4 ms·

It's hard to find people interested enough to write publicly about something but having no vested interest in an issue. To that end, I still prefer to read thin

by yuliyp 5y ago

It's hard to find people interested enough to write publicly about something but having no vested interest in an issue. To that end, I still prefer to read things from people who I would disagree with rather than those I agree with, as it forces me to refine my beliefs and examine them more closely: can I actually find clearer evidence to reinforce what I thought I had believed that was in conflict with what I read? Can I refute it? Can I understand why they reached a different conclusion than me? Sometimes I'll find that they were indeed making up an alternate reality or misrepresenting things. Sometimes I'll find something where the arguments being presented are unrelated to the data being presented. Sometimes I'll find disagreements in values leading to different interpretations of the same data. Sometimes I'll find that I learn something. It does take discipline to do this, though: with many sources I have to be on high alert for anything that seems like it's trying to invoke my emotions to get me to agree with the article. In the case of this article, I went and read their source material (the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety report on this: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_rpt_dbs_%205-27-21.pdf https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_rpt_dbs_%2... ), and found that the article fairly reasonably summarized the report. The last two paragraphs of the article are where most of their opinions are interjected, and I view their claims of the motivation of the backers with some skepticism. The claims about safety seem in line with what I could glean from the report, but I'm not very sure I understand the nuances of analyzing fire statistics across diverse neighborhoods.

wpietri 5y ago
Spend your time as you please, but you seem pretty cavalier about the risks and practical limitations. The notion that you're personally always going to be able to see past propaganda is not giving enough credit to people who are good at propaganda. Everybody who falls for propaganda thinks they're smarter than that. Sure, they can spot the stuff that was meant to take other sorts of people in, but everybody has weaknesses. But even assuming you could, you really can't do the research on everything. The world's too big. No matter what the topic, we all need filtering heuristics. And you give a really good one: > Can I understand why they reached a different conclusion than me? Often the answer is, "Because they were paid to." Or, "Because somebody was paid to amplify wacky outliers." For advertising, PR, and propaganda, all of the actual material can be taken with a grain of salt and the conclusions can be ignored, because the conclusions were foreordained. As an example, take something you aren't personally well-disposed toward. Say, Q. How much time do you spend reading their ever-metastasizing set of theories and beliefs? How much have you personally refined your beliefs based what you read of theirs? I'd hope the answer here is approximately zero, because a) it isn't worth your time, and b) there is a non-zero chance that it turns any given reader, yourself included, into a believer. That's the point of most propaganda, after all.

by yuliyp 5y ago

wpietri 5y ago

Spend your time as you please, but you seem pretty cavalier about the risks and practical limitations. The notion that you're personally always going to be able to see past propaganda is not giving enough credit to people who are good at propaganda. Everybody who falls for propaganda thinks they're smarter than that. Sure, they can spot the stuff that was meant to take other sorts of people in, but everybody has weaknesses. But even assuming you could, you really can't do the research on everything. The world's too big. No matter what the topic, we all need filtering heuristics. And you give a really good one: > Can I understand why they reached a different conclusion than me? Often the answer is, "Because they were paid to." Or, "Because somebody was paid to amplify wacky outliers." For advertising, PR, and propaganda, all of the actual material can be taken with a grain of salt and the conclusions can be ignored, because the conclusions were foreordained. As an example, take something you aren't personally well-disposed toward. Say, Q. How much time do you spend reading their ever-metastasizing set of theories and beliefs? How much have you personally refined your beliefs based what you read of theirs? I'd hope the answer here is approximately zero, because a) it isn't worth your time, and b) there is a non-zero chance that it turns any given reader, yourself included, into a believer. That's the point of most propaganda, after all.