# data[].attributes.body
BY: Samantha Lapointe-Dumais

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Critical Thinking Step-by-Step Process (2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Red Flag #1 - Appeal to Authority - By: Caitlin Hunter

# data[].attributes.subject
Red Flag #1 - Appeal to Authority - By: Caitlin Hunter

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The Appeal to Authority Red Flag is defined as using any type of strong authoritative figure as a distraction to impress and influence people rather than display the truth behind the claim. These authoritative figures can include:

Celebrity Endorsements

People dressing in white lab coats to appear as doctors, scientists, etc.

Fancy degrees or certificates being shown

Connection:
This video demonstrates the red flag Appeal to Authority because it has a celebrity promoting waist trainers and how well she believes them to work. Porsha Williams does a great job of boosting the product but does not explain the real science behind it. She doesn’t even explain any of the negative side effects to the products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Waist training tips from celebrity Porsha Williams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The latest craze is waist training! FOX 5's Jennifer Banks spoke with host and reality star Porsha Williams on waist training tips.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reason for Belief #3 - Perception and Observation - By: Nicole Rocheleau

# data[].attributes.subject
Reason for Belief #3 - Perception and Observation - By: Nicole Rocheleau

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Perception can be defined as being able to perceive things through our senses.
Observation can be defined as viewing something to gain information.

Connection:
This video shows 10 different optical illusions. Our observation of the illusions causes us to perceive it differently. The video comes with explanations as to why and how our minds observe and perceive the illusions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Seriously Trippy Eye Trick Optical Illusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
10 Incredible Optical Illusions From color changing dresses to spinning wheels that aren't really moving, optical illusions really can be mind-blowing. Take a look at our ten favourite illusions, and learn the science behind them! Music= Anti Gravity by Dan Skinner and Adam Skinner 10 Weird Facts About Dreams - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0vFTeVF1L0 Click to Subscribe..

# data[].attributes.headline
Red Flag #4 - Proof by Verbosity - By: Nicole Rocheleau

# data[].attributes.subject
Red Flag #4 - Proof by Verbosity - By: Nicole Rocheleau

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Proof by Verbosity can be defined as an argument loaded with gibberish and appeal to obscure results so that the audience is simply urged to accept it.
Connection:
This video depicts red flags to look out for when it comes to nutrition. This relates to Proof by Verbosity because very often nutritional facts and pharmaceutical facts trick you to believe it is actually good for you when truly, it isn't.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nutrition Junk Science Red Flags: Spotting Misinformation and Disinformation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See full article: http://www.gustrength.com/eric-troy:nutriton-junk-science-red-flags This list of red flags of nutrition junk science gives you the tools to recognize nutrition misinformation and disinformation before you get sucked in to believing it. One example is "Lists of good or bad foods." There are probably a million articles entitled "The Ten Worst Foods" or something to that effect.

# data[].attributes.headline
Red Flag #5 - Red Herring - By: Nicole Rocheleau

# data[].attributes.subject
Red Flag #5 - Red Herring - By: Nicole Rocheleau

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The red flag Red Herring can be defined as a statement that is designed to redirect someones attention from the issue at hand. Red Herrings tend to lead the people to believe a false conclusion.

Connection:
This clip from Family Guy shows how easy it is to divert someones attention from the real issues . In this political clip, it shows a member of Quohog asking about garbage pickup in their city and the political figure completely changes the subject and diverts the communities attention to something totally off-topic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reason for Belief #2 - Emotional Connection - By: Caitlin Hunter

# data[].attributes.subject
Reason for Belief #2 - Emotional Connection - By: Caitlin Hunter

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The Emotional Connection Reason for Belief is defined as using emotions to make us want to believe in things otherwise unable to be explained. This can cloud over someones mind and make all explainable reasoning be ignored.

Connection:

This article demonstrates the reason for belief, Emotional Connection, because it shows how quickly Amanda Berry’s mother lost all hope of her daughter returning home once she spoke with self proclaimed psychic/ medium, Sylvia Browne. More than a year had passed and Amanda’s mother never took down her room or got rid of any of her personal belongings. After speaking with Sylvia on the Montell Williams show, all hope went out the window and Amanda’s mother went straight home to clean out her daughters room and give away her belongings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reason for Belief #1 - Patternicity - By: Caitlin Hunter

# data[].attributes.subject
Reason for Belief #1 - Patternicity - By: Caitlin Hunter

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The Patternicity Reason for Belief is defined as finding meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Basically what this means is our brains are wired to find patterns in things even if its not intended to be there.

