4 ms·
Have you heard of the Murray Gellmann Amnesia Effect? How do you know the source you are reading is trustworthy? I've witnessed the Murray Gellmann effect in
by skh 8y ago
Have you heard of the Murray Gellmann Amnesia Effect? How do you know the source you are reading is trustworthy? I've witnessed the Murray Gellmann effect in my area of specialty which is mathematics. It makes me wonder about articles in areas outside of my specialty.
I recently watched the Netflix documentary on the Fyre Festival. I also watched the one on Hulu. One of the documentaries was produced by a company involved in that whole mess but you wouldn't be able to tell by watching the documentary. Due to consolidation of media it seems to me that it is easier to spin and control a narrative. I don't think any of the popular sources of information are trustworthy.
- casefields 8y agoFor those that don't know, here is Michael Crichton's speech where it comes from: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” Whole speech here: http://docdro.id/4wgVecr http://docdro.id/4wgVecr
- zimpenfish 8y ago> then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read Surely that only works if the same combination of journalists and subeditors work on all the stories? Just because Margaret has written some pop-sci junk about robots doesn't suddenly make Malcolm's commentary on Botswana any less valid.
- skh 8y agoAn expert read articles in his area of expertise and found them to be rubbish. Thus his anecdotal evidence is that the reporters get it wrong and so he shouldn't be so willing to accept as correct articles in areas outside of his expertise. If newspapers get it wrong in areas you know about then why should one think they get it right in areas you don't know about?
- ModernMech 8y agoBecause it's lazy to just assume newspapers are always wrong about everything. If we don't assume newspapers are always wrong about everything, we can assume they are sometimes wrong about some things and sometimes right about other things. That makes reading the news a fact finding mission. Discerning the truth from fiction is just part of life.
- skh 8y agoThe point isn’t that one should assume they are always wrong it is that one shouldn’t assume they are always right.
- ModernMech 8y agoYou started this thread with a claim of "I don't think any of the popular sources of information are trustworthy." That seems to be a position of default assuming they are wrong.
- skh 8y agoSaying that something is not trustworthy is literally saying it is not something that is able to be relied upon to be truthful. This means one should not assume the source is correct. It certainly doesn't mean to assume it is wrong.
- zimpenfish 8y ago> he shouldn't be so willing to accept as correct articles in areas outside of his expertise Let me refocus that to highlight the silliness: > If doctors get it wrong in areas you know about then why should one think they get it right in areas you don't know about? If my doctor knows not even the slightest tiniest thing about computers, the internet, etc., I'm still going to trust him on medicinal matters.
- ModernMech 8y agoThe solution to biased or inaccurate sources isn't to consume no sources. It's to consume more than one source, preferably many. When you see the same story reported in 6 different ways, you start to notice patterns. You see that certain sources leave out crucial information, while others focus on those. You see headlines written in salacious forms, and sometimes you see a headline change during the course of the day because, perhaps the original one wasn't generating enough clicks. For a critical reader, these clues help to make one more critical, not less, no matter how biased the source.
- whatshisface 8y agoEach source writes its own take, but what if the truth is Option Three, which none of the biased articles support?
- ModernMech 8y agoIt's incumbent upon the reader to consider all options. This includes the options presented, and options omitted. Recognizing when options are omitted and why is a great way to find the truth. This is where critical reading comes in.
- Retric 8y agoHuman memory is really bad at these kinds of subtle differences. You are just as likely to recall what seemed at the time obviously false information. This is why “stay on message” is the fallback plan when peddling bullshit, it works. In the end you are much better off avoiding highly biased sources than trying to use them. This might change if you are doing a dissertation or something, but not for day to day stuff.
- ModernMech 8y agoI made a point to say biased because I believe everything has a bias. There is no such thing as bias free, and any source that tries to claim no bias is trying to trick you. I personally avoid "ertremely biased" entirely; you only go to places like Brietbart if you only want to buy what they are selling. But the fact remains I can go to any story there and point out the flaws because I have a whole universe of other facts to work with.