4 ms·

The war on standards is creating a low trust society.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
I don't know. The amount of people that take one poorly measured data point and use that as a north star seems more troubling to me - than a society with low trust. I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad. I am convinced that a society that has high trust in garbage data is bad.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  ==I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad. I am convinced that a society that has high trust in garbage data is bad. == It feels like we currently have both at the same time. There is "low trust" in any data that doesn't confirm an existing bias, but "high trust" in the data we want to be true. I see it all the time in HN comments. Any study that contradicts the consensus is met with comments about "correlation =/= causation", while anything that supports the census is supported and correlation/causation isn't mentioned.
  - UnFleshedOne 5y ago
    I think a better term for that is "brain damage". So what if all our brains are built damaged. Saying people are not reasoning machines, but social maneuvering machines doesn't change the fact they are kinda broken...
    - bjornsing 5y ago
      The thing is, I think people can be both reasoning machines and social maneuvering machines, depending on the incentive structure. Unfortunately we’ve created a society that greatly incentives social maneuvering.
- patrec 5y ago
  I know this is a forum for nerds, but I struggle to understand how anyone could seriously believe that being surrounded by people who are either psychopathic or paranoid is probably A-OK, as long as they are all competent statisticians.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    You're a psychopath or paranoid if you don't blindly trust data - without putting some effort into seeing what the quality of the data is and how much evidence supports it???
    - patrec 5y ago
      > I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad. The term "low-trust society" is generally not used to distinguish societies where people put enough emphasis into seeing what the quality of the data is and how much evidence supports it. Maybe because no one ever heard of such a thing. I do share your lack of conviction that such a society would inherently be a bad thing. Maybe we in fact agree that a low trust society in the conventional sense -- one characterized by low interpersonal trust -- is less appealing?
      - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
        > Maybe we in fact agree that a low trust society in the conventional sense -- one characterized by low interpersonal trust -- is less appealing? Are you talking about ideals? Of course, I'd love to live in a high-trust society! Why not? I'd much rather be able to blindly trust everything than do my own due diligence. The problem is that a few bad apples can do A LOT of damage.
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  I meant more that society's attitude toward standards of any kind--honesty, proper behavior, civility--has become increasingly suspicious. These standards are, some argue, simply power structures to promulgate the various -isms that plague society. If you've got scientists that believe that the standard of honesty is an artificially constructed power structure then obviously you can't trust them.

I don't know. The amount of people that take one poorly measured data point and use that as a north star seems more troubling to me - than a society with low trust. I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad. I am convinced that a society that has high trust in garbage data is bad.

long_time_gone 5y ago
==I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad. I am convinced that a society that has high trust in garbage data is bad. == It feels like we currently have both at the same time. There is "low trust" in any data that doesn't confirm an existing bias, but "high trust" in the data we want to be true. I see it all the time in HN comments. Any study that contradicts the consensus is met with comments about "correlation =/= causation", while anything that supports the census is supported and correlation/causation isn't mentioned.
- UnFleshedOne 5y ago
  I think a better term for that is "brain damage". So what if all our brains are built damaged. Saying people are not reasoning machines, but social maneuvering machines doesn't change the fact they are kinda broken...
  - bjornsing 5y ago
    The thing is, I think people can be both reasoning machines and social maneuvering machines, depending on the incentive structure. Unfortunately we’ve created a society that greatly incentives social maneuvering.
patrec 5y ago
I know this is a forum for nerds, but I struggle to understand how anyone could seriously believe that being surrounded by people who are either psychopathic or paranoid is probably A-OK, as long as they are all competent statisticians.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  You're a psychopath or paranoid if you don't blindly trust data - without putting some effort into seeing what the quality of the data is and how much evidence supports it???
  - patrec 5y ago
    > I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad. The term "low-trust society" is generally not used to distinguish societies where people put enough emphasis into seeing what the quality of the data is and how much evidence supports it. Maybe because no one ever heard of such a thing. I do share your lack of conviction that such a society would inherently be a bad thing. Maybe we in fact agree that a low trust society in the conventional sense -- one characterized by low interpersonal trust -- is less appealing?
    - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
      > Maybe we in fact agree that a low trust society in the conventional sense -- one characterized by low interpersonal trust -- is less appealing? Are you talking about ideals? Of course, I'd love to live in a high-trust society! Why not? I'd much rather be able to blindly trust everything than do my own due diligence. The problem is that a few bad apples can do A LOT of damage.
gotoeleven 5y ago
I meant more that society's attitude toward standards of any kind--honesty, proper behavior, civility--has become increasingly suspicious. These standards are, some argue, simply power structures to promulgate the various -isms that plague society. If you've got scientists that believe that the standard of honesty is an artificially constructed power structure then obviously you can't trust them.