5 ms·

After a recent argument with my brother in which he kept insisting we lived in different moral and factual realities, I've become much more interested in who an

by smeej 2y ago

After a recent argument with my brother in which he kept insisting we lived in different moral and factual realities, I've become much more interested in who and what we allow to form our worldview than what it ends up being. I realized during our conversation that he was citing mainstream media news sources, whereas I was citing primary sources. For example, we were talking about a change in a law and I was comparing the actual text of the law before and after the change, and he was citing commentary on it, or he was telling me he didn't believe certain things ever happened, and I was citing research data that said they actually happen consistently. I don't know how to speak to what someone has allowed to create the "reality" they believe they live in when it's abstracted away from primary sources. It would be one thing if he were citing different studies, different research, different legal records, but he's not. He's saying if a commenter he likes/trusts interprets something one way, it doesn't matter if there are facts that prove otherwise. Ironically, our dad is the same way, just with the politically opposite set of non-primary sources my brother relies on, and it frustrates my brother to no end. But if the foundations of each of their worldviews are several levels abstracted from the original source material, how are they ever going to live in the same "reality"? It was the first time in a long time that I've realized just how removed from what actually happens so many people are. So few people are actually even looking at primary sources anymore, and partially because they've become so hard to find beneath all the layers of commentary on them. But how are we ever supposed to talk about reality if we can't even agree what counts?

