4 ms·

Is this just an opinion, or do you have any data on this?

Razengan 10y ago
Opinion. I mean we tell kids to be wary of strangers, but we can't assign a policeman to every stranger. Easier to teach people that they can be deceived or that bad things can happen, than to prevent any deception or bad thing from ever occurring.
- phy6 10y ago
  Thank you for the common sense analogy. I have a 'hunch' that one could whip up a proof based on countably vs uncountably infinite mappings where the number of ways to deceive/offend outweigh the number of authorities which could police them, even assuming such ideals as perfect enforcement and willingness to submit to being policed (i.e. international uniformity of laws). But that's just a first-coffee-of-the-morning hunch.
  - maroonblazer 10y ago
    My math prowess isn't up to the task but I'd love to see such a proof if it exists. Not because I don't believe it would support the point (I have the same 'hunch') but because the math geek in me would eat it up.
  - schoen 10y ago
    It's hard to see how theorems about infinite sets can apply directly apply to human relationships. Maybe you'll just make a heuristic argument showing that something grows as n² or 2ⁿ? For example, the number of possible relationships among n people grows as n². The world's population of about 7490000000 individuals would support about 28050049996255000000 potential relationships between individuals, or twice that many opinions that individuals have about one another.
- phy6 10y ago
  I also subscribe to the opinion that total avoidance of bad things is impossible, and that preparation for handling life's faults is a necessary part of the programming each person should have.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    preparation for handling life's faults is a necessary part of the programming each person should have That's a reasonable position, but sometimes no amount of preparation can give the little guy adequate protection against a big guy seeking to exploit him. That's why we have legal systems and regulatory frameworks in the first place, and providing a deterrent against big guys taking unfair advantage to reduce the number of times it happens and some sort of remedy for the little guy in the remaining cases is generally a good thing even if it's not a perfect solution.
- scholia 10y ago
  How do you cope with the fact that a large slice of the population seeks out bad things and refuses good things? The obvious examples are US news sources such as Fox News, Breitbart and Infowars [1]. However, it could also apply to fast food eating habits. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8 http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudg...
  - colmvp 10y ago
    I don't know how to reconcile this. On the one hand, I believe information and speech should be mostly unfiltered. If people want to spread information that denies the moon landing or climate change, or extols the existence of teapots revolving about the sun, by all means. I'd rather know who they are and allow them to publicly exercise their ignorance. I assume the public would help cause a correction of the zeitgeist. On the other hand, the fact is that some people become deeply misinformed and do things against their own interests (e.g. voting for a candidate who promises to undo systems that benefit the voter), which can effect all of us. To spare us from going into the rabbit hole of a party politics, I'll just say I read a recent interview with a voter who wants to get rid of x, even though x in particular crucially provides them a life-saving benefit of y, which they want to keep. How does that even make sense? You delve deeper, and realize that some individuals just listen to the mantra of x being advertised as a terrible thing by certain media and public figures, which is easier to understand than to go into the details as to how specifically it's good and how it specifically could be improved upon. I'd also add technology, like the internet and smartphones, is affecting our behavior far faster than we're aware and in some ways, I think we need to acknowledge our vulnerability. When media companies or groups of websites can cheaply spread misinformation, it is VERY HARD to combat it, because good information takes time to produce and interpret.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Your concerns are entirely fair, but this also isn't a new issue. Tabloid journalism has been a problem for as long as there have been tabloids. That phenomenon is well known to be highly influential around election times among the part of the population who read those tabloids, even though often that same part of the population will be hurt the most by the measures they are supporting but don't fully understand.
- gaius 10y ago
  I mean we tell kids to be wary of strangers, but we can't assign a policeman to every stranger. Continuing this analogy - it actually turns out in practice that child abusers are almost never strangers, but someone known to the child, such as a teacher.
deevolution 10y ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/Bullshit/crap_detection.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwja4-OTwdHSAhXK5iYKHQzKBSoQFggkMAE&usg=AFQjCNGK-9uvmS_2EKdgDpgd8Wz8e7ji1Q https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://... Its opinion, but there are definitely people out there who support this approach, such as Neil Postman. Its called crap detection.

