5 ms·

How is this story related to QAnon or a conspiracy theory? I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was

by verall 6y ago

How is this story related to QAnon or a conspiracy theory? I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was true. Who in the US is "taking care of" stories? If you're going to make bold claims like this, include some details.

mistermann 6y ago
It isn't related (more precisely: a relation has not been established) - that was my point. I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them...and how this can act upon people's interest levels and thinking styles. > I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was true. I feel like this sort of rhetoric is a fine example of the very phenomenon that I described ("...but attach either of those, and you'll find...). > Who in the US is "taking care of" stories? Not sure who it is exactly. And unless they for some reason decide to voluntarily confess, I suspect we will never know for sure. Are you under the impression that the United States government never uses propaganda? Maybe you guys have the state on a much shorter leash than the Canadians. > If you're going to make bold claims like this, include some details. I wonder: does your mind desire evidence when it encounters the inverse of my ideas? Regardless, to answer your question, here is an example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-dominion-voter-fraud-conspiracy-theory-reaches-n1247780 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-domin... This article implicitly(!) asserts that the Dominion story is an invention of QAnon. How it works (from a neuroscientific, "belief formation" perspective) is, these stories are printed in the news, and then people who read them believe what is in the story. Whether it is actually true or not has very little bearing. Not only do most people (who voice an opinion) not care what is actually true, they will go to great lengths to discredit anyone who mentions the very notion of 'What is Actually True'. This is not just an opinion - the phenomenon can be observed. To me, this behavior is absolutely fascinating. Why most people have such a strong aversion to the topic is also interesting. Back to the article... > "While the theory has already been debunked — including by Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is tasked with national security related to the internet and technology..." Notice the language used in such articles, words like debunked. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk - to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear If you have an eye for detail, you may notice that this is a very popular word with journalists these days. You may also notice that "debunk" has a fair amount of uncertainty and wiggle room in its explicit definition (if not so much in how it is interpreted by people who read it). This sort of wiggle room can come in handy if one is ever called to testify in court. I won't bother doing a full analysis of the article, I have not once encountered a single non-conspiracy-theorist who is able to discuss this topic with the same attention to accuracy as they would if we were discussing a technical topic like programming - I am merely drawing people's attention to the phenomenon. I have no illusions whatsoever that I am going to change a single person's mind (and believe me, I've tried), in the slightest. You are free to believe whatever you would like, as is everyone else. And Mother Nature will reward us accordingly, in the long run. But I will say this: What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. - Mark Twain
- verall 6y ago
  > I feel like this sort of rhetoric is a fine example of the very phenomenon that I described I see your point, that by attaching certain labels (like a logical fallacy), many people write off information without independently judging its veracity (whether the fallacy actually occured) Yet in your case, you still fail to support your key claim: > I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them... Obviously some people will never read past the label, whether it is "Qanon" or "socialism", but plenty of people do read past the label, and independently try to discover what is true. I don't think Dominion conspiracy is false because some low quality nbcnews article said it started on qanon - where it "started" does not really matter to me. I think it's false because it's obviously politically motivated and doesn't make any fucking sense. There would be noticable statistical differences between the results of Dominion and other voting machines. I reject the premise you seem to be trying to push, that only conspiracy theorists care about truth. I care about truth and am not a conspiracy theorist. Some conspiracy theories turning out to be broadly true (e.g. nsa metadata surveillance and mkultra) has no bearing on the truth of other conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists are a result of modern magic like airplanes and fiat currency being poorly explained in school and bad critical thinking skills. Most conspiracy theorists believe in multiple directly conflicting theories because it maximizes the chance of being correct at some point.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > Yet in your case, you still fail to support your key claim: >> I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them... > Obviously some people will never read past the label, whether it is "Qanon" or "socialism", but plenty of people do read past the label, and independently try to discover what is true. You seem to be framing the conversation as if I have made the assertion that 100% of people fall for these techniques. I made no such claim. > I don't think Dominion conspiracy is false because some low quality nbcnews article said it started on qanon - where it "started" does not really matter to me. Now you are addressing the example I provided, rather than the general phenomenon I am describing. > I think it's false because it's obviously politically motivated and doesn't make any fucking sense. There is some Truth to the story, or there is No Truth to the story. Our respective personal opinions or understandings have no bearing on the actual state of reality. > There would be noticable statistical differences between the results of Dominion and other voting machines. Perhaps there would, perhaps there would not. Perhaps this would be noticed, perhaps this would be not. Can you point me to anything that demonstrates that an extremely thorough statistical analysis has been performed? > I reject the premise you seem to be trying to push, that only conspiracy theorists care about truth. I am not pushing the premise that "only conspiracy theorists care about truth". You are framing and characterizing my comments as if I am stating that. > I care about truth and am not a conspiracy theorist. How much any one person perceives themself to "care" (a slippery concept) about something does not always match "the actuality" of the situation. This is kind of what sayings like "Watch What People Do, Not What They Say" are getting at. To make it even more complicated, the level of caring can often vary significantly with the smallest of modifications to certain variables in the model. To be clear, I do not mean to accuse you specifically of any particular imperfection - if I have done so, then that was done in error. I have no way of knowing your true beliefs or intentions. I am speaking of a general phenomenon that can be observed - and furthermore, I am in no way asserting that it applies universally in all situations. > Some conspiracy theories turning out to be broadly true (e.g. nsa metadata surveillance and mkultra) has no bearing on the truth of other conspiracy theories. This is absolutely correct, and I have said nothing to indicate otherwise. > Conspiracy theorists are a result of modern magic like airplanes and fiat currency being poorly explained in school and bad critical thinking skills. This is an estimation. It is not possible to know with any kind of precision what the complex chain of causation is behind any individual conspiracy theorist, or conspiracy theorists in general. > Most conspiracy theorists believe in multiple directly conflicting theories because it maximizes the chance of being correct at some point. This is also an estimation. You do not have any way of knowing the actual, comprehensive beliefs of even one individual conspiracy theorist, let alone what "most" of them believe. Ironically, this neurological phenomenon (the mistaking of heuristic predictions about reality, for reality itself) is to a large degree the type of thinking that many conspiracy theory beliefs are based upon. I happen to believe that both sides are very wrong on this general topic, and most other popular "culture-war" category disputes. I would like for the counter-productive and harmful "he said, she said" meme wars (of which this topic is but one) that are going on in the world between the various tribes to stop. I would like us to move more towards a public discourse based on calm, measured, truly evidence-based reasoning, and trinary logic (True/False/Unknown), rather than our current binary (True/False) approach (which forces people to guess).

