6 ms·

I mean that would be nice, but it’s also unrealistic because of the imbalance in educating someone who wants to be ignorant. The problem I’ve seen is that peop

I mean that would be nice, but it’s also unrealistic because of the imbalance in educating someone who wants to be ignorant. The problem I’ve seen is that people want others to disprove their crazy theories. Disproving anything takes substantially more time and work than just saying any old nonsense in the first place. This is made worse by the hordes of crazy/stupid people on the internet who demand (in bad faith) that everyone who disagrees with their obvious falsehoods takes the time required to provide evidence (that they’ll never accept anyway) is the biggest part of the problem. tldr; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately most of the people spreading this kind of thing online don’t understand what actual evidence is. Try debating a flat-earther, and then explaining that we knew the Earth was round for thousands of years prior to NASA. It will not compute.

dang 5y ago
Anyone who wants seriously to look at this problem needs to grapple with the following: preferring one's beliefs to counterevidence is not just a property of "crazy/stupid people", but of humans in general, including oneself and everyone on one's own side. This is a difficult fact to face, and to the extent one can face it, I think it changes everything. Even if one makes the smallest beginning at doing so, it already starts to change everything. For this we have to stop pointing the finger at the others—their ridiculous beliefs, their preposterous disregard of evidence—and face that we ourselves are the same way. It's not that the other side does it more; it is simply that it is easier—much easier—to see it in them. If you think you don't do it, or (an easier self-deception) you don't do it as much, this is because you are lacking in self-awareness. (I don't mean you personally, of course, I mean all of us.) And let's be honest: we all feel that we don't do it as much. I feel that myself even as I write this. A timeless essay on this is Orwell's "Looking Back at the Spanish War" (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/looking-back-on-the-spanish-war/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel..., discussed last year at [1]). The depth of consciousness that Orwell reached in that essay is profound, but its profundity is obscured by how simply he states it, and no doubt also by the fact that we all think we already know it and are the exception to what he describes. Atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence. Recently I drew up a table of atrocities during the period between 1918 and the present; there was never a year when atrocities were not occurring somewhere or other, and there was hardly a single case when the Left and the Right believed in the same stories simultaneously. And stranger yet, at any moment the situation can suddenly reverse itself and yesterday’s proved-to-the-hilt atrocity story can become a ridiculous lie, merely because the political landscape has changed. --- Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories, and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’. [1] Looking Back on the Spanish War (1942) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24961407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24961407 - Nov 2020 (128 comments)
- headmelted 5y ago
  Oh I’m most certainly a stupid person on the Internet. I have no problem accepting that whatsoever. To your point though, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else when there are groups of people suggesting that the entire concept of science itself is propaganda. I will read what you’ve linked though, as it seems genuinely really interesting.
  - dang 5y ago
    It doesn't follow that everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else, and I'm not saying it does. One needs to be extra careful about deriving consequences from this phenomenon too quickly, because it's so hard to see it in the first place. More precisely, it's hard to see in oneself—but to only see it in others is not to see it at all. I think we should all practice simply seeing it for a while (I'm tempted to say 20 years might be a good minimum), and then maybe we'll be in a position to accurately derive consequences in a way that doesn't just re-establish the original self-deception. p.s. I took out this bit of my comment above: "Or, if you prefer, we're all crazy/stupid in this way." because after reading your comment I realized it was too baity. Mentioning it that here because I don't want to deprive your post of that context.
    - cutemonster 5y ago
      > It doesn't follow that everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else When you wrote: > If you think you don't do it, or (an easier self-deception) you don't do it as much, this is because you are lacking in self-awareness. It sounded to me as if you said everyone was equally wrong as everyone else. Thanks for clarifying that that wasn't what you meant I think this is incorrect: "[or if] you don't do it as much" -- some people indeed does it less (you'd be one of them I think) > it was too baity I agree (I think the section I quoted still is :-))
  - skissane 5y ago
    > there are groups of people suggesting that the entire concept of science itself is propaganda I think there are groups of people claiming that the scientific consensus on particular topics (climate change, COVID-19, etc) is based on ideological bias, vested interests, conspiracies, etc, rather than on good quality scientific evidence. However, most of those people have no problem with accepting the scientific consensus on unrelated topics. Few people are going to deny the scientific consensus on the citric acid cycle, for instance. I think if you bet against the current scientific consensus, most of the time you are going to lose – but maybe not always. If we look back over the history of science, we can see areas in which what was once considered the evidence-based scientific consensus was later decided to be actually based on ideological bias. For example, a lot of 19th and early 20th century science on biological differences between different human descent groups was believed at the time to be based on good scientific evidence but is now in hindsight viewed as corrupted by racial prejudice. How can we be sure that a century from now, people might not look back on some elements of today's scientific consensus as also corrupted by bias/prejudice/ideology/etc? But we don't know whether that will happen, and if it happens we don't know which parts of the contemporary consensus will be viewed as corrupted, nor what will be seen as having corrupted it.
Applejinx 5y ago
That, or: extraordinary claims require extraordinary empathy. If the story is horrible, you've got to understand what in that is so desirable for the person to believe. Why do they cling to that particular narrative? Something about it, works, for them. I think there's a lot of people out there absolutely terrified and right on the edge of un-survival. They are genuinely in continuous, ongoing danger, and need a narrative that will give them a target for their terror, one that could maybe be attacked and fought back against. It is not terribly difficult to take panicked people and persuade them to run away from the exits, or attack the doctors, or otherwise direct their energy and panic towards some goal. The reason to do that is not arbitrary, rather it is to gain power through controlling those people, and it's always worked very well. You take away that power and control not by arguing with the angry, panicky people, but by persistently removing the threats that generate their panic. The worst enemy of an ousted demagogue is a boring, reasonably trustworthy rival that does things to remedy the material distress of the panicky and angry people. You don't have to argue them into submission, you defuse them by making them comfortable, and that's why we see desperate attempts to maintain the panic and terror.
- smogcutter 5y ago
  Not that you're wrong necessarily, but in my own anecdotal experience the people clinging to the sorts of narratives you're describing aren't exactly the picture of precarity. They're aging suburbanites whose TV came with a youtube app.
  - kodah 5y ago
    This might be useful imagery for mockery but it's far from accurate. That, and I mean, mockery is wrong in any meaningful discourse.
    - smogcutter 5y ago
      No, that’s nonsense. Parent’s post is an exercise in imagination. It might be accurate for some, it might not be for others. It certainly doesn’t match my experience, which is summed up pretty concisely in my post. It may not be kind, but it’s also not wrong.
zackees 5y ago
The debunkers are highly biased and typically choose the lowest hanging fruit of some fringe individual, debunk that, and then claim that this represents the conservative argument. This misinformation is therefore being laundered by the fact checker. The people see the “fact checkers” as what they are: a highly biased group being funded by shadow money that work in lockstep to support the msm cartel’s narrative.
lamontcg 5y ago
> Disproving anything takes substantially more time and work than just saying any old nonsense in the first place. The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
- headmelted 5y ago
  Brilliant! I had never heard of this before. This is my new LMGTFY for the next time someone starts in with the crazy. Thanks!!

