5 ms·

Of course it’s important to also not accept without question the facts that a person gives you, because people do lie. For example, do you really think that sh

Of course it’s important to also not accept without question the facts that a person gives you, because people do lie. For example, do you really think that shirt is 40% off today only? That’s probably just a lie. I saw a TikTok video yesterday that showed a picture showing a picture of a girl with an underdeveloped jaw and the voiceover said it was because she breathed through her mouth too much. One of the comments pointed out that this is actually a specific genetic condition. So the poster of the TikTok invented a new “fact” out of thin air and presented it as truth. To change my mind based on that would be a mistake.

themitigating 3y ago
This is a mistake I made recently. There are false facts, or lies. True facts and opinions
- dylan604 3y ago
  This is what I've tried to instill in those that I've had the opportunity to preach on a soapbox. It is not wrong to have a belief that is different from others. It is also not wrong to not immediately change those beliefs when presented counter information so that you may take time to interpret what that new information means. If you decide that new information is correct, it is also not wrong to change your beliefs based on the new information. It is also not wrong to question the source of the new information.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I'll add to be wise enough to distinguish from topics you should have your opinion drom those ypi shouldn't. E.g. a brain surgeon and his views on quantum physics, said surgeon should have an opinion on brain surgery, a good one that changes based on his qualified evaluation of new facts while he is perfectly fine of jist going with whatever the latest consensus regarding Higgs bosoms or some other quantum physics topic is. If that makes any sense.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    My opinions are parametrized. They're contingent on explicit premises, and if I'm exposed to new evidence they can change instantly.
- mechanicalpulse 3y ago
  This subject can quickly become a fascinating epistemological journey into solipsism, semiotics, and cognitive biases. A "lie" implies intent to deceive or mislead, but not all false facts are shared with such intent. You may be interested in Harry Frankfurt's 1986 essay On Bullshit [0] and the 2005 book of the same name, which has been discussed on HN before [1]. [0] On Bullshit: http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_... [1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on-bullshit https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33605481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33605481
anotherman554 3y ago
In the context of investing there's also the problem of recency bias. You see investors arguing whether "the facts have changed" as to whether investors should invest outside the U.S., for example, when U.S. stocks have done well for a decade, and other investors accusing the U.S. only group of having recency bias.
- jdmichal 3y ago
  Is that entirely recency bias, or also changing facts? Economies are very interconnected now. It's hard to imagine a scenario today where a global economic power enters a large recession, but there's some other economy out there that gets by relatively unscathed. And by that I specifically mean: providing a return differential large enough to justify the upside risk of investing there in the first place.
  - anotherman554 3y ago
    Since 2018 U.S. stocks have returned 9.59% per year (I checked with Portfolio Visualizer) and international stocks have returns 1.83%. I don't see how that supports the idea that economies are very interconnected and investing outside the country can't produce a large return differential. We also haven't had a official recession in the U.S. over that time period, I believe, so the topic of recession seems like a red herring.
    - jdmichal 3y ago
      > Since 2018 U.S. stocks have returned 9.59% per year (I checked with Portfolio Visualizer) and international stocks have returns 1.83%. Right, so there's your 8% per year upside risk. So during US recessions, do international stocks provide a differential return against US stocks that is high enough to support that 8% yearly upside risk? (And, even if they do, now it's a matter of timing the market...) > I don't see how that supports the idea that economies are very interconnected and investing outside the country can't produce a large return differential. I didn't say it wouldn't provide any differential. I implied that that differential will either always be negative or positive but small enough that it's not worth moving. Or, in other words, US or European recessions would equally tank foreign investments dependent on US or European consumers. Of course these markets would be somewhat resistant based on the strength of their own local economies, but are those economies strong enough to provide solid returns through a US or European recession? And if they are, is the differential high enough to risk the 8% yearly upside during non-recessions?
eCa 3y ago
> To change my mind based on that would be a mistake. Not if the change was to completely disregard anything that that user posts.
anticodon 3y ago
It is impossible or next to impossible to investigate most of the facts. For example, if somebody would say that "People in Bhutan eat stones", how would you find if it is true or not? You don't know the language. You probably don't know where to find local Bhutan news, forums, social networks. Or if someone would say that "Celebrity X visited a factory of company Y in China". Even if you find a Chinese search engine and use online translator, you can easily waste days. E.g. how do you find out how Western names are spelled in Chinese text? There's no single answer, especially if a person is not worldwide popular. From my personal experience: I live in Russia. When I read what is published in Western media about life in Russia, I'm flabbergasted every time at the blatant lies and exaggerations. Though I guess it's roughly similar to what I read in our media about Western countries. But if I'd try to dispel some myths on social networks or in comments, I'll be banned or at best called "Kremlin troll", so I no longer even try to do it.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  You can use trusted sources, and comparative sources to increase your confidence level. So, for example I followed a Ukrainian youtuber who said he was leaving because of the invasion, that added considerably to my confidence. Also, meeting refugees arrive in the UK displaced from the Russian invasion made for near 100% confidence that it was actually happening (a video of a couple of tanks on a highway just looks like propaganda however, but the tanks were probably there, something happened [it wasn't impressive enough to be AI generated!]). As for comparatives: if BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Today all agree on details (in the context of the Russian war) then I'm pretty confident. Though the Wagner situation appears to be a subterfuge, as all these sources are reporting it I'm confident that vehicles were driven towards Moscow in at least an attempt to display to the World that something was happening. What is an example of a large lie that you see in Western media today, that you confirm to be untrue from direct personal experience?
  - anticodon 3y ago
    > You can use trusted sources What is a trusted source? How can I find one? I think this is close to impossible. Of course, everyone reads what one consider "trusted" source, but I have doubt any of them is. > So, for example I followed a Ukrainian youtuber who said he was leaving because of the invasion, that added considerably to my confidence. Also, meeting refugees arrive in the UK displaced from the Russian invasion made for near 100% confidence that it was actually happening (a video of a couple of tanks on a highway just looks like propaganda however, but the tanks were probably there, something happened [it wasn't impressive enough to be AI generated!]). But does this prove anything at all? E.g. half of my family lives in Ukraine. You wouldn't believe and it's never mentioned in Western media, but large percent of Ukraine population is Russian. Actually, it's almost impossible to distinguish who's Russian and who's Ukrainian. What is the difference? My family is originally from Ukraine, but I consider myself Russian. So, my relatives from Ukraine were always telling me completely different stories from official Western stories. E.g. about neo-nazi movement in Ukraine which became very active since 1991 according to my relatives. > What is an example of a large lie that you see in Western media today, that you confirm to be untrue from direct personal experience? I do not collect such stories (what would be the point?), but meanwhile I'm looking for some examples, I'll tell you that for several years I've browsed Western media and specifically searched for news from Russia on CNN, Washington Post, Bloomberg, and other prominent Western media websites. One thing that is impossible to ignore is that all news from Russia are strictly negative. Even if they're true, this is clearly one sided presentation of situation to demonstrate to Western readers that "Everything is bad in Russia". I couldn't read anything positive about Russia in English for many years. It's always the same bingo bullshit composed out of "dictatorship", "bad Putin", "bad Russians", "Russian hackers", yadda, yadda. I've just did a search `russia site:https://www.washingtonpost.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/`. While I cannot pinpoint an outright lie, because there're tons of results and I don't have much time now, you can easily see that there's a common theme in all the news articles: "Russia is bad", "Situation in Russia is awful", "Some unnamed source confirms that Putin is bad/afraid/eats babies for breakfast". Whatever year you put in the search: 2023, 2022, 2020, 2018, etc.