Connection:

This photo demonstrates the reason for belief, patternicity, because it gives off the look of, what some people might see as, a persons side profile, when in reality it's a just a normal cloud. Our minds are programmed to find and see faces or figures in things even without us realizing. In this case, we know its a regular cloud but our mind automatically scans it to be something else.

# data[].attributes.headline
Red Flag #3 - Confirmation Bias - By: Nicole Rocheleau

# data[].attributes.subject
Red Flag #3 - Confirmation Bias - By: Nicole Rocheleau

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's past beliefs or hypotheses. This can happen when people gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.

Connection:
This article published by The New Yorker describes why facts will not change our minds. Stanford invited undergraduates to take part in two studies. One regarding deciphering real suicide notes from fakes and the other concerning a two fire-fighters. The studies found that once they were told the facts, they still tended to believe their own beliefs even though, they weren't correct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason.

In 1975, researchers at Stanford invited a group of undergraduates to take part in a study about suicide. They were presented with pairs of suicide notes. In each pair, one note had been composed by a random individual, the other by a person who had subsequently taken his own life. The students were then asked to distinguish between the genuine notes and the fake ones.

Some students discovered that they had a genius for the task. Out of twenty-five pairs of notes, they correctly identified the real one twenty-four times. Others discovered that they were hopeless. They identified the real note in only ten instances.

As is often the case with psychological studies, the whole setup was a put-on. Though half the notes were indeed genuine-they'd been obtained from the Los Angeles County coroner's office-the scores were fictitious. The students who'd been told they were almost always right were, on average, no more discerning than those who had been told they were mostly wrong.

In the second phase of the study, the deception was revealed. The students were told that the real point of the experiment was to gauge their responses to thinking they were right or wrong. (This, it turned out, was also a deception.) Finally, the students were asked to estimate how many suicide notes they had actually categorized correctly, and how many they thought an average student would get right. At this point, something curious happened. The students in the high-score group said that they thought they had, in fact, done quite well-significantly better than the average student-even though, as they'd just been told, they had zero grounds for believing this. Conversely, those who'd been assigned to the low-score group said that they thought they had done significantly worse than the average student-a conclusion that was equally unfounded.

"Once formed," the researchers observed dryly, "impressions are remarkably perseverant."

A few years later, a new set of Stanford students was recruited for a related study. The students were handed packets of information about a pair of firefighters, Frank K. and George H. Frank's bio noted that, among other things, he had a baby daughter and he liked to scuba dive. George had a small son and played golf. The packets also included the men's responses on what the researchers called the Risky-Conservative Choice Test. According to one version of the packet, Frank was a successful firefighter who, on the test, almost always went with the safest option. In the other version, Frank also chose the safest option, but he was a lousy firefighter who'd been put "on report" by his supervisors several times. Once again, midway through the study, the students were informed that they'd been misled, and that the information they'd received was entirely fictitious. The students were then asked to describe their own beliefs. What sort of attitude toward risk did they think a successful firefighter would have? The students who'd received the first packet thought that he would avoid it. The students in the second group thought he'd embrace it.

Even after the evidence "for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs," the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was "particularly impressive," since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from.

The Stanford studies became famous. Coming from a group of academics in the nineteen-seventies, the contention that people can't think straight was shocking. It isn't any longer. Thousands of subsequent experiments have confirmed (and elaborated on) this finding. As everyone who's followed the research-or even occasionally picked up a copy of Psychology Today -knows, any graduate student with a clipboard can demonstrate that reasonable-seeming people are often totally irrational. Rarely has this insight seemed more relevant than it does right now. Still, an essential puzzle remains: How did we come to be this way?

In a new book, "The Enigma of Reason" (Harvard), the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber take a stab at answering this question. Mercier, who works at a French research institute in Lyon, and Sperber, now based at the Central European University, in Budapest, point out that reason is an evolved trait, like bipedalism or three-color vision. It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context.

Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber's argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans' biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.

"Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves," Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an "intellectualist" point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social "interactionist" perspective.

Consider what's become known as "confirmation bias," the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it's the subject of entire textbooks' worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.

The students were asked to respond to two studies. One provided data in support of the deterrence argument, and the other provided data that called it into question. Both studies-you guessed it-were made up, and had been designed to present what were, objectively speaking, equally compelling statistics. The students who had originally supported capital punishment rated the pro-deterrence data highly credible and the anti-deterrence data unconvincing; the students who'd originally opposed capital punishment did the reverse. At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who'd started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who'd opposed it were even more hostile.

