3 ms·

Wait.. what? Society has a trust problem? Implying we should trust people in power (economic and state) that have repeatedly and shamelessly acted for their own

by gtsop 5y ago

Wait.. what? Society has a trust problem? Implying we should trust people in power (economic and state) that have repeatedly and shamelessly acted for their own benefit against the interest of the public while they control the media (tv and online) to censor and/or shaddow-ban criticism and alternate views? Yes, if that's what you mean. We have a trust problem because there are people in power who are not trustworthy. And yes, their acts of censorship will only make this problem worse.

skeptical2 5y ago
matheusmoreira 5y ago
I'm not even sure if there is such a thing as a honest and trustworthy politician.
- SQueeeeeL 5y ago
  The problem is we as a society have very few local level leaders. Most of the people who represent us often represent 1000+ individuals. At such a scale, the nature of leadership/politicians change...
- skeptical2 5y ago
- rvz 5y ago
  Well then. They have always let everyone down. There is no point in relying on them for anything since they have a magnificent track record in disappointment. No matter who is in power, it always ends in scandal and failure. It is completely unsurprising and as expected. If you are surprised, welcome to politics.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
From the article: > Trust in social media and traditional media is at an all-time low. Yeah, some of it is "people in power". And some isn't. But when you say > Yes, if that's what you mean. you sure look like you're trying to ignore what the article actually says, and twist the general idea to fit the axe you want to grind. That kind of stunt is (part of) why trust in society is low.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  I think some of this debacle is changing who we trust. Joe Rogan is rapidly becoming "the most trusted man in America". Russell Brand, another Leftist comedian, is moving from funny routines to scathing anti-corruption populist commentary. Tucker Carlson is now dominating Cable. The big Pharma ad-supported mainstream media is rightly terrified of this. The gravy train is at risk.
  - gtsop 5y ago
    > The big Pharma ad-supported mainstream media is rightly terrified of this. The gravy train is at risk. Spot on
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Joe Rogan does cringe comedy. And there's plenty to both cringe and snicker about wrt. his recent podcasts on vaccines. I wouldn't call him "trusted" by any means.
- gtsop 5y ago
  > twist the general idea to fit the axe you want to grind. From the article just after the line you quoted: > Trust in the U.S. federal government to handle problems is at a near-record low. Trust in the U.S.’s major institutions is within 2 percentage points of the all-time low. I can't possibly buy that fact that society has a problem if my aunt mary doesn't trust what plumberRob23 post on their instagram, so forgive for bothering only with the bigger issue at hand, which is systemic mistrust.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Yes, it's the major institutions. And it's the mainstream media (I guess those count as major institutions). And it's social media. I object to your trying to paint it as if it's only mistrust of major institutions. It's untrue to the article to limit it like that.
    - gtsop 5y ago
brnaftr361 5y ago
I reckon it's a human condition issue, bare metal type shit. People, in general, simply can't possess the merits of blind trust and must be scrutinized. This striated opinion on a spectrum of trust, and in time resolution in to facts. Dialectics of account. Naive interventions only stand to exacerbate the condition, by my reckoning, and I don't suspect there is a real way to make smart interventions at scale. I think the best resolution is to have modular multi-scalar and largely decentralized modes with far more outgrowths given the capacity for representation of their given polity. But even in that case it doesn't fully rectify the problem, because at the basest levels information is imperfect in practical terms. It is in those terms that experts and professionals tend to be lost to public account - that is to say that making wide sweeping claims and saying it was some unexpected event that overturned their predictions frees them from being held accountable, and that is where trust is lost. If you tell me in 10 years that SPY will have gained 60%, versus if you said "Look I don't know, I can't tell you where the price is going to end at close today, let alone in 10 years, but historically the odds look good, that's not without caveats, the fed, the government, the people are all constantly evolving against their peers and there's a lot of novel forces, so you could end up with negative yields." The latter case is, let's say hypothetically, realistic, and thus eschews liability. Now if the former case turns out to be true, certainly the latter form will be lambasted for the potential gains lost. In the latter coming to fruit, will the financier be celebrated? Will the former be able to excuse himself, despite bad calls?
- gtsop 5y ago
  I like your statement overall but let me hone a bit on this: > I reckon it's a human condition issue, bare metal type shit I strongly disagree here. It is very common and easy (and to me, boring) to promote all hard-to-solve, ugly problems to concequences of the evil "human nature" without even any data to support it. Antithetically, humans want to trust. that's why a group operating within a trusted environment outperform a group operating in an emvironment without trust. Also, that's why trust is a possitive attribute. The issue causing this trust problem at this great scale is conflicting interests, emerging from the private-centric properties of the economy. Because if you really dig it, all these issues will lead you to economy. Noone lost trust in a government because the President lied about their favourite colour.

by gtsop 5y ago

skeptical2 5y ago

matheusmoreira 5y ago

I'm not even sure if there is such a thing as a honest and trustworthy politician.

