4 ms·

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-g

by JackFr 6y ago

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge... “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

jkaptur 6y ago
Is there a name for the opposite effect? If not, I propose the "Sinclair Effect" after "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." You open the newspaper to an article on some subject that you know well, because your salary depends on it. In Tourre's case, finance. In mine, tech. You read the article and see that the journalist isn't a subject matter expert and has made an error about some fact. Often, the error is so small that it doesn't affect the story at all. I call these the "well, actually, some streets are sheltered from the rain" stories. In any case, you dismiss the entire story and stop reading it, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if your technical expertise somehow gave you insight into a place you've never been and a culture you've never interacted with. You turn the page, and forget the gaps in your own knowledge.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Is there a name for the opposite effect? If not, I propose the "Sinclair Effect" after "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I think this is a fantastic comment, especially given the cavalcade of robotic quotations of that "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" passage that happen whenever the press comes up. One should definitely read the newspaper with a certain degree of skepticism, but I feel that people who take the "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" to heart often get into weird places (like thinking that reading raw scientific papers is somehow a replacement for reading the newspaper, as if anyone could actually keep up with them in more than a narrow area and science is the only thing that matters). While I think the self-interest from the Sinclair quote is definitely a reason to doubt "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" dismissals (i.e. maybe the story actually is right, but you think it's wrong because you have biased take), I think the problem you're getting at is ego. A lot of people want to be the guy who is smarter or sees things more clearly than others, so they latch on to ideas that let them superficially dismiss things that others trust as a way of proving their greater insight (maybe only to themselves). I think it's useful to just see the news for what it is: a timely first rough draft of history. First rough drafts are always going to have errors, but you'll be the last to know if you wait for those to be corrected before reading. If you keep up with the rough drafts, you'll see the corrections as the stories unfold.
  - acqq 6y ago
    > I think it's useful to just see the news for what it is: a timely first rough draft of history. Only, it's not what "the news" are. One can reconstruct the history using "the news" as source material, but it's a grave error to think that "the news" are "a first draft of history." Try to find how the media covered the claimed "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq in 2003, and how they wrote many years later about the same events. What you believe to be a "first draft" was historically completely false. But it was at the time used as an excuse to start the war, which are both now verified historical facts -- both the fake "news" in the major media and the start of the war. If you are interested in the topic you can even read how the local pressure on journalists makes them "following the editorial policy" even when they know that what they write about is false. In short, there's no substitute for treating the news as only "pieces of information" which have to be verified, behind which could be different interests and which surely don't have to be true at all.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      >> I think it's useful to just see the news for what it is: a timely first rough draft of history. First rough drafts are always going to have errors, but you'll be the last to know if you wait for those to be corrected before reading. If you keep up with the rough drafts, you'll see the corrections as the stories unfold. > Only, it's not what "the news" are. One can reconstruct the history using "the news" as source material, but it's a grave error to think that "the news" are "a first draft of history." > Try to find how the media covered the claimed "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq in 2003, and how they wrote many years later about the same events. What you believe to be a "first draft" was historically completely false. But it was at the time used as an excuse to start the war, which are both now verified historical facts -- both the fake "news" in the major media and the start of the war. I don't really see how that contradicts the idea that the news is a rough first draft of history at all. First drafts have errors, and you've pointed out some errors. Similar things could even happen with established history (for instance a later discovery proving some document that the old history relied on was a forgery or some account unreliable, etc.). You shouldn't expect perfect accuracy with the news, and to criticize it for not being perfectly accurate is to misunderstand what it is.
jancsika 6y ago
"He explains the irony of the term saying it came about 'because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have,'"
Joeri 6y ago
This is why I am subscribed to two news papers from independent owners. It doesn't help that much though, because the overlap between the two is a lot smaller than you would think, and a significant part of that overlap is content provided by a press service (which is often wrong itself). Sometimes I wonder whether it even makes sense to try to follow the news. News by definition cannot be objective in how it describes the world, even when factually accurate, because the most important things in the world aren't the things that are novel and interesting, they're the things that are commonplace and boring. Maybe following the news makes us less informed because it biases us to pay attention to the wrong things. On the other hand, how else do you get informed about going affairs? Most long-form books on a subject are themselves heavily biased to the author's viewpoint.
gojomo 6y ago
It's interesting to me that Jefferson, in this text, offers an observation that's formulated very similar to (one-half of) the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, when he says: "The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowlege with the lies of the day." For hundreds of years, anyone with personal knowledge of a topic-reported-on knows much if not most of the reporting is wrong.
dalbasal 6y ago
Interesting (and well written). It had an opposite effect on me. Maybe because it wasn't a specialized are. It was just regular news.

