4 ms·

I think the best solution is to cast a wide net, gather information from as many viewpoints as possible, and then look for correlations to narrow down on the tr

I think the best solution is to cast a wide net, gather information from as many viewpoints as possible, and then look for correlations to narrow down on the truth. The human brain is surprisingly good at this. The brain is constantly doing this with our various senses. None of those senses is perfect and they are fooled easily yet by examining the overlap we are able to create a surprisingly accurate picture of reality.

klyrs 6y ago
> The human brain is surprisingly good at this. Is it, though? Confirmation bias is a pretty big factor in how we parse incoming information. I try to read a variety of sources and see where different folks are coming from, but I wouldn't delude myself to think that I'm some ultra-rational arbiter of truth. We need only look as far as the growing(!) popularity of the flat-earth conspiracy to see that the population at large is no better at this than I think I am.
minimuffins 6y ago
> cast a wide net, gather information from as many viewpoints as possible, I agree that's the best thing to do. It's a rational choice. I do it and recommend others do it. But there's still this historical problem of divestment from traditional journalistic practices (going out into the world, gathering facts, interviewing people, observing -- it's expensive). Without that factual raw material it doesn't matter how diverse your set of sources is, your ability to know your own world is impoverished.
- aeternum 6y ago
  I find that Youtube is a very underrated source for those traditional journalistic practices. It's amazing how many great interviews there are with formats that allow interviewees to actually answer a question rather than provide a TV sound-bite. There's such a huge variety of content creators that you can often find a primary-source for major events. It also helps the recommendation algo if you use separate accounts for watching entertainment vids vs. this more serious content.

klyrs 6y ago

> The human brain is surprisingly good at this. Is it, though? Confirmation bias is a pretty big factor in how we parse incoming information. I try to read a variety of sources and see where different folks are coming from, but I wouldn't delude myself to think that I'm some ultra-rational arbiter of truth. We need only look as far as the growing(!) popularity of the flat-earth conspiracy to see that the population at large is no better at this than I think I am.

minimuffins 6y ago

> cast a wide net, gather information from as many viewpoints as possible, I agree that's the best thing to do. It's a rational choice. I do it and recommend others do it. But there's still this historical problem of divestment from traditional journalistic practices (going out into the world, gathering facts, interviewing people, observing -- it's expensive). Without that factual raw material it doesn't matter how diverse your set of sources is, your ability to know your own world is impoverished.

aeternum 6y ago
I find that Youtube is a very underrated source for those traditional journalistic practices. It's amazing how many great interviews there are with formats that allow interviewees to actually answer a question rather than provide a TV sound-bite. There's such a huge variety of content creators that you can often find a primary-source for major events. It also helps the recommendation algo if you use separate accounts for watching entertainment vids vs. this more serious content.