4 ms·

everything you see (and don't see) is propaganda

by globalnode 3y ago

ddq 3y ago
And you are not immune to propaganda.
- zikzak 3y ago
  I believe people who are working professionals and have busy lives are particularly susceptible since they often graze news and prefer things that confirm and entrench their worldview because it's ego affirming. They have the critical thinking skills but lack the desire to use them in some circumstances. There are other people who lack education who also lack critical thinking motivation and all variations of this matrix. I'm just saying it's a huge mistake to assume intelligent, educated people are somehow immune from propaganda.
- winrid 3y ago
  This. If you disagree I suggest reading Ordinary Men. Only book that ever gave me nightmares.
ordu 3y ago
If you came to this conclusion, then you definitely did something wrong. Such a definition is useless in practice. You need a definition that allows you to cathegorize information and sources of information, to deal with them in different ways. What I can agree is any information shift your beliefs. I can agree that any update of beliefs is beneficial for some entity. I can probably agree that any source has an agenda and tries to shift your beliefs for someone's benefit. But if we conclude from that that everything is propaganda it would be a loser's thing to do. Facts are meant to shift your beliefs. Beliefs are meant to be shifted by facts. The trouble when your beliefs are manipulated so they lose coherence with a reality. While they reflect reality without major mistakes, they are good. So I'd say that propagandness of a source is a measure of my cognitive efforts needed to not let my beliefs to slip from a good enough picture of a reality while consuming information from that source. It is not rigorous enough definition, but it is a good starting point.
- globalnode 3y ago
  what i meant was everything you see (and dont see) is there to shift your beliefs, as you noted... i like your idea of trying to stay rooted in facts and i agree this is a good strategy. however, the sheer number of sources competing for mind share nowadays is astonishing and i think facts are very hard to come by. so i try to err on the side of disbelief no matter the source (unless i see the same facts from multiple non-connected sources). again, non-connected source is a very difficult thing to determine too. often, its a case of follow the money, or follow the power, or just look at whos suffering and who isnt, while ignoring all the other messages.
  - ordu 3y ago
    I cannot possibly explain in a full how I deal with it, but I can give you advice. Pick a few sources and stick with them. Pick carefully, they must be a professional media. They must separate opinions and facts. They must avoid emotional arguments and judgements. They must check facts and communicate the quality of their checks if they are not completely sure. If you watch them over a prolonged period of time, you'll learn their biases. You'll learn their tricks and systematic failures. In some cases you can even learn biases of individual reporters. When you know biases you can correct them, either by thought alone or by a few google queries.

everything you see (and don't see) is propaganda

ddq 3y ago

And you are not immune to propaganda.

zikzak 3y ago
I believe people who are working professionals and have busy lives are particularly susceptible since they often graze news and prefer things that confirm and entrench their worldview because it's ego affirming. They have the critical thinking skills but lack the desire to use them in some circumstances. There are other people who lack education who also lack critical thinking motivation and all variations of this matrix. I'm just saying it's a huge mistake to assume intelligent, educated people are somehow immune from propaganda.
winrid 3y ago
This. If you disagree I suggest reading Ordinary Men. Only book that ever gave me nightmares.

ordu 3y ago

If you came to this conclusion, then you definitely did something wrong. Such a definition is useless in practice. You need a definition that allows you to cathegorize information and sources of information, to deal with them in different ways. What I can agree is any information shift your beliefs. I can agree that any update of beliefs is beneficial for some entity. I can probably agree that any source has an agenda and tries to shift your beliefs for someone's benefit. But if we conclude from that that everything is propaganda it would be a loser's thing to do. Facts are meant to shift your beliefs. Beliefs are meant to be shifted by facts. The trouble when your beliefs are manipulated so they lose coherence with a reality. While they reflect reality without major mistakes, they are good. So I'd say that propagandness of a source is a measure of my cognitive efforts needed to not let my beliefs to slip from a good enough picture of a reality while consuming information from that source. It is not rigorous enough definition, but it is a good starting point.

globalnode 3y ago
what i meant was everything you see (and dont see) is there to shift your beliefs, as you noted... i like your idea of trying to stay rooted in facts and i agree this is a good strategy. however, the sheer number of sources competing for mind share nowadays is astonishing and i think facts are very hard to come by. so i try to err on the side of disbelief no matter the source (unless i see the same facts from multiple non-connected sources). again, non-connected source is a very difficult thing to determine too. often, its a case of follow the money, or follow the power, or just look at whos suffering and who isnt, while ignoring all the other messages.
- ordu 3y ago
  I cannot possibly explain in a full how I deal with it, but I can give you advice. Pick a few sources and stick with them. Pick carefully, they must be a professional media. They must separate opinions and facts. They must avoid emotional arguments and judgements. They must check facts and communicate the quality of their checks if they are not completely sure. If you watch them over a prolonged period of time, you'll learn their biases. You'll learn their tricks and systematic failures. In some cases you can even learn biases of individual reporters. When you know biases you can correct them, either by thought alone or by a few google queries.