4 ms·

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.

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.

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.