4 ms·

Well said. So, someone spouts a well researched conspiracy and others engage in a conversation and the person gets to recite their well prepared talking points

Well said. So, someone spouts a well researched conspiracy and others engage in a conversation and the person gets to recite their well prepared talking points. That feels good to the person, that's positive reinforcement. That's a story they can take to their online echo chamber for even more positive feedback. They hold on to the conspiracy as something to talk about, and as something they can feel superior about. So should we just avoid debate? That doesn't seem right.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
The scenario I had in mind was not debate, just information exchange. Imagine a person meeting friends in a bar, or at a dinner party. They're likely to exchange stories they read about in the news. "So this politician said $outrageous-thing!" (taken outside of context, but who cares), says the person. "Oh yeah, all X are bad, have you heard of $event-that-never-actually-happened?", replies the person B. The conversation goes on. Ultimately, little to no truth was exchanged, but people bonded together. Fiction served its social function. IME, this is how most not-directly-impactful knowledge is used by people. I've been in countless such situations, and it's painful for people with stronger affinity to truth. Unfortunately, under the guise of "good manners", society teaches you to shut up. We shouldn't avoid debate. We just need to ensure that people debating are there to discover the truth, and not just pick up morsels to share at dinner parties.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >Imagine a person meeting friends in a bar, or at a dinner party. They're likely to exchange stories they read about in the news. "So this politician said $outrageous-thing!" (taken outside of context, but who cares), says the person. "Oh yeah, all X are bad, have you heard of $event-that-never-actually-happened?", replies the person B. The conversation goes on. Ultimately, little to no truth was exchanged, but people bonded together. Fiction served its social function. If I hear something that seems right and I start repeating it, I generally try to go check if I am talking rubbish or not. If I find out that I am, I stop repeating the thing, or I include the truth next to the story, if the story is entertaining enough in and of itself. I tried to explain why I do this, while having a recent discussion with a visitor about the Navy vs Lighthouse story - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_urban_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_ur... and was told that what I was doing was anti-social and that I wasn't helping anyone by being interested in the truth of things that people have said. I tried to explain that I was doing it to satisfy my own curiosity for the main part, and this completely floored them. They could not understand the motivation of being personally interested in the reality of a story, for them the only value was if they liked the story.
  - honzzz 7y ago
    Interesting - I've heard this, but always as a joke. It never occurred to me that anyone could actually believe it. I am not saying that you did that but I can imagine how someone explaining to the laughing audience that this event did not really happen would be kind of anti-social.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      There is no good way to explain it to them. You do it at the moment the story is told, you're seen as a killjoy and a smartass. You wait until after the meeting to correct the person who told it, and (unless you're really good friends with them) you'll likely offend them ("why would you correct me on something so trivial?!"). You could try and wait a couple of days, and then stage a sudden discovery ("oh, I'll be damned, I just read that $story is not actually true!"), but the objection of would-be offended person is still technically valid - why are you expending so much effort on something so trivial? So in the end, this stuff gets largely uncorrected.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        >You do it at the moment the story is told, you're seen as a killjoy and a smartass. I have long found the fact that 'trying to be smart' is an insult in our society, to be a source of both bewilderment and depression. I remember being utterly confused when even the teachers would use it at school. I'd ask them why we were at school, if we were not trying to be smart? Which would then get me into trouble, presumably for trying to be smart. After a while I got bitter about this and my response turned into; 'Yes I am. Tell me, how is trying to be thick working out for you?', which still got me into trouble, but with more entertaining results.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Yeah, it is. Which circles back to my original comment - regular people don't care about being right except in things directly and immediately impacting their lives. Note however that in both cases they (and generally all humans, to some extent) care about their relative status; in most circumstances (especially when in a group), correcting someone will be seen as an attempt to diminish their social status. It's unfortunate that this is the case, and a lot of people who honestly value being correct have to struggle with getting the handle on this whole status mechanism. I'm not even blaming most people that much here; I do my best to always accept corrections well, and I still at times feel bad or get angry when someone points out that I'm talking nonsense.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  and that's why I hate people and think bonding is for animals, not for Sapiens.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    Except that we are animals. Something tells me that not acknowledging this might be related to your hatred of people ?
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      how about this form? if animal and (not Sapiens) bond else you don't really need it dude > Something tells me that not acknowledging this might be related to your hatred of people ? You're just assuming, instinctively. That's what lesser animals do.
BubRoss 7y ago
> So should we just avoid debate? That doesn't seem right. He never said that at all.
mistermann 7y ago
That sounds about right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War "As Secretary of State Powell summarized in his February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."[34] On February 11, 2003, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion."[35][36] On April 10, 2003, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer reiterated that, "But make no mistake—as I said earlier—we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."[37] Despite the Bush Administration's consistent assertion that Iraqi weapons programs justified an invasion, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz later cast doubt on the Administration's conviction behind this rationale by saying in a May 2003 interview: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue—weapons of mass destruction—because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."[38]" "After the invasion, despite an exhaustive search led by the Iraq Survey Group involving a more than 1,400 member team, no evidence of Iraqi weapons programs was found. On the contrary, the investigation concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of weapons of mass destructions and ceased production in 1991 when sanctions were imposed.[39][40][41] The failure to find evidence of Iraqi weapons programs following the invasion led to considerable controversy in the United States and worldwide, including claims by critics of the war that the Bush and Blair Administrations deliberately manipulated and misused intelligence to push for an invasion. " I wonder what kind of mischief these fellows are up to these days, or have they all retired?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The scenario I had in mind was not debate, just information exchange. Imagine a person meeting friends in a bar, or at a dinner party. They're likely to exchange stories they read about in the news. "So this politician said $outrageous-thing!" (taken outside of context, but who cares), says the person. "Oh yeah, all X are bad, have you heard of $event-that-never-actually-happened?", replies the person B. The conversation goes on. Ultimately, little to no truth was exchanged, but people bonded together. Fiction served its social function. IME, this is how most not-directly-impactful knowledge is used by people. I've been in countless such situations, and it's painful for people with stronger affinity to truth. Unfortunately, under the guise of "good manners", society teaches you to shut up. We shouldn't avoid debate. We just need to ensure that people debating are there to discover the truth, and not just pick up morsels to share at dinner parties.