bradleysz 2y ago
On a practical level, some reliance on commentary is necessary, no? Or at least a combination of commentary and curation of the constant firehose of new information, which feels like a form of implied commentary itself. Primary sources are only an improvement on commentary if, between you and the commentator, you are the one with the combination of expertise, time, and objectivity better suited to extract truth from the source, and this weighing of suitability is going to vary from source to source. New Computer Science research? Maybe I can parse it better than some. New novel treatment for insert-disease-here? I need some help.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > On a practical level, some reliance on commentary is necessary, no? Oh yes, very much so. Which is why it's so deeply concerning that media has become terribly consolidated and controlled by capital. The shareholders interests diverge significantly from those of humanity and the planet, and they hire commentators who align with their views [0]. Examples: Illegal wars, the holocene extinction, climate change - in each case you can point to massive disparities in what media commentators present as important, and what genuine experts believe is important. One very recent example is how media across the West presented Israeli football fans as victims of roaming gangs doing 'pogroms' in Amsterdam, when in fact, the footage shown was very clearly of the Israeli fans terrorizing residents: [1] 0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXsPU25B60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXsPU25B60 1 - https://x.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1857352815343210804 https://x.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1857352815343210804
  - DeathArrow 2y ago
    >The shareholders interests diverge significantly from those of humanity and the planet, and they hire commentators who align with their views How can we even be sure what are the interests of the humanity and the planet? Why shouldn't everyone ask if those interests are align to own goals?
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > How can we even be sure what are the interests of the humanity and the planet? Sometimes it's really easy, and yet we're still failing. Say a community is deciding whether to clean up a polluted river, and prevent the polluter from dumping chemicals in it that are killing fish and leaving residents with foul water. Person A says: "The polluter's interests conflict with the community's need for clean water." Person B says: "How can we even define what the community needs? Maybe some people don’t mind foul water. Maybe a little PFAS pollution and pesticide runoff is fine actually. We've no firm evidence that these chemicals cause harm. There's no proof that the rise in cancers since GreenWashCorp moved to town isn't just coincidence.” I would say that person B is ignoring a clear, shared need (clean water). The appeal to the status quo will do real harm to people if they listen to it. ... Flint still doesn't have clean water. Like many parts of the US. Which collective goods do you consider disposable - clean air, water, food? A livable climate? How sure do you think we need to be of what the "interests of humanity" are, before we defend them?
Kye 2y ago
I do lean on commentary a bit. Primary sources tend to be dense, or rely on specialist knowledge. But the key difference, I think, is I prefer commentators who refer to primary sources, explain what it means, and explain the ways it could be or is misunderstood. So my main input on a subject I'm not invested in enough to be knowledgeable about might be (for example) Abigail Thorn or LegalEagle, but they don't stand in for the source with their own heavily biased spin. I think the main difference is how seriously an entertainer takes the material. Even John Oliver cites sources and has a team of researchers and writers who try to make sure they represent the source material accurately.
sdeframond 2y ago
Interesting. Maybe there is space for a newspaper that links to primary sources, with minimum commentary.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  I can recall an article about the famous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. It pointed out that millions watched Barack Obama opine on the situation. And further noted that millions watched a guy by the name of Bobby Jindal chime in as a sort of rebuttal/response to Barack Obama’s opinions. But during this time there was one channel CSPAN, that ran geological physicist, after petroleum engineer, after geological physicist to get their opinions. Needless to say, almost no one tuned in. All that to say, there is some evidence out there that even if such a newspaper were to exist, most of us wouldn’t read it.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > if such a newspaper were to exist, most of us wouldn’t read it. This isn't a reflection on humanity, but rather on the culture we live in. There are countries where people value higher quality media. They have better education, higher equality, more accountability in government and business, more diverse media ownership (not hard), etc. They are not perfect - that's not the point. Point is, there are many, many factors we can improve on before throwing in the towel. I really dislike seeing people blame the population for watching media that uses every psychological trick to blast bombastic propaganda and bullshit into people's brains from birth; it's truly victim blaming.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
mellosouls 2y ago
I'm not sure the reliance on primary sources is necessarily superior - or at least results in less of a reality "creation". I would say the important thing is to have trust in who or what is curating/filtering and commenting/interpreting your inputs (which in itself is a very challenging problem), whether primary or secondary.
- smeej 2y ago
  Part of what scared me was that his "authorities" on the matter were mainstream news commentators. It would have been one thing if he had been pointing to experts who actually knew the topic.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    "mainstream news commentators" but alternative news commentators would be fine? What is mainstream news? Joe Rogan? Rachel Maddow? Who are the experts? Ex-FBI and CIA agents, or Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr? Why are your sources better?
    - smeej 2y ago
      I didn't say that, because I didn't mean that. In this case, it was a newscaster on CNN. Couldn't tell you who. The question, specifically, had been whether a politician had or had not authorized a change to a law. My primary sources were the law before he changed it and the law after he changed it, which had different text. It wasn't even a situation that required interpretation. My brother wasn't arguing that the change was meaningless. He was arguing that the law had not changed. I appreciate that there are nuanced situations where interpretation matters a great deal, but newscasters are not experts on the things they report. That's not their job. Their saying something did or didn't happen when they don't even pretend to have been there, read the documents, or informed themselves about the situation isn't authoritative.
ccppurcell 2y ago
Unless you are an extremely astute observer of every human endeavour, relying on primary sources like this is a way to bake in your biases. Of course relying on a small number of specific commentators is as well. But don't pretend you are being more rational here.
DeathArrow 2y ago
Maybe both your brother and father expect the influencers whom they trust to not break their trust. Which should be a decent expectation. Not everyone has the time and energy to dig after primary sources of truth, sometimes multiple sources of truth, read, comprehend and summarize what happened. They rather depend on someone to distill the whole thing for them.
