7 ms·

That's not what this story is about though (admittedly IM sometime not so HO). It's about how seemingly small mistakes end up shaping an entirely made version o

by roel_v 8y ago

That's not what this story is about though (admittedly IM sometime not so HO). It's about how seemingly small mistakes end up shaping an entirely made version of history, even at a time when clickbait listicles and Russian troll farms didn't control public discourse yet. If some immaterial detail like this was so grossly wrong, what else is wrong? Is there no way to trust anything we read? What is the value of decades of archives of websites and newspapers when nobody has any incentive to correct or maintain any of it? Is it time to start building a 'web of trust' for information 'chunks', as the original PGP set out to do in the 90's for people? Should we just acknowledge that we've lost the battle on 'finding the Truth'? Those are more material questions that whether or not this one guy saved 0 or 10 people 20 years ago, and whether that warrants a motorcycle tribute ride to be named after him.

mindcrime 8y ago
That's not what this story is about though (admittedly IM sometime not so HO). I would agree that that's not all the story is about. It just happens the be the part that touched a nerve for me. Otherwise, I don't disagree with you. I think there are a lot of open questions about understanding the nature of "truth" on the web these days. Is it time to start building a 'web of trust' for information 'chunks', as the original PGP set out to do in the 90's for people? Good question. Skeptics will say that this approach has been proven to not work. I might counter that we just haven't figured out how to get the details right yet.
- roel_v 8y ago
  "I would agree that that's not all the story is about. It just happens the be the part that touched a nerve for me." Fair enough, I guess we agree then :)
kgwxd 8y ago
"If some immaterial detail like this was so grossly wrong, what else is wrong?" Most likely everything. That is why any information that isn't reproducible should be considered just a story, nothing more. There might be some value to take away from it, but nothing much better than what you can get from fiction. I don't get how anyone that has played Telephone can take history seriously, there's just no chance of getting an accurate version. Even news from yesterday, with recorded audio and video, doesn't capture enough to get important details right.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  "Don't even try to know" is a pretty bad mindset to apply to every event that has ever happened.
- bostik 8y ago
  Well, there are three truths. 1. What really happened. 2. How the people involved remember it. 3. How it gets recorded. The potential for gross distortion between steps is a fact, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything you read or hear is false. And indeed, details are the first thing to get twisted. It's usually (or, "often enough") the major themes that survive. Assuming that everything is a lie means you're paranoid. Assuming that everybody lies means you're sensible. How truth survives through that is left as an exercise for the reader.
  - hopler 8y ago
    Considering the major themes that the majority of humanity believes in are the various flavors of Biblical ones, I don't have a lot of hope for Truth. Ultimately, if you can't verify a fact yourself, it's either irrelevant (so doesn't matter if it's true, just have fun) or highly suspect.
- peterburkimsher 8y ago
  "just a story" is still important if there's a lesson to learn. Whether we're discussing Aesop's fables or religion, there are a lot of stories with real-life application. Reading the article made me feel deflated, powerless about the spread of disinformation. But mindcrime's top-level comment told me what to do (risk my life to help others), and the story made me imagine a situation when I could do that. Even though I now know the story isn't true, the way I would apply the lesson is still the same. Having read the comment and thought about how my actions can change in the future, I now feel hopeful. I'm grateful for this community for providing that.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    But mindcrime's top-level comment told me what to do (risk my life to help others), and the story made me imagine a situation when I could do that. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be prescriptive here. I don't mean to tell you to go out and look for a chance to die young by risking your life. And even among trained emergency responders, there's a constant need to remind people in training to not develop "hero complex" and wind up risking yourself needlessly. Even firefighters do have situations where they opt for "discretion as the better part of valor." All I intend to say is that those people who, when presented with an emergency situation, elect to put themselves in harms way for the sake of others, earn - in my mind - a certain measure of nobility and special esteem. But I don't want to encourage people to put themselves in danger when they really aren't prepared / equipped to help. I know that seems like a subtle distinction, but I'd encourage everyone to keep it in mind. A heroic death may be noble, but it's still a death. And every death is a tragedy for someone. Wives, husbands, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends, etc. may feel terrific pride in such an event, but they'll also feel terrible pain.
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
Half of history is full of lie and garbage. Wishfull thinking by all interested groups (mostly males and female interest groups, with there offspring in seperate more radical groups) deforms it. The history of roman emeperors, is a never ceasing account of vile men ursurping one another- not because they where all good or evil, but because everyone denounced the old emperor. So you do not know. You can guess, by the sideffects (city expansion, wealth and lack of starvation deaths). History is detective work- and most of the time the case goes unsolved. Regarding heroes- if you open the hatch and look on the lives of the indivdual, its always greyish. Nobodys perfect. But if you run into the wrong direction. Be it because bowl cancer is eating away at you, because you have a psychatric condition, are a adrenaline junkie or whatever - and you do attempt to help one person- you are a hero. And all passive-agressive microanalyzing as downsizing by those who would not do that- cant take that away.

