9 ms·

I'll acknowledge the psych aspect with a nod but otherwise want to move on and say this: The value of truth is more important today than ever before, and moder

by psim1 6y ago

I'll acknowledge the psych aspect with a nod but otherwise want to move on and say this: The value of truth is more important today than ever before, and modern society's interest in it seems to be lower than ever before. That scares me, and I'm not willing to let truth be devalued. I will step on toes and be "right" if I am pushing truth, especially when pushing it on "deniers" and other politically- or otherwise-motivated falsehood peddlers.

fwsgonzo 6y ago
You might not be able to change death cult members, but at least bystanders will know. It's important because humans is capable of believing anything if it's repeated enough times. At a certain point it just clicks that "everyone knows that," and not give it much thought.
- mattm 6y ago
  I agree. At first I would just ignore obviously wrong information posted by others in my Facebook feed but now I will comment and provide articles showing the other point of view. The goal isn't to change the mind of the person who posted it but for the potentially dozens or hundreds of others who might come across it and some of those people might be on the fence about believing it.
gramakri 6y ago
The article is not talking about truth though. It's talking about being right. Truth to me is something independently verifiable. Being right, as the term is used in this article, is about something which is subjective. For example, is it ok to binge watch or drink 3 cups of coffee etc. So, it's more of a feeling
- sgillen 6y ago
  Yes although I think most people equate the subjective being right with their beliefs being inline with the (supposedly) objective truth.
evo_9 6y ago
Ah yes of course this info doesn’t apply when the ‘truth’ is involved. But who’s truth is it? Also the articles point is about having compassion for others not winning the argument.
themodelplumber 6y ago
Some questions to ask about truth: - What if someone claims that your truth is based on different data or perspectives than their own? - How can you reliably expect to cement truth when data or educated perspectives may change with time, especially if they are based on news or new events/research? - Who gets to decide what truth is? Do you? Why? Is it because you're convinced that you're a "truthful" person as a subjective-experiential observation? - How do you identify a liar? What is to be done with them? Who gets to decide? My subjective experience is that the establishment of truth, or reconciliation with such questions, is a deeper topic than many are willing to credit. I'll be controversial and offer that it may be helpful to view "truth" as just one more mental model; broken in some ways, just like any other mental model. (If this leads to fears of e.g. rampant dishonesty, maybe that also points to the fragility of the model) If interest in truth is really lower than ever before, it may be related to aspects like these.
- psim1 6y ago
  Thoughtful questions like these, and the thoughtful people who ask them, do indeed lead to truth. My concern is more with intellectual dishonesty and naive, shallow understanding. An uneducated person who knows he is uneducated has more truth to him than an uneducated person who thinks he knows a lot and holds forth with BS.
  - cglace 6y ago
    An uneducated person doesn’t think of themself as “uneducated”. They view it as having a different set of experiences that has led them to a different truth. A truth that you won’t be able to understand because of all of your “education”.
  - Claudus 6y ago
    Spoiler alert, everyone is uneducated. And everyone has naive shallow understanding of the future. There is more knowledge in the world than a single person ever learn.
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    > intellectual dishonesty Unfortunately if one has a mental model for this or that, and that model yields only a perception, that person has _maybe_ half a mental model. That means one can expect little traction and lots of frustration. The effective model will yield energy (instructive, actionable, or otherwise) toward the execution of this or that action or group of actions. Perceptions alone can be really concerning for sure... > naive, shallow understanding I'd say the same here, but add that there's usually a depth in there somewhere. For example, shallow understanding but deep empathy--_therefore_ that person showed up to support your opponent, for example. So can you expect to teach that person, in order to sway them? Probably not. Working the empathy side of things though--this could even be a really fruitful discussion for both sides. Concerning, and frustrating, for sure...still, the journey may be worth the stretching and growing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nemo 6y ago
The truth matters deeply. Those whose egos drags them into "being right" do nothing to help the truth, and are typically those most full of falsehoods they're busy doubling down on.
cjhanks 6y ago
This presumes that the truth is knowable and you could know it. Mathematics tells you what is not possible, but it tells you nothing about what exists. Every other discipline is separated from truth by bias in observation. And there are no perfect observers. So, pushing "truth" is really pushing a specific perception. That said.. you can fight against "false".
codyswann 6y ago
Depends on the subject matter. There is no collateral damage if half the planet believes the world is flat. You don't need to be "right" with these people. Anti-vaxxers are a different story. Their "wrong" directly infringes on my liberty and, thus, yes, being "right" is extremely important.
- Waterfall 6y ago
  I agree with collateral damage. It's most interesting to me when people carry around a "wrong" belief despite social penalties and damage to their own lives. There's no (or very little) social penalty for being Democratic around me, but to be a republican is very bad socially. Yet people carry it, is it the idea of being right, enjoying controversy or some sort of screening mechanism I wonder? Anti vaxxers don't seem to realistically cause terrible issues in the amounts of them (currently). People who believe HAES seems way more socially accepted yet has a larger impact on the healthcare system, consumer products and food offerings, yet there's way less dislike of them than anti vaxxers. Why is that?
Waterfall 6y ago
The truth doesn't matter. People want a narrative and they will believe what they want to. It's a depressing feeling to think of, but nobody wants to break the narrative they want to believe. Many beliefs have no value, I for instance don't believe China's narrative for their low Corona, while my father does. Neither of our beliefs have any proper function or carry a penalty for believing. Believing in the amount of water we should drink is a lot more useful and actually carries more of a real life impact, and I'd rather not argue about something that will only cause friction and never have any use. At the same time, Socrates and Confucius were not well liked in their times but they knew they were "right" and their time would come after. Mendel whose ideas were ridiculed also simply believed in his own ideas, and drew strength from it. Political truth is a funny thing.
