5 ms·

Makes me wonder how many totally false stories have impacted my view of the world.

• bombcar 4y ago
  Totally? Probably fewer than you think. But misrepresented or spun? Many many.
• 6510 4y ago
  if you want to believe badly enough its all real
• bko 4y ago
  When analyzing stories like this, I like to ask myself, what if the result were reversed? Would it be reported? For instance, if there is a study that says [group 1] are actually better managers than [group 2]. I ask myself what if the study found [group 2] is in fact better than [group 1]? It very well may be that [group 1] is in fact better managers, but if the reverse cannot be reported, then you're not getting any counterfactual evidence since it would be suppressed, ignored or manipulated. Basically it doesn't fit the popular narrative. You can apply this to other statements. If you hear a statement in which the reverse would be inconceivable, it's probably not a meaningful statement. If you hear a manager say "I stand with my employees", would the reverse make sense? Is there someone that would argue, no, I don't stand with my employees? If not, then that statement is a meaningless platitude and not conveying any information. The only caveat I would add is that the subject may add focus. Focusing on employees may be a signal to some value that is not universally shared, but people often hedge their bets and say something like "I stand with my employees, customers and stockholders", which is completely meaningless.
  • dmix 4y ago
    That’s a very clever way to look at things. So much of social media is littered with platitudes and virtue signalling where the thing being said is not only very low risk but not saying it would be career suicide (or at least cause endless foaming at the mouth), this is a useful way to filter out low effort content.
  • tarakat 4y ago
    > I like to ask myself, what if the result were reversed? Would it be reported? Ask and you will be answered: The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. Source: https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi... summarizing the following paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/political-diversity-will-improve-social-psychological-science-1/A54AD4878AED1AFC8BA6AF54A890149F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...
• Overtonwindow 4y ago
  “Isms” etc are easy to throw out without providing actual proof. Racism, sexism, phobic, etc. it’s an easy slur to use as a defense mechanism, and is rarely challenged.
  • dmix 4y ago
    The interesting thing is how words like ‘racist’ start to lose meaning so they simply start doubling down and using words like ‘fascist’ and ‘genocide’, then legitimately evil things that actually fit those words are easier to hide since they are just one of thousands being called those words daily. It’s not doing anyone any favours.
• Balgair 4y ago
  What's worse is the 'mostly false/true' stories and bit of info out there. Things like the French Mother Sauces, the exact time when you have three watches, what the Somme Offensive was like, etc. You think you have a good idea, you mostly do, but then you have just enough to move on and not know anything at all really. It's like the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, but for everything. https://loricism.fandom.com/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect https://loricism.fandom.com/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect
• claytongulick 4y ago
  The difficulty people face today is how hard it is to pierce the veil of the multiple layers of deceit. At one point, even gently suggesting that all was not as it seemed with the Covid numbers (remember when it was reported to have a 10% mortality rate in Italy?) would get you banned/blacklisted/downvoted etc... Even today, pointing out the risk/reward issues with child vaccination for Covid will get a mob attacking you, and anti-vaxxer etc... labels applied. Whether it's racism, covid, gun control, abortion or any other politically charged "wedge" issue, it's nearly impossible to get to a reasonable discussion of the issue. Neither "side" wants that. They want demonization, othering and disgust reaction in order to gain and consolidate power. Partisan media organizations outright lie, and face basically no accountability for it. In order to try to hunt down some semblance of truth, you have to constantly read opposing publications, and it's a lot of work. I prefer to read media that doesn't pretend to hide their bias, Huffington Post, Breitbart, The Atlantic, etc... Over the claimed "impartial" media like NYT, Fox, MSNBC that pretend at objective journalism but have a clear political agenda.
• mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Apparently like half the Ted talks have research that can’t be replicated…