3 ms·

The problem is the tech community is largely full of hyper-logical people, for better or worse. The average American, however, responds best to logical fallacie

by gfodor 15y ago

The problem is the tech community is largely full of hyper-logical people, for better or worse. The average American, however, responds best to logical fallacies like appeals to emotion, authority, and the clever use of language to frame issues in a dishonest way. I firmly believe there will not be much progress in American democracy until the "good guys" realize it's time to embrace the 'if you can't beat em, join em' philosophy and start creating controlled, disciplined messaging that, while carefully navigating the line between truth and fiction, manages to stand toe-to-toe with the spin masters over at Fox News et al.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Agreed a thousand times over! We need to make it relatable. I'm really good at talking with people so I wish I were there to help. We just need to talk about how it can affect their lives and businesses. If we put it in terms of their afacebook profiles, Youatube videos, blogs, and mom and pop shop websites and how those things can be threatened and put them into a lot of trouble we could get a lot of the general public on our side. I think we should go to great lengths not to talk about piracy at all.
ellyagg 15y ago
Wow. I do not agree with this at all. When I've heard this sentiment before it's from people who, despite the fact that they think they are hyperlogical and despite the fact that I think I'm hyperlogical, don't in fact agree with me on all public policy issues. Moreover, at least when it comes to the two dominant parties, carefully controlled and dishonest messaging is already the order of the day. Logic is not the only, or even the most important, factor which undermines productive debate. It's the failure to recognize that a lot of what people believe about public policy is rooted in unprovable assumptions. If two people start with separate premises (e.g., different vision of what an ideal world looks like), all the logic in the world won't make them meet. I don't believe the answer is more dishonesty. I believe the answer is new tools that are somehow captivating while simultaneously inoculating against the well-known human mental frailties. I sometimes idly imagine a new type of news show with built-in checks and balances to root out logical fallacies, explain assumptions, and guard against cognitive biases. I'm not yet sure how to make people watch it though. ;) The state of public debate sucks, but I think we've made progress. Just because we have further to go doesn't mean we should start going backwards. Also, when you're so certain your "side" is right that you start wanting to cheat, it's time to check your own premises and cognitive biases and see if there's any way you may be giving your policy opponents shorter shrift than they deserve.
- moonchrome 15y ago
  >Wow. I do not agree with this at all. When I've heard this sentiment before it's from people who, despite the fact that they think they are hyperlogical and despite the fact that I think I'm hyperlogical, don't in fact agree with me on all public policy issues. Logic operates on premises - and because there is no universal/objective value system we all argue from different/subjective viewpoints - so it's likely that the person you disagree with doesn't start with the same premises. You can have a perfectly logical argument but if it's arguing for a different outcome or from a different viewpoint you aren't going to agree with the other person.
  - dmor 15y ago
    I agree, and this is why I think you can start the argument by framing it in first principles. If you have fundamentally different premises, you at least need to create doubt in the opponent and hopefully get them to (eventually, possibly after dozens of encounters/debates) to check their premises. Fundamentally, can an entire industry that makes art and music be rotten to the core. Probably not, it is full of people like us would are making things and doing things and building careers, and a lot of them are probably also concerned about thxe future of the Internet with SOPA. So we have to respect our audience and opponent's attention span and intelligence, and get some simple effective messages distributed before we miss the window of opportunity.
- gfodor 15y ago
  You'll notice I didn't say we have to be dishonest. The problem is that in the quest to be unequivocally, unquestionably correct, the message ends up getting diluted and ultimately destroyed. The reasons the Republicans control the debate is because they come to a decision on an issue, and focus on getting their message and viewpoint across in the simplest way possible. They do not play devil's advocate, do not focus on arguments against their point, because it's an ineffective use of their time when being listened to. They frame issues in a way that people can understand them, and, in their own perverse way, respect their audience for the fact they often are not very interested in the details and would like someone to sum up their views succinctly and in a way that makes a value judgement possible quickly. Where they cross the line is where they outright lie. But it's not their responsibility to point out the flaws in their own argument, nor is it their responsibility to avoid logical fallacies in making their case if those appeals to emotion make the issue more 'real' for their audience. Meanwhile, Democrats trying to do the right thing end up in-fighting over the most minute detail of how to frame their argument in a way that is both pure and honest. They acknowledge the argument of the other side, and always posit themselves as a refutation to the primary mover, the Republicans (or in this case, the big media industry.) They do not frame the argument. They do not set the grounds for discussion. They do not assert their power. A lot can be learned by watching the way the right-wing spin machine works. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil, and used in a way that is ethically sound. Of course, it is important to avoid the trap of going too far, and we can see clearly the result of doing so. But this doesn't mean that we can't channel the power of messaging, framing, and so on in order to bring about progress. For example, we've already lost this debate in so many ways. The response to this shouldn't just be "block this bill" it should be "block this bill", and: - Here is a concise message that summarizes our position: "Don't break our Internet," "Get your hands off our Internet", "Leave the Internet alone," "Stop trying to break the Internet" (Edit: Right now, Google's position is "Please don't censor the web!" Say that in the voice of a little girl and you might understand why this messaging sucks. Don't say please. Don't use the word censor. Tell them to fuck off without using profanity.) - Here is a pledge that you as a representative must sign about passing Internet legislation or else you will not receive any votes from this consitutency. - Here is a bill we would like you to pass (pushed by lobbyists from Google/Facebook/etc) that prevents future legislation from tampering with the free flow of information on the Internet. - We now refer to the companies pushing SOPA as the "Old Media", "Content Monopolies", "Pre-Internet Media", "Legacy Content Providers", "Anti-Artist Media", or "Copyright Law Abusers". We refer to sites like Spotify and Youtube as "Modern Media", "Open Media", "Pro-Artist Media", or "Modern Content Providers." - "Copyright infringement" is not "piracy" but is "missharing." "Net Neutrality" is "Free Internet" or "Web Freedom". DRM is on "Chained Content" or "Locked Content". Etc. It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and righteousness.
ZenPsycho 15y ago
It's not about logic vs. illogic. Logic is important to understand for a technical person- if they do not understand logic, their programs do not work, and their bugs cannot be fixed. But normal humans do not respond to logic. Normal humans respond to stories, and this is what tech people are really BAD at. You know who is good at telling stories? The entertainment industry, and politicians. What is a story? A linear sequence of cause and effect, with some kind of overall shape. see this Kurt Vonnegut video where he explains story shapes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ If you can construct a compelling narrative- which is empathetic with the listener enough that you know they will be able to insert themselves into the story, and imagine that they are them main character, then you win- that one battle. If you try to program a person like they are a computer, by simply listing a series of what you feel are logical statements, you will come across as condescending, and self absorbed. You will fail. When you notice that they are not following you, and you interpret this as "Oh they must be missing a library. var TCPIP = import("internets").tcpip;" you just make the problem worse.

