5 ms·

I've been listening primarily to the liberal mainstream news propaganda. Their lies are obvious if you dig a bit deeper, look at the facts and think for yoursel

I've been listening primarily to the liberal mainstream news propaganda. Their lies are obvious if you dig a bit deeper, look at the facts and think for yourself. Apparently critical thinking is what college-educated people lack this days after years of indoctrination into groupthink and compliance. Deresiewicz called them 'excellent sheep' for a good reason.

pron 6y ago
I find this kind epistemology fascinating. Suppose I were to not believe any institutional message, and lend it no credence whatsoever. "Thinking for myself" is not enough. Ultimately, I need information that I can't gather myself, and, often enough, some expert who can put it into context, because there are too many things and too little time, and learning anything in depth requires years. So, in the end, you have to trust someone, and it seems to me that the people who say "think for yourself" or "do your own research" might be skeptical of institutional sources, but are quicker to trust other sources than your "excellent sheep," but why they trust the particular sources they trust is pretty mysterious. I tried, as a "magical mystery tour" exercise of sort, to see if I could get into the conspiracy theories that permeate the Trump world, but found that I was too skeptical and couldn't truly bring myself to believe what they believe, even as an experiment, because their entire epistemological system, the philosophy of how they come to "know" something, is something I couldn't follow the rules of. How someone's reputation is determined was a mystery to me. There are no documented methodologies, no agreed-upon "scientific method", no peer review. I once asked someone how he knew something, and he said that he'd done his own research. I asked him which databases and archives they had access to, but then realized that what he meant by "research" was that he'd read some posts on Facebook by people he didn't know and watched some videos on YouTube, also by people he didn't know, and he'd judged their reputation based on the opinions of others, but those others had had just the same corpus of knowledge, and nobody actually had any access to primary data, and no one even thought this should make them skeptical. So how do you know that this conspiracy theory is something you should believe but not that other one? I assumed there was some internal logic, but I just couldn't find a pattern. I think it has to do with the aesthetics of the story; how dramatic it is, how good-vs-evil, and whether it fits with an overarching meta-conspiracy-theory of hidden powers. If the story is dramatic, they believe it. In other words, the truth is whatever makes for a good story, where I am played as a pawn of some hidden cabal. But perhaps you can shed some more light on that epistemological process.
- mbergal 6y ago
  Well, when I look at mainstream media saying for 3 years that Trump "is a Russian agent", that Trump is conspiracy theorist saying that Obama admin spied on his campaign - I by being a "critical thinker" compare it to IG report and comments in Senate hearings and make a decision of how adjust my trust ratings for sources. At some point rating of some sources is going to be too low to even consider them, and some will be Ok-ish. That's how I will know what "conspiracy theories" to consider. They might end up not being "conspiracy theories" altogether (like conspiracy theory that Iraq does not have WMD). Hope it helps.
  - pron 6y ago
    I don't have an issue with what the Trump world doesn't believe. A system that says, "we believe nothing" or even, "we believe nothing said by someone's who's ever lied" is fine. What I don't understand is how easily they do believe in stuff that is, at the very least, not more credible than the stuff they don't. It's not their skepticism that perplexes me, but their credulity. They clearly have an epistemology that's very different from the mainstream Western tradition (or any other, for that matter), and I'm curious to understand what it is.
    - mbergal 6y ago
      1. I cannot speak for "them" of "Trump world". 2. It is not about skepticism, it is about assigning weights - stories and opinions coming from more trusted sources warrant more attention. 3. I think that "believing in stuff" is not a problem affecting only the "Trump world".
      - pron 6y ago
        > It is not about skepticism, it is about assigning weights - stories and opinions coming from more trusted sources warrant more attention. Sure, but how is Q more trusted than, say, the FBI, even if the FBI is hardly to be trusted at all? > I think that "believing in stuff" is not a problem affecting only the "Trump world". I agree, but they're unique in not just being credulous -- if not more than others then certainly no less -- but also in self-identifying as skeptics while doing so. "I don't believe scientists and historians and law enforcement because I'm a skeptic, but I do believe the unsubstantiated ramblings of strangers online, some of whom are anonymous!"
pacomerh 6y ago
You don't have to dig deep at all to see Trumps lies though. They're so obvious it's disgusting. They're irresponsible and harmful. The fact that you don't see this just invalidates anything you write