jhanschoo 6y ago
I'm surprised that you didn't also observe how the need to be "right" is related to people not caring about having true beliefs. That is, the need to be (have been) "right" is a great motivation for people to cling on stubbornly to false notions.
- gengkev 6y ago
  I always found this an interesting phenomenon. I hate being "wrong" as much as anyone else. But it seems like the best way to not be wrong is being aware of the uncertainties in your understanding, not making claims about topics where you have gaps in your knowledge, and adjusting your understanding based on new information. To have absolute confidence in what you are saying without regard for reality seems like the easiest way to be wrong...
- andrekandre 6y ago
  > That is, the need to be (have been) "right" is a great motivation for people to cling on stubbornly to false notions. yes... i think this boils down to basically the difference of "being right" vs "doing the right thing"
mrfredward 6y ago
Just remember that you won't change anybody's mind by alienating them. Telling your climate change denying uncle he's an idiot won't change his mind, but it will ruin thanksgiving. That's why it's important to consider if your emotions are leading you to do something counterproductive.
- username90 6y ago
  > Telling your climate change denying uncle he's an idiot won't change his mind Usually it does change his mind if he respects you enough. It wont work on a stranger but it is very effective on long term friends.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    No, that’s a very naive view. There are many people I respect who will have different views from my own and the only thing them calling me an idiot will do is lessen said respect.
- watwut 6y ago
  You can however tell him you disagree. For the sake of children that are listening if nothing else. The rules of this are ridiculous anyway. Why is there selected group of people and opinions who can run their mouths and everyone else must shut up else they destroyed the event? This is nice example how something completely different: social hierarchy where it is super importsnt to keep illusion that some people are right.
jariel 6y ago
The 'Truth' requires perspective and nuance. Climate, social change, technology, development, covid response etc.. Best example: Masks. Do they help? Probably somewhat, but possibly not. There was the very real concern overall that masks might give people a sense of confidence. Any 'reduction in hand-washing' would offset mask usage. In the early stages, the plan was to not create 100x demand for masks (I mean, there was going to be 10x no matter what) by suppressing public need for them, so as to get the PPE to medical workers. (Not sure if that was the right move, but there's logic in it.) Once the mask-making gears are moving into production, then the new perspective means 'masks can become more of a requirement for regular people'. So the equilibrium shifts, and then, 'as a whole, we should wear masks'. i.e. a 'new truth' to be propagated. To any regular person sitting on the sidelines, it has to be confusing, and we should forgive people for being cynical that the press was screaming from day one 'don't use masks, you're not responsible enough and they need to go to doctors, they are in desperate short supply' to a few weeks later: 'wear a mask or you are an inconsiderate redneck'. So 'new realities, create new 'truths'' in a way. Even more nuanced 'truthiness': Right now on CNN you see these graphs of COVID 'spiking' again in America --> 'scary'. But - when you look at the graph of deaths it tells a completely different story. Mostly, it's still going down with a little bump recently. Have a look [1] The 'more complicated truth' is that the US has been expanding testing a lot, and possibly different kinds of people are getting infected (younger?), more people are taking it, and the rate fatality is dropping. So what is the 'truth' there? Can we blame CNN for showing a chart every day, when technically speaking its 'factual'? But in reality it doesn't really tell the whole story at all and is potentially misleading? Or what about the responsibility of mass media to err on the side of being conservative (small 'c') so as to promote positive behaviour, in that people need to 'feel' the pandemic is material, or they won't wear masks. For those people with the intelligence, means, education and wherewithal, ok, it's possible to 'sift through' the headlines, but most aren't in a position to do that, they have 'real jobs, real lives, diapers to change' and so the 'truth' is always going to be in flux. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ So it's often very complicated. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
- grandmczeb 6y ago
LiquidSky 6y ago
For me the most important point of this piece is: >Seeming to be right justifies disrespect, contempt, and other forms of emotional pollution I don't think it's about being right per se, but that feeling that you are right often also makes you feel justified in being an awful jerk to other people. This is especially true online. In my experience, the people who pride themselves on being brutally honest are more interested in the "brutal" part. And this behavior often hinders the spread of truth, because while rationally we should simple evaluate arguments on their own merits, in reality no one likes being treated badly and so people are going to be less receptive to even true statements delivered in an abusive way. The facile response to this is to cry that we're supposed to never say anything or do that would upset people so we have to hide the truth, but this is ridiculous. There's a huge gulf between being an asshole and never saying anything. Being right isn't a license to be a terrible person, and it would serve those in interested in the truth to remember that.
friendlybus 6y ago
The interest in the 2016-2018 version of truth will continue to drop. The people who were listening that didn't already have an affinity for it were there because they needed it. They are done with it now and the kind compassion of emotions will wash it away. Heath Ledger's Joker was correct these people are only as good as the world allows them to be, as soon as trouble hits the wallet, truth is tossed out the window. A deontological ethic, doing the right thing regardless of the consequences is still my favourite, but nature is rolling over to a consequentialist maximization of profits at the expense of everybody.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Truth is irrelevant politically. The only thing that matters is what people believe is the truth. Stating something that is empirically and objectively true will not change someone's belief if they're not already open to it. It will bounce right off them if they have a strong emotional attachment to their belief. And some people are bad actors. They lie knowingly, and they cannot be debunked with facts, because they're playing a different game. So much in politics and propaganda (and marketing, and elements of management) is about stock techniques for managing the emotions of groups and individuals. The emotional control provides leverage which can then be converted into beliefs, and eventually into desired actions. This is a tough and unflattering lesson to learn, but - unfortunately - it seems to be how these things really do work.