themitigating 3y ago

This is a mistake I made recently. There are false facts, or lies. True facts and opinions

dylan604 3y ago
This is what I've tried to instill in those that I've had the opportunity to preach on a soapbox. It is not wrong to have a belief that is different from others. It is also not wrong to not immediately change those beliefs when presented counter information so that you may take time to interpret what that new information means. If you decide that new information is correct, it is also not wrong to change your beliefs based on the new information. It is also not wrong to question the source of the new information.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I'll add to be wise enough to distinguish from topics you should have your opinion drom those ypi shouldn't. E.g. a brain surgeon and his views on quantum physics, said surgeon should have an opinion on brain surgery, a good one that changes based on his qualified evaluation of new facts while he is perfectly fine of jist going with whatever the latest consensus regarding Higgs bosoms or some other quantum physics topic is. If that makes any sense.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  My opinions are parametrized. They're contingent on explicit premises, and if I'm exposed to new evidence they can change instantly.
mechanicalpulse 3y ago
This subject can quickly become a fascinating epistemological journey into solipsism, semiotics, and cognitive biases. A "lie" implies intent to deceive or mislead, but not all false facts are shared with such intent. You may be interested in Harry Frankfurt's 1986 essay On Bullshit [0] and the 2005 book of the same name, which has been discussed on HN before [1]. [0] On Bullshit: http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_... [1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on-bullshit https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33605481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33605481

anotherman554 3y ago

In the context of investing there's also the problem of recency bias. You see investors arguing whether "the facts have changed" as to whether investors should invest outside the U.S., for example, when U.S. stocks have done well for a decade, and other investors accusing the U.S. only group of having recency bias.

