4 ms·

My thoughts exactly. You know what else can bias voters? Expert testimony, even in fields outside their expertise. Religious leaders. Teachers. Flyers. Ad

My thoughts exactly. You know what else can bias voters? Expert testimony, even in fields outside their expertise. Religious leaders. Teachers. Flyers. Advertisements. In fact, just about any form of communication by anybody. Without comparing the size of the bias to other forms of influence, this is a nearly contentless statement.

tj-teej 7y ago
I don't think it's contentless, because for a long time there was an idea that Social Media would free the general public from manipulation by a small group of wealthy/powerful individuals/corporations. This article is effectively implying that Social Media is no different to the influences you cite.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  Why would it be different? It is about how the brain works, and it applies across several forms of media.
  - mattnewton 7y ago
    I personally held the (probably mistaken) belief that by democratizing publishing information, it would be harder to create a false signal. Ie, if everyone has a printing press, then nobody can control the entire narrative, the way a handful of newspaper barons could. Instead, it seems to me now that giving everyone a printing press made so much noise that we still rely on centralized authorities to sort, rate and surface those that we want to read. And it made it cheaper, in terms of both reputation cost and money, for someone to create a bunch of false signal. The parallel to the printing was misleading, and the true outcome is much more complicated and mixed. The scale really changes how these things work, in terms of the incentives created and the sheer amount of content possible to consume.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Another possibility is that the "new" media threatens the "old" media so much that the old media feels compelled to exaggerate the problems with new media. Sure it's different. There is more noise than consensus. The next generation of humanity might well consider that a benefit. Don't expect old media to figure that out; all of their incentives pull in the other direction.
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Know how you get a human to believe something? Make them work for the information. The more someone works for information the more likely they are to believe it is valid. I think this is why you see modern educated people with such deference to the "experts". They know the hard work and the costs involved in becoming a academic and as such they value that experience with an almost religious fervor.
- Lendal 7y ago
  Wow. Are you really equating expertise with religious fervor? The anti-expertise movement is what I would describe as religious fervor, not the other way round.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    Real expertise isn't a problem. A expert plumber is shown to be so by his actions. Nobody would install a leaky faucet and be able to call himself an expert. An expert psychologist for example? Her patients can remain depressed, mutilate themselves, kill themselves and even kill others and yet she will remain an "expert" mostly on the basis that she was educated at a place that similarly ineffective experts have claimed is a good place for a psychologist to come from. I suppose the trouble is experts by education got lumped in by experts by results at some point down the line.
  - cat199 7y ago
    here, have some economics experts: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/view/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/view/ https://www.cato.org/research/growth-development https://www.cato.org/research/growth-development how big is the middle part of the venn diagram here? being skeptical of domain-experts is only 'religious fervor' if the field is cut-and-dried. many aren't
    - Lendal 7y ago
      Let me guess. You cherry-picked some cases where experts were wrong. Am I right? Here, read this: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge-dp-0190865970/dp/0190865970/ref=mt_paperback https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-... I don't have time for this.
RickJWagner 7y ago
Don't forget movie stars, pro athletes, etc. There seems to be a concentration of political activists among these. I very seriously doubt it's by coincidence.

tj-teej 7y ago

I don't think it's contentless, because for a long time there was an idea that Social Media would free the general public from manipulation by a small group of wealthy/powerful individuals/corporations. This article is effectively implying that Social Media is no different to the influences you cite.

ekianjo 7y ago
Why would it be different? It is about how the brain works, and it applies across several forms of media.
- mattnewton 7y ago
  I personally held the (probably mistaken) belief that by democratizing publishing information, it would be harder to create a false signal. Ie, if everyone has a printing press, then nobody can control the entire narrative, the way a handful of newspaper barons could. Instead, it seems to me now that giving everyone a printing press made so much noise that we still rely on centralized authorities to sort, rate and surface those that we want to read. And it made it cheaper, in terms of both reputation cost and money, for someone to create a bunch of false signal. The parallel to the printing was misleading, and the true outcome is much more complicated and mixed. The scale really changes how these things work, in terms of the incentives created and the sheer amount of content possible to consume.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Another possibility is that the "new" media threatens the "old" media so much that the old media feels compelled to exaggerate the problems with new media. Sure it's different. There is more noise than consensus. The next generation of humanity might well consider that a benefit. Don't expect old media to figure that out; all of their incentives pull in the other direction.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

Know how you get a human to believe something? Make them work for the information. The more someone works for information the more likely they are to believe it is valid. I think this is why you see modern educated people with such deference to the "experts". They know the hard work and the costs involved in becoming a academic and as such they value that experience with an almost religious fervor.

Lendal 7y ago
Wow. Are you really equating expertise with religious fervor? The anti-expertise movement is what I would describe as religious fervor, not the other way round.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Real expertise isn't a problem. A expert plumber is shown to be so by his actions. Nobody would install a leaky faucet and be able to call himself an expert. An expert psychologist for example? Her patients can remain depressed, mutilate themselves, kill themselves and even kill others and yet she will remain an "expert" mostly on the basis that she was educated at a place that similarly ineffective experts have claimed is a good place for a psychologist to come from. I suppose the trouble is experts by education got lumped in by experts by results at some point down the line.
- cat199 7y ago
  here, have some economics experts: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/view/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/view/ https://www.cato.org/research/growth-development https://www.cato.org/research/growth-development how big is the middle part of the venn diagram here? being skeptical of domain-experts is only 'religious fervor' if the field is cut-and-dried. many aren't
  - Lendal 7y ago
    Let me guess. You cherry-picked some cases where experts were wrong. Am I right? Here, read this: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge-dp-0190865970/dp/0190865970/ref=mt_paperback https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-... I don't have time for this.

RickJWagner 7y ago

Don't forget movie stars, pro athletes, etc. There seems to be a concentration of political activists among these. I very seriously doubt it's by coincidence.