#DO YOUR RESEARCH

[reality-detective]

January 6th, 2021: Nancy Pelosi’s Daughter Filmed The Event & Sold It To HBO

“We did it! You were right we did it! Is this not gonna be the best film you’ve ever made in your life, Hell Yeah!” 🤔

[ask-the-prose]

Do Your Research

This phrase is regularly thrown around writeblr and for good reason. It's important to research what you are writing about to know what to include, what can be fudged, and how to depict whatever you're writing. I see "do your research" most thrown around by well-meaning and highly traditionally educated writers. It's solid advice, after all!

But how do you research?

For those writers who don't already have the research skills necessary to write something comfortably already downloaded into your brain, I put this guide together for you.

Where do I even start?

It's a daunting task, research. But the best place to start is with the most basic, stupidest question you can think of. I'm going to talk about something that I already know a lot about: fighting.

When researching fight scenes, a great way to start is to look up what different weapons are. There are tons out there! So ask the stupid questions. What is a sword? What is a gun? How heavy are they?

Google and Wikipedia can help you a lot with these basic-level questions. They aren't great sources for academic articles, but remember, this is fiction. It doesn't need to be perfect, and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate if you don't want it to be. But knowing what is true to life will help you write well. Just like knowing the rules of writing will help you break them.

You may find in your basic research sweep that you have a lot more specific questions. Write them all down. It doesn't matter if they seem obvious. Write them down because they will be useful later.

How To Use Wikipedia Correctly

Wikipedia is a testament to cooperative human knowledge. It's also easy to edit by anonymous users, which means there is a lot of room for inaccuracies and misleading information. Wikipedia is usually pretty good about flagging when a source is needed or when misleading language is obvious, but Wikipedia itself isn't always the most accurate or in-depth source.

Wikipedia is, however, an excellent collection of sources. When I'm researching a subject that I know nothing about, say Norse mythology, a good starting point is the Wikipedia page for Odin. You'll get a little background on Odin's name and Germanic roots, a little backstory on some of the stories, where they appear, and how they are told.

When you read one of the sentences, and it sparks a new question, write the question down, and then click on the superscript number. This will take you directly to the linked source for the stated fact. Click through to that source. Now you have the source where the claim was made. This source may not be a primary source, but a secondary source can still lead you to new discoveries and details that will help you.

By "source-hopping," you can find your way across the internet to different pieces of information more reliably. This information may repeat itself, but you will also find new sources and new avenues of information that can be just as useful.

You mean I don't need a library?

Use your library. Libraries in many parts of the US are free to join, and they have a wealth of information that can be easily downloaded online or accessed via hardcopy books.

You don't, however, need to read every source in the library for any given topic, and you certainly don't need to read the whole book. Academic books are different from fiction. Often their chapters are divided by topic and concept and not by chronological events like a history textbook.

For example, one of my favorite academic books about legislative policy and how policy is passed in the US, by John Kingdon, discusses multiple concepts. These concepts build off one another, but ultimately if you want to know about one specific concept, you can skip to that chapter. This is common in sociological academic books as well.

Going off of my Norse Mythology example in the last section, a book detailing the Norse deities and the stories connected to them will include chapters on each member of the major pantheon. But if I only care about Odin, I can focus on just the chapters about Odin.

Academic Articles and How To Read Them

I know you all know how to read. But learning how to read academic articles and books is a skill unto itself. It's one I didn't quite fully grasp until grad school. Learn to skim. When looking at articles published in journals that include original research, they tend to follow a set structure, and the order in which you read them is not obvious. At all.

Start with the abstract. This is a summary of the paper that will include, in about half a page to a page, the research question, hypothesis, methods/analysis, and conclusions. This abstract will help you determine if the answer to your question is even in this article. Are they asking the right question?

Next, read the research question and hypothesis. The hypothesis will include details about the theory and why the researcher thinks what they think. The literature review will go into much more depth about theories, what other people have done and said, and how that ties into the research of the present article. You don't need to read that just yet.

Skim the methods and analysis section. Look at every data table and graph included and try to find patterns yourself. You don't need to read every word of this section, especially if you don't understand a lot of the words and jargon used. Some key points to consider are: qualitative vs. quantitative data, sample size, confounding factors, and results.