dang 5y ago

Anyone who wants seriously to look at this problem needs to grapple with the following: preferring one's beliefs to counterevidence is not just a property of "crazy/stupid people", but of humans in general, including oneself and everyone on one's own side. This is a difficult fact to face, and to the extent one can face it, I think it changes everything. Even if one makes the smallest beginning at doing so, it already starts to change everything. For this we have to stop pointing the finger at the others—their ridiculous beliefs, their preposterous disregard of evidence—and face that we ourselves are the same way. It's not that the other side does it more; it is simply that it is easier—much easier—to see it in them. If you think you don't do it, or (an easier self-deception) you don't do it as much, this is because you are lacking in self-awareness. (I don't mean you personally, of course, I mean all of us.) And let's be honest: we all feel that we don't do it as much. I feel that myself even as I write this. A timeless essay on this is Orwell's "Looking Back at the Spanish War" (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/looking-back-on-the-spanish-war/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel..., discussed last year at [1]). The depth of consciousness that Orwell reached in that essay is profound, but its profundity is obscured by how simply he states it, and no doubt also by the fact that we all think we already know it and are the exception to what he describes. Atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence. Recently I drew up a table of atrocities during the period between 1918 and the present; there was never a year when atrocities were not occurring somewhere or other, and there was hardly a single case when the Left and the Right believed in the same stories simultaneously. And stranger yet, at any moment the situation can suddenly reverse itself and yesterday’s proved-to-the-hilt atrocity story can become a ridiculous lie, merely because the political landscape has changed. --- Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories, and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’. [1] Looking Back on the Spanish War (1942) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24961407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24961407 - Nov 2020 (128 comments)