If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it's hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias. Imagine, Mercier and Sperber suggest, a mouse that thinks the way we do. Such a mouse, "bent on confirming its belief that there are no cats around," would soon be dinner. To the extent that confirmation bias leads people to dismiss evidence of new or underappreciated threats-the human equivalent of the cat around the corner-it's a trait that should have been selected against. The fact that both we and it survive, Mercier and Sperber argue, proves that it must have some adaptive function, and that function, they maintain, is related to our "hypersociability."

Mercier and Sperber prefer the term "myside bias." Humans, they point out, aren't randomly credulous. Presented with someone else's argument, we're quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we're blind about are our own.

A recent experiment performed by Mercier and some European colleagues neatly demonstrates this asymmetry. Participants were asked to answer a series of simple reasoning problems. They were then asked to explain their responses, and were given a chance to modify them if they identified mistakes. The majority were satisfied with their original choices; fewer than fifteen per cent changed their minds in step two.

In step three, participants were shown one of the same problems, along with their answer and the answer of another participant, who'd come to a different conclusion. Once again, they were given the chance to change their responses. But a trick had been played: the answers presented to them as someone else's were actually their own, and vice versa. About half the participants realized what was going on. Among the other half, suddenly people became a lot more critical. Nearly sixty per cent now rejected the responses that they'd earlier been satisfied with.

This lopsidedness, according to Mercier and Sperber, reflects the task that reason evolved to perform, which is to prevent us from getting screwed by the other members of our group. Living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, our ancestors were primarily concerned with their social standing, and with making sure that they weren't the ones risking their lives on the hunt while others loafed around in the cave. There was little advantage in reasoning clearly, while much was to be gained from winning arguments.

Among the many, many issues our forebears didn't worry about were the deterrent effects of capital punishment and the ideal attributes of a firefighter. Nor did they have to contend with fabricated studies, or fake news, or Twitter. It's no wonder, then, that today reason often seems to fail us. As Mercier and Sperber write, "This is one of many cases in which the environment changed too quickly for natural selection to catch up."

Steven Sloman, a professor at Brown, and Philip Fernbach, a professor at the University of Colorado, are also cognitive scientists. They, too, believe sociability is the key to how the human mind functions or, perhaps more pertinently, malfunctions. They begin their book, "The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone" (Riverhead), with a look at toilets.

Virtually everyone in the United States, and indeed throughout the developed world, is familiar with toilets. A typical flush toilet has a ceramic bowl filled with water. When the handle is depressed, or the button pushed, the water-and everything that's been deposited in it-gets sucked into a pipe and from there into the sewage system. But how does this actually happen?

In a study conducted at Yale, graduate students were asked to rate their understanding of everyday devices, including toilets, zippers, and cylinder locks. They were then asked to write detailed, step-by-step explanations of how the devices work, and to rate their understanding again. Apparently, the effort revealed to the students their own ignorance, because their self-assessments dropped. (Toilets, it turns out, are more complicated than they appear.)

Sloman and Fernbach see this effect, which they call the "illusion of explanatory depth," just about everywhere. People believe that they know way more than they actually do. What allows us to persist in this belief is other people. In the case of my toilet, someone else designed it so that I can operate it easily. This is something humans are very good at. We've been relying on one another's expertise ever since we figured out how to hunt together, which was probably a key development in our evolutionary history. So well do we collaborate, Sloman and Fernbach argue, that we can hardly tell where our own understanding ends and others' begins.

"One implication of the naturalness with which we divide cognitive labor," they write, is that there's "no sharp boundary between one person's ideas and knowledge" and "those of other members" of the group.

This borderlessness, or, if you prefer, confusion, is also crucial to what we consider progress. As people invented new tools for new ways of living, they simultaneously created new realms of ignorance; if everyone had insisted on, say, mastering the principles of metalworking before picking up a knife, the Bronze Age wouldn't have amounted to much. When it comes to new technologies, incomplete understanding is empowering.

Where it gets us into trouble, according to Sloman and Fernbach, is in the political domain. It's one thing for me to flush a toilet without knowing how it operates, and another for me to favor (or oppose) an immigration ban without knowing what I'm talking about. Sloman and Fernbach cite a survey conducted in 2014, not long after Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Respondents were asked how they thought the U.S. should react, and also whether they could identify Ukraine on a map. The farther off base they were about the geography, the more likely they were to favor military intervention. (Respondents were so unsure of Ukraine's location that the median guess was wrong by eighteen hundred miles, roughly the distance from Kiev to Madrid.)

