3 ms·

> the best inoculation against naïve realism—the illusion of personal objectivity—is a healthy dose of fact, aggregated from non-biased sources with no skin in

by _gabe_ 4y ago

> the best inoculation against naïve realism—the illusion of personal objectivity—is a healthy dose of fact, aggregated from non-biased sources with no skin in the game. This seems to immediately contradict the prior statement: > Ross found that people thought their own views were shaped by rational considerations more than biased thinking. This statement implies that there's such a thing as a non biased source. This is just blatantly false. Here's a fact: >> Black U.S. residents (465 per 100,000 persons) were incarcerated at 3.5 times the rate of white U.S. residents (133 per 100,000 persons) at midyear 2020.[0] Now, depending on your outlook of the world, a republican might say this leads to the conclusion that black U.S residents must be likely for 3.5x more crime than white residents. Whereas a Democrat might conclude this is evidence of systemic racism. Then both sides will find the research papers that support their conclusion based on the exact same fact. Instead of pretending like there's some untapped source of unbiased neutral news that everybody is missing out on, it's much better imo to admit your bias, and then read up on sources that actively oppose your bias with an open mind. That seems like a much better "inoculation against naive realism" than a "healthy dose of fact" (which can just be interpreted however you want to interpret it.) [0]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/jail-inmates-2020-statistical-tables https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/jail-inmates-2020-s...

lstamour 4y ago
Reading up on sources that actively oppose your bias might be actively harmful if misinformation is widespread, though. If we define facts as indisputable evidence conveyed via trustworthy sources, then sure, go find more such facts that oppose your views. But the scary part is how much literal “fake news,” and false flag claims there are. By your assertion, if we are naturally biased about Ukraine, we should equally hunt down facts from “the other side,” but there are very few objectively trustworthy sources right now that are willing to go on the record. And nation-states waging active Information warfare campaigns. It’s obvious to any outsider that Ukraine has a bias, is biased as a source. But… they do allow reporters in, so I think there can be acknowledgement of bias without actively having to hunt down opposing opinions. Just be aware that what you’re seeing is one-sided and you’ll go farther in resetting your biases, is my thinking on this. Of course, being typed in haste, it’s probably wildly naive as the fine article describes. Perhaps talking it out with those of different biases holds part of the answer. (Or perhaps I naively still believe in an objective truth of events that cannot be easily proven to exist in digital mediums outside of our trust in math for cryptography?)
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  > (Or perhaps I naively still believe in an objective truth of events that cannot be easily proven to exist in digital mediums outside of our trust in math for cryptography?) This, 100% this. I do this all the time as well and try to boil down super complex social situations into a binary right or wrong outcome. Is it even possible to comprehensively analyze any social situation? I really don't think it is, and I think the best we can do is analyze each unique situation and come to the best conclusion possible for that specific situation. But that's just part of living in the world we live in. In the same way we can't physically compute the weather in advance, because doing so would require an accurate simulation of our universe which has way too much data to process with our current hardware, we shouldn't expect to be able to accurately "compute" whether a worldview is right or wrong. The real world is fuzzy, and it rarely fits into our ideal scenarios. I think the best we can do is to just give life our best shot and give people with opposing ideals the benefit of the doubt and maybe even try to learn from people who think differently than us :)
jiggawatts 4y ago
Something that I find hilarious is how confused people are about what a fact even is. So in your example, the fact is: > Black U.S. residents were incarcerated at 3.5 times the rate of white U.S. residents To argue with this is to argue with reality itself. The examples of how Democrats vs Republicans interpret this fact are opinions, not facts. They each have their own views, interpretations, and opinions, but they ought not to have their own facts. E.g.: they can disagree about why blacks are incarcerated more than whites, but not about the numbers. Notice I use "ought", because many people will cheerfully point at a fact and proclaim that that's "just your opinion" or call it "fake news", as if that makes reality go away. Worse still in some ways is they will disagree without actually having mutually exclusive opinions, for purely tribal reasons. Your example is actually one of the best ones: BOTH Democratic and Republican opinions are technically valid, at the same time. Black men do commit crimes at a higher per-capita rate and they are also steered towards a life of crime in no small part due to systematic racism! Not just everyday racism reducing their opportunities to lead a lawful life, but also racism within the legal system that makes it more likely for them to be incarcerated even for petty crimes. The difference between typical Democrats and typical Republicans is that they'll simply focus on one of the two causes, wilfully ignoring the other. This then leads to pointless, endless debates, because they don't even disagree and can't effectively disprove each others' points -- because neither side is "wrong". My point is that ordinary people don't debate these things very well, because they don't know how. They confuse their interpretations with their facts, cherry pick, look at their favoured subset to the exclusion of all else, and generally try their best to simply ignore reality. Especially if reality makes them feel uncomfortable.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  They're not opinions they're moral frameworks. Right wing frameworks value hierarchy, wealth, power, dominance, and status based on assumptions of innate superiority/inferiority, and fear of outgroups. Left wing frameworks are based on egalitarianism, universality, and fairness, and tolerance for/interest in outgroups. The issues that exercise the right - immigration, crime, guns, abortion, vaccination and masking mandates, homosexuality, religion, taxation, government oversight - are all emotional triggers on the dominance/passivity axis. The issues that exercise the left - wealth and power differentials, racism, sexism, healthcare, education, collective as opposed to individual survival - are all emotional triggers on the fairness/unfairness axis. You can't overcome these frameworks with facts, because they're fundamentally different. The problem in the anglo world is that the differences have become so polarised they're no longer in sight of each other. If you try to explain to someone on the right that Covid and climate change are both serious issues, the framework kicks in and you get a "Why are you trying to tell me what to do? I don't accept your authority over me" response. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people literally chose to die because they considered vaccination an overwhelming and unacceptable attack on their personal sovereignty. If you try to explain to someone on the left that you have to use rightwing frameworks to communicate with rightwing people you'll get a "That's stupid and wrong, so I'm going to carry on complaining about unfairness and/or quoting science papers at them, but I'll do it more loudly because that's sure to work." Neither side is being rational.