by gfodor 15y ago

billpatrianakos 15y ago

Agreed a thousand times over! We need to make it relatable. I'm really good at talking with people so I wish I were there to help. We just need to talk about how it can affect their lives and businesses. If we put it in terms of their afacebook profiles, Youatube videos, blogs, and mom and pop shop websites and how those things can be threatened and put them into a lot of trouble we could get a lot of the general public on our side. I think we should go to great lengths not to talk about piracy at all.

ellyagg 15y ago

Wow. I do not agree with this at all. When I've heard this sentiment before it's from people who, despite the fact that they think they are hyperlogical and despite the fact that I think I'm hyperlogical, don't in fact agree with me on all public policy issues. Moreover, at least when it comes to the two dominant parties, carefully controlled and dishonest messaging is already the order of the day. Logic is not the only, or even the most important, factor which undermines productive debate. It's the failure to recognize that a lot of what people believe about public policy is rooted in unprovable assumptions. If two people start with separate premises (e.g., different vision of what an ideal world looks like), all the logic in the world won't make them meet. I don't believe the answer is more dishonesty. I believe the answer is new tools that are somehow captivating while simultaneously inoculating against the well-known human mental frailties. I sometimes idly imagine a new type of news show with built-in checks and balances to root out logical fallacies, explain assumptions, and guard against cognitive biases. I'm not yet sure how to make people watch it though. ;) The state of public debate sucks, but I think we've made progress. Just because we have further to go doesn't mean we should start going backwards. Also, when you're so certain your "side" is right that you start wanting to cheat, it's time to check your own premises and cognitive biases and see if there's any way you may be giving your policy opponents shorter shrift than they deserve.