(Some definitions for those of you who are unfamiliar with these terms. Qualitative data is data that cannot be quantified into a number. These are usually stories and anecdotes. Quantitative data is data that can be transferred into a numerical representation. You can't graph qualitative data (directly), but you can graph quantitative data. Sample size is the number of people or things counted (n when used in academic articles). Your sample size can indicate how generalizable your conclusions are. So pay attention. Did the author interview 300 subjects? Or 30? There will be a difference. A confounding factor is a factor that may affect the working theory. An example of a theory would be "increasing LGBTQ resources in a neighborhood would decrease LGBTQ hate crimes in that area." A confounding factor would be "increased reporting of hate crimes in the area." The theory, including the confounding factor, would look like "increasing LGBTQ resources in a neighborhood would increase the reporting of hate crimes in the area, which increases the number of hate crimes measured in that area." The confounding factor changes the outcome because it is a factor not considered in the original theory. When looking at research, see if you can think of anything that may change the theory based on how that factor interacts with the broader concept. Finally, the results are different from the conclusions. The results tell you what the methods spit out. Analysis tells you what the results say, and conclusions tell you what generalizations can be made based on the analysis.)

Next, read the conclusion section. This section will tell you what general conclusions can be made from the information found in the paper. This will tell you what the author found in their research.

Finally, once you've done all that, go back to the literature review section. You don't have to read it necessarily, but reading it will give you an idea of what is in each sourced paper. Take note of the authors and papers sourced in the literature review and repeat the process on those papers. You will get a wide variety of expert opinions on whatever concept or niche you're researching.

Starting to notice a pattern?

My research methods may not necessarily work for everybody, but they are pretty standard practice. You may notice that throughout this guide, I've told you to "source-hop" or follow the sources cited in whatever source you find first. This is incredibly important. You need to know who people are citing when they make claims.

This guide focused on secondary sources for most of the guide. Primary sources are slightly different. Primary sources require understanding the person who created the source, who they were, and their motivations. You also may need to do a little digging into what certain words or phrases meant at the time it was written based on what you are researching. The Prose Edda, for example, is a telling of the Norse mythology stories written by an Icelandic historian in the 13th century. If you do not speak the language spoken in Iceland in 1232, you probably won't be able to read anything close to the original document. In fact, the document was lost for about 300 years. Now there are translations, and those translations are as close to the primary source you can get on Norse Mythology. But even then, you are reading through several veils of translation. Take these things into account when analyzing primary documents.

Research Takes Practice

You won't get everything you need to know immediately. And researching subjects you have no background knowledge of can be daunting, confusing, and frustrating. It takes practice. I learned how to research through higher formal education. But you don't need a degree to write, so why should you need a degree to collect information? I genuinely hope this guide helps others peel away some of the confusion and frustration so they can collect knowledge as voraciously as I do.

– Indy

[constantly-deactivated]

How the media changes truth 👆

I am unable to post on my primary so I'm posting here until I am able to post on @reality-detective again. 🤔

[black-quadrant]

ADHD isn't silly or quirky. it can hinder productivity, create a cycle of overcommitting and overextending to keep up with life, can give rise to feelings of guilt for things like resting and overall impacts relationship health (just to name a few). it's hard to manage and it's miserable.

[mbilmey]

"Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."

I...I thought Shakespeare was quoting and making fun of someone else. I didn't realize he made it up.

This quote. That has been quoted. And put on posters. Used in headlines. Analyzed for it's wisdom.

It's from 12th Night. The most hilarious play. It comes from a prank letter written to play into a stuffy guy's ego. It's a joke.

Shakespeare would be so pleased to see how it's been used. Like, this as good irony as people quoting Invictus in church or putting Caroline Bingley's ridiculous commentary on libarary tote bags.

[murasaki-cha]

The Prisoner's Throne spoilers!!

Bogdana: Your crown was secured with my daughter's blood

Jude: Yeah her and many others to follow including, but not limited to, me and my husband. Like seriously have you ever been to Elfhame?

[ace-hell]

Can't be on any media anymore

Scolled peacefully on twitter when i saw this:

And wow💀 just wow this shows how people REALLY don't understand ANYTHING and know NOTHING about israel.

