2 ms·

The fact that we're more likely to listen to a politician (or a media figure) rather than someone who has spent the better portion of four decades studying a to

The fact that we're more likely to listen to a politician (or a media figure) rather than someone who has spent the better portion of four decades studying a topic is one of the most existential threats we face. We need to figure out a way to get through the tribal mentality. Right now, a significant plurality (if not an actual majority) of people are more concerned about their side winning points than about effectively dealing with a crisis.

seph-reed 7y ago
Seriously, what is the analogous computer science problem to this? Why is it that a lifetime of experiences, and I still draw blanks every time I try to figure out what to do about this stuff. I mean... everything minus scenarios which include massive amounts of death. Surely there's a better way though.
- thomascgalvin 7y ago
  I don't think there is an analogy in computer science; that deals with data, and this deals with emotion. This is driven, as far as I understand it, by evolutionary psychology. It was an advantage to be "right enough, and unified" as opposed to "completely right, but divided", and an advantage to take care of "us" before taking care of "them." As a result, we are hard-wired toward tribalism. Smart people are able to set this aside and deal with the facts as they are, but we still have to overcome the initial, emotional surge that takes offense whenever something we hold true is challenged. One of the big issues is that people don't see immediate fallout from this sort of behavior on the national level. They vote for people who cut taxes for the rich and gut worker protections, but never connect that to their own financial ruin. The effect follows too far after, and too far from, the cause. Politics, as a result, is treated like football: root for your team, because the other team sucks. We might see some of that change as the bodies start piling up from COVID-19, but I doubt that there will be a larger societal change.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- politelemon 7y ago
  There are a few analogous situations you'll find in computer science and the development world: brand worship and celebrity worship. We'll quickly adopt patterns and opinions given by well known individuals without judging the output on its own merit. We'll follow tools, frameworks and trends that emerge from organizations without assessing its suitability for ourselves. In fact we will even twist our world view in order to accommodate someone else's reality, at detriment to ourselves. I specifically don't want to give examples, but you can come up with a few of you think about it. It's a matter of course in our industry however so we don't really consider it to be analogous to the above problem, simply because we are inside the system. We see nothing wrong with what we're doing and are quick to judge outside groups on the same behaviours... Which makes it even more analogous!
jhanschoo 7y ago
You can't do anything about this stuff without a lot of power. It's a very deep-rooted problem in US society. One aspect of this that I was thinking about yesterday is that everyone can spout all kinds of hogwash and opinion without fear of repercussion, because this is socially tolerated in US society more than some others. But with today's amazing communication technology this means that strong opinions without evidence in support of ideological action for causes and reasons not grounded in reality gets broadcasted; low-quality opinion masquerading as facts. But I think it may be possible to "hack" this lack of repercussion by a platform/institution where reporters/publishers can artificially promise repercussions for themselves that so-and-so statement is true. e.g. betting that a claim is true, and allowing anyone to challenge your claim with contrary evidence by posting a higher stake, that if the challenge meets some platform/institution-wide threshold for rules of evidence, allows the challenger to pocket up to half of the prior claim's stake (the remaining becomes the stake for the new claim), else the challenger loses their stake and the prior claim stands. Of course, the evidence needs to meet a certain standard. The hope is that non-bogus rules of evidence end up supporting only a theory of very sane and reasonable facts, whereas bogus rules of evidence end up allowing a lot of bogus claims to stand unchallenged that are not falsifiable, or that claims are too easily contradicted, so that it becomes easy for people to tell real information from ideological polemic, and also invites challenge from fact-checkers and competing interests.
adolph 7y ago
It's a tricky problem. People listen to politicians and media figures (if they are different) because those entities are listenable and provide a constant standard flow of communication--that is their expert area. In contrast the veteran epidemiologist or any other expert is primarily an expert in that domain and not an expert in reaching a broad audience. If the collective "we" (if there is such a coherent thing) were to listen primarily to experts, we would need to constantly shift which expert to which we are listening, depending on the problem of the day. Additionally, each of those experts would have to take time out of their expert practice area to become a highly skilled communicator. Is the Surgeon General an expert or politician/media figure? Is the WHO reflective of experts all the time or is it an institution with political and media concerns?