inflatableDodo 7y ago
>Imagine a person meeting friends in a bar, or at a dinner party. They're likely to exchange stories they read about in the news. "So this politician said $outrageous-thing!" (taken outside of context, but who cares), says the person. "Oh yeah, all X are bad, have you heard of $event-that-never-actually-happened?", replies the person B. The conversation goes on. Ultimately, little to no truth was exchanged, but people bonded together. Fiction served its social function. If I hear something that seems right and I start repeating it, I generally try to go check if I am talking rubbish or not. If I find out that I am, I stop repeating the thing, or I include the truth next to the story, if the story is entertaining enough in and of itself. I tried to explain why I do this, while having a recent discussion with a visitor about the Navy vs Lighthouse story - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_urban_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_ur... and was told that what I was doing was anti-social and that I wasn't helping anyone by being interested in the truth of things that people have said. I tried to explain that I was doing it to satisfy my own curiosity for the main part, and this completely floored them. They could not understand the motivation of being personally interested in the reality of a story, for them the only value was if they liked the story.
- honzzz 7y ago
  Interesting - I've heard this, but always as a joke. It never occurred to me that anyone could actually believe it. I am not saying that you did that but I can imagine how someone explaining to the laughing audience that this event did not really happen would be kind of anti-social.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    There is no good way to explain it to them. You do it at the moment the story is told, you're seen as a killjoy and a smartass. You wait until after the meeting to correct the person who told it, and (unless you're really good friends with them) you'll likely offend them ("why would you correct me on something so trivial?!"). You could try and wait a couple of days, and then stage a sudden discovery ("oh, I'll be damned, I just read that $story is not actually true!"), but the objection of would-be offended person is still technically valid - why are you expending so much effort on something so trivial? So in the end, this stuff gets largely uncorrected.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      >You do it at the moment the story is told, you're seen as a killjoy and a smartass. I have long found the fact that 'trying to be smart' is an insult in our society, to be a source of both bewilderment and depression. I remember being utterly confused when even the teachers would use it at school. I'd ask them why we were at school, if we were not trying to be smart? Which would then get me into trouble, presumably for trying to be smart. After a while I got bitter about this and my response turned into; 'Yes I am. Tell me, how is trying to be thick working out for you?', which still got me into trouble, but with more entertaining results.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Yeah, it is. Which circles back to my original comment - regular people don't care about being right except in things directly and immediately impacting their lives. Note however that in both cases they (and generally all humans, to some extent) care about their relative status; in most circumstances (especially when in a group), correcting someone will be seen as an attempt to diminish their social status. It's unfortunate that this is the case, and a lot of people who honestly value being correct have to struggle with getting the handle on this whole status mechanism. I'm not even blaming most people that much here; I do my best to always accept corrections well, and I still at times feel bad or get angry when someone points out that I'm talking nonsense.
lostjohnny 7y ago
and that's why I hate people and think bonding is for animals, not for Sapiens.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Except that we are animals. Something tells me that not acknowledging this might be related to your hatred of people ?
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    how about this form? if animal and (not Sapiens) bond else you don't really need it dude > Something tells me that not acknowledging this might be related to your hatred of people ? You're just assuming, instinctively. That's what lesser animals do.

BubRoss 7y ago

> So should we just avoid debate? That doesn't seem right. He never said that at all.

mistermann 7y ago

That sounds about right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War "As Secretary of State Powell summarized in his February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."[34] On February 11, 2003, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion."[35][36] On April 10, 2003, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer reiterated that, "But make no mistake—as I said earlier—we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."[37] Despite the Bush Administration's consistent assertion that Iraqi weapons programs justified an invasion, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz later cast doubt on the Administration's conviction behind this rationale by saying in a May 2003 interview: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue—weapons of mass destruction—because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."[38]" "After the invasion, despite an exhaustive search led by the Iraq Survey Group involving a more than 1,400 member team, no evidence of Iraqi weapons programs was found. On the contrary, the investigation concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of weapons of mass destructions and ceased production in 1991 when sanctions were imposed.[39][40][41] The failure to find evidence of Iraqi weapons programs following the invasion led to considerable controversy in the United States and worldwide, including claims by critics of the war that the Bush and Blair Administrations deliberately manipulated and misused intelligence to push for an invasion. " I wonder what kind of mischief these fellows are up to these days, or have they all retired?