4 ms·

I feel like you are willfully misunderstanding the article. To your first point, currency is a fiction, and any fiction can survive even if you are cognoscente

I feel like you are willfully misunderstanding the article. To your first point, currency is a fiction, and any fiction can survive even if you are cognoscente of the fact that it is a fiction. To your second point regarding only the 'bad guys' using fiction. He give the example of the tribe rising up against the Germans as 'good guys' using fiction, as well as Churchill. To your third point regarding taking sides, how is discussing the sides of an argument taking sides? And even if sides are taken, how does that weaken the core argument being made? The suggestion to seek out scientific literature for topics that an individual cares about is not a bad suggestion by any means. You are correct that the literature isn't perfect. Buy you are more likely to start gaining a less biased, holistic view of a topic than you would by reading any other sources. The core argument suggests that people simply need to ingest 'facts' with due diligence and a healthy degree of skepticism. So, this is a good treatment of the topic that has been published in a place that hopefully many people will read and take away a better understanding of the flow of facts in the world today than if they had not read it.

_cs2017_ 8y ago
What does it even mean to willfully misunderstand?? On currency as fiction: the author uses a very precise meaning of fiction: "untruth". I don't think that currency fits that meaning. Can you explain? On bad guys using fiction: ignore the word "bad". Why does the author complain that people use fiction, if he just explained it? On taking sides: in several modern conflicts he mentioned, the author emphasizes the use of fiction by one side but not the other. It's pretty obvious which side of the conflict the author is on. I didn't feel his expression of personal political views improves the article.
- totalperspectiv 8y ago
  After some reflection and a little trip down the existential rabbit hole, I think we both fell into the trap the author warns of (or at least I did) of viewing the article as wholely right or wholely wrong. I found the presentation of the fact that we as people tend to create fictions (which I would prefer to think of as narratives) in order to give ourselves some 'meaning' to latch onto a profound one. I also found it interesting to think of the current focus on fake news as a good thing.... In other words, we have become self aware enough to recognize what is happening at a macro level at least. Tl;dr: I think your points have merit, I was just reactionary because I saw something profound and wanted everyone to see it too, falling into the same trap as always.
PunchTornado 8y ago
of course it weakens the argument. you shouldn't take sides. if you take sides you misrepresent the other version. or you don't mention it altogether like he did. and he does takes sides.

_cs2017_ 8y ago

What does it even mean to willfully misunderstand?? On currency as fiction: the author uses a very precise meaning of fiction: "untruth". I don't think that currency fits that meaning. Can you explain? On bad guys using fiction: ignore the word "bad". Why does the author complain that people use fiction, if he just explained it? On taking sides: in several modern conflicts he mentioned, the author emphasizes the use of fiction by one side but not the other. It's pretty obvious which side of the conflict the author is on. I didn't feel his expression of personal political views improves the article.

totalperspectiv 8y ago
After some reflection and a little trip down the existential rabbit hole, I think we both fell into the trap the author warns of (or at least I did) of viewing the article as wholely right or wholely wrong. I found the presentation of the fact that we as people tend to create fictions (which I would prefer to think of as narratives) in order to give ourselves some 'meaning' to latch onto a profound one. I also found it interesting to think of the current focus on fake news as a good thing.... In other words, we have become self aware enough to recognize what is happening at a macro level at least. Tl;dr: I think your points have merit, I was just reactionary because I saw something profound and wanted everyone to see it too, falling into the same trap as always.

PunchTornado 8y ago

of course it weakens the argument. you shouldn't take sides. if you take sides you misrepresent the other version. or you don't mention it altogether like he did. and he does takes sides.