4 ms·

I think a lot of people can't see through the noise. Find a video of two pundits arguing, and I guarantee that you can find videos which alternately claim that

I think a lot of people can't see through the noise. Find a video of two pundits arguing, and I guarantee that you can find videos which alternately claim that each side "destroyed" the other. It's not just that people can't integrate all the different information out there. (this is part of the problem, too, of course) Frankly, I think we have underestimated the degree (or at least I underestimated it quite a bit) to which many people never really understand the validity of an argument, but simply adopt it when it becomes "mainstream." Of course the problem now is that there is not really a "mainstream." There are many small competing and conflicting "mainstreams." And so people adopt many of these ideas.

Verdex 5y ago
It's even worse than that. I went to a evolution vs creationism debate once when I was in college (it was put on for the students there). Everyone in that auditorium was an atheist and everyone was a young earth creationist. The difference was in which speaker had just made a really good sounding point. The people on the extremes each believe that their side won but as far as I could tell all the people in the middle believed in both as they crossed some "sufficiently cool" threshold.
- xwolfi 5y ago
  I think it's fine, opinions area fluid, there's little inherent truth. Atheist too because it s the most likely, but I dont feel bad an unprovable fallacy gets some traction: after all maybe a loving designer is looking at me while I pooptype this. The US gains more raising credit card consuming drones than revolutionary philosophers
- smolder 5y ago
  Everyone was a creationist AND everyone was an atheist? It's a little unclear what that sentence was supposed to say.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    What it sounds like is that the person relating the tale mistook cheering for a particular line delivered in a debate performance with agreement (even if momentary) with the broader position it meant to advance.
    - Verdex 5y ago
      You understood my statement. Also, seriously? This is just a smart sounding way to say that you think I'm dumb and that whatever is in your mind is the real truth. If you're going to put words in my mouth at least be charitable enough to disagree with me before or after your translation.
      - Satam 5y ago
        Hi Verdex, I read your comment and don't understand what you meant either.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > You understood my statement. Well, I have and stated a tentative understanding, but if I correctly understand your present response you seem to disagree with it. So...maybe not? > Also, seriously? This is just a smart sounding way to say that you think I'm dumb and that whatever is in your mind is the real truth. No, there’s a difference between “your description sounds like you probably mistook X for Y” and “you are dumb”. Obviously, its a disagreement about the part of the description that seems to report an interpretation rather than observable facts. > If you're going to put words in my mouth I didn’t put words in your mouth. > at least be charitable enough to disagree with me before or after your translation. “sounds like ... mistook <thing> for <other thing>” is explicitly both a report of a tentative understanding of what you were trying to say and a disagreement with it, along with a specific alternate interpretation. So, inasmuch as I should have disagreed with you...I did.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
brutal_chaos_ 5y ago
Reasoning takes effort and people are lazy. So why not listen to my favorite <insert individual of note in society>. /s IMO, it sounds like a lack of critical thinking skills. Instead of pondering validity, as one does to "think critically," as you stated, some people adopt a line of thought from their authority (be it a pastor at church, Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow/etc on TV, POTUS, news outlets, etc).
- exporectomy 5y ago
  A fun one is flat Earthism. People trying to deny it are so full of confidence because their entire lives everyone has been telling them it's round, but they never actually confirmed that themselves and don't know how. They make up "obvious" evidence like "Just stand on a hill and look at the horizon to prove it's round!". When people are too confident they're right, they tend to assume critical thinking is no longer required.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Nobody has the time to actually test everything they believe to be true, even if they knew what an appropriate test would be.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      Sure. Not saying we should for normal life. But if you're going to argue with someone about a fact, then you should. Not necessarily personally of course, you could learn about other people's tests and how trustworthy they are and all that.
- kiba 5y ago
  People aren't guided by critical thinking. They're guided by their trust network. They believe whatever the smart person they trust the most. I guarantee that you and I do that too. On occasion, we can and do critical thinking, and that's when we make progress.
  - 5y ago
jmcqk6 5y ago
>I think a lot of people can't see through the noise. What if it's not about noise, but about complexity? We live in a world that is orders of magnitude more complex than any other population of humans has ever experienced. This complexity means that it's more difficult to know what is 'true' or not, and even that truth is not as universal as it once seemed. Are eggs good for you or bad for you? What's the best way to raise your kids? How do you deal with homelessness? Every single one of those questions have answers that are simple, obvious, and wrong. Every one of those questions needs to be answered starting with "it depends." We cannot treat truth in these cases as absolute, because we know better than that now. Perhaps it's not surprising that we are not well adapted to dealing with that complexity.
- nradov 5y ago
  Is the world really that much more complex? Our ancestors ate eggs, raised children, and dealt with the homeless. We can muddle through with suboptimal solutions.