by JackFr 6y ago

jkaptur 6y ago

Is there a name for the opposite effect? If not, I propose the "Sinclair Effect" after "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." You open the newspaper to an article on some subject that you know well, because your salary depends on it. In Tourre's case, finance. In mine, tech. You read the article and see that the journalist isn't a subject matter expert and has made an error about some fact. Often, the error is so small that it doesn't affect the story at all. I call these the "well, actually, some streets are sheltered from the rain" stories. In any case, you dismiss the entire story and stop reading it, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if your technical expertise somehow gave you insight into a place you've never been and a culture you've never interacted with. You turn the page, and forget the gaps in your own knowledge.

ardy42 6y ago
> Is there a name for the opposite effect? If not, I propose the "Sinclair Effect" after "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I think this is a fantastic comment, especially given the cavalcade of robotic quotations of that "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" passage that happen whenever the press comes up. One should definitely read the newspaper with a certain degree of skepticism, but I feel that people who take the "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" to heart often get into weird places (like thinking that reading raw scientific papers is somehow a replacement for reading the newspaper, as if anyone could actually keep up with them in more than a narrow area and science is the only thing that matters). While I think the self-interest from the Sinclair quote is definitely a reason to doubt "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" dismissals (i.e. maybe the story actually is right, but you think it's wrong because you have biased take), I think the problem you're getting at is ego. A lot of people want to be the guy who is smarter or sees things more clearly than others, so they latch on to ideas that let them superficially dismiss things that others trust as a way of proving their greater insight (maybe only to themselves). I think it's useful to just see the news for what it is: a timely first rough draft of history. First rough drafts are always going to have errors, but you'll be the last to know if you wait for those to be corrected before reading. If you keep up with the rough drafts, you'll see the corrections as the stories unfold.
- acqq 6y ago
  > I think it's useful to just see the news for what it is: a timely first rough draft of history. Only, it's not what "the news" are. One can reconstruct the history using "the news" as source material, but it's a grave error to think that "the news" are "a first draft of history." Try to find how the media covered the claimed "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq in 2003, and how they wrote many years later about the same events. What you believe to be a "first draft" was historically completely false. But it was at the time used as an excuse to start the war, which are both now verified historical facts -- both the fake "news" in the major media and the start of the war. If you are interested in the topic you can even read how the local pressure on journalists makes them "following the editorial policy" even when they know that what they write about is false. In short, there's no substitute for treating the news as only "pieces of information" which have to be verified, behind which could be different interests and which surely don't have to be true at all.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >> I think it's useful to just see the news for what it is: a timely first rough draft of history. First rough drafts are always going to have errors, but you'll be the last to know if you wait for those to be corrected before reading. If you keep up with the rough drafts, you'll see the corrections as the stories unfold. > Only, it's not what "the news" are. One can reconstruct the history using "the news" as source material, but it's a grave error to think that "the news" are "a first draft of history." > Try to find how the media covered the claimed "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq in 2003, and how they wrote many years later about the same events. What you believe to be a "first draft" was historically completely false. But it was at the time used as an excuse to start the war, which are both now verified historical facts -- both the fake "news" in the major media and the start of the war. I don't really see how that contradicts the idea that the news is a rough first draft of history at all. First drafts have errors, and you've pointed out some errors. Similar things could even happen with established history (for instance a later discovery proving some document that the old history relied on was a forgery or some account unreliable, etc.). You shouldn't expect perfect accuracy with the news, and to criticize it for not being perfectly accurate is to misunderstand what it is.

jancsika 6y ago

"He explains the irony of the term saying it came about 'because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have,'"

Joeri 6y ago

This is why I am subscribed to two news papers from independent owners. It doesn't help that much though, because the overlap between the two is a lot smaller than you would think, and a significant part of that overlap is content provided by a press service (which is often wrong itself). Sometimes I wonder whether it even makes sense to try to follow the news. News by definition cannot be objective in how it describes the world, even when factually accurate, because the most important things in the world aren't the things that are novel and interesting, they're the things that are commonplace and boring. Maybe following the news makes us less informed because it biases us to pay attention to the wrong things. On the other hand, how else do you get informed about going affairs? Most long-form books on a subject are themselves heavily biased to the author's viewpoint.

gojomo 6y ago

It's interesting to me that Jefferson, in this text, offers an observation that's formulated very similar to (one-half of) the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, when he says: "The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowlege with the lies of the day." For hundreds of years, anyone with personal knowledge of a topic-reported-on knows much if not most of the reporting is wrong.

dalbasal 6y ago

Interesting (and well written). It had an opposite effect on me. Maybe because it wasn't a specialized are. It was just regular news.