4 ms·

Eh. I'm sure everyone here remembers the term 'suspension of disbelief' or related. The reason a Hollywood virus or universal decryption key doesn't allow tec

by __jal 10y ago

Eh. I'm sure everyone here remembers the term 'suspension of disbelief' or related. The reason a Hollywood virus or universal decryption key doesn't allow technical people to suspend disbelief is because both are immediately absurd in multiple ways, often to the point of being unintentionally funny. It isn't hard for me, at least, to suspend disbelief that people with psychological challenges can do big things, because there are examples in which people with psychological challenges have accomplished big things. Suspension of disbelief is tricky when approaching domain-specific knowledge. Really, the "hacker's complaint" is no different than lawyers complaining about, well, every courtroom drama ever. I won't argue whether "Elliot's" PTSD is so severe that he couldn't function. It is fiction, and arguing about personal investment in fiction is a mug's game, outside of friendly bar talk. I will simply note that you're vastly overgeneralizing the range effects of both PTSD and schizophrenia. PTSD, for instance, has in fact led to horrific violence, and, well, go google 'famous schizophrenics' if you'd like to see what people have accomplished.

ocschwar 10y ago
The issue with suspension of disbelief is that while smart people do it, weaker minds on the left hand of the bell curve just internalize the notion that the fiction they're watching is an accurate reflection of life. So when the movies and television shows portray mad geniuses who threaten to destroy life as we know it, it covers up the sad reality, which is severe schizophrenics are only a challenge to our sense of decency, and little else.
- __jal 10y ago
  Citation needed. I don't think it is anywhere nearly so simple as "dumb people believe fiction is real." There is a complicated interplay between lived experience, class, personality, education, desires and other priors driving how people process both fiction and nonfiction. Or as a brief counterfactual, sure is nice how the murder rate has dropped now that we've banned violent video games, amirite?
  - int_19h 10y ago
    It's not because people are dumb. It's because they trust the blue screen - because, well, why wouldn't they? They don't know how it actually works. And it is a real problem wrt applying such acquired "knowledge" to the real world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect is a well-documented instance, and there are numerous reports by lawyers of juries making unreasonable assumptions (e.g. about the accuracy of DNA matches), or giving undue weight to "expert" evidence like bite mark analysis (which is fraudulent pseudoscience: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/07/white-house-science-council-bite-mark-matching-is-junk-science/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/07/...). All this stuff has effect on outcomes of real world criminal cases, sometimes literally with people's lives at stake. As Cory points out in this piece, the same is true for information security. It all ultimately translates to a very skewed public picture of what the threats are and how they can be mitigated, and that, in turn, affects public policy and laws. That is a real problem.
    - __jal 10y ago
      Honestly, I think we are saying something at least similar, but in the case of intersection with the legal system, I thin there's something else going on. Apologies, but I'm running with a tangent. Bite mark analysis is a great example. It isn't just that CSI: Market Segmentation Unit convinces people science can do something it can't. The legal world (outside of some lonely voices to which nobody listened until pretty recently) was telling juries it was valid. Defense attorneys might have taken the odd run at expert testimony in a particular case if it looked promising, but their job is to win particular cases, not take principled stands in general. Meanwhile, the rest of the attorneys in the room (people with reputations for being serious, whom you might expect to have carefully considered the value of different types of evidence, given their careers) were taking bite mark analysis seriously. What, exactly, is a juror in that situation to do? It is worth asking if the CSI effect is just a cultural feedback loop. Criminal law[1] has always wanted magic unassailable evidence. It just makes everything so much easier. Fiction sometimes still portrays fingerprint evidence as close to infallible, but who has spent generations treating it as such in the context it for which it matters most? So at the risk of sounding cynical, I'll note that doubts about bite marks, fiber analysis, and now even fingerprints are legally acceptable now that a new magic guilt-certifier is available. [1] I'm being somewhat flip with language. All of these topics are much more complicated than portrayed. Please take my broad generalities about legal topics in the spirit offered.
0xcde4c3db 10y ago
> Really, the "hacker's complaint" is no different than lawyers complaining about, well, every courtroom drama ever. Except, oddly enough, My Cousin Vinny, which lawyers apparently love [1]. The fact that I can name one movie known for this probably proves your general point, though. [1] http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/movies/New-Jerseys-US-Attorney-praises-accuracy-of-My-Cousin-Vinny.html http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/movies/New-...

by __jal 10y ago

ocschwar 10y ago

The issue with suspension of disbelief is that while smart people do it, weaker minds on the left hand of the bell curve just internalize the notion that the fiction they're watching is an accurate reflection of life. So when the movies and television shows portray mad geniuses who threaten to destroy life as we know it, it covers up the sad reality, which is severe schizophrenics are only a challenge to our sense of decency, and little else.

__jal 10y ago
Citation needed. I don't think it is anywhere nearly so simple as "dumb people believe fiction is real." There is a complicated interplay between lived experience, class, personality, education, desires and other priors driving how people process both fiction and nonfiction. Or as a brief counterfactual, sure is nice how the murder rate has dropped now that we've banned violent video games, amirite?
- int_19h 10y ago
  It's not because people are dumb. It's because they trust the blue screen - because, well, why wouldn't they? They don't know how it actually works. And it is a real problem wrt applying such acquired "knowledge" to the real world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect is a well-documented instance, and there are numerous reports by lawyers of juries making unreasonable assumptions (e.g. about the accuracy of DNA matches), or giving undue weight to "expert" evidence like bite mark analysis (which is fraudulent pseudoscience: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/07/white-house-science-council-bite-mark-matching-is-junk-science/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/07/...). All this stuff has effect on outcomes of real world criminal cases, sometimes literally with people's lives at stake. As Cory points out in this piece, the same is true for information security. It all ultimately translates to a very skewed public picture of what the threats are and how they can be mitigated, and that, in turn, affects public policy and laws. That is a real problem.
  - __jal 10y ago
    Honestly, I think we are saying something at least similar, but in the case of intersection with the legal system, I thin there's something else going on. Apologies, but I'm running with a tangent. Bite mark analysis is a great example. It isn't just that CSI: Market Segmentation Unit convinces people science can do something it can't. The legal world (outside of some lonely voices to which nobody listened until pretty recently) was telling juries it was valid. Defense attorneys might have taken the odd run at expert testimony in a particular case if it looked promising, but their job is to win particular cases, not take principled stands in general. Meanwhile, the rest of the attorneys in the room (people with reputations for being serious, whom you might expect to have carefully considered the value of different types of evidence, given their careers) were taking bite mark analysis seriously. What, exactly, is a juror in that situation to do? It is worth asking if the CSI effect is just a cultural feedback loop. Criminal law[1] has always wanted magic unassailable evidence. It just makes everything so much easier. Fiction sometimes still portrays fingerprint evidence as close to infallible, but who has spent generations treating it as such in the context it for which it matters most? So at the risk of sounding cynical, I'll note that doubts about bite marks, fiber analysis, and now even fingerprints are legally acceptable now that a new magic guilt-certifier is available. [1] I'm being somewhat flip with language. All of these topics are much more complicated than portrayed. Please take my broad generalities about legal topics in the spirit offered.

0xcde4c3db 10y ago

> Really, the "hacker's complaint" is no different than lawyers complaining about, well, every courtroom drama ever. Except, oddly enough, My Cousin Vinny, which lawyers apparently love [1]. The fact that I can name one movie known for this probably proves your general point, though. [1] http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/movies/New-Jerseys-US-Attorney-praises-accuracy-of-My-Cousin-Vinny.html http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/movies/New-...