by psim1 6y ago

fwsgonzo 6y ago

You might not be able to change death cult members, but at least bystanders will know. It's important because humans is capable of believing anything if it's repeated enough times. At a certain point it just clicks that "everyone knows that," and not give it much thought.

mattm 6y ago
I agree. At first I would just ignore obviously wrong information posted by others in my Facebook feed but now I will comment and provide articles showing the other point of view. The goal isn't to change the mind of the person who posted it but for the potentially dozens or hundreds of others who might come across it and some of those people might be on the fence about believing it.

gramakri 6y ago

The article is not talking about truth though. It's talking about being right. Truth to me is something independently verifiable. Being right, as the term is used in this article, is about something which is subjective. For example, is it ok to binge watch or drink 3 cups of coffee etc. So, it's more of a feeling

sgillen 6y ago
Yes although I think most people equate the subjective being right with their beliefs being inline with the (supposedly) objective truth.

evo_9 6y ago

Ah yes of course this info doesn’t apply when the ‘truth’ is involved. But who’s truth is it? Also the articles point is about having compassion for others not winning the argument.

themodelplumber 6y ago

Some questions to ask about truth: - What if someone claims that your truth is based on different data or perspectives than their own? - How can you reliably expect to cement truth when data or educated perspectives may change with time, especially if they are based on news or new events/research? - Who gets to decide what truth is? Do you? Why? Is it because you're convinced that you're a "truthful" person as a subjective-experiential observation? - How do you identify a liar? What is to be done with them? Who gets to decide? My subjective experience is that the establishment of truth, or reconciliation with such questions, is a deeper topic than many are willing to credit. I'll be controversial and offer that it may be helpful to view "truth" as just one more mental model; broken in some ways, just like any other mental model. (If this leads to fears of e.g. rampant dishonesty, maybe that also points to the fragility of the model) If interest in truth is really lower than ever before, it may be related to aspects like these.