seph-reed 7y ago

Seriously, what is the analogous computer science problem to this? Why is it that a lifetime of experiences, and I still draw blanks every time I try to figure out what to do about this stuff. I mean... everything minus scenarios which include massive amounts of death. Surely there's a better way though.

thomascgalvin 7y ago
I don't think there is an analogy in computer science; that deals with data, and this deals with emotion. This is driven, as far as I understand it, by evolutionary psychology. It was an advantage to be "right enough, and unified" as opposed to "completely right, but divided", and an advantage to take care of "us" before taking care of "them." As a result, we are hard-wired toward tribalism. Smart people are able to set this aside and deal with the facts as they are, but we still have to overcome the initial, emotional surge that takes offense whenever something we hold true is challenged. One of the big issues is that people don't see immediate fallout from this sort of behavior on the national level. They vote for people who cut taxes for the rich and gut worker protections, but never connect that to their own financial ruin. The effect follows too far after, and too far from, the cause. Politics, as a result, is treated like football: root for your team, because the other team sucks. We might see some of that change as the bodies start piling up from COVID-19, but I doubt that there will be a larger societal change.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
politelemon 7y ago
There are a few analogous situations you'll find in computer science and the development world: brand worship and celebrity worship. We'll quickly adopt patterns and opinions given by well known individuals without judging the output on its own merit. We'll follow tools, frameworks and trends that emerge from organizations without assessing its suitability for ourselves. In fact we will even twist our world view in order to accommodate someone else's reality, at detriment to ourselves. I specifically don't want to give examples, but you can come up with a few of you think about it. It's a matter of course in our industry however so we don't really consider it to be analogous to the above problem, simply because we are inside the system. We see nothing wrong with what we're doing and are quick to judge outside groups on the same behaviours... Which makes it even more analogous!

jhanschoo 7y ago

You can't do anything about this stuff without a lot of power. It's a very deep-rooted problem in US society. One aspect of this that I was thinking about yesterday is that everyone can spout all kinds of hogwash and opinion without fear of repercussion, because this is socially tolerated in US society more than some others. But with today's amazing communication technology this means that strong opinions without evidence in support of ideological action for causes and reasons not grounded in reality gets broadcasted; low-quality opinion masquerading as facts. But I think it may be possible to "hack" this lack of repercussion by a platform/institution where reporters/publishers can artificially promise repercussions for themselves that so-and-so statement is true. e.g. betting that a claim is true, and allowing anyone to challenge your claim with contrary evidence by posting a higher stake, that if the challenge meets some platform/institution-wide threshold for rules of evidence, allows the challenger to pocket up to half of the prior claim's stake (the remaining becomes the stake for the new claim), else the challenger loses their stake and the prior claim stands. Of course, the evidence needs to meet a certain standard. The hope is that non-bogus rules of evidence end up supporting only a theory of very sane and reasonable facts, whereas bogus rules of evidence end up allowing a lot of bogus claims to stand unchallenged that are not falsifiable, or that claims are too easily contradicted, so that it becomes easy for people to tell real information from ideological polemic, and also invites challenge from fact-checkers and competing interests.

adolph 7y ago

It's a tricky problem. People listen to politicians and media figures (if they are different) because those entities are listenable and provide a constant standard flow of communication--that is their expert area. In contrast the veteran epidemiologist or any other expert is primarily an expert in that domain and not an expert in reaching a broad audience. If the collective "we" (if there is such a coherent thing) were to listen primarily to experts, we would need to constantly shift which expert to which we are listening, depending on the problem of the day. Additionally, each of those experts would have to take time out of their expert practice area to become a highly skilled communicator. Is the Surgeon General an expert or politician/media figure? Is the WHO reflective of experts all the time or is it an institution with political and media concerns?