Opinion. I mean we tell kids to be wary of strangers, but we can't assign a policeman to every stranger. Easier to teach people that they can be deceived or that bad things can happen, than to prevent any deception or bad thing from ever occurring.

phy6 10y ago
Thank you for the common sense analogy. I have a 'hunch' that one could whip up a proof based on countably vs uncountably infinite mappings where the number of ways to deceive/offend outweigh the number of authorities which could police them, even assuming such ideals as perfect enforcement and willingness to submit to being policed (i.e. international uniformity of laws). But that's just a first-coffee-of-the-morning hunch.
- maroonblazer 10y ago
  My math prowess isn't up to the task but I'd love to see such a proof if it exists. Not because I don't believe it would support the point (I have the same 'hunch') but because the math geek in me would eat it up.
- schoen 10y ago
  It's hard to see how theorems about infinite sets can apply directly apply to human relationships. Maybe you'll just make a heuristic argument showing that something grows as n² or 2ⁿ? For example, the number of possible relationships among n people grows as n². The world's population of about 7490000000 individuals would support about 28050049996255000000 potential relationships between individuals, or twice that many opinions that individuals have about one another.
phy6 10y ago
I also subscribe to the opinion that total avoidance of bad things is impossible, and that preparation for handling life's faults is a necessary part of the programming each person should have.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  preparation for handling life's faults is a necessary part of the programming each person should have That's a reasonable position, but sometimes no amount of preparation can give the little guy adequate protection against a big guy seeking to exploit him. That's why we have legal systems and regulatory frameworks in the first place, and providing a deterrent against big guys taking unfair advantage to reduce the number of times it happens and some sort of remedy for the little guy in the remaining cases is generally a good thing even if it's not a perfect solution.
scholia 10y ago
How do you cope with the fact that a large slice of the population seeks out bad things and refuses good things? The obvious examples are US news sources such as Fox News, Breitbart and Infowars [1]. However, it could also apply to fast food eating habits. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8 http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudg...
- colmvp 10y ago
  I don't know how to reconcile this. On the one hand, I believe information and speech should be mostly unfiltered. If people want to spread information that denies the moon landing or climate change, or extols the existence of teapots revolving about the sun, by all means. I'd rather know who they are and allow them to publicly exercise their ignorance. I assume the public would help cause a correction of the zeitgeist. On the other hand, the fact is that some people become deeply misinformed and do things against their own interests (e.g. voting for a candidate who promises to undo systems that benefit the voter), which can effect all of us. To spare us from going into the rabbit hole of a party politics, I'll just say I read a recent interview with a voter who wants to get rid of x, even though x in particular crucially provides them a life-saving benefit of y, which they want to keep. How does that even make sense? You delve deeper, and realize that some individuals just listen to the mantra of x being advertised as a terrible thing by certain media and public figures, which is easier to understand than to go into the details as to how specifically it's good and how it specifically could be improved upon. I'd also add technology, like the internet and smartphones, is affecting our behavior far faster than we're aware and in some ways, I think we need to acknowledge our vulnerability. When media companies or groups of websites can cheaply spread misinformation, it is VERY HARD to combat it, because good information takes time to produce and interpret.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Your concerns are entirely fair, but this also isn't a new issue. Tabloid journalism has been a problem for as long as there have been tabloids. That phenomenon is well known to be highly influential around election times among the part of the population who read those tabloids, even though often that same part of the population will be hurt the most by the measures they are supporting but don't fully understand.
gaius 10y ago
I mean we tell kids to be wary of strangers, but we can't assign a policeman to every stranger. Continuing this analogy - it actually turns out in practice that child abusers are almost never strangers, but someone known to the child, such as a teacher.

deevolution 10y ago

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/Bullshit/crap_detection.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwja4-OTwdHSAhXK5iYKHQzKBSoQFggkMAE&usg=AFQjCNGK-9uvmS_2EKdgDpgd8Wz8e7ji1Q https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://... Its opinion, but there are definitely people out there who support this approach, such as Neil Postman. Its called crap detection.