3 ms·

While I respect your opinions of the press, I must also rhetorically ask, “Are you sure you want to be taking these men at their word?” https://m.telegraphindi

While I respect your opinions of the press, I must also rhetorically ask, “Are you sure you want to be taking these men at their word?” https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/some-clues/cid/1669915 https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/some-clues/cid/1669915

Theodores 8y ago
I am not trying to cause a flamewar here. Or to go off down on any rabbit holes. Even the most odious of people can be taken at their word about some things. The heroin addict in the village might not be responsible for every burglary in the village even if they are responsible for 95% of them. In England we have a tradition that people are innocent until proven guilty. RussiaGate and whatever happened in your linked story very much falls under that category.
- salawat 8y ago
  My neighbor tells me they never let their dog defecate in my yard. Guess what? With not even that much effort I can find out that their dog is outside and unattended most of the day. (Means/Opportunity) I can infer they don't like to leash the dog, due to the frequency the dog can be found roaming the neighborhood. (Motive) I've seem the neighbors unattended dog defecate in other neighbors yards. (Precedent) I've even had to walk it home a couple of times as well. (more precedent) I COULD go through the trouble of setting up a bunch of cameras to catch it red pawed as it were, however, that's kind of a moot point, because I know the neighbor has the means, motive, opportunity, and a history of prior behavior. This is not only a preponderance of evidence, but in the absence of someone else's dog traipsing through my property, this could even be legally considered beyond a reasonable doubt. After reading your various replies, I just want to leave you with a word of caution: not everyone is worth trusting, even in the absence of direct proof. Especially if you can collect a preponderance of evidence that suggests that an action isn't outside their expected behavioral envelope. The biggest problem we face isn't a problem of unreliable sources, but a crisis of ease of manufacture of the blatantly untrue combined with an asymmetrical distribution of the necessary skills/tools to refute. We're still well equipped to deal with this type of situation, but it requires an elevated level of skepticism until we solve the problem of information provenance. If there is one thing we have, going for us, however, it is a large store of information recorded from times before misinformation was so trivially distributed and manufactured to work from, and the wherewithal to reason from it. Trust, I think, is going to develop into a completely different beast in the 21st century from what it was in the 20th.
kodz4 8y ago
That is what Empathy is. When you can only view the world in terms of who to hold responsible and who to Blame, you get hit in two ways. The chances of producing a reaction, defensiveness etc increase and the chances of connecting and producing healthier outcomes decrease. Blame takes focus away from where attention needs to be. Empathy does the opposite.

Theodores 8y ago

I am not trying to cause a flamewar here. Or to go off down on any rabbit holes. Even the most odious of people can be taken at their word about some things. The heroin addict in the village might not be responsible for every burglary in the village even if they are responsible for 95% of them. In England we have a tradition that people are innocent until proven guilty. RussiaGate and whatever happened in your linked story very much falls under that category.

salawat 8y ago
My neighbor tells me they never let their dog defecate in my yard. Guess what? With not even that much effort I can find out that their dog is outside and unattended most of the day. (Means/Opportunity) I can infer they don't like to leash the dog, due to the frequency the dog can be found roaming the neighborhood. (Motive) I've seem the neighbors unattended dog defecate in other neighbors yards. (Precedent) I've even had to walk it home a couple of times as well. (more precedent) I COULD go through the trouble of setting up a bunch of cameras to catch it red pawed as it were, however, that's kind of a moot point, because I know the neighbor has the means, motive, opportunity, and a history of prior behavior. This is not only a preponderance of evidence, but in the absence of someone else's dog traipsing through my property, this could even be legally considered beyond a reasonable doubt. After reading your various replies, I just want to leave you with a word of caution: not everyone is worth trusting, even in the absence of direct proof. Especially if you can collect a preponderance of evidence that suggests that an action isn't outside their expected behavioral envelope. The biggest problem we face isn't a problem of unreliable sources, but a crisis of ease of manufacture of the blatantly untrue combined with an asymmetrical distribution of the necessary skills/tools to refute. We're still well equipped to deal with this type of situation, but it requires an elevated level of skepticism until we solve the problem of information provenance. If there is one thing we have, going for us, however, it is a large store of information recorded from times before misinformation was so trivially distributed and manufactured to work from, and the wherewithal to reason from it. Trust, I think, is going to develop into a completely different beast in the 21st century from what it was in the 20th.

kodz4 8y ago

That is what Empathy is. When you can only view the world in terms of who to hold responsible and who to Blame, you get hit in two ways. The chances of producing a reaction, defensiveness etc increase and the chances of connecting and producing healthier outcomes decrease. Blame takes focus away from where attention needs to be. Empathy does the opposite.