by verall 6y ago

mistermann 6y ago

It isn't related (more precisely: a relation has not been established) - that was my point. I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them...and how this can act upon people's interest levels and thinking styles. > I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was true. I feel like this sort of rhetoric is a fine example of the very phenomenon that I described ("...but attach either of those, and you'll find...). > Who in the US is "taking care of" stories? Not sure who it is exactly. And unless they for some reason decide to voluntarily confess, I suspect we will never know for sure. Are you under the impression that the United States government never uses propaganda? Maybe you guys have the state on a much shorter leash than the Canadians. > If you're going to make bold claims like this, include some details. I wonder: does your mind desire evidence when it encounters the inverse of my ideas? Regardless, to answer your question, here is an example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-dominion-voter-fraud-conspiracy-theory-reaches-n1247780 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-domin... This article implicitly(!) asserts that the Dominion story is an invention of QAnon. How it works (from a neuroscientific, "belief formation" perspective) is, these stories are printed in the news, and then people who read them believe what is in the story. Whether it is actually true or not has very little bearing. Not only do most people (who voice an opinion) not care what is actually true, they will go to great lengths to discredit anyone who mentions the very notion of 'What is Actually True'. This is not just an opinion - the phenomenon can be observed. To me, this behavior is absolutely fascinating. Why most people have such a strong aversion to the topic is also interesting. Back to the article... > "While the theory has already been debunked — including by Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is tasked with national security related to the internet and technology..." Notice the language used in such articles, words like debunked. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk - to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear If you have an eye for detail, you may notice that this is a very popular word with journalists these days. You may also notice that "debunk" has a fair amount of uncertainty and wiggle room in its explicit definition (if not so much in how it is interpreted by people who read it). This sort of wiggle room can come in handy if one is ever called to testify in court. I won't bother doing a full analysis of the article, I have not once encountered a single non-conspiracy-theorist who is able to discuss this topic with the same attention to accuracy as they would if we were discussing a technical topic like programming - I am merely drawing people's attention to the phenomenon. I have no illusions whatsoever that I am going to change a single person's mind (and believe me, I've tried), in the slightest. You are free to believe whatever you would like, as is everyone else. And Mother Nature will reward us accordingly, in the long run. But I will say this: What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. - Mark Twain

