4 ms·

bs seems to bias very favorably towards the first mover. how about we set up some sort of proactive ‘evidence based truths’ thing to potentially preempt future

• mrweasel 6y ago
  One reason could be that we as humans are naturaly biased towards the first version of a story.
  • Heliosmaster 6y ago
    It's a well known bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
    • luizfelberti 6y ago
      Related to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation_theory
• layer8 6y ago
  There’s also quantity and complexity: For every fact, you can come up with a multitude of BS counter-claims (so it’s more likely that at least one of them is already out in the wild), and truths are usually more complex than BS claims, which also biases against them.
• minikites 6y ago
  That only works on people who value evidence. Sartre figured this out: >Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.
• mistermann 6y ago
  > how about we set up some sort of proactive ‘evidence based truths’ thing to potentially preempt future BS. It's basically how you'd run a project, right? If there was some point of contention, you would document that point, attaching the various conflicting opinions, perhaps with pros and cons of each, whatever else was important, and then that argument is done. If a genuinely new future disagreement arises, amend it. Over time, more distinct points would arise, and you'd do the same thing, gradually building out a model of The System: what it is composed of, how it works, where things are decided, where things are not, where do we still have unknowns and more work to do, etc. A reasonably decent model of what our reality is composed of. In the world of democracy and public affairs though, we seem to have instead chosen to take an approach with no organization or persistence of decisions. So, an event occurs, a couple hundred internet arguments break out, composed in part of thousands of mini-arguments involving past unresolved disagreements, and plenty of insults and ill will. And then tomorrow when the next event occurs (or a new wrinkle in yesterday's), we start from scratch doing the same thing all over again. Round and round we go, like we're on a treadmill to nowhere.
  • mcphage 6y ago
    That’s assuming that both sides respect the process and are acting in good faith to come to a conclusion.
    • mistermann 6y ago
      If there is a disagreement, it is noted. I don't see a problem.