3 ms·
> the ultimate ‘last line of defense’ will be users who are willing to question ‘what they see and hear’ Nobody cares because they're more interested in their
by platz 8y ago
> the ultimate ‘last line of defense’ will be users who are willing to question ‘what they see and hear’
Nobody cares because they're more interested in their team winning, by whatever means necessary, than being charitable.
> who recently stepped down from his role as Chief Security Officer
... But couldn't make that argument or be effective in that capacity while employed. That is why we need something like codetermination - so that, completely internally, workers can have influence on what to produce, how to produce, and where to produce it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sverige 8y agoThe real problem is the part of the quote you left out, "even when it means questioning our own beliefs.” I don't meet many people these days who are willing to do that, and I suspect that a scary percentage of them aren't capable of questioning their own beliefs.
- platz 8y agoFundamental attribution error. It is not good to assume a mental defect on vast swaths of the population. That itself is attributing an irrational motive for their actions before considering if there may be a rational one. That is itself is the definition of uncharity. (But in a different capacity that what I outlined above) Again, consider that many of these folks are doing so from a rational choice, which is to defeat the other side - they understand it to be a zero-sum contest. You can either win or lose, your choice.
- sverige 8y agoWell, I guess that's what I'm getting at: is it really rational to assume that it's a zero-sum game? The history I've studied indicates it is not, at least until the totalitarians show up. But the antidote to totalitarianism isn't better totalitarianism, it is refusing to look at your neighbors as politically binary.
- platz 8y agoAh yes, I hear you
- nothrabannosir 8y agoI like the sound of this, but aren't you basically arguing against the existence of biases? E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism Seems to me, honestly, like a fair hypothesis for our tribal behavior. Moreso, to be honest, than the majority of people "understanding it to be a zero-sum contest". Do you think that's too cynical?
- platz 8y agoI'm exaggerating a bit to make a point (my actual view is slightly less Stark) that I think gets brushed off or overlooked too easily (but is important) I think the reasons are more multivariate than a single psychological principle. But yes, in-groupism is a component I do think. But that is a component against the backdrop of societal and geographical sorting among a whole set of preferences and values e.g. (can predict a lot more about you if you are blue or red because we've all sorted ourselves) as an example of another component.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> Nobody cares because they're more interested in their team winning, by whatever means necessary, than being charitable. I'd say that few people have a reason to care about the truth at all at this level. Take natural world: people will believe whatever bullshit someone sells to them, because unless you're a scientist or engineer in a field that requires you to be right, the lie has zero first-order impact on your life. What people do want to do in general is to be likable, feel accepted in the groups they belong to, and feel OK with themselves. If a belief helps facilitate that, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. I'd say at least half of the problem is that most of the information people need to vote well - even for their own interest - has little first-order impact on their lives. I.e. it's an artifact of specialization. Because when you look even at those uneducated people, in the areas of life they deal with daily, they turn out to be pretty smart and have accurate beliefs.
- pjc50 8y ago> Take natural world: people will believe whatever bullshit someone sells to them, because unless you're a scientist or engineer in a field that requires you to be right, the lie has zero first-order impact on your life There's a substantial alternative medicine / anti-vax movement where believing this bullshit will have real negative consequenses for people's health.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoI know, and I believe it's because the consequences are still not direct enough. Diseases strike at random, and curing them is a complex process (often involving the illness going away on its own, or actual medicine not working). The temporal separation between cause and effect is large enough to allow some people to believe in altmed/antivax nonsense.
- platz 8y ago> has little first-order impact on their lives I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. But I wonder why/how the group feels so passionate about these first order impacts and coordinate acts and values, if the individuals see little first-order impacts on their lives (and are just acting socially as you describe) Somehow the group is perceiving effects differently than individuals then