verall 6y ago
> I feel like this sort of rhetoric is a fine example of the very phenomenon that I described I see your point, that by attaching certain labels (like a logical fallacy), many people write off information without independently judging its veracity (whether the fallacy actually occured) Yet in your case, you still fail to support your key claim: > I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them... Obviously some people will never read past the label, whether it is "Qanon" or "socialism", but plenty of people do read past the label, and independently try to discover what is true. I don't think Dominion conspiracy is false because some low quality nbcnews article said it started on qanon - where it "started" does not really matter to me. I think it's false because it's obviously politically motivated and doesn't make any fucking sense. There would be noticable statistical differences between the results of Dominion and other voting machines. I reject the premise you seem to be trying to push, that only conspiracy theorists care about truth. I care about truth and am not a conspiracy theorist. Some conspiracy theories turning out to be broadly true (e.g. nsa metadata surveillance and mkultra) has no bearing on the truth of other conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists are a result of modern magic like airplanes and fiat currency being poorly explained in school and bad critical thinking skills. Most conspiracy theorists believe in multiple directly conflicting theories because it maximizes the chance of being correct at some point.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Yet in your case, you still fail to support your key claim: >> I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them... > Obviously some people will never read past the label, whether it is "Qanon" or "socialism", but plenty of people do read past the label, and independently try to discover what is true. You seem to be framing the conversation as if I have made the assertion that 100% of people fall for these techniques. I made no such claim. > I don't think Dominion conspiracy is false because some low quality nbcnews article said it started on qanon - where it "started" does not really matter to me. Now you are addressing the example I provided, rather than the general phenomenon I am describing. > I think it's false because it's obviously politically motivated and doesn't make any fucking sense. There is some Truth to the story, or there is No Truth to the story. Our respective personal opinions or understandings have no bearing on the actual state of reality. > There would be noticable statistical differences between the results of Dominion and other voting machines. Perhaps there would, perhaps there would not. Perhaps this would be noticed, perhaps this would be not. Can you point me to anything that demonstrates that an extremely thorough statistical analysis has been performed? > I reject the premise you seem to be trying to push, that only conspiracy theorists care about truth. I am not pushing the premise that "only conspiracy theorists care about truth". You are framing and characterizing my comments as if I am stating that. > I care about truth and am not a conspiracy theorist. How much any one person perceives themself to "care" (a slippery concept) about something does not always match "the actuality" of the situation. This is kind of what sayings like "Watch What People Do, Not What They Say" are getting at. To make it even more complicated, the level of caring can often vary significantly with the smallest of modifications to certain variables in the model. To be clear, I do not mean to accuse you specifically of any particular imperfection - if I have done so, then that was done in error. I have no way of knowing your true beliefs or intentions. I am speaking of a general phenomenon that can be observed - and furthermore, I am in no way asserting that it applies universally in all situations. > Some conspiracy theories turning out to be broadly true (e.g. nsa metadata surveillance and mkultra) has no bearing on the truth of other conspiracy theories. This is absolutely correct, and I have said nothing to indicate otherwise. > Conspiracy theorists are a result of modern magic like airplanes and fiat currency being poorly explained in school and bad critical thinking skills. This is an estimation. It is not possible to know with any kind of precision what the complex chain of causation is behind any individual conspiracy theorist, or conspiracy theorists in general. > Most conspiracy theorists believe in multiple directly conflicting theories because it maximizes the chance of being correct at some point. This is also an estimation. You do not have any way of knowing the actual, comprehensive beliefs of even one individual conspiracy theorist, let alone what "most" of them believe. Ironically, this neurological phenomenon (the mistaking of heuristic predictions about reality, for reality itself) is to a large degree the type of thinking that many conspiracy theory beliefs are based upon. I happen to believe that both sides are very wrong on this general topic, and most other popular "culture-war" category disputes. I would like for the counter-productive and harmful "he said, she said" meme wars (of which this topic is but one) that are going on in the world between the various tribes to stop. I would like us to move more towards a public discourse based on calm, measured, truly evidence-based reasoning, and trinary logic (True/False/Unknown), rather than our current binary (True/False) approach (which forces people to guess).