moonchrome 15y ago
>Wow. I do not agree with this at all. When I've heard this sentiment before it's from people who, despite the fact that they think they are hyperlogical and despite the fact that I think I'm hyperlogical, don't in fact agree with me on all public policy issues. Logic operates on premises - and because there is no universal/objective value system we all argue from different/subjective viewpoints - so it's likely that the person you disagree with doesn't start with the same premises. You can have a perfectly logical argument but if it's arguing for a different outcome or from a different viewpoint you aren't going to agree with the other person.
- dmor 15y ago
  I agree, and this is why I think you can start the argument by framing it in first principles. If you have fundamentally different premises, you at least need to create doubt in the opponent and hopefully get them to (eventually, possibly after dozens of encounters/debates) to check their premises. Fundamentally, can an entire industry that makes art and music be rotten to the core. Probably not, it is full of people like us would are making things and doing things and building careers, and a lot of them are probably also concerned about thxe future of the Internet with SOPA. So we have to respect our audience and opponent's attention span and intelligence, and get some simple effective messages distributed before we miss the window of opportunity.
gfodor 15y ago
You'll notice I didn't say we have to be dishonest. The problem is that in the quest to be unequivocally, unquestionably correct, the message ends up getting diluted and ultimately destroyed. The reasons the Republicans control the debate is because they come to a decision on an issue, and focus on getting their message and viewpoint across in the simplest way possible. They do not play devil's advocate, do not focus on arguments against their point, because it's an ineffective use of their time when being listened to. They frame issues in a way that people can understand them, and, in their own perverse way, respect their audience for the fact they often are not very interested in the details and would like someone to sum up their views succinctly and in a way that makes a value judgement possible quickly. Where they cross the line is where they outright lie. But it's not their responsibility to point out the flaws in their own argument, nor is it their responsibility to avoid logical fallacies in making their case if those appeals to emotion make the issue more 'real' for their audience. Meanwhile, Democrats trying to do the right thing end up in-fighting over the most minute detail of how to frame their argument in a way that is both pure and honest. They acknowledge the argument of the other side, and always posit themselves as a refutation to the primary mover, the Republicans (or in this case, the big media industry.) They do not frame the argument. They do not set the grounds for discussion. They do not assert their power. A lot can be learned by watching the way the right-wing spin machine works. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil, and used in a way that is ethically sound. Of course, it is important to avoid the trap of going too far, and we can see clearly the result of doing so. But this doesn't mean that we can't channel the power of messaging, framing, and so on in order to bring about progress. For example, we've already lost this debate in so many ways. The response to this shouldn't just be "block this bill" it should be "block this bill", and: - Here is a concise message that summarizes our position: "Don't break our Internet," "Get your hands off our Internet", "Leave the Internet alone," "Stop trying to break the Internet" (Edit: Right now, Google's position is "Please don't censor the web!" Say that in the voice of a little girl and you might understand why this messaging sucks. Don't say please. Don't use the word censor. Tell them to fuck off without using profanity.) - Here is a pledge that you as a representative must sign about passing Internet legislation or else you will not receive any votes from this consitutency. - Here is a bill we would like you to pass (pushed by lobbyists from Google/Facebook/etc) that prevents future legislation from tampering with the free flow of information on the Internet. - We now refer to the companies pushing SOPA as the "Old Media", "Content Monopolies", "Pre-Internet Media", "Legacy Content Providers", "Anti-Artist Media", or "Copyright Law Abusers". We refer to sites like Spotify and Youtube as "Modern Media", "Open Media", "Pro-Artist Media", or "Modern Content Providers." - "Copyright infringement" is not "piracy" but is "missharing." "Net Neutrality" is "Free Internet" or "Web Freedom". DRM is on "Chained Content" or "Locked Content". Etc. It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and righteousness.

ZenPsycho 15y ago

It's not about logic vs. illogic. Logic is important to understand for a technical person- if they do not understand logic, their programs do not work, and their bugs cannot be fixed. But normal humans do not respond to logic. Normal humans respond to stories, and this is what tech people are really BAD at. You know who is good at telling stories? The entertainment industry, and politicians. What is a story? A linear sequence of cause and effect, with some kind of overall shape. see this Kurt Vonnegut video where he explains story shapes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ If you can construct a compelling narrative- which is empathetic with the listener enough that you know they will be able to insert themselves into the story, and imagine that they are them main character, then you win- that one battle. If you try to program a person like they are a computer, by simply listing a series of what you feel are logical statements, you will come across as condescending, and self absorbed. You will fail. When you notice that they are not following you, and you interpret this as "Oh they must be missing a library. var TCPIP = import("internets").tcpip;" you just make the problem worse.