psim1 6y ago
Thoughtful questions like these, and the thoughtful people who ask them, do indeed lead to truth. My concern is more with intellectual dishonesty and naive, shallow understanding. An uneducated person who knows he is uneducated has more truth to him than an uneducated person who thinks he knows a lot and holds forth with BS.
- cglace 6y ago
  An uneducated person doesn’t think of themself as “uneducated”. They view it as having a different set of experiences that has led them to a different truth. A truth that you won’t be able to understand because of all of your “education”.
- Claudus 6y ago
  Spoiler alert, everyone is uneducated. And everyone has naive shallow understanding of the future. There is more knowledge in the world than a single person ever learn.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  > intellectual dishonesty Unfortunately if one has a mental model for this or that, and that model yields only a perception, that person has _maybe_ half a mental model. That means one can expect little traction and lots of frustration. The effective model will yield energy (instructive, actionable, or otherwise) toward the execution of this or that action or group of actions. Perceptions alone can be really concerning for sure... > naive, shallow understanding I'd say the same here, but add that there's usually a depth in there somewhere. For example, shallow understanding but deep empathy--_therefore_ that person showed up to support your opponent, for example. So can you expect to teach that person, in order to sway them? Probably not. Working the empathy side of things though--this could even be a really fruitful discussion for both sides. Concerning, and frustrating, for sure...still, the journey may be worth the stretching and growing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nemo 6y ago

The truth matters deeply. Those whose egos drags them into "being right" do nothing to help the truth, and are typically those most full of falsehoods they're busy doubling down on.

cjhanks 6y ago

This presumes that the truth is knowable and you could know it. Mathematics tells you what is not possible, but it tells you nothing about what exists. Every other discipline is separated from truth by bias in observation. And there are no perfect observers. So, pushing "truth" is really pushing a specific perception. That said.. you can fight against "false".

codyswann 6y ago

Depends on the subject matter. There is no collateral damage if half the planet believes the world is flat. You don't need to be "right" with these people. Anti-vaxxers are a different story. Their "wrong" directly infringes on my liberty and, thus, yes, being "right" is extremely important.

Waterfall 6y ago
I agree with collateral damage. It's most interesting to me when people carry around a "wrong" belief despite social penalties and damage to their own lives. There's no (or very little) social penalty for being Democratic around me, but to be a republican is very bad socially. Yet people carry it, is it the idea of being right, enjoying controversy or some sort of screening mechanism I wonder? Anti vaxxers don't seem to realistically cause terrible issues in the amounts of them (currently). People who believe HAES seems way more socially accepted yet has a larger impact on the healthcare system, consumer products and food offerings, yet there's way less dislike of them than anti vaxxers. Why is that?

Waterfall 6y ago

The truth doesn't matter. People want a narrative and they will believe what they want to. It's a depressing feeling to think of, but nobody wants to break the narrative they want to believe. Many beliefs have no value, I for instance don't believe China's narrative for their low Corona, while my father does. Neither of our beliefs have any proper function or carry a penalty for believing. Believing in the amount of water we should drink is a lot more useful and actually carries more of a real life impact, and I'd rather not argue about something that will only cause friction and never have any use. At the same time, Socrates and Confucius were not well liked in their times but they knew they were "right" and their time would come after. Mendel whose ideas were ridiculed also simply believed in his own ideas, and drew strength from it. Political truth is a funny thing.

jhanschoo 6y ago

I'm surprised that you didn't also observe how the need to be "right" is related to people not caring about having true beliefs. That is, the need to be (have been) "right" is a great motivation for people to cling on stubbornly to false notions.

gengkev 6y ago
I always found this an interesting phenomenon. I hate being "wrong" as much as anyone else. But it seems like the best way to not be wrong is being aware of the uncertainties in your understanding, not making claims about topics where you have gaps in your knowledge, and adjusting your understanding based on new information. To have absolute confidence in what you are saying without regard for reality seems like the easiest way to be wrong...
andrekandre 6y ago
> That is, the need to be (have been) "right" is a great motivation for people to cling on stubbornly to false notions. yes... i think this boils down to basically the difference of "being right" vs "doing the right thing"

mrfredward 6y ago

Just remember that you won't change anybody's mind by alienating them. Telling your climate change denying uncle he's an idiot won't change his mind, but it will ruin thanksgiving. That's why it's important to consider if your emotions are leading you to do something counterproductive.

