5 ms·

I'm sure it isn't the only problem, but I'm sure it doesn't help at all either. The real problem is people being so willing to discard their bullshit detector

I'm sure it isn't the only problem, but I'm sure it doesn't help at all either. The real problem is people being so willing to discard their bullshit detector when information fits their preconceived ideas, and so willing to break it out for things that don't. Source of the idea matters but it's not by any means going to stop people from sharing the stuff. If you can figure out how to fix that, then we can fix Democracy.

mc32 10y ago
I'm not sure of that (that democracy can be fixed through perfect information). I'm not even sure we'd want a world with perfect information. Is the pursuit of art for art's sake valuable. What if the answer is no? Do we repress art? Having a variety of ideas rests on there not being perfect information and people making personal choices based on imperfect information.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  > Is the pursuit of art for art's sake valuable? That's a subjective question. When it comes to public policy the vast majority of what should be questions (and are often turned into bullet points instead because we don't want to discuss things) are able to be answered, even if we don't like the answers we get. Things like, "Does better education lower jail populations?", or "Do lower taxes stimulate the economy?" and things like that have an answer, somewhere. The real problem is getting people to A: Understand the answer, and B: Be willing to discard previously held notions and move forward with what the data tells them.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I understand, but things can get thorny. Does keeping a population uneducated lead to happier people? Or, is there an optimized ratio of educated vs uneducated that leads to better population stability? Yes, ok, do we enforce that? That said, I lean more towards technocratic solutions [that is solutions and policies driven by data, even if data can shift over time] over gut-feeling or popular solutions.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      Again though, you're attaching to metrics that are inherently un-knowable. A population being happy boils down to people being happy, and every person has their own subjective definition of happy, which is then filtered through the lens of self-reporting. If you goal is to create a happy society, then the people in that society should be allowed the maximum freedom possible to acquire knowledge, perform work, create art, etc. as makes them happy. To define their own profession, if you will, including "professions" that are not market valuable. Utopia, basically, which I think is actually becoming within reach if we can all manage to not kill each other in the next century or so.
      - mc32 10y ago
        In a sense, yes, it's unknowable, but in a softer sense, it is. You can poll people with doctoral, master's, bachelor's associate's, high school graduates, and people who didn't get past high school, didn't get past elementary and see what the results are and make a determination as to what education level might make people happiest.
- rfrey 10y ago
  "(the democracy can be fixed through perfect information)" I think what's being advocated is not perfect information, but rather that we find a way to weld the bullshit-detection-switch to "on" in the vast majority of people, so they don't selectively switch it off when viewing information that fits their current mental model of the world.
  - mc32 10y ago
    In theory (assessing it mentally) that sounds like a good pursuit. I'm not sure we can get people who are entrenched to change how they evaluate information/disinformation, however. It's not a right left issue. People will complain about say Breitbart (that have opinion pieces which are to put it mildly, out of synch with most republicans) but then don't see the same kind of thing coming out of HuffPo or even some NPR programs like CodeSwitch which can also put out opinion pieces which strain logic.
  - usefulcat 10y ago
    Exactly. Information is not the problem, or at least not the most fundamental one. The problem is that humans have a natural bias towards believing anything that agrees with one's existing worldview, and a natural bias against believing anything contrary to that worldview. In short, the underlying problem really is a function of how our brains work. Social media may not be the cause, but IMO it's definitely not helping either. In the past, the kinds of political disagreements you see on social media would almost always have happened in person instead (or over the phone at least). I suspect most people find it a lot easier to be a jerk online than in person.
