3 ms·
The last graph of #6 is great. I hate to stray into politics but my scary ideas revolve around public policy and the various actions people undertake in the pu
by aptwebapps 15y ago
The last graph of #6 is great.
I hate to stray into politics but my scary ideas revolve around public policy and the various actions people undertake in the public sphere that affect it. More specifically: Is it possible, by providing better tools for publishing and accessing information, to substantially improve public policy debates? Can we reduce the very large rewards for dishonesty and the use of disinformation?
This is the crux of the problem with our current political system, I think. It's not campaign finance, it's not religion, it's not disagreements about economics, foreign policy, security vs liberty (a lovely false dichotomy) or what have you. It is simply the fact that lies win and truth loses. Or, if that statement is not necessarily true, it is true in the current practice.
So, if you buy my premise, how can technology help? Isn't it a problem of human nature? You can't force people to be honest. You also can't force people to learn how to recognize dishonesty in spheres where they have not much competence. You can't impose good sense or decency.
But human nature is varied, and so maybe the seeming ascendancy of its more unfortunate aspects is situational. Maybe by improving the context and presentation of information they can be mitigated. Maybe technology can be used to recognize and reward honesty and to point out and discourage dishonesty. It hurts to think about, doesn't it? It does for me, because it is so hard, and that's what I took from pg essay. Granted, I may not be talking about problems to solve which would make you the next Google.
As an aside, I think that the utility of greater transparency of public actions (governmental or corporate) is already well-understood by many and much work is already being done in this direction so I am leaving out. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for new solutions there, as well.
- SkyMarshal 15y agoInteresting idea. I think the most intractable part is that many people believe what they want to believe. They gravitate to a world view for various reasons, backfit it to the data, rationalize the cherrypicking of supporting data and discarding of refuting data, integrate it into their id or ego, fight tooth and nail to protect it, and happily accept the political dis/misinformation you're referring to. I'd imagine you'd have to identify why people do that, why others don't, and whether it's formalizeable and transferable. Pretty sure psychology has done some work in that area, but brain-fried atm and drawing a blank...
- aptwebapps 15y agoYes, I agree. But these people do continue to be influenced by information in the public sphere, although they do tend to select sources that they agree with. They also were influenced when settling into their original positions. I really don't think this general behavior will change, but it's not all or nothing, it's a matter of degress. I think everyone does this at least a little bit. Unfortunately, a lot of people do it a lot. If you can shave away at it a little bit at a time, it could have a large impact in the end.
- intended 15y agoYup, psych has been looking at this intently for a while - I think cognitive has been doing work looking into this. There was an article on this a while back on HN as well - why walmart knew someones daughter was pregnant before her dad did. (forbes, after taking it from wired iirc) Its based on the fact that peoples habits (in regards to shopping) are ingrained, and that there are only a few times in life when those habits are open to change. Thats when there is a major change in their life - like a new job, baby, marriage and so on. Dan O Reily (from arming the Donkeys) also had an old pod cast on this.
- stcredzero 15y agoThis is the crux of the problem with our current political system, I think. It's not campaign finance, it's not religion, it's not disagreements about economics, foreign policy, security vs liberty (a lovely false dichotomy) or what have you. It is simply the fact that lies win and truth loses. Or, if that statement is not necessarily true, it is true in the current practice. I think Eric Drexler had hopes like this for hypertext before the World Wide Web started to hit it big. However, "In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same."
- xaver 15y agoYou should check out Robin Hanson's idea of 'futarchy' here: http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf
- asciilifeform 15y agoBut don't miss Mencius Moldbug's rebuttal of Hanson's Futarchy: http://bit.ly/7gFYD http://bit.ly/7gFYD
- waterlesscloud 15y agoThe problem here is that politics is largely not about facts, but the difference in interpretation of those facts.