username90 6y ago
> Telling your climate change denying uncle he's an idiot won't change his mind Usually it does change his mind if he respects you enough. It wont work on a stranger but it is very effective on long term friends.
- kortilla 6y ago
  No, that’s a very naive view. There are many people I respect who will have different views from my own and the only thing them calling me an idiot will do is lessen said respect.
watwut 6y ago
You can however tell him you disagree. For the sake of children that are listening if nothing else. The rules of this are ridiculous anyway. Why is there selected group of people and opinions who can run their mouths and everyone else must shut up else they destroyed the event? This is nice example how something completely different: social hierarchy where it is super importsnt to keep illusion that some people are right.

jariel 6y ago

The 'Truth' requires perspective and nuance. Climate, social change, technology, development, covid response etc.. Best example: Masks. Do they help? Probably somewhat, but possibly not. There was the very real concern overall that masks might give people a sense of confidence. Any 'reduction in hand-washing' would offset mask usage. In the early stages, the plan was to not create 100x demand for masks (I mean, there was going to be 10x no matter what) by suppressing public need for them, so as to get the PPE to medical workers. (Not sure if that was the right move, but there's logic in it.) Once the mask-making gears are moving into production, then the new perspective means 'masks can become more of a requirement for regular people'. So the equilibrium shifts, and then, 'as a whole, we should wear masks'. i.e. a 'new truth' to be propagated. To any regular person sitting on the sidelines, it has to be confusing, and we should forgive people for being cynical that the press was screaming from day one 'don't use masks, you're not responsible enough and they need to go to doctors, they are in desperate short supply' to a few weeks later: 'wear a mask or you are an inconsiderate redneck'. So 'new realities, create new 'truths'' in a way. Even more nuanced 'truthiness': Right now on CNN you see these graphs of COVID 'spiking' again in America --> 'scary'. But - when you look at the graph of deaths it tells a completely different story. Mostly, it's still going down with a little bump recently. Have a look [1] The 'more complicated truth' is that the US has been expanding testing a lot, and possibly different kinds of people are getting infected (younger?), more people are taking it, and the rate fatality is dropping. So what is the 'truth' there? Can we blame CNN for showing a chart every day, when technically speaking its 'factual'? But in reality it doesn't really tell the whole story at all and is potentially misleading? Or what about the responsibility of mass media to err on the side of being conservative (small 'c') so as to promote positive behaviour, in that people need to 'feel' the pandemic is material, or they won't wear masks. For those people with the intelligence, means, education and wherewithal, ok, it's possible to 'sift through' the headlines, but most aren't in a position to do that, they have 'real jobs, real lives, diapers to change' and so the 'truth' is always going to be in flux. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ So it's often very complicated. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

grandmczeb 6y ago

LiquidSky 6y ago

For me the most important point of this piece is: >Seeming to be right justifies disrespect, contempt, and other forms of emotional pollution I don't think it's about being right per se, but that feeling that you are right often also makes you feel justified in being an awful jerk to other people. This is especially true online. In my experience, the people who pride themselves on being brutally honest are more interested in the "brutal" part. And this behavior often hinders the spread of truth, because while rationally we should simple evaluate arguments on their own merits, in reality no one likes being treated badly and so people are going to be less receptive to even true statements delivered in an abusive way. The facile response to this is to cry that we're supposed to never say anything or do that would upset people so we have to hide the truth, but this is ridiculous. There's a huge gulf between being an asshole and never saying anything. Being right isn't a license to be a terrible person, and it would serve those in interested in the truth to remember that.

friendlybus 6y ago

The interest in the 2016-2018 version of truth will continue to drop. The people who were listening that didn't already have an affinity for it were there because they needed it. They are done with it now and the kind compassion of emotions will wash it away. Heath Ledger's Joker was correct these people are only as good as the world allows them to be, as soon as trouble hits the wallet, truth is tossed out the window. A deontological ethic, doing the right thing regardless of the consequences is still my favourite, but nature is rolling over to a consequentialist maximization of profits at the expense of everybody.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Truth is irrelevant politically. The only thing that matters is what people believe is the truth. Stating something that is empirically and objectively true will not change someone's belief if they're not already open to it. It will bounce right off them if they have a strong emotional attachment to their belief. And some people are bad actors. They lie knowingly, and they cannot be debunked with facts, because they're playing a different game. So much in politics and propaganda (and marketing, and elements of management) is about stock techniques for managing the emotions of groups and individuals. The emotional control provides leverage which can then be converted into beliefs, and eventually into desired actions. This is a tough and unflattering lesson to learn, but - unfortunately - it seems to be how these things really do work.