Surveys on many other issues have yielded similarly dismaying results. "As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding," Sloman and Fernbach write. And here our dependence on other minds reinforces the problem. If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views. If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

"This is how a community of knowledge can become dangerous," Sloman and Fernbach observe. The two have performed their own version of the toilet experiment, substituting public policy for household gadgets. In a study conducted in 2012, they asked people for their stance on questions like: Should there be a single-payer health-care system? Or merit-based pay for teachers? Participants were asked to rate their positions depending on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposals. Next, they were instructed to explain, in as much detail as they could, the impacts of implementing each one. Most people at this point ran into trouble. Asked once again to rate their views, they ratcheted down the intensity, so that they either agreed or disagreed less vehemently.

Sloman and Fernbach see in this result a little candle for a dark world. If we-or our friends or the pundits on CNN-spent less time pontificating and more trying to work through the implications of policy proposals, we'd realize how clueless we are and moderate our views. This, they write, "may be the only form of thinking that will shatter the illusion of explanatory depth and change people's attitudes."

One way to look at science is as a system that corrects for people's natural inclinations. In a well-run laboratory, there's no room for myside bias; the results have to be reproducible in other laboratories, by researchers who have no motive to confirm them. And this, it could be argued, is why the system has proved so successful. At any given moment, a field may be dominated by squabbles, but, in the end, the methodology prevails. Science moves forward, even as we remain stuck in place.

In "Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us" (Oxford), Jack Gorman, a psychiatrist, and his daughter, Sara Gorman, a public-health specialist, probe the gap between what science tells us and what we tell ourselves. Their concern is with those persistent beliefs which are not just demonstrably false but also potentially deadly, like the conviction that vaccines are hazardous. Of course, what's hazardous is not being vaccinated; that's why vaccines were created in the first place. "Immunization is one of the triumphs of modern medicine," the Gormans note. But no matter how many scientific studies conclude that vaccines are safe, and that there's no link between immunizations and autism, anti-vaxxers remain unmoved. (They can now count on their side-sort of-Donald Trump, who has said that, although he and his wife had their son, Barron, vaccinated, they refused to do so on the timetable recommended by pediatricians.)

The Gormans, too, argue that ways of thinking that now seem self-destructive must at some point have been adaptive. And they, too, dedicate many pages to confirmation bias, which, they claim, has a physiological component. They cite research suggesting that people experience genuine pleasure-a rush of dopamine-when processing information that supports their beliefs. "It feels good to 'stick to our guns' even if we are wrong," they observe.

The Gormans don't just want to catalogue the ways we go wrong; they want to correct for them. There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. (Another widespread but statistically insupportable belief they'd like to discredit is that owning a gun makes you safer.) But here they encounter the very problems they have enumerated. Providing people with accurate information doesn't seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science. "The challenge that remains," they write toward the end of their book, "is to figure out how to address the tendencies that lead to false scientific belief."

"The Enigma of Reason," "The Knowledge Illusion," and "Denying to the Grave" were all written before the November election. And yet they anticipate Kellyanne Conway and the rise of "alternative facts." These days, it can feel as if the entire country has been given over to a vast psychological experiment being run either by no one or by Steve Bannon. Rational agents would be able to think their way to a solution. But, on this matter, the literature is not reassuring. ♦

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason.

# data[].attributes.headline
Red Flag #2 - Mystical Energy - By: Caitlin Hunter

# data[].attributes.subject
Red Flag #2 - Mystical Energy - By: Caitlin Hunter

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The Mystical Energy Red Flag is defined by using scientific sounding terms, such as “chi”, “negative energy”, “positive energy”, “life force”, etc. to accomplish healing, or draw power from.

Connection:

This article is written by a woman who claims she received the ‘Root’ Chakra healing energy from a horse. She explains how she was not in the best state of mind, having felt depressed and lost in her life but the horse changed that for her with the energy force. She claims the horse gave her a sense of grounding and clarity in her life by giving her this chakra energy. There is no scientific proof of this whatsoever. The horses caretaker was the one who mentioned this Chakra healing to the woman and all of a sudden she was a believer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Life hasn't been easy lately. I've recently moved to a new home in a new state, had a major shift with work, and celebrated my 45th birthday, which made me start realizing that my dream of having a family and children just may not be in the cards. While I know I still have so much to be grateful for, this new reality hit me hard. As someone who has spent her life living in the shadow of depression and helping others find hope, I understand that lots of life changes bring a risk for a new episode so it is a critical time for strength, health, and grounding.