pron 6y ago

I find this kind epistemology fascinating. Suppose I were to not believe any institutional message, and lend it no credence whatsoever. "Thinking for myself" is not enough. Ultimately, I need information that I can't gather myself, and, often enough, some expert who can put it into context, because there are too many things and too little time, and learning anything in depth requires years. So, in the end, you have to trust someone, and it seems to me that the people who say "think for yourself" or "do your own research" might be skeptical of institutional sources, but are quicker to trust other sources than your "excellent sheep," but why they trust the particular sources they trust is pretty mysterious. I tried, as a "magical mystery tour" exercise of sort, to see if I could get into the conspiracy theories that permeate the Trump world, but found that I was too skeptical and couldn't truly bring myself to believe what they believe, even as an experiment, because their entire epistemological system, the philosophy of how they come to "know" something, is something I couldn't follow the rules of. How someone's reputation is determined was a mystery to me. There are no documented methodologies, no agreed-upon "scientific method", no peer review. I once asked someone how he knew something, and he said that he'd done his own research. I asked him which databases and archives they had access to, but then realized that what he meant by "research" was that he'd read some posts on Facebook by people he didn't know and watched some videos on YouTube, also by people he didn't know, and he'd judged their reputation based on the opinions of others, but those others had had just the same corpus of knowledge, and nobody actually had any access to primary data, and no one even thought this should make them skeptical. So how do you know that this conspiracy theory is something you should believe but not that other one? I assumed there was some internal logic, but I just couldn't find a pattern. I think it has to do with the aesthetics of the story; how dramatic it is, how good-vs-evil, and whether it fits with an overarching meta-conspiracy-theory of hidden powers. If the story is dramatic, they believe it. In other words, the truth is whatever makes for a good story, where I am played as a pawn of some hidden cabal. But perhaps you can shed some more light on that epistemological process.

mbergal 6y ago
Well, when I look at mainstream media saying for 3 years that Trump "is a Russian agent", that Trump is conspiracy theorist saying that Obama admin spied on his campaign - I by being a "critical thinker" compare it to IG report and comments in Senate hearings and make a decision of how adjust my trust ratings for sources. At some point rating of some sources is going to be too low to even consider them, and some will be Ok-ish. That's how I will know what "conspiracy theories" to consider. They might end up not being "conspiracy theories" altogether (like conspiracy theory that Iraq does not have WMD). Hope it helps.
- pron 6y ago
  I don't have an issue with what the Trump world doesn't believe. A system that says, "we believe nothing" or even, "we believe nothing said by someone's who's ever lied" is fine. What I don't understand is how easily they do believe in stuff that is, at the very least, not more credible than the stuff they don't. It's not their skepticism that perplexes me, but their credulity. They clearly have an epistemology that's very different from the mainstream Western tradition (or any other, for that matter), and I'm curious to understand what it is.
  - mbergal 6y ago
    1. I cannot speak for "them" of "Trump world". 2. It is not about skepticism, it is about assigning weights - stories and opinions coming from more trusted sources warrant more attention. 3. I think that "believing in stuff" is not a problem affecting only the "Trump world".
    - pron 6y ago
      > It is not about skepticism, it is about assigning weights - stories and opinions coming from more trusted sources warrant more attention. Sure, but how is Q more trusted than, say, the FBI, even if the FBI is hardly to be trusted at all? > I think that "believing in stuff" is not a problem affecting only the "Trump world". I agree, but they're unique in not just being credulous -- if not more than others then certainly no less -- but also in self-identifying as skeptics while doing so. "I don't believe scientists and historians and law enforcement because I'm a skeptic, but I do believe the unsubstantiated ramblings of strangers online, some of whom are anonymous!"

pacomerh 6y ago

You don't have to dig deep at all to see Trumps lies though. They're so obvious it's disgusting. They're irresponsible and harmful. The fact that you don't see this just invalidates anything you write