5 ms·

Cognitive Bias Can Explain Post-Truth

70 points by endlessvoid94 6y ago

ilaksh 6y ago
Check out https://www.improvethenews.org/ https://www.improvethenews.org/ if you are interested in cognitive bias and news distribution. It is also from MIT.
rkhassen9 6y ago
And filter bubbles. I mean, if you live in an information echo chamber, which we all do now, of course you’ll keep getting feedback that what you hear is true. People seem very unaware of their filter bubbles and how to see out of them.
- minikites 6y ago
  I think addressing this is the right idea at the wrong scale. The problem is information and media literacy more broadly. Think about who benefits from the general societal rejection of expertise and what that means for information and media literacy.
  - mariodiana 6y ago
    Is expertise being rejected per se? My problem with experts is that their advice often seems to take into consideration only a very circumscribed set of concerns, and that their tacit assumptions -- normative assumptions, particularly -- are rarely questioned sufficiently, if at all. Let me share a quip, one that pertains to one specific type of expert: namely, lawyers. "Legal training sharpens the mind by narrowing it." Experts give advice, which by all means should be considered. Read that last clause carefully. I argue that we have a kind of cult of expertise where careful consideration of expert advice within the context of larger concerns -- the full picture -- is too often given short shrift.
    - minikites 6y ago
      I believe I understand what you're saying but I don't buy it. Good experts state their assumptions and acknowledge their biases. The assumption seems to be that they don't or that they aren't, but I see it often. Furthermore, part of the job of the media is to mediate these experts, find consensus among those experts, and explain issues and tradeoffs to the public. This is also under attack by the same people for the same reasons. These reasons are not to make people believe lies, they are to make people believe there is no such thing as "true" and "false". In other words, these reasons are to make people believe that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". This tactic works for muddying the cause of climate change, but doesn't work for "Biden won the election". For democracy to survive, we need to teach information and media literacy broadly and early.
      - mariodiana 6y ago
        I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Here's what I'm talking about. My hypothetical expert, talking about non-pharmaceutical interventions to mitigate the spread of the pandemic, for example, would say something like the following. "Leaving aside all other concerns and taking into account available research, our conjecture is that social distancing and mask wearing should significantly impact the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus." Intelligent people, and for the sake of argument I'll include politicians, would then hear the following. "There is no conclusive scientific proof regarding NPI's. However, given the uncertainty of the situation and the educated guesses of scientists, based on what they have conclusive evidence for, regarding disease spread and the nature of this coronavirus, we have to consider the use of NPI's. The use of NPI's then needs to be informed by other considerations: namely, economic impact, and broader social impact, both of which will depend on the extent of NPI's." What I saw, instead, was "science" and "scientists" being conflated by one side, and the conjecture of scientists, based on incomplete information -- but incomplete information being evaluated by experienced practitioners -- being dismissed as entirely worthless by the other. Both sides did this by prioritizing either "lives" over "jobs" and vice-versa; in other words, by capitalizing on the legitimate fears of the populace. The media, too, rather than examining and explaining the pronouncement of experts, and elucidating the moral issues, picked sides. And to top it off, the two sides each got their backs up over extreme, inflexible positions: either, "masks everywhere" and "damn your pocketbook," or "masks don't work" and "anyway, it's just the flu." If you ask me, neither side has any claim to superiority. So, let me reiterate my point. Experts make pronouncements with various levels of confidence and without commenting outside of their area of expertise; but their area of expertise is often just a small part of the larger problem. Trade-offs have to be considered. But we are not doing that. Our politicians (and media) pick sides, regarding the trade-offs, and then avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of the concerns they're willing to trade off. Expertise is not being applied correctly. That's my point.
faissaloo 6y ago
This is article's understanding of post-truth is faulty. Cognitive bias is completely normal, post-truth comes when society does not broadly have the same cognitive biases, meaning each person comes to radically different conclusions about just about everything.
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
Sure, but is there any supposed cognitive failure that "cognitive bias" cannot explain? An omni-explanation explains nothing.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
It's a mistake to think that the populace was ever rational and that there was a "truth" period that preceded the current "post-truth" era. I don't even consider myself to be a rational person. Everything I think and do is through the perspective of my worldview, personality, and my peers. Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise. In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side.
- PH01 6y ago
  > In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side. This is an odd perspective to see on ycombinator. The negation of knowledge as a fundamental concept is nihilism. I find it very hard to accept that "alternative facts" are true. A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false. If you work in technology do you believe in booleans or do you think they are also open to individual interpretation?
  - ilaksh 6y ago
    Real-world issues are not boolean variables.
    - brokenkebab 6y ago
      This commentary is interesting in that it's absolutely correct, but adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
  - eindiran 6y ago
    I don't understand how you took the idea that OP doesn't believe in truth from their post. Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth". No one is asking that you think that "alternative facts" are true; OP is just saying that there wasn't significantly more truth in the media/discussions in the commons 30 years ago (or whenever the fabled golden age of truth was supposed to have occurred).