by _gabe_ 4y ago

lstamour 4y ago

Reading up on sources that actively oppose your bias might be actively harmful if misinformation is widespread, though. If we define facts as indisputable evidence conveyed via trustworthy sources, then sure, go find more such facts that oppose your views. But the scary part is how much literal “fake news,” and false flag claims there are. By your assertion, if we are naturally biased about Ukraine, we should equally hunt down facts from “the other side,” but there are very few objectively trustworthy sources right now that are willing to go on the record. And nation-states waging active Information warfare campaigns. It’s obvious to any outsider that Ukraine has a bias, is biased as a source. But… they do allow reporters in, so I think there can be acknowledgement of bias without actively having to hunt down opposing opinions. Just be aware that what you’re seeing is one-sided and you’ll go farther in resetting your biases, is my thinking on this. Of course, being typed in haste, it’s probably wildly naive as the fine article describes. Perhaps talking it out with those of different biases holds part of the answer. (Or perhaps I naively still believe in an objective truth of events that cannot be easily proven to exist in digital mediums outside of our trust in math for cryptography?)

_gabe_ 4y ago
> (Or perhaps I naively still believe in an objective truth of events that cannot be easily proven to exist in digital mediums outside of our trust in math for cryptography?) This, 100% this. I do this all the time as well and try to boil down super complex social situations into a binary right or wrong outcome. Is it even possible to comprehensively analyze any social situation? I really don't think it is, and I think the best we can do is analyze each unique situation and come to the best conclusion possible for that specific situation. But that's just part of living in the world we live in. In the same way we can't physically compute the weather in advance, because doing so would require an accurate simulation of our universe which has way too much data to process with our current hardware, we shouldn't expect to be able to accurately "compute" whether a worldview is right or wrong. The real world is fuzzy, and it rarely fits into our ideal scenarios. I think the best we can do is to just give life our best shot and give people with opposing ideals the benefit of the doubt and maybe even try to learn from people who think differently than us :)

jiggawatts 4y ago

Something that I find hilarious is how confused people are about what a fact even is. So in your example, the fact is: > Black U.S. residents were incarcerated at 3.5 times the rate of white U.S. residents To argue with this is to argue with reality itself. The examples of how Democrats vs Republicans interpret this fact are opinions, not facts. They each have their own views, interpretations, and opinions, but they ought not to have their own facts. E.g.: they can disagree about why blacks are incarcerated more than whites, but not about the numbers. Notice I use "ought", because many people will cheerfully point at a fact and proclaim that that's "just your opinion" or call it "fake news", as if that makes reality go away. Worse still in some ways is they will disagree without actually having mutually exclusive opinions, for purely tribal reasons. Your example is actually one of the best ones: BOTH Democratic and Republican opinions are technically valid, at the same time. Black men do commit crimes at a higher per-capita rate and they are also steered towards a life of crime in no small part due to systematic racism! Not just everyday racism reducing their opportunities to lead a lawful life, but also racism within the legal system that makes it more likely for them to be incarcerated even for petty crimes. The difference between typical Democrats and typical Republicans is that they'll simply focus on one of the two causes, wilfully ignoring the other. This then leads to pointless, endless debates, because they don't even disagree and can't effectively disprove each others' points -- because neither side is "wrong". My point is that ordinary people don't debate these things very well, because they don't know how. They confuse their interpretations with their facts, cherry pick, look at their favoured subset to the exclusion of all else, and generally try their best to simply ignore reality. Especially if reality makes them feel uncomfortable.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
They're not opinions they're moral frameworks. Right wing frameworks value hierarchy, wealth, power, dominance, and status based on assumptions of innate superiority/inferiority, and fear of outgroups. Left wing frameworks are based on egalitarianism, universality, and fairness, and tolerance for/interest in outgroups. The issues that exercise the right - immigration, crime, guns, abortion, vaccination and masking mandates, homosexuality, religion, taxation, government oversight - are all emotional triggers on the dominance/passivity axis. The issues that exercise the left - wealth and power differentials, racism, sexism, healthcare, education, collective as opposed to individual survival - are all emotional triggers on the fairness/unfairness axis. You can't overcome these frameworks with facts, because they're fundamentally different. The problem in the anglo world is that the differences have become so polarised they're no longer in sight of each other. If you try to explain to someone on the right that Covid and climate change are both serious issues, the framework kicks in and you get a "Why are you trying to tell me what to do? I don't accept your authority over me" response. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people literally chose to die because they considered vaccination an overwhelming and unacceptable attack on their personal sovereignty. If you try to explain to someone on the left that you have to use rightwing frameworks to communicate with rightwing people you'll get a "That's stupid and wrong, so I'm going to carry on complaining about unfairness and/or quoting science papers at them, but I'll do it more loudly because that's sure to work." Neither side is being rational.