headmelted 5y ago
Oh I’m most certainly a stupid person on the Internet. I have no problem accepting that whatsoever. To your point though, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else when there are groups of people suggesting that the entire concept of science itself is propaganda. I will read what you’ve linked though, as it seems genuinely really interesting.
- dang 5y ago
  It doesn't follow that everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else, and I'm not saying it does. One needs to be extra careful about deriving consequences from this phenomenon too quickly, because it's so hard to see it in the first place. More precisely, it's hard to see in oneself—but to only see it in others is not to see it at all. I think we should all practice simply seeing it for a while (I'm tempted to say 20 years might be a good minimum), and then maybe we'll be in a position to accurately derive consequences in a way that doesn't just re-establish the original self-deception. p.s. I took out this bit of my comment above: "Or, if you prefer, we're all crazy/stupid in this way." because after reading your comment I realized it was too baity. Mentioning it that here because I don't want to deprive your post of that context.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    > It doesn't follow that everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else When you wrote: > If you think you don't do it, or (an easier self-deception) you don't do it as much, this is because you are lacking in self-awareness. It sounded to me as if you said everyone was equally wrong as everyone else. Thanks for clarifying that that wasn't what you meant I think this is incorrect: "[or if] you don't do it as much" -- some people indeed does it less (you'd be one of them I think) > it was too baity I agree (I think the section I quoted still is :-))
- skissane 5y ago
  > there are groups of people suggesting that the entire concept of science itself is propaganda I think there are groups of people claiming that the scientific consensus on particular topics (climate change, COVID-19, etc) is based on ideological bias, vested interests, conspiracies, etc, rather than on good quality scientific evidence. However, most of those people have no problem with accepting the scientific consensus on unrelated topics. Few people are going to deny the scientific consensus on the citric acid cycle, for instance. I think if you bet against the current scientific consensus, most of the time you are going to lose – but maybe not always. If we look back over the history of science, we can see areas in which what was once considered the evidence-based scientific consensus was later decided to be actually based on ideological bias. For example, a lot of 19th and early 20th century science on biological differences between different human descent groups was believed at the time to be based on good scientific evidence but is now in hindsight viewed as corrupted by racial prejudice. How can we be sure that a century from now, people might not look back on some elements of today's scientific consensus as also corrupted by bias/prejudice/ideology/etc? But we don't know whether that will happen, and if it happens we don't know which parts of the contemporary consensus will be viewed as corrupted, nor what will be seen as having corrupted it.

Applejinx 5y ago

That, or: extraordinary claims require extraordinary empathy. If the story is horrible, you've got to understand what in that is so desirable for the person to believe. Why do they cling to that particular narrative? Something about it, works, for them. I think there's a lot of people out there absolutely terrified and right on the edge of un-survival. They are genuinely in continuous, ongoing danger, and need a narrative that will give them a target for their terror, one that could maybe be attacked and fought back against. It is not terribly difficult to take panicked people and persuade them to run away from the exits, or attack the doctors, or otherwise direct their energy and panic towards some goal. The reason to do that is not arbitrary, rather it is to gain power through controlling those people, and it's always worked very well. You take away that power and control not by arguing with the angry, panicky people, but by persistently removing the threats that generate their panic. The worst enemy of an ousted demagogue is a boring, reasonably trustworthy rival that does things to remedy the material distress of the panicky and angry people. You don't have to argue them into submission, you defuse them by making them comfortable, and that's why we see desperate attempts to maintain the panic and terror.

smogcutter 5y ago
Not that you're wrong necessarily, but in my own anecdotal experience the people clinging to the sorts of narratives you're describing aren't exactly the picture of precarity. They're aging suburbanites whose TV came with a youtube app.
- kodah 5y ago
  This might be useful imagery for mockery but it's far from accurate. That, and I mean, mockery is wrong in any meaningful discourse.
  - smogcutter 5y ago
    No, that’s nonsense. Parent’s post is an exercise in imagination. It might be accurate for some, it might not be for others. It certainly doesn’t match my experience, which is summed up pretty concisely in my post. It may not be kind, but it’s also not wrong.

zackees 5y ago

The debunkers are highly biased and typically choose the lowest hanging fruit of some fringe individual, debunk that, and then claim that this represents the conservative argument. This misinformation is therefore being laundered by the fact checker. The people see the “fact checkers” as what they are: a highly biased group being funded by shadow money that work in lockstep to support the msm cartel’s narrative.

lamontcg 5y ago

> Disproving anything takes substantially more time and work than just saying any old nonsense in the first place. The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

headmelted 5y ago
Brilliant! I had never heard of this before. This is my new LMGTFY for the next time someone starts in with the crazy. Thanks!!