70 points by endlessvoid94 6y ago

Check out https://www.improvethenews.org/ https://www.improvethenews.org/ if you are interested in cognitive bias and news distribution. It is also from MIT.

rkhassen9 6y ago

And filter bubbles. I mean, if you live in an information echo chamber, which we all do now, of course you’ll keep getting feedback that what you hear is true. People seem very unaware of their filter bubbles and how to see out of them.

minikites 6y ago
I think addressing this is the right idea at the wrong scale. The problem is information and media literacy more broadly. Think about who benefits from the general societal rejection of expertise and what that means for information and media literacy.
- mariodiana 6y ago
  Is expertise being rejected per se? My problem with experts is that their advice often seems to take into consideration only a very circumscribed set of concerns, and that their tacit assumptions -- normative assumptions, particularly -- are rarely questioned sufficiently, if at all. Let me share a quip, one that pertains to one specific type of expert: namely, lawyers. "Legal training sharpens the mind by narrowing it." Experts give advice, which by all means should be considered. Read that last clause carefully. I argue that we have a kind of cult of expertise where careful consideration of expert advice within the context of larger concerns -- the full picture -- is too often given short shrift.
  - minikites 6y ago
    I believe I understand what you're saying but I don't buy it. Good experts state their assumptions and acknowledge their biases. The assumption seems to be that they don't or that they aren't, but I see it often. Furthermore, part of the job of the media is to mediate these experts, find consensus among those experts, and explain issues and tradeoffs to the public. This is also under attack by the same people for the same reasons. These reasons are not to make people believe lies, they are to make people believe there is no such thing as "true" and "false". In other words, these reasons are to make people believe that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". This tactic works for muddying the cause of climate change, but doesn't work for "Biden won the election". For democracy to survive, we need to teach information and media literacy broadly and early.
    - mariodiana 6y ago
      I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Here's what I'm talking about. My hypothetical expert, talking about non-pharmaceutical interventions to mitigate the spread of the pandemic, for example, would say something like the following. "Leaving aside all other concerns and taking into account available research, our conjecture is that social distancing and mask wearing should significantly impact the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus." Intelligent people, and for the sake of argument I'll include politicians, would then hear the following. "There is no conclusive scientific proof regarding NPI's. However, given the uncertainty of the situation and the educated guesses of scientists, based on what they have conclusive evidence for, regarding disease spread and the nature of this coronavirus, we have to consider the use of NPI's. The use of NPI's then needs to be informed by other considerations: namely, economic impact, and broader social impact, both of which will depend on the extent of NPI's." What I saw, instead, was "science" and "scientists" being conflated by one side, and the conjecture of scientists, based on incomplete information -- but incomplete information being evaluated by experienced practitioners -- being dismissed as entirely worthless by the other. Both sides did this by prioritizing either "lives" over "jobs" and vice-versa; in other words, by capitalizing on the legitimate fears of the populace. The media, too, rather than examining and explaining the pronouncement of experts, and elucidating the moral issues, picked sides. And to top it off, the two sides each got their backs up over extreme, inflexible positions: either, "masks everywhere" and "damn your pocketbook," or "masks don't work" and "anyway, it's just the flu." If you ask me, neither side has any claim to superiority. So, let me reiterate my point. Experts make pronouncements with various levels of confidence and without commenting outside of their area of expertise; but their area of expertise is often just a small part of the larger problem. Trade-offs have to be considered. But we are not doing that. Our politicians (and media) pick sides, regarding the trade-offs, and then avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of the concerns they're willing to trade off. Expertise is not being applied correctly. That's my point.

faissaloo 6y ago

This is article's understanding of post-truth is faulty. Cognitive bias is completely normal, post-truth comes when society does not broadly have the same cognitive biases, meaning each person comes to radically different conclusions about just about everything.

eli_gottlieb 6y ago

Sure, but is there any supposed cognitive failure that "cognitive bias" cannot explain? An omni-explanation explains nothing.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

It's a mistake to think that the populace was ever rational and that there was a "truth" period that preceded the current "post-truth" era. I don't even consider myself to be a rational person. Everything I think and do is through the perspective of my worldview, personality, and my peers. Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise. In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side.

PH01 6y ago
> In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side. This is an odd perspective to see on ycombinator. The negation of knowledge as a fundamental concept is nihilism. I find it very hard to accept that "alternative facts" are true. A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false. If you work in technology do you believe in booleans or do you think they are also open to individual interpretation?
- ilaksh 6y ago
  Real-world issues are not boolean variables.
  - brokenkebab 6y ago
    This commentary is interesting in that it's absolutely correct, but adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
- eindiran 6y ago
  I don't understand how you took the idea that OP doesn't believe in truth from their post. Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth". No one is asking that you think that "alternative facts" are true; OP is just saying that there wasn't significantly more truth in the media/discussions in the commons 30 years ago (or whenever the fabled golden age of truth was supposed to have occurred).