5 ms·

Its usually not just random bullshit that gets spread around, but believable stories that follow a similar sort of logic to those we generally agree are true. T

Its usually not just random bullshit that gets spread around, but believable stories that follow a similar sort of logic to those we generally agree are true. Though, what might seem to you unbelievable may be dramatically different from what others consider so, and some things you think are true others might call bullshit. Though the material application of knowledge, in the end, always demonstrates its useful validity.

naikrovek 4y ago
yeah. people never (or almost never) make an effort to verify things that they believe are true. therefore, if it is believable, it is believed.
- airstrike 4y ago
  because learning something that contradicts your beliefs is actually stressful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
  - tedunangst 4y ago
    I'll see it when I believe it.
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    at first, sure. challenge your assumptions even a little and the stress becomes imperceptible. beyond that, understanding that people will lie to you for their own gain, and you won't even believe anyone by default anymore. it's quite healthy to question stuff in this way, I think.
tenpies 4y ago
It is also random bullshit. There is an entire group of people convinced that if you are shot with a 9 MM round, it "blows the lung out of the body".[1] They also think that 9 MM is a high caliber round, and that the AR in AR-15 stands for "assault rifle". These lies are knowingly spread by the White House and the Democrats. Anyone who devoted 1 minute of thought and research would know they are all false, but we're in an agenda-driven world, where fact, truth, and reality are all secondary to political ideology. --- [1] https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-9mm-bullet-blows-lung-out-body-1711551 https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-9mm-bullet-blows-lun...
- xpe 4y ago
  > These lies are knowingly spread by the White House and the Democrats. This sentence appears an example of Brandolini's Law. The problematic phrases are "the White House" and "the" Democrats. I'll explain. - It is one thing to cite a source that shows a politician making an incorrect statement. That's fair and important. - It is quite another to claim that a group of people are knowingly spreading these incorrect facts. It is easy to claim <some group> is spreading lies without specifying (1) the members of the group involved; (2) the mechanism by which these people speak for the group; and (3) why one's definition of the group is reasonable in context. Not to mention (4) Why is this particular detail worth mentioning in isolation from the broader context? - Perhaps most importantly, when someone writes (or speaks) (5) is that person writing (or speaking) in ways that maximize the desired interpretation? And good luck with that, given the realities of your audience's background knowledge, reading comprehension, attention span, and biases. I'll posit an even more fundamental basis for Brandolini's Law that has nothing to do with intentional malice or deception: the imprecision of human language makes it inherently difficult to fact-check someone else's sentence, because one has to interpret the sentence before criticizing it. This leaves some room for the original author to deflect the criticism by saying "I didn't mean that" (and this might be genuine, fair, and reasonable!) ... but meanwhile no clarification was issued (seriously, WTF?, why aren't corrections better integrated in the source material?) and many people are still reading the original statement and interpreting it in some subjective way. Sometimes I think it is amazing human societies function at all.
  - placebo 4y ago
    I also find it amazing that human societies survive at all. it would be interesting to find the answer to what is the minimum inefficiency required for a complex system to stop functioning. Of course, this question itself needs more precision, but you get the idea. For example, I've been in traffic jams in some cities with terrible infrastructure. Seems like a total hopeless chaotic mess, and yet at the end of the day everyone gets to their destination.
  - xpe 4y ago
    typo: appears to be an example
CM30 4y ago
It's usually stories that support the sharer's worldview, or that they (in some way), almost 'want' to be true. So a die hard vegan might be more likely to share a story about the dangers of eating meat than a barbecue enthusiast, and someone who believes their political side to be the 'moral' one is probably going to share stories about good things done by those on their side and bad things done by their enemies. So long as the story supports those beliefs the viewer holds dear, they'll believe it regardless of its inaccuracy. Same goes with media outlets if a fake story matches their political slant.
- DiscourseFan 4y ago
  "Reality" is just a story you make up when coming to terms with the fact that you can't always get what you want (Cf. Freud). There is a always a friction between the Real and any given "reality."

naikrovek 4y ago

yeah. people never (or almost never) make an effort to verify things that they believe are true. therefore, if it is believable, it is believed.

airstrike 4y ago
because learning something that contradicts your beliefs is actually stressful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
- tedunangst 4y ago
  I'll see it when I believe it.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  at first, sure. challenge your assumptions even a little and the stress becomes imperceptible. beyond that, understanding that people will lie to you for their own gain, and you won't even believe anyone by default anymore. it's quite healthy to question stuff in this way, I think.

tenpies 4y ago

It is also random bullshit. There is an entire group of people convinced that if you are shot with a 9 MM round, it "blows the lung out of the body".[1] They also think that 9 MM is a high caliber round, and that the AR in AR-15 stands for "assault rifle". These lies are knowingly spread by the White House and the Democrats. Anyone who devoted 1 minute of thought and research would know they are all false, but we're in an agenda-driven world, where fact, truth, and reality are all secondary to political ideology. --- [1] https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-9mm-bullet-blows-lung-out-body-1711551 https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-9mm-bullet-blows-lun...

xpe 4y ago
> These lies are knowingly spread by the White House and the Democrats. This sentence appears an example of Brandolini's Law. The problematic phrases are "the White House" and "the" Democrats. I'll explain. - It is one thing to cite a source that shows a politician making an incorrect statement. That's fair and important. - It is quite another to claim that a group of people are knowingly spreading these incorrect facts. It is easy to claim <some group> is spreading lies without specifying (1) the members of the group involved; (2) the mechanism by which these people speak for the group; and (3) why one's definition of the group is reasonable in context. Not to mention (4) Why is this particular detail worth mentioning in isolation from the broader context? - Perhaps most importantly, when someone writes (or speaks) (5) is that person writing (or speaking) in ways that maximize the desired interpretation? And good luck with that, given the realities of your audience's background knowledge, reading comprehension, attention span, and biases. I'll posit an even more fundamental basis for Brandolini's Law that has nothing to do with intentional malice or deception: the imprecision of human language makes it inherently difficult to fact-check someone else's sentence, because one has to interpret the sentence before criticizing it. This leaves some room for the original author to deflect the criticism by saying "I didn't mean that" (and this might be genuine, fair, and reasonable!) ... but meanwhile no clarification was issued (seriously, WTF?, why aren't corrections better integrated in the source material?) and many people are still reading the original statement and interpreting it in some subjective way. Sometimes I think it is amazing human societies function at all.
- placebo 4y ago
  I also find it amazing that human societies survive at all. it would be interesting to find the answer to what is the minimum inefficiency required for a complex system to stop functioning. Of course, this question itself needs more precision, but you get the idea. For example, I've been in traffic jams in some cities with terrible infrastructure. Seems like a total hopeless chaotic mess, and yet at the end of the day everyone gets to their destination.
- xpe 4y ago
  typo: appears to be an example

CM30 4y ago

It's usually stories that support the sharer's worldview, or that they (in some way), almost 'want' to be true. So a die hard vegan might be more likely to share a story about the dangers of eating meat than a barbecue enthusiast, and someone who believes their political side to be the 'moral' one is probably going to share stories about good things done by those on their side and bad things done by their enemies. So long as the story supports those beliefs the viewer holds dear, they'll believe it regardless of its inaccuracy. Same goes with media outlets if a fake story matches their political slant.

DiscourseFan 4y ago
"Reality" is just a story you make up when coming to terms with the fact that you can't always get what you want (Cf. Freud). There is a always a friction between the Real and any given "reality."