_h5Mtw-1-54&size=huge_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Homo sapiens</em> is probably an intrinsically gullible species. We owe our evolutionary success to <a href="http://www.ynharari.com/book/sapiens">culture</a>, our unique ability to receive, trust and act on stories we get from others, and so accumulate a shared view about the world. In a way, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/tech-support/201403/the-trouble-trust">trusting others</a> is second nature. </p>
<p>But not everything we hear from others is useful or even true. There are countless ways people have been misled, fooled and hoaxed, sometimes for fun, but more often, for profit or for political gain.</p>
<p>Although sharing social knowledge is the foundation of our evolutionary success, in this age of unlimited and unfiltered information, it is becoming a major challenge to decide what to believe, and what to reject.</p>
<p><a href="http://hoaxes.org/aprilfool">April Fool’s Day</a> is a good time to reflect on the psychology of gullibility and our willingness to believe even absurd stories.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tVo_wkxH9dU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Classic April Fool’s Day joke: the BBC’s 1957 spaghetti harvest.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is gullibility?</h2>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullibility">Gullibility</a> is a tendency to be easily <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation">manipulated</a> into believing something is true when it isn’t. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credulity">Credulity</a> is closely related, a willingness to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief">believe</a> unlikely propositions with no evidence behind them.</p>
<p>April Fool’s tricks often work because they exploit our baseline inclination to accept direct communications from others as reliable and trustworthy. When a colleague tells you the boss wants to see you immediately, the first, automatic reaction is to believe them.</p>
<p>Once we realise this is April 1, a more critical mindset will increase our threshold of acceptance and triggers more thorough processing. Rejection is then likely unless there is strong corroborating evidence.</p>
<h2>Do we want to be gullible?</h2>
<p>So, it seems that gullibility and credulity have to do with how we think, and the level of proof we need before accepting information as valid. </p>
<p>In most face-to-face situations, the threshold of acceptance is fairly low, as humans operate with a “positivity bias” and assume most people act in an honest and genuine way. </p>
<p>Of course, this is not always so; others often want to manipulate us for their own purposes. For instance, we often prefer bare-faced flattery to truth, even when we know the communicator’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingratiation">ulterior motives</a>. When the information is personally rewarding, we actually want to be gullible.</p>
<p>We are also subject to a marked “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">confirmation bias</a>”. This is when we tend to prefer dubious information that supports our pre-existing attitudes, and are more inclined to reject valid information that challenges our beliefs.</p>
<p>A similar bias exists when passing on doubtful information to others. We tend to reshape rumour and <a href="http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2005/04/gossip.aspx">gossip</a> in ways that support our pre-existing stereotypes and expectations. Inconsistent details – even if true – are often changed or even omitted.</p>
<h2>Gullibility in public life</h2>
<p>Gullibility and credulity have become important issues as a deluge of raw, unverified information is readily available online. </p>
<p>Consider of how <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-disinformation-analysis-idUSKBN1492PA">fake news</a> during the US presidential election influenced voters. </p>
<p>Stories that generate fear and promote a narrative of corrupt politicians and media can be particularly effective. In Europe, <a href="http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/six-outrageous-lies-russian-disinformation-peddled-about-europe-in-2016">Russian websites</a> “reported” numerous false stories designed to undermine the EU and to bolster support for extreme right-wing parties.</p>
<p>Credulity and gullibility are also of great commercial importance when it comes to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/07/exploiting-gullible-people-modern-mining">marketing and advertising</a>. For example, much brand name advertising subtly appeals to our need for social status and identity. Yet, we obviously cannot acquire real status or identity just by buying an advertised product. </p>
<p>Even water, a freely available colourless, tasteless, transparent liquid is now successfully marketed as an identity product, a multi-billion dollar industry built mostly on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/06/liquid-assets-how--business-bottled-water-went-mad">misleading advertising and gullibility</a>. Dietary supplements are another large industry <a href="http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/5-over-counter-meds-you-likely-use-just-dont-work">exploiting gullibility</a>.</p>
<h2>Explaining gullibility</h2>
<p>Gullibility occurs because we have evolved to deal with information using two fundamentally different systems, according to Nobel Prize winning psychologist <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2002/kahneman-bio.html">Daniel Kahneman</a>.</p>
<p>System 1 thinking is fast, automatic, intuitive, uncritical and promotes accepting anecdotal and personal information as true. This was a useful and adaptive processing strategy in our ancestral environment of small, face-to-face groups, where trust was based on life-long relationships. However, this kind of thinking can be dangerous in the anonymous online world. </p>
<p>System 2 thinking is a much more recent human achievement; it is slow, analytical, rational and effortful, and leads to the thorough evaluation of incoming information. </p>
<p>While all humans use both intuitive and analytic thinking, system 2 thinking is the method of science, and is the best available antidote to gullibility. So, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500690050166724">education</a> tends to reduce gullibility and those who receive scientific training in critical, sceptical thinking also tend to be less gullible and less easily manipulated.</p>
<p>Differences in trust can also influence gullibility. This may be related to early <a href="http://family.jrank.org/pages/1713/Trust-Development-Trust.html">childhood experiences</a>, with the idea that trust in infancy sets the stage for a lifelong expectation the world will be a good and pleasant place to live.</p>
<h2>Does our mood make a difference?</h2>
<p>Many factors, including mood, influence how we process incoming information. Positive mood facilitates system 1 thinking and gullibility, while negative mood often recruits more careful, cautious and attentive processing. </p>
<p>In several experiments we found that people in a negative mood were less gullible and more sceptical, and were actually <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222401249_On_being_happy_and_gullible_Mood_effects_on_skepticism_and_the_detection_of_deception">better at detecting deception</a>. </p>
<p>Although detecting deception was always important to human groups to identify cheats and freeloaders, it has become much <a href="http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118509757.html">more critical</a> in our modern age. </p>
<p>Given unlimited access to dubious information, combating gullibility and promoting critical thinking is one of the major challenges of our age.</p>
<p>There are worrying signs that lack of education, poor ability to think rationally, and the massive amount of doubtful and manipulative information we encounter may combine to threaten our impressive cultural achievements.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72412/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph Paul Forgas receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Why do some people fall for the lamest April Fool’s pranks and others see straight through them?Joseph Paul Forgas, Scientia Professor of Psychology, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.