That's why when I was invited to spend a morning observing coach Anna Mott and Alo Horses, a company that partners with horses as spiritual guides to assist humans in finding greater inner peace for a harmonious life, I knew I had to attend.

As someone who was raised on a farm in Wisconsin, I've always felt a sense of freedom on a horse and been amazed by their incredible spirit. Growing up, I felt like my horse could sense when my energy was depleted or emotions were especially intense. It was like she knew when I just needed to gallop through the fields and allow my mind to be free from the chatter of negative thoughts. And on those days I was feeling extra spirited and grounded, she would challenge me by acting out, almost encouraging me to take charge with vitality and strength.

That is why I find equine therapy so intriguing, and why when I met coach Anna, a certified practitioner of the Equine Gestalt Coaching Method and founder of Alo Horses, I had no idea what to expect.

The Saturday morning session started with everyone in a circle, speaking about our intention for the day while picking a horse card from the Touched By a Horse card deck. My intention was to get grounded and clarity on my next moves -- both for a home, partner, and new business ventures -- so I appropriately picked the Energy card. It spoke of my intense current energy, the need to keep it in a positive flow state, and to trust in the divine for guidance.

Some of us then role played, talking about childhood wounds, while others entered the horse corral. But instead of riding the horse, we interacted. Each person went into the circle for her own experience with the horse. And it was never the same from person to person. The horse's ability to determine exactly what the individual needed at that time was unlike anything I've ever witnessed.

For my turn, I walked to the center of the corral and stood still, remembering my intention of finding energy, clarity and power. I allowed the horse to come to me, if she chose. I'd already felt a strong energetic connection to the beautiful mare -- there was this almost half tame, half wild energy that matched what I often feel in my own spirit. So I stood in that circle and focused on my feelings of awe for her, and asked for her support.

As I stood there she came right up to me -- strong, powerful, and beautiful -- and looked me right in the eyes. She held the stance, almost encouraging me to sit a little taller, stronger and prouder. I felt my energy getting mightier in the face of this magnificent beauty.

And then she very slowly walked towards and past me, allowing me to stroke my hand down her side while she gently pushed against me, as if encouraging me to ground myself in strength. She stopped walking when her rear was against me and then moved slightly so that my body was directly behind her, as she pushed on me a little harder.

At first I stepped away a little, as horses have the strongest legs in the world and being right behind them is a vulnerable place to be. Coach Anna let me know the horse was giving me Root Chakra healing and grounding energy. The Chopra Center talks about the Root Chakra being the base of safety and security, a grounding place where you lay the foundation for health and prosperity.

This literally blew my mind. Root Chakra healing energy? And from a horse? But instead of fearing it, I needed to trust the universe and embrace it. So I stepped up to her backside, first tentatively, but then draping my arms across her backside, leaning against her while she pushed against me. I thought I might fall over from the pressure, but amazingly I didn't. We stood there together for a few minutes and I could literally feel her power and grounding enter my core. My feeling of vulnerability fell away and was replaced by an intense gratitude for this magnificent creature that knew just what I needed and selflessly gave it to me.

I spent about 15 minutes there with her circling me, touching me and walking away. It was such a beautiful dance, and one that I can take with me and use for healing and energy down the road whenever I start feeling uncentered, lost, or weak again.

To say I am grateful for the experience is not adequate. I'm sold. I'm in awe. I'm beyond grateful and hope anyone who lives with depression, anxiety, fear, or just needs some grounding or clarity in their life might get to experience these incredible, powerful and beautiful animals. They have so much wisdom to share.

And if you don't like to ride horses, or are allergic to them, it is so important to find another way to gain energy, clarity or power... to seek Root Chakra. Maybe try yoga or meditation. These transformative experiences are what help us remain hopeful and steady in a world that is ever changing and uncertain.

Have you ever worked with horses? I'd love to hear about your experience. Thanks for letting me continue to share my stories of hope.

#sharehope

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finding Hope Through Change: How A Horse Helped Strengthen My Root Chakra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Life hasn't been easy lately. I've recently moved to a new home in a new state, had a major shift with work, and celebrated my 45th birthday, which made me start realizing that my dream of having a family and children just may not be in the cards.

# data[].attributes.body
By: Nicole Rocheleau, Caitlin Hunter and Samantha Lapointe-Dumais