by roel_v 8y ago

mindcrime 8y ago

That's not what this story is about though (admittedly IM sometime not so HO). I would agree that that's not all the story is about. It just happens the be the part that touched a nerve for me. Otherwise, I don't disagree with you. I think there are a lot of open questions about understanding the nature of "truth" on the web these days. Is it time to start building a 'web of trust' for information 'chunks', as the original PGP set out to do in the 90's for people? Good question. Skeptics will say that this approach has been proven to not work. I might counter that we just haven't figured out how to get the details right yet.

roel_v 8y ago
"I would agree that that's not all the story is about. It just happens the be the part that touched a nerve for me." Fair enough, I guess we agree then :)

kgwxd 8y ago

"If some immaterial detail like this was so grossly wrong, what else is wrong?" Most likely everything. That is why any information that isn't reproducible should be considered just a story, nothing more. There might be some value to take away from it, but nothing much better than what you can get from fiction. I don't get how anyone that has played Telephone can take history seriously, there's just no chance of getting an accurate version. Even news from yesterday, with recorded audio and video, doesn't capture enough to get important details right.

Dylan16807 8y ago
"Don't even try to know" is a pretty bad mindset to apply to every event that has ever happened.
bostik 8y ago
Well, there are three truths. 1. What really happened. 2. How the people involved remember it. 3. How it gets recorded. The potential for gross distortion between steps is a fact, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything you read or hear is false. And indeed, details are the first thing to get twisted. It's usually (or, "often enough") the major themes that survive. Assuming that everything is a lie means you're paranoid. Assuming that everybody lies means you're sensible. How truth survives through that is left as an exercise for the reader.
- hopler 8y ago
  Considering the major themes that the majority of humanity believes in are the various flavors of Biblical ones, I don't have a lot of hope for Truth. Ultimately, if you can't verify a fact yourself, it's either irrelevant (so doesn't matter if it's true, just have fun) or highly suspect.
peterburkimsher 8y ago
"just a story" is still important if there's a lesson to learn. Whether we're discussing Aesop's fables or religion, there are a lot of stories with real-life application. Reading the article made me feel deflated, powerless about the spread of disinformation. But mindcrime's top-level comment told me what to do (risk my life to help others), and the story made me imagine a situation when I could do that. Even though I now know the story isn't true, the way I would apply the lesson is still the same. Having read the comment and thought about how my actions can change in the future, I now feel hopeful. I'm grateful for this community for providing that.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  But mindcrime's top-level comment told me what to do (risk my life to help others), and the story made me imagine a situation when I could do that. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be prescriptive here. I don't mean to tell you to go out and look for a chance to die young by risking your life. And even among trained emergency responders, there's a constant need to remind people in training to not develop "hero complex" and wind up risking yourself needlessly. Even firefighters do have situations where they opt for "discretion as the better part of valor." All I intend to say is that those people who, when presented with an emergency situation, elect to put themselves in harms way for the sake of others, earn - in my mind - a certain measure of nobility and special esteem. But I don't want to encourage people to put themselves in danger when they really aren't prepared / equipped to help. I know that seems like a subtle distinction, but I'd encourage everyone to keep it in mind. A heroic death may be noble, but it's still a death. And every death is a tragedy for someone. Wives, husbands, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends, etc. may feel terrific pride in such an event, but they'll also feel terrible pain.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago

Half of history is full of lie and garbage. Wishfull thinking by all interested groups (mostly males and female interest groups, with there offspring in seperate more radical groups) deforms it. The history of roman emeperors, is a never ceasing account of vile men ursurping one another- not because they where all good or evil, but because everyone denounced the old emperor. So you do not know. You can guess, by the sideffects (city expansion, wealth and lack of starvation deaths). History is detective work- and most of the time the case goes unsolved. Regarding heroes- if you open the hatch and look on the lives of the indivdual, its always greyish. Nobodys perfect. But if you run into the wrong direction. Be it because bowl cancer is eating away at you, because you have a psychatric condition, are a adrenaline junkie or whatever - and you do attempt to help one person- you are a hero. And all passive-agressive microanalyzing as downsizing by those who would not do that- cant take that away.