3 ms·

Anonymous source? Check. Unverifiable anecdotal evidence? Check. Somehow I’m not surprised that HN users don’t express the faintest bit of skepticism on topic

Anonymous source? Check. Unverifiable anecdotal evidence? Check. Somehow I’m not surprised that HN users don’t express the faintest bit of skepticism on topics that confirm their pre-existing biases. “Alarmingly, only 14 percent of American students were able to reliably distinguish fact from opinion in reading tests.” [0] [0] https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/pisa-test-china https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/pisa-test-chin...

Jonanin 6y ago
Uh huh... don’t kid yourself that this is exclusively a problem with Americans. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-post-truth-publication-where-chinese-students-in-america-get-their-news https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-post-trut...
zepto 6y ago
> Somehow I’m not surprised that HN users don’t express the faintest bit of skepticism on topics that confirm their pre-existing biases. Could it be that you are drawing conclusions without evidence here? How do you know anything about the skepticism or biases of those who don’t express them?
- AntiImperialist 6y ago
  He's obviously talking about those who express them.
fernandotakai 6y ago
>Unverifiable anecdotal evidence? Check. i didn't see any evidence in comment post that contradicts the post. the only link i see right now is for an article praising chinese kids, which is highly interesting given the contents of the original post.
jryle70 6y ago
> Anonymous source? Check. > Unverifiable anecdotal evidence? Check. Have you ever wondered why there is no Edward Snowden of China, despite the fact the Chinese equivalence of NSA is undoubtedly as much aggressive, if not more? Such a person would have been suicidal, not to mention no news organizations would be willing to publish their information. In such an environment anonymous source is the norm. It has to be. Unfortunately that also provides plausible deniability, as your post illustrates.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Isn't Chinese surveillance and censorship completely out in the open? Why would there need to be an Edward Snowden? There is already gobs of evidence of total surveillance, so why would someone risk their skin to expose what is already known and established fact?
inshadows 6y ago
Exactly. Confirmation bias at its best. It plays into views of HN readership so no one here questions the validity, even though there's no way to verify validity. And then you get down votes for critical thinking.

Jonanin 6y ago

Uh huh... don’t kid yourself that this is exclusively a problem with Americans. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-post-truth-publication-where-chinese-students-in-america-get-their-news https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-post-trut...

zepto 6y ago

> Somehow I’m not surprised that HN users don’t express the faintest bit of skepticism on topics that confirm their pre-existing biases. Could it be that you are drawing conclusions without evidence here? How do you know anything about the skepticism or biases of those who don’t express them?

AntiImperialist 6y ago
He's obviously talking about those who express them.

fernandotakai 6y ago

>Unverifiable anecdotal evidence? Check. i didn't see any evidence in comment post that contradicts the post. the only link i see right now is for an article praising chinese kids, which is highly interesting given the contents of the original post.

jryle70 6y ago

> Anonymous source? Check. > Unverifiable anecdotal evidence? Check. Have you ever wondered why there is no Edward Snowden of China, despite the fact the Chinese equivalence of NSA is undoubtedly as much aggressive, if not more? Such a person would have been suicidal, not to mention no news organizations would be willing to publish their information. In such an environment anonymous source is the norm. It has to be. Unfortunately that also provides plausible deniability, as your post illustrates.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Isn't Chinese surveillance and censorship completely out in the open? Why would there need to be an Edward Snowden? There is already gobs of evidence of total surveillance, so why would someone risk their skin to expose what is already known and established fact?

inshadows 6y ago

Exactly. Confirmation bias at its best. It plays into views of HN readership so no one here questions the validity, even though there's no way to verify validity. And then you get down votes for critical thinking.