Verdex 5y ago

It's even worse than that. I went to a evolution vs creationism debate once when I was in college (it was put on for the students there). Everyone in that auditorium was an atheist and everyone was a young earth creationist. The difference was in which speaker had just made a really good sounding point. The people on the extremes each believe that their side won but as far as I could tell all the people in the middle believed in both as they crossed some "sufficiently cool" threshold.

xwolfi 5y ago
I think it's fine, opinions area fluid, there's little inherent truth. Atheist too because it s the most likely, but I dont feel bad an unprovable fallacy gets some traction: after all maybe a loving designer is looking at me while I pooptype this. The US gains more raising credit card consuming drones than revolutionary philosophers
smolder 5y ago
Everyone was a creationist AND everyone was an atheist? It's a little unclear what that sentence was supposed to say.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  What it sounds like is that the person relating the tale mistook cheering for a particular line delivered in a debate performance with agreement (even if momentary) with the broader position it meant to advance.
  - Verdex 5y ago
    You understood my statement. Also, seriously? This is just a smart sounding way to say that you think I'm dumb and that whatever is in your mind is the real truth. If you're going to put words in my mouth at least be charitable enough to disagree with me before or after your translation.
    - Satam 5y ago
      Hi Verdex, I read your comment and don't understand what you meant either.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > You understood my statement. Well, I have and stated a tentative understanding, but if I correctly understand your present response you seem to disagree with it. So...maybe not? > Also, seriously? This is just a smart sounding way to say that you think I'm dumb and that whatever is in your mind is the real truth. No, there’s a difference between “your description sounds like you probably mistook X for Y” and “you are dumb”. Obviously, its a disagreement about the part of the description that seems to report an interpretation rather than observable facts. > If you're going to put words in my mouth I didn’t put words in your mouth. > at least be charitable enough to disagree with me before or after your translation. “sounds like ... mistook <thing> for <other thing>” is explicitly both a report of a tentative understanding of what you were trying to say and a disagreement with it, along with a specific alternate interpretation. So, inasmuch as I should have disagreed with you...I did.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

brutal_chaos_ 5y ago

Reasoning takes effort and people are lazy. So why not listen to my favorite <insert individual of note in society>. /s IMO, it sounds like a lack of critical thinking skills. Instead of pondering validity, as one does to "think critically," as you stated, some people adopt a line of thought from their authority (be it a pastor at church, Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow/etc on TV, POTUS, news outlets, etc).

exporectomy 5y ago
A fun one is flat Earthism. People trying to deny it are so full of confidence because their entire lives everyone has been telling them it's round, but they never actually confirmed that themselves and don't know how. They make up "obvious" evidence like "Just stand on a hill and look at the horizon to prove it's round!". When people are too confident they're right, they tend to assume critical thinking is no longer required.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Nobody has the time to actually test everything they believe to be true, even if they knew what an appropriate test would be.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Sure. Not saying we should for normal life. But if you're going to argue with someone about a fact, then you should. Not necessarily personally of course, you could learn about other people's tests and how trustworthy they are and all that.
kiba 5y ago
People aren't guided by critical thinking. They're guided by their trust network. They believe whatever the smart person they trust the most. I guarantee that you and I do that too. On occasion, we can and do critical thinking, and that's when we make progress.
- 5y ago

jmcqk6 5y ago

>I think a lot of people can't see through the noise. What if it's not about noise, but about complexity? We live in a world that is orders of magnitude more complex than any other population of humans has ever experienced. This complexity means that it's more difficult to know what is 'true' or not, and even that truth is not as universal as it once seemed. Are eggs good for you or bad for you? What's the best way to raise your kids? How do you deal with homelessness? Every single one of those questions have answers that are simple, obvious, and wrong. Every one of those questions needs to be answered starting with "it depends." We cannot treat truth in these cases as absolute, because we know better than that now. Perhaps it's not surprising that we are not well adapted to dealing with that complexity.

nradov 5y ago
Is the world really that much more complex? Our ancestors ate eggs, raised children, and dealt with the homeless. We can muddle through with suboptimal solutions.