- yapyap 2y ago
  This is in concept a great point and may actually be what’s happening but as you allude to with “should” in “Which should be a decent expectation.” sadly that isn’t the case anymore, when a good chunk of listened to influencers are more driven by the money and/or power (where basically money is just an abstracted form of power) conveying what really happened is less of a concern to them, at times they tend to not even look at primary sources either (depending on which influencers we’re talking about here).
  - DeathArrow 2y ago
    Of course. But many people are wired to usually assume good intentions from other people.
- smeej 2y ago
  I think the trouble was that it didn't take any time to pull up the facts. A quick search for the text of the law before and after the change, for example, on the phone already in my hand, to show the difference, easily happens in real time during the conversation. That should be enough to make someone stop and think, shouldn't it? When you think something is true about the world and someone can show you it's false in real time? How do you not even stop and consider that information?
- cogman10 2y ago
  I think "trust" is the wrong word I see for how commentators are treated. It's more of a blind faith. I can think very specifically of an example where a political commentator, in private, said what they were publicly saying was crazy garbage. When I brought that up to my parents, it did not change their view of him. Effectively the response was "Well, all commentators lie" and they continued following him. At least in my case, I think this is mainly a religion thing. I grew up mormon and one quote that sticks in my mind is the following: > When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God. I've seen this sort of mentality extend in non-religious contexts. Basically "Well, don't you think X would have already thought about Y? Why are you questioning?"
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
As I get older, the nuances of linguistic meaning of words and the personal variation of the linguistic deconstruction across political viewpoints, sometimes individual, is becoming apparent. "Freedom" for example in the political sphere ultimately comes down to what aspects of opposed politics you want to oppress. Like the actual fictional meaning of libertarianism, it really is defined as the freedom to do what you want, but regulate anything that people may do to you. So much of rhetoric is linguistically clarified by gender swapping to reveal sexist double standards, or appending "white" to key words to make the racist undercurrent component more apparent. I know this is incendiary, but for example in huge amounts of right wing rhetoric like something as basic as "I'm voting for America", a classic vapid pseudo patriotic statement that somehow marks a divide between parties, if you translate it to "white America" on the right vs "multicultural America" on the left, all of a sudden the organizing emotional undercurrents become clear. Obviously loaded rhetoric exists on the left. Oh course my opinion is that it is far more pervasive on the right however. Such is the media universality we exist in, the assault of media advertising, we often aren't even aware of the loaded meanings. So let organizing linguistic phrasings, which becomes psychological worldviews, are compounded with deeply complex and layered visual and audio aspects: stalwart conservative white man with authoritative voice., for example. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. I find Trump's often smorgasborg of word political salad instructive often because such ramblings are actually a mass deconstruction of right wing rhetoric. It removes the framing and just goes to the loaded words
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  If someone says he votes for "America" why should we assume it's "White America" or "Multicultural America" unless we want to introduce a divide and fuel hate. In the 1970s and 1980s when someone said he "voted for America" that affirmation was taken at face value, no one asked "which America" and no one assumed that there is more than one American. I am not an American, so please correct me if I am wrong.
  - AtlasBarfed 2y ago
    In the political sphere of America, It echoes back to the southern strategy all the way back to the civil war, slavery, and the fundamental racial divide. Staunchly racist Americans have alls existed as large key demographic for coalition building. I used to be in the '70s and '60s. It was in the Democratic party, simply because Republicans were the ones that invaded the South and the civil war. Around the time of the Nixon election, Republicans pivoted to the southern strategy to use the civil Rights act of of the Lyndon Johnson administration to turn racist Democrats into racist Republican voters. To do so such large shifts in voting allegiance requires substantial election/ linguistic /propagandistic engineering over decades. Trump is AMAZING at such linguistic engineering, amazingly while making no actual structural linguistic sense. It's abhorrent to smart people,but speaks right to the core of dumber voters. Rational voters are succumbed by other means ...
navane 2y ago
What other people think shapes our reality, more so than the other way around. Because of that, the primary sources are barely relevant. Our thoughts are our lives. Other's thoughts shape our society, as we elect the people in power. Just as in the stock market, the people can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent (sane?). This makes the "reality" of today the collective minds of the people in our society. We're all on stage together and there are no rules.
- 77pt77 2y ago
  > We're all on stage together and there are no rules. Until the stage is gone.
dandanua 2y ago
It's the problem of human culture, not of the world. Today all astronomers agree in what position the Sun will be in a particular time. On the other hand, humans can't agree on basic facts which are heavily politicized (e.g., how immigration affects economy). In such questions people don't care about respecting the truth, they care about what would be more profitable to them.
photonthug 2y ago
> But how are we ever supposed to talk about reality if we can't even agree what counts? One of my tactics here is to refuse to discuss politics at all, but to encourage any/all discussion of economics and philosophy. One effect of this is to remove lots of trigger words and names, which helps those who feel persecuted or embattled to take a step back. Another effect is you get a much more clear perspective on how they actually operate wrt to belief and evidence. If you find an economic or philosophical/ethical/moral POV that’s directly contradicting a persons stated political views, don’t just leap on the opportunity to point it out. First realize that the person you’re talking to is probably in a significant amount of psychic pain already from shouldering this kind of cognitive dissonance for decades. Activate your compassion/empathy. This way you can twist the knife better when you do leap on the hypocrisy to try and kill it! Soon you’ll have no friends left and that solves the problem of dealing with political discussions
- smeej 2y ago
  This took a turn that feels inevitable now that I see it, but I did not see coming, and made me laugh out loud. Thanks for this!
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  My best friend recently said microeconomics is "bullshit" and I don't know how to handle that. I take it for granted, like algebra, it's like saying gravity is bullshit. What other model is there? They didn't propose one. > Soon you’ll have no friends At the rate I'm going. Of course this could all be fallout from the biggest Shiri's Scissor ever fired, hitting the US.
