7 ms·
It is correct that you don't need a math degree to detect data b.s. However, the suggested "red flag" method is only part of the solution. You learn to detect
by erikb 9y ago
It is correct that you don't need a math degree to detect data b.s.
However, the suggested "red flag" method is only part of the solution. You learn to detect the red flags and you understand, if red flags accumulate, to start worrying about the truthness of what you are presented...
and then you hit a bullshitter or lyier who, through skill or pure luck, starts validating things that you know are probably wrong but really really hope to be true. And suddenly you yourself start to support the b.s. thesis because you really want it to be true. Then, what do red flags help you? You will actively try to invalidate them. They may stay objectively true, but in our poorly structured, limited way of thinking, they won't.
The true art of survival is to detect when something is pulling your inner optimist. You need to learn to recognize when this guy wakes up. And when he wakes up you need to assume that you are being cheated, that someone is actively trying to sell you something you wouldn't buy otherwise. Because if there is a person with malicious intend all other ways of thinking will make him win. But if it's just coincidence it doesn't hurt to protect yourself.
Defending yourself usually means to ignore your pride and ignore logic and simply look out to not invest anything. Not your time, not your money, don't give signatures, don't stay on the phone call [1], drop the book.
So the true solution to b.s. is: Learn to recognize when somehting pulls you in, and when you detect it start defending against it by not giving in.
[1] i.e., https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6ix0jy/irs_says_i_owe_them_money_theres_a_warrant_for_my/ https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6ix0jy/irs...
- gaius 9y agoand then you hit a bullshitter or lyier who, through skill or pure luck, starts validating things that you know are probably wrong but really really hope to be truey wrong but really really hope to be true. And suddenly you yourself start to support the b.s. thesis because you really want it to be true. There's a word for this kind of person: politician.
- keithpeter 9y agoA friend of mine often expresses similar sentiments. My normal reaction is to ask "what would you have instead of politicians?". He has problems forming a coherent answer. What would your answer be?
- chiefalchemist 9y agoPoliticians are, by definition, shapeshifters. Or, at least, that's how it used to work. Now they're narrowly defined silos where (the normally human) "flip flopping" (i.e., learning more and updating their position) is considered a form of weakness. Imagine that. The one thing that enabled the species to survive and thrive is suddenly off limits. What can go wrong? Note: I'm not blaming politicians. It's a reflection of all of us.
- meric 9y agoThe problem is we are voting for people while imagining ourselves voting for policies.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoYup. Or as I like to say: We elect the electable. Qualifications and capabilities are irrelevant. And they we wonder why they're so incompetent. It's a sad state of affairs really.
- lprubin 9y agoFor me this sentiment just means it's good to have a healthy skepticism of everything politicians say.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoYes. But nine of ten times that data (if you will) comes pre-filtered by The Media. Pardon me, but most of them don't seem qualified to make me coffee. Yet they are the ones most responsible for crafting public opinion. Perhaps the messenger should be (metaphorically) shot?
- keithpeter 9y agoI suspect that public opinion is less craft-able than has been previously thought, or at least that is what I think is the takeaway from the UK EU referendum and the last couple of general elections (GE2015 and GE2017 in the jargon). What 'qualifications' do you see as appropriate for election to (say) Parliament?