jdmichal 3y ago
Is that entirely recency bias, or also changing facts? Economies are very interconnected now. It's hard to imagine a scenario today where a global economic power enters a large recession, but there's some other economy out there that gets by relatively unscathed. And by that I specifically mean: providing a return differential large enough to justify the upside risk of investing there in the first place.
- anotherman554 3y ago
  Since 2018 U.S. stocks have returned 9.59% per year (I checked with Portfolio Visualizer) and international stocks have returns 1.83%. I don't see how that supports the idea that economies are very interconnected and investing outside the country can't produce a large return differential. We also haven't had a official recession in the U.S. over that time period, I believe, so the topic of recession seems like a red herring.
  - jdmichal 3y ago
    > Since 2018 U.S. stocks have returned 9.59% per year (I checked with Portfolio Visualizer) and international stocks have returns 1.83%. Right, so there's your 8% per year upside risk. So during US recessions, do international stocks provide a differential return against US stocks that is high enough to support that 8% yearly upside risk? (And, even if they do, now it's a matter of timing the market...) > I don't see how that supports the idea that economies are very interconnected and investing outside the country can't produce a large return differential. I didn't say it wouldn't provide any differential. I implied that that differential will either always be negative or positive but small enough that it's not worth moving. Or, in other words, US or European recessions would equally tank foreign investments dependent on US or European consumers. Of course these markets would be somewhat resistant based on the strength of their own local economies, but are those economies strong enough to provide solid returns through a US or European recession? And if they are, is the differential high enough to risk the 8% yearly upside during non-recessions?

eCa 3y ago

> To change my mind based on that would be a mistake. Not if the change was to completely disregard anything that that user posts.

anticodon 3y ago

It is impossible or next to impossible to investigate most of the facts. For example, if somebody would say that "People in Bhutan eat stones", how would you find if it is true or not? You don't know the language. You probably don't know where to find local Bhutan news, forums, social networks. Or if someone would say that "Celebrity X visited a factory of company Y in China". Even if you find a Chinese search engine and use online translator, you can easily waste days. E.g. how do you find out how Western names are spelled in Chinese text? There's no single answer, especially if a person is not worldwide popular. From my personal experience: I live in Russia. When I read what is published in Western media about life in Russia, I'm flabbergasted every time at the blatant lies and exaggerations. Though I guess it's roughly similar to what I read in our media about Western countries. But if I'd try to dispel some myths on social networks or in comments, I'll be banned or at best called "Kremlin troll", so I no longer even try to do it.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
You can use trusted sources, and comparative sources to increase your confidence level. So, for example I followed a Ukrainian youtuber who said he was leaving because of the invasion, that added considerably to my confidence. Also, meeting refugees arrive in the UK displaced from the Russian invasion made for near 100% confidence that it was actually happening (a video of a couple of tanks on a highway just looks like propaganda however, but the tanks were probably there, something happened [it wasn't impressive enough to be AI generated!]). As for comparatives: if BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Today all agree on details (in the context of the Russian war) then I'm pretty confident. Though the Wagner situation appears to be a subterfuge, as all these sources are reporting it I'm confident that vehicles were driven towards Moscow in at least an attempt to display to the World that something was happening. What is an example of a large lie that you see in Western media today, that you confirm to be untrue from direct personal experience?
- anticodon 3y ago
  > You can use trusted sources What is a trusted source? How can I find one? I think this is close to impossible. Of course, everyone reads what one consider "trusted" source, but I have doubt any of them is. > So, for example I followed a Ukrainian youtuber who said he was leaving because of the invasion, that added considerably to my confidence. Also, meeting refugees arrive in the UK displaced from the Russian invasion made for near 100% confidence that it was actually happening (a video of a couple of tanks on a highway just looks like propaganda however, but the tanks were probably there, something happened [it wasn't impressive enough to be AI generated!]). But does this prove anything at all? E.g. half of my family lives in Ukraine. You wouldn't believe and it's never mentioned in Western media, but large percent of Ukraine population is Russian. Actually, it's almost impossible to distinguish who's Russian and who's Ukrainian. What is the difference? My family is originally from Ukraine, but I consider myself Russian. So, my relatives from Ukraine were always telling me completely different stories from official Western stories. E.g. about neo-nazi movement in Ukraine which became very active since 1991 according to my relatives. > What is an example of a large lie that you see in Western media today, that you confirm to be untrue from direct personal experience? I do not collect such stories (what would be the point?), but meanwhile I'm looking for some examples, I'll tell you that for several years I've browsed Western media and specifically searched for news from Russia on CNN, Washington Post, Bloomberg, and other prominent Western media websites. One thing that is impossible to ignore is that all news from Russia are strictly negative. Even if they're true, this is clearly one sided presentation of situation to demonstrate to Western readers that "Everything is bad in Russia". I couldn't read anything positive about Russia in English for many years. It's always the same bingo bullshit composed out of "dictatorship", "bad Putin", "bad Russians", "Russian hackers", yadda, yadda. I've just did a search `russia site:https://www.washingtonpost.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/`. While I cannot pinpoint an outright lie, because there're tons of results and I don't have much time now, you can easily see that there's a common theme in all the news articles: "Russia is bad", "Situation in Russia is awful", "Some unnamed source confirms that Putin is bad/afraid/eats babies for breakfast". Whatever year you put in the search: 2023, 2022, 2020, 2018, etc.