41 ms·

I understand what you’re saying, but I will not be gaslit. Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically co

I understand what you’re saying, but I will not be gaslit. Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically considering the information in those sources and discussing it is the best. It is entirely possible to still get at the truth. The propaganda is the USA is bordering absurdity in its believability. The president says exactly what he means, and his words are interpreted by others like a horoscope to mean whatever they want. This is the reality of the situation. Unless you’re traveling at the speed of light or some bullshit.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mistermann 6y ago
> I understand what you’re saying... I suspect you actually don't, due to the underlying complexity and ineffable, counterintuitive nature of the subject matter. > but I will not be gaslit. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes, including low self-esteem. There is gaslighting, and then there is psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy - and then there is each individual's knowledge (actual and perceived) in each field, all of which is implemented by the human mind, which is not well understood at all, but understood well enough that it is known to be very imperceptibly deceiving. > Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically considering the information in those sources and discussing it is the best. I completely agree, and nothing I said suggested the contrary. Although, you may have the intuition that it implicitly communicated it, just as you seem to have the intuition that I am gaslighting you. > It is entirely possible to still get at the truth. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not - it depends. And sometimes, that which is considered to be true, is not actually true. > The propaganda is the USA is bordering absurdity in its believability. 100% agree - to me, it passed surreal levels years ago. Even more surreal is the percentage of intelligent people who seem to believe that they have a firm lock on "the truth" about a system this complex, despite often having extensive background knowledge in the complexity that lies within far simpler systems. > The president says exactly what he means, and his words are interpreted by others like a horoscope to mean whatever they want. Serious question: how is it that you came to know the beliefs of other people? Trace the lineage of that belief in your own mind, and see what you come up with. This is not conspiracy theory or trolling, it is the result of scientific investigations performed over decades by specialists in various overlapping fields, who are doing their best to understand the mysteries of the human mind. And scientists aren't the only source of substantiation - not that long ago philosophy and literature were very seriously by a lot of serious people, and may have a thing or two worth learning. https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the-philosophy-of-mind/ https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the... https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert It's hard to resist picking a side and getting down into object level mudslinging in the information war currently playing out in the media (mainstream and social), I'm very often guilty of it myself. But I propose that there is another alternative available: that of a disinterested (as possible) 3rd person observer who engages his/her mind with the abstract perspective of the battle, observing with playful curiosity the rhetorical strategies, strange supernatural beliefs, and various other absurd behavior that until recently only the human mind was capable of producing. Not only is this perspective far more interesting, but once you do it for a while some interesting new thoughts might come to mind, like "Just what exactly is going on on this planet? These humans have the ability to have a realtime video conversation with someone half way around the world, or deliver a package there by the next day, yet at the same time millions of their offspring die every year due to a lack of the basic essentials required to sustain their lives, and all they seem to do is post short "tweets" to each other lamenting that "nothing can be done". What mysterious force underlies this madness?"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dkn775 6y ago
  Many feel that policy is easier to grasp than tech algorithms so they feel the solutions are obvious. The amount of competing legal, administrative, and regulatory obligations alone in what can be one policy is way more complex than code. While science is more rigorous, it is easier to build consensus, and it can be done with minimal human contact.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > While science is more rigorous, it is easier to build consensus, and it can be done with minimal human contact. Agreed, which is why I believe we should take a more scientific approach to discussions. For example: >>> Those adults watch a few conspiracy YouTube videos and Fox News and consider themselves educated and informed. Is this statement True? At best, it has some truth. But this type of language and thinking is incredibly common right here on HN, a place we consider to be a place of quality discussion. For sure, things are better here than most other places, but it is still chock full of objectively incorrect statements and erroneous thinking, much of it being very nuanced and easily dismissed by "don't be pedantic", "you know what I meant", etc. Science does not operate by ignoring details or requiring listeners to infer things from vague messages, and this is why it produces successful results. The way we manage and discuss affairs on planet earth however, is almost entirely operated in this non-scientific, error-riddled form. To be clear, this is my personal opinion (an estimate) about reality. What matters is what the true state of reality is, and almost no one seems to care about that, at least based on discussion and voting patterns here. I wonder if some sort of a browser addon that added a metadata layer to forums would be helpful in surfacing these things, such that patterns could be recognized over time, which might bring to mind ideas of how we could improve our thinking and discourse.
dkn775 6y ago
I think CSPAN is the best source for anything government related on the national front. Honestly I even feel NPR can be a little too biased at times. Locally I get a kick out of reading the raw PDFs of proposed policies, strategic plans, city council videos etc. Throw in some opensecrets.org type research if needed. It’s interesting to read the raw truth without interpretation from others. It just takes some practice to know where to look. My money and politics teacher @ CMU - John Delano said something that has always stuck with me when in doubt about motivations - “in politics, follow the money”.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mistermann 6y ago