SQueeeeeL 5y ago
The problem is we as a society have very few local level leaders. Most of the people who represent us often represent 1000+ individuals. At such a scale, the nature of leadership/politicians change...
skeptical2 5y ago
rvz 5y ago
Well then. They have always let everyone down. There is no point in relying on them for anything since they have a magnificent track record in disappointment. No matter who is in power, it always ends in scandal and failure. It is completely unsurprising and as expected. If you are surprised, welcome to politics.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

From the article: > Trust in social media and traditional media is at an all-time low. Yeah, some of it is "people in power". And some isn't. But when you say > Yes, if that's what you mean. you sure look like you're trying to ignore what the article actually says, and twist the general idea to fit the axe you want to grind. That kind of stunt is (part of) why trust in society is low.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
I think some of this debacle is changing who we trust. Joe Rogan is rapidly becoming "the most trusted man in America". Russell Brand, another Leftist comedian, is moving from funny routines to scathing anti-corruption populist commentary. Tucker Carlson is now dominating Cable. The big Pharma ad-supported mainstream media is rightly terrified of this. The gravy train is at risk.
- gtsop 5y ago
  > The big Pharma ad-supported mainstream media is rightly terrified of this. The gravy train is at risk. Spot on
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Joe Rogan does cringe comedy. And there's plenty to both cringe and snicker about wrt. his recent podcasts on vaccines. I wouldn't call him "trusted" by any means.
gtsop 5y ago
> twist the general idea to fit the axe you want to grind. From the article just after the line you quoted: > Trust in the U.S. federal government to handle problems is at a near-record low. Trust in the U.S.’s major institutions is within 2 percentage points of the all-time low. I can't possibly buy that fact that society has a problem if my aunt mary doesn't trust what plumberRob23 post on their instagram, so forgive for bothering only with the bigger issue at hand, which is systemic mistrust.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Yes, it's the major institutions. And it's the mainstream media (I guess those count as major institutions). And it's social media. I object to your trying to paint it as if it's only mistrust of major institutions. It's untrue to the article to limit it like that.
  - gtsop 5y ago

brnaftr361 5y ago

I reckon it's a human condition issue, bare metal type shit. People, in general, simply can't possess the merits of blind trust and must be scrutinized. This striated opinion on a spectrum of trust, and in time resolution in to facts. Dialectics of account. Naive interventions only stand to exacerbate the condition, by my reckoning, and I don't suspect there is a real way to make smart interventions at scale. I think the best resolution is to have modular multi-scalar and largely decentralized modes with far more outgrowths given the capacity for representation of their given polity. But even in that case it doesn't fully rectify the problem, because at the basest levels information is imperfect in practical terms. It is in those terms that experts and professionals tend to be lost to public account - that is to say that making wide sweeping claims and saying it was some unexpected event that overturned their predictions frees them from being held accountable, and that is where trust is lost. If you tell me in 10 years that SPY will have gained 60%, versus if you said "Look I don't know, I can't tell you where the price is going to end at close today, let alone in 10 years, but historically the odds look good, that's not without caveats, the fed, the government, the people are all constantly evolving against their peers and there's a lot of novel forces, so you could end up with negative yields." The latter case is, let's say hypothetically, realistic, and thus eschews liability. Now if the former case turns out to be true, certainly the latter form will be lambasted for the potential gains lost. In the latter coming to fruit, will the financier be celebrated? Will the former be able to excuse himself, despite bad calls?

gtsop 5y ago
I like your statement overall but let me hone a bit on this: > I reckon it's a human condition issue, bare metal type shit I strongly disagree here. It is very common and easy (and to me, boring) to promote all hard-to-solve, ugly problems to concequences of the evil "human nature" without even any data to support it. Antithetically, humans want to trust. that's why a group operating within a trusted environment outperform a group operating in an emvironment without trust. Also, that's why trust is a possitive attribute. The issue causing this trust problem at this great scale is conflicting interests, emerging from the private-centric properties of the economy. Because if you really dig it, all these issues will lead you to economy. Noone lost trust in a government because the President lied about their favourite colour.