I love this artist, sorry, i meant loved, they are from Argentina so no wonder they don't know shit and are fed only from extrimist propaganda on the media.

They call the iron dome "genocidal hero" 💀 the iron dome is a DEFENSIVE mechanism not OFFENSIVE it has NOTHING to do with killing people, in fact it PREVENTS DEATH.

The iron dome is built to retaliateand stop rockets from hitting israel and killing civilians- its a SHIELD not a WEAPON. If it was a hero he would break metal as a daily activity, he would break mirko's human bunny legs like they are twigs with no problem

Can people start actually doing their research about israel for exchange?

[reality-detective]

Hypothyroid 🤔

[reality-detective]

Make it yourself 🤔

[reality-detective]

Mom's Across America 🤔

[reality-detective]

Drunk, Stoned, or Stupid?

Are you seriously buying this fake shit?

First: Löök at the audience in the balcony... TV monitors? What are you seeing?

Second: What in the same hell is the fake Scamala talking about?

Ask yourself when you see crap like this: "Is this a staged production?" 🤔

[reality-detective]

Since Diddys arrest we have seen dozens of CEOs step down. Usher, Megan Foxx, Steve Harvey, Patrick Mahomes and the singer PINK have all apparently deleted tweets. Clive Davis appeared to have a sudden onset of memory loss when questioned about Diddy. Sheer panic. I believe this will continue.

I honestly find the timing of this arrest very interesting. Kamala Harris was Attorney General during the times those "parties" were taking place. How is it possible that she didnt know? All of that evil and illegal activity and she didint even hear about it? This would be an incredible time for any info to come out regarding her and any possible connection. It would be brilliant. Trump would be free and clear of any character ass-assina-tion. That will happen without a doubt. Absolutely Brilliant.

Have YOU ever asked yourself questions about the timing of what's being exposed? 🤔

[reality-detective]

Candace Owens: Diddy and his relationship with Justin Bieber and other unsuspecting victims is about to be revealed. 🤔

[reality-detective]

[reality-detective]

Informed consent: is now not required! 🤔

[reality-detective]

The Cannibal Club: Fact or Fic?

The guests at this underground lair weren’t just addicted to human flesh. They were also addicted to drugs—alcohol, prescription meds, cocaine, heroin. But the most coveted of all? Adrenochrome.

Who extracted it?

Dr. Mehmet Oz, of course. He wasn't just your TV doctor; he was the lair’s surgeon, extracting A-chrome during Slaughter Week. His addiction wasn’t flesh—it was money. He made millions for every extraction. Dr. Oz might’ve been the medical pro, but he was in deep. The elites needed him, just like they needed Anthony Bourdain, the chef who’d been involved for years, cooking up human delicacies for the rich and powerful.

Bourdain, though? He was getting tired. He noticed that the cannibals had gotten better at preparing meals without him. Did they really need him as much as they used to? Or was he stuck in this twisted web forever?

And then there was Hillary Clinton—watching, plotting, with that sinister look on her face. She wanted Bourdain to dispose of some new guests from the NXIVM cult. She didn’t want any ties to them. Bourdain didn’t need to fatten them up; they weren’t there for long. But Clinton offered him a sick “favor”—to have his fun with them before he killed them, though Bourdain wasn’t like that. That was more Jeffrey Dahmer’s style.

For Hillary? This was just another day in her twisted world. Bill Clinton had brought in sex slaves, women on collars—enslaved, drugged, and blank-eyed, moving like robots as they were forced to eat, not even aware of the horror around them. Tom Cruise and Will Smith were among the guests, eyeing the women as if they were nothing but meat.

The whole room was filled with power and depravity. Murder and Slaughter Week couldn’t be mentioned with the prey in the room, but the slaves? They were already dead inside. Hillary and Bill Clinton had plans for them, no doubt.

But Bourdain knew they wouldn’t last long. The slaves would be killed before the others, for a little extra thrill.

This is what the elites do—behind closed doors, in their secret circles. They feast, they conspire, and they play God. The storm is here, and it’s up to us to wake up and take action before we all become their prey. They don’t want you to know this. Will you sit back and watch, or will you fight for the truth? Time’s running out.

The Swamp IS deeper than you think 🤔