> I understand what you’re saying... I suspect you actually don't, due to the underlying complexity and ineffable, counterintuitive nature of the subject matter. > but I will not be gaslit. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes, including low self-esteem. There is gaslighting, and then there is psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy - and then there is each individual's knowledge (actual and perceived) in each field, all of which is implemented by the human mind, which is not well understood at all, but understood well enough that it is known to be very imperceptibly deceiving. > Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically considering the information in those sources and discussing it is the best. I completely agree, and nothing I said suggested the contrary. Although, you may have the intuition that it implicitly communicated it, just as you seem to have the intuition that I am gaslighting you. > It is entirely possible to still get at the truth. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not - it depends. And sometimes, that which is considered to be true, is not actually true. > The propaganda is the USA is bordering absurdity in its believability. 100% agree - to me, it passed surreal levels years ago. Even more surreal is the percentage of intelligent people who seem to believe that they have a firm lock on "the truth" about a system this complex, despite often having extensive background knowledge in the complexity that lies within far simpler systems. > The president says exactly what he means, and his words are interpreted by others like a horoscope to mean whatever they want. Serious question: how is it that you came to know the beliefs of other people? Trace the lineage of that belief in your own mind, and see what you come up with. This is not conspiracy theory or trolling, it is the result of scientific investigations performed over decades by specialists in various overlapping fields, who are doing their best to understand the mysteries of the human mind. And scientists aren't the only source of substantiation - not that long ago philosophy and literature were very seriously by a lot of serious people, and may have a thing or two worth learning. https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the-philosophy-of-mind/ https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the... https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert It's hard to resist picking a side and getting down into object level mudslinging in the information war currently playing out in the media (mainstream and social), I'm very often guilty of it myself. But I propose that there is another alternative available: that of a disinterested (as possible) 3rd person observer who engages his/her mind with the abstract perspective of the battle, observing with playful curiosity the rhetorical strategies, strange supernatural beliefs, and various other absurd behavior that until recently only the human mind was capable of producing. Not only is this perspective far more interesting, but once you do it for a while some interesting new thoughts might come to mind, like "Just what exactly is going on on this planet? These humans have the ability to have a realtime video conversation with someone half way around the world, or deliver a package there by the next day, yet at the same time millions of their offspring die every year due to a lack of the basic essentials required to sustain their lives, and all they seem to do is post short "tweets" to each other lamenting that "nothing can be done". What mysterious force underlies this madness?"

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dkn775 6y ago
Many feel that policy is easier to grasp than tech algorithms so they feel the solutions are obvious. The amount of competing legal, administrative, and regulatory obligations alone in what can be one policy is way more complex than code. While science is more rigorous, it is easier to build consensus, and it can be done with minimal human contact.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > While science is more rigorous, it is easier to build consensus, and it can be done with minimal human contact. Agreed, which is why I believe we should take a more scientific approach to discussions. For example: >>> Those adults watch a few conspiracy YouTube videos and Fox News and consider themselves educated and informed. Is this statement True? At best, it has some truth. But this type of language and thinking is incredibly common right here on HN, a place we consider to be a place of quality discussion. For sure, things are better here than most other places, but it is still chock full of objectively incorrect statements and erroneous thinking, much of it being very nuanced and easily dismissed by "don't be pedantic", "you know what I meant", etc. Science does not operate by ignoring details or requiring listeners to infer things from vague messages, and this is why it produces successful results. The way we manage and discuss affairs on planet earth however, is almost entirely operated in this non-scientific, error-riddled form. To be clear, this is my personal opinion (an estimate) about reality. What matters is what the true state of reality is, and almost no one seems to care about that, at least based on discussion and voting patterns here. I wonder if some sort of a browser addon that added a metadata layer to forums would be helpful in surfacing these things, such that patterns could be recognized over time, which might bring to mind ideas of how we could improve our thinking and discourse.

dkn775 6y ago

I think CSPAN is the best source for anything government related on the national front. Honestly I even feel NPR can be a little too biased at times. Locally I get a kick out of reading the raw PDFs of proposed policies, strategic plans, city council videos etc. Throw in some opensecrets.org type research if needed. It’s interesting to read the raw truth without interpretation from others. It just takes some practice to know where to look. My money and politics teacher @ CMU - John Delano said something that has always stuck with me when in doubt about motivations - “in politics, follow the money”.