  - benmcnelly 10y ago
    The problem here, is people are willing to brush aside facts that are most easily left to interpretation based on world view, for the larger sake of their cause, where the ends justify the means. As a very middle of the road moderate (if that's the right word? Maybe it's something else.) type, I clearly see this disregard on both the liberal and conservative side. Much in the same way an agnostic has to sit and watch mommy atheist and daddy religion fight. Examples: 1. Trump is a racist Liberal >> Common sense and all evidence point towards him having and continuing to have racist and bigoted behavior. Electing him would empower racists and harm the country. Conservative >> Common sense and all evidence point towards the biased media fixating on his conservative views of upholding the law (ILLEGAL immigration) and trying to paint him and anyone else with those views as racist. Also, he is a flamboyant TV personality, I am more than willing to overlook his gaffs because at least he says what he thinks. Electing him would help reverse the damage caused over the last 8 years. Something Else >> Trump is a jerk and probably has lots of personal issues, and may indeed be a racist. While I am sure there is a small minority of people that like his ideas based on a place of hate, it seems there are a lot of people that have an ideological reason to support him based on the changes they want to see made. Electing him seems like a risky move, and may destabilize things. 2. Obama is a Muslim Liberal >> Obama's officially stated religion is Christianity. Yes, he is friendly towards Muslims, why wouldn't he be. We have a long way to go towards repairing our relationships and reputation at home and abroad as being inclusive and tolerant of ALL lifestyles, beliefs, and religions. Conservative >> Obama's actions in office show a disregard of his duties to protect Americans at home and abroad from the threat that is radical Islam. Something Else >> Obama is a classy guy, and he is not afraid to mix it up with people no matter what people think. Not sure about things like the Iran deal are the smartest but I very sure he (and some other decently smart people) have our best interest in mind, however, I am not sure if they are making the best decisions. I am unsure that any amount of publicly available facts about national defence, economy, Middle East past and present tensions and issues, and Iran, will make me better able to judge this. Conclusion: Just because you have facts, doesn't mean you have an understanding. Wisdom and knowledge are for sure bolstered by each other, but not synonymous. It seems to me both sides have a righteous indignation against the other. It will take compassion and compromise to truly move forward as one human race.
toss1941 10y ago
The problem wasn't with the "fake news", whatever that even means. The problem was that the so-called "real news" sites were lying through their teeth non-stop all election.
- jrockway 10y ago
  Care to provide some specifics?
  - toss1941 10y ago
    Several studies have been done on the positive or negative connotations of articles[0]. Various studies have been done on which candidate journalists themselves contribute to[1]. That journalists lean left/far left isn't disputable. Whether that colors their reporting on the other hand, might be. The biggest lie that the media can tell while staying in business is 'lying by omission'. It was on display during the recent 60 Minutes interview where Lesley Stahl asked Trump about his supporters attacking anti-trump protestors. That's a fair question by itself, but why if a few isolated incidents evokes their curiousity, why wasn't the media talking about the other 90% of the violence that was perpetrated by anti-Trump protesters? Lying by omission was a constant drumbeat this cycle and they won't be trusted by the average American as a whole for a very long time[2]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/2... [1] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bias-journalists-overwhelmingly-donated-to-hillary-clinton/article/2604762 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bias-journalist... [2] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-70-percent-of-americans-believe-news-media-is-intentionally-biased/article/2567583 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-70-percent-of-america...
treebeard901 10y ago
> If you can figure out how to fix that, then we can fix Democracy. This is actually very easy for people to accomplish. Put down the phones and go outside and talk to people.

