4 ms·
HN and similar forums are particularly prone to this behavior. We see two messages: * Message A: X is true * Message B: Message A is false Based only on that
by wolverine876 4y ago
HN and similar forums are particularly prone to this behavior. We see two messages:
* Message A: X is true
* Message B: Message A is false
Based only on that information (which often is all we have), there is no reason to believe message B rather than message A, but people seem to love a 'debunking' (it seems to make them feel smart).
I seem to remember that it matches a cognitive bias, such as believing the more recent message. Or, maybe we just fall for whoever acts more confident - a literal con game: The person communicating B is claiming to know more than the person communicating A, and for some reason we believe them.
- eastbound 4y agoMessage B had a crucially different landscape when it was established: It knew about Message A. The opposite is not true. If we assume general benevolence of humans, Message A had no evil when it was established, it was a genuine mistake, so Message B is true. Now if we assume some part of evil, Message B was crafter by evil actors who, even in the presence of more information than Message A, still entered additional false information in this world.
- ffhhj 4y agoWell, what you said is not false, but I can totally assert this sentence is.