5 ms·

If the choice was to be invited to participate in the conversation or not, wouldn’t you tone down your public statements in order to have a hope of influencing

by svnt 4y ago

If the choice was to be invited to participate in the conversation or not, wouldn’t you tone down your public statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? I’m not saying it’s the right strategy now, but premature hyperbole just slows down adoption, if it does anything at all.

groby_b 4y ago
The answer is "no". If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. The opposite of that gives us institutions that are continually disseminating lies, in the process undermining trust in institutions. Truth doesn't get "invited to conversations". It is always part of it, and the choice is just spoken or unspoken.
- anthony_d 4y ago
  > If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. That is a terrifying sentence. It can be used to justify anything while denying accountability. There's always the possibility (probability) that you are wrong about what is "the truth."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - culi 4y ago
    I completely agree with you but I don't really think it's relevant to this situation. The situation is not a decision between 2 different possible truths. It's a decision to sweep something under the rug. Something that we know will have an effect, we just don't know the magnitude of it. When faced with ambiguity we should take a best guess (even if it's a "conservative" guess) not ignore everything because its more politically convenient The "best guess" was clearly not taken here
  - carapace 4y ago
    Right, that's why empiricism and the scientific method are so important. This is in the context of scientists being "invited to participate in the conversation or not", eh?
  - groby_b 4y ago
    "face truth" is not exactly "anything". The desired outcome is - which is pretty damn obvious from the context here - that the system will need to face up to truth. And I'm certainly not sure how any of this denies accountability. Maybe you're just projecting a little bit much into a single sentence?
  - vkou 4y ago
    > That is a terrifying sentence It is. But so is the situation under discussion. When you have the choice between getting silenced for the truth, or keeping quiet about a disaster, the people putting you in this dilemma aren't doing so by using tools of reason or debate - but with tools of power and terror.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> If the choice was to be invited to participate in the conversation or not, wouldn’t you tone down your public statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? An interesting bind is called "The Critics' Dilemma", best understood through a (Chinese) story. One day some farmers see an invading army coming over the hill. They rush into the city to tell the emperor. "Emperor, a huge army is approaching, we're surely doomed!" Not wanting to have the whole city panic the emperor has the men executed to silence them. Invaders enter the city and slaughter all the imperial soldiers. Many years later two farmers are watching the horizon when they see an army gathering. "Quickly, let's warn the citizens" says one. "No. Remember the story of what happened to our grandfathers." says the other. So they return to the city and tell the emperor, "We saw a few bandits gathered by the woods". The emperors soldiers go to confront them and are all killed, The city is raided again. The dilemma is "Tell them too much and they will deny you out of fear. Tell them too little and they will be unprepared." This applies, along with the Cassandra effect, right to the heart of all intelligent critique. People are happy to die from ignorance so long as you don't upset them with cognitive dissonance. Later, when they are in imminent peril, they'll blame you for not speaking up sooner.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  The story doesn't really make sense, wouldn't the more distant outposts easily confirm if a huge army is amassing nearby?
  - Mtinie 4y ago
    Not if the distant outposts have already succumbed to the advancing army…and all of those who came in from the field to warn the Emperor have previously been silenced.
  - DoughnutHole 4y ago
    It's a short parable, of course it doesn't stand up to pedantic nitpicking. The Boy Who Cried Wolf isn't a tightly tuned narrative either - why wouldn't they just put a more reliable shepherd boy out with the sheep after the first couple of lies? But that's hardly the point of a parable/fable.
miguelazo 4y ago
"Premature hyperbole"? Interesting choice of framing.
andsoitis 4y ago
> premature hyperbole just slows down adoption Wasn't it intentional euphemism in this case, however?

by svnt 4y ago

groby_b 4y ago

The answer is "no". If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. The opposite of that gives us institutions that are continually disseminating lies, in the process undermining trust in institutions. Truth doesn't get "invited to conversations". It is always part of it, and the choice is just spoken or unspoken.

anthony_d 4y ago
> If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. That is a terrifying sentence. It can be used to justify anything while denying accountability. There's always the possibility (probability) that you are wrong about what is "the truth."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- culi 4y ago
  I completely agree with you but I don't really think it's relevant to this situation. The situation is not a decision between 2 different possible truths. It's a decision to sweep something under the rug. Something that we know will have an effect, we just don't know the magnitude of it. When faced with ambiguity we should take a best guess (even if it's a "conservative" guess) not ignore everything because its more politically convenient The "best guess" was clearly not taken here
- carapace 4y ago
  Right, that's why empiricism and the scientific method are so important. This is in the context of scientists being "invited to participate in the conversation or not", eh?
- groby_b 4y ago
  "face truth" is not exactly "anything". The desired outcome is - which is pretty damn obvious from the context here - that the system will need to face up to truth. And I'm certainly not sure how any of this denies accountability. Maybe you're just projecting a little bit much into a single sentence?
- vkou 4y ago
  > That is a terrifying sentence It is. But so is the situation under discussion. When you have the choice between getting silenced for the truth, or keeping quiet about a disaster, the people putting you in this dilemma aren't doing so by using tools of reason or debate - but with tools of power and terror.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> If the choice was to be invited to participate in the conversation or not, wouldn’t you tone down your public statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? An interesting bind is called "The Critics' Dilemma", best understood through a (Chinese) story. One day some farmers see an invading army coming over the hill. They rush into the city to tell the emperor. "Emperor, a huge army is approaching, we're surely doomed!" Not wanting to have the whole city panic the emperor has the men executed to silence them. Invaders enter the city and slaughter all the imperial soldiers. Many years later two farmers are watching the horizon when they see an army gathering. "Quickly, let's warn the citizens" says one. "No. Remember the story of what happened to our grandfathers." says the other. So they return to the city and tell the emperor, "We saw a few bandits gathered by the woods". The emperors soldiers go to confront them and are all killed, The city is raided again. The dilemma is "Tell them too much and they will deny you out of fear. Tell them too little and they will be unprepared." This applies, along with the Cassandra effect, right to the heart of all intelligent critique. People are happy to die from ignorance so long as you don't upset them with cognitive dissonance. Later, when they are in imminent peril, they'll blame you for not speaking up sooner.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
The story doesn't really make sense, wouldn't the more distant outposts easily confirm if a huge army is amassing nearby?
- Mtinie 4y ago
  Not if the distant outposts have already succumbed to the advancing army…and all of those who came in from the field to warn the Emperor have previously been silenced.
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  It's a short parable, of course it doesn't stand up to pedantic nitpicking. The Boy Who Cried Wolf isn't a tightly tuned narrative either - why wouldn't they just put a more reliable shepherd boy out with the sheep after the first couple of lies? But that's hardly the point of a parable/fable.

miguelazo 4y ago

"Premature hyperbole"? Interesting choice of framing.

andsoitis 4y ago

> premature hyperbole just slows down adoption Wasn't it intentional euphemism in this case, however?