mc32 10y ago

I'm not sure of that (that democracy can be fixed through perfect information). I'm not even sure we'd want a world with perfect information. Is the pursuit of art for art's sake valuable. What if the answer is no? Do we repress art? Having a variety of ideas rests on there not being perfect information and people making personal choices based on imperfect information.

FussyZeus 10y ago
> Is the pursuit of art for art's sake valuable? That's a subjective question. When it comes to public policy the vast majority of what should be questions (and are often turned into bullet points instead because we don't want to discuss things) are able to be answered, even if we don't like the answers we get. Things like, "Does better education lower jail populations?", or "Do lower taxes stimulate the economy?" and things like that have an answer, somewhere. The real problem is getting people to A: Understand the answer, and B: Be willing to discard previously held notions and move forward with what the data tells them.
- mc32 10y ago
  I understand, but things can get thorny. Does keeping a population uneducated lead to happier people? Or, is there an optimized ratio of educated vs uneducated that leads to better population stability? Yes, ok, do we enforce that? That said, I lean more towards technocratic solutions [that is solutions and policies driven by data, even if data can shift over time] over gut-feeling or popular solutions.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    Again though, you're attaching to metrics that are inherently un-knowable. A population being happy boils down to people being happy, and every person has their own subjective definition of happy, which is then filtered through the lens of self-reporting. If you goal is to create a happy society, then the people in that society should be allowed the maximum freedom possible to acquire knowledge, perform work, create art, etc. as makes them happy. To define their own profession, if you will, including "professions" that are not market valuable. Utopia, basically, which I think is actually becoming within reach if we can all manage to not kill each other in the next century or so.
    - mc32 10y ago
      In a sense, yes, it's unknowable, but in a softer sense, it is. You can poll people with doctoral, master's, bachelor's associate's, high school graduates, and people who didn't get past high school, didn't get past elementary and see what the results are and make a determination as to what education level might make people happiest.
rfrey 10y ago
"(the democracy can be fixed through perfect information)" I think what's being advocated is not perfect information, but rather that we find a way to weld the bullshit-detection-switch to "on" in the vast majority of people, so they don't selectively switch it off when viewing information that fits their current mental model of the world.
- mc32 10y ago
  In theory (assessing it mentally) that sounds like a good pursuit. I'm not sure we can get people who are entrenched to change how they evaluate information/disinformation, however. It's not a right left issue. People will complain about say Breitbart (that have opinion pieces which are to put it mildly, out of synch with most republicans) but then don't see the same kind of thing coming out of HuffPo or even some NPR programs like CodeSwitch which can also put out opinion pieces which strain logic.
- usefulcat 10y ago
  Exactly. Information is not the problem, or at least not the most fundamental one. The problem is that humans have a natural bias towards believing anything that agrees with one's existing worldview, and a natural bias against believing anything contrary to that worldview. In short, the underlying problem really is a function of how our brains work. Social media may not be the cause, but IMO it's definitely not helping either. In the past, the kinds of political disagreements you see on social media would almost always have happened in person instead (or over the phone at least). I suspect most people find it a lot easier to be a jerk online than in person.
- benmcnelly 10y ago
  The problem here, is people are willing to brush aside facts that are most easily left to interpretation based on world view, for the larger sake of their cause, where the ends justify the means. As a very middle of the road moderate (if that's the right word? Maybe it's something else.) type, I clearly see this disregard on both the liberal and conservative side. Much in the same way an agnostic has to sit and watch mommy atheist and daddy religion fight. Examples: 1. Trump is a racist Liberal >> Common sense and all evidence point towards him having and continuing to have racist and bigoted behavior. Electing him would empower racists and harm the country. Conservative >> Common sense and all evidence point towards the biased media fixating on his conservative views of upholding the law (ILLEGAL immigration) and trying to paint him and anyone else with those views as racist. Also, he is a flamboyant TV personality, I am more than willing to overlook his gaffs because at least he says what he thinks. Electing him would help reverse the damage caused over the last 8 years. Something Else >> Trump is a jerk and probably has lots of personal issues, and may indeed be a racist. While I am sure there is a small minority of people that like his ideas based on a place of hate, it seems there are a lot of people that have an ideological reason to support him based on the changes they want to see made. Electing him seems like a risky move, and may destabilize things. 2. Obama is a Muslim Liberal >> Obama's officially stated religion is Christianity. Yes, he is friendly towards Muslims, why wouldn't he be. We have a long way to go towards repairing our relationships and reputation at home and abroad as being inclusive and tolerant of ALL lifestyles, beliefs, and religions. Conservative >> Obama's actions in office show a disregard of his duties to protect Americans at home and abroad from the threat that is radical Islam. Something Else >> Obama is a classy guy, and he is not afraid to mix it up with people no matter what people think. Not sure about things like the Iran deal are the smartest but I very sure he (and some other decently smart people) have our best interest in mind, however, I am not sure if they are making the best decisions. I am unsure that any amount of publicly available facts about national defence, economy, Middle East past and present tensions and issues, and Iran, will make me better able to judge this. Conclusion: Just because you have facts, doesn't mean you have an understanding. Wisdom and knowledge are for sure bolstered by each other, but not synonymous. It seems to me both sides have a righteous indignation against the other. It will take compassion and compromise to truly move forward as one human race.

toss1941 10y ago

The problem wasn't with the "fake news", whatever that even means. The problem was that the so-called "real news" sites were lying through their teeth non-stop all election.

jrockway 10y ago
Care to provide some specifics?
- toss1941 10y ago
  Several studies have been done on the positive or negative connotations of articles[0]. Various studies have been done on which candidate journalists themselves contribute to[1]. That journalists lean left/far left isn't disputable. Whether that colors their reporting on the other hand, might be. The biggest lie that the media can tell while staying in business is 'lying by omission'. It was on display during the recent 60 Minutes interview where Lesley Stahl asked Trump about his supporters attacking anti-trump protestors. That's a fair question by itself, but why if a few isolated incidents evokes their curiousity, why wasn't the media talking about the other 90% of the violence that was perpetrated by anti-Trump protesters? Lying by omission was a constant drumbeat this cycle and they won't be trusted by the average American as a whole for a very long time[2]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/2... [1] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bias-journalists-overwhelmingly-donated-to-hillary-clinton/article/2604762 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bias-journalist... [2] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-70-percent-of-americans-believe-news-media-is-intentionally-biased/article/2567583 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-70-percent-of-america...

treebeard901 10y ago

> If you can figure out how to fix that, then we can fix Democracy. This is actually very easy for people to accomplish. Put down the phones and go outside and talk to people.