  - hammock 2y ago
    >What other model is there? They didn't propose one. Start with Praxeology (the methodology of Austrian economics). Specifically, Mises’ Human Action. The simple axiom that all preferences are subjective instantly eliminates a lot of the foundation of micro (and macro) economics as it is typically taught today.
jasonhong 2y ago
There was an interesting thread in reddit's /r/AskHistorians about common mistakes amateur historians make, and the top comment was this > Valuing primary sources over secondary, and first person accounts over records. Primary sources are great in that they are created in or near the moment; however, the lack the scope and broader understanding hindsight provides to secondary sources. First person accounts are great until you start accounting for perspective bias, mirror imaging, qui bono, intended audience, and time between experience and narration; all of these can have drastic effects on first person accounts. See the whole thread here: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16d474n/what_are_some_common_mistakes_that_an_amateur/jznj6c6/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16d474n/what... Now, the context of the OP is less about history and more about contemporary events, but the key point here is that there is different value in primary vs secondary sources, and that primary sources aren't always categorically better. As a personal example, I grew up not knowing a lot of racist dog whistles that some politicians use, something I would have missed if I had only read or listened to the primary source (ie the politician). Having secondary sources interpret and explain things was highly valuable to me. However, the OP also has a really good point that sometimes these secondary sources can't always be fully trusted. It's a tough epistemological problem about who and what you can trust, interleaved with social influences, mass media, and personal worldview.
- smeej 2y ago
  And I didn't do a good enough pointing out that my complaint was focused on mainstream news media as the secondary source, not expert commentary. I don't think primary sources are some be-all, end-all, standalone authority. I'm just concerned that mainstream news media is so many layers abstracted from them, but people rely on them as though they have some sort of firm enough grounding in "reality" to support a worldview.
- bomewish 2y ago
  I mean, all secondary sources are (by definition) based in some way on primary sources. So the advice is necessarily epistemologically incomplete.
dingnuts 2y ago
The word that stands out to me most in this comment is "mainstream" where it appears before "media". If the issue is primary sources vs commentary, it shouldn't matter if the person is listening to NBC, CNN, FOX, or Joe Rogan Experience -- those are /all/ commentary. And by the way, which ones are mainstream? What does "mainstream" even mean? The only people I ever hear complain about the "mainstream media" are on one side of the political spectrum and who somehow always fail to notice that their media is actually more popular. More mainstream, if you will. > It was the first time in a long time that I've realized just how removed from what actually happens so many people are. "Wake up sheeple!" Give me a break, lol.
- smeej 2y ago
  In this case, it was a CNN newscaster, which is about as "mainstream media" as it gets, but I would extend the same criticism to anybody else who doesn't even pretend they have any background knowledge or research supporting their claims, just a teleprompter to read it from. The comparison was between source material and commentary, specifically commentary by people who don't even claim to understand the topic in any depth.
disambiguation 2y ago
Yeah I mean no matter how you look at it, it comes down to the individual ability to appraise the quality of something. You're always going to be bottlenecked by that. Its hard to talk someone out of their own judgment because you have to pass their test at the same time. Also you're assuming everyone values the cold hard truth above all else. They're probably getting more emotional validation out of their sources.
agoodonehere 2y ago
Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan might have some insight that you might find usefull.
77pt77 2y ago
> It was the first time in a long time that I've realized just how removed from what actually happens so many people are This is your fundamental mistake. These are not people. They don't have personhood. Nothing will ever change that.
jalapenos 2y ago
You just don't talk about it with them. You can't change the mind of someone who doesn't care what's real. The problem comes down to consequences. He can run his mouth and basically second-hand-make-up how he says reality is, and he gets to enjoy the benefits of that, whatever those may be (e.g. being able to pretend he's smarter and more moral than he is). But he suffers no costs for it. In fact, he imposes all the costs on you - it's bothering you enough you're posting on the internet about how much mental and emotional effort you're spending arguing with him. This is why there should be way more of people putting their money where their mouths are, or else being called cowards. Wagers should become commonplace - skin in the game. E.g. if you're talking about a point of law, that's easy to get an objective answer on. Agree with him that you'll pick a lawyer at random, and put the question to them. The loser has to either pay $1 and admit they were wrong publicly (plus the lawyer's fee), or pay $10k if they refuse to admit it even after that (or held on trust for a charity or whatever). And be sure to get it in writing so the weasel can't squirm out of it.
- smeej 2y ago
  He's my brother. And the last of my three siblings still alive. Had I known this was his perspective ahead of time, I would never have brought it up, and I never will again, but he's not just some random person being wrong on the internet. He's someone I grew up with, shared my whole life with. I think being upset to find out not only does he think we live in different realities, but he thinks mine is populated by heartless bastards is pretty fair.
  - jalapenos 2y ago
    Yeah the "he" in my example is really me thinking of specific recalcitrant toerags I've had to deal with before. You could try asking your brother's motivations/feelings rather than the facts, since that's what's driving it.

by smeej 2y ago

bradleysz 2y ago

On a practical level, some reliance on commentary is necessary, no? Or at least a combination of commentary and curation of the constant firehose of new information, which feels like a form of implied commentary itself. Primary sources are only an improvement on commentary if, between you and the commentator, you are the one with the combination of expertise, time, and objectivity better suited to extract truth from the source, and this weighing of suitability is going to vary from source to source. New Computer Science research? Maybe I can parse it better than some. New novel treatment for insert-disease-here? I need some help.

mandmandam 2y ago
> On a practical level, some reliance on commentary is necessary, no? Oh yes, very much so. Which is why it's so deeply concerning that media has become terribly consolidated and controlled by capital. The shareholders interests diverge significantly from those of humanity and the planet, and they hire commentators who align with their views [0]. Examples: Illegal wars, the holocene extinction, climate change - in each case you can point to massive disparities in what media commentators present as important, and what genuine experts believe is important. One very recent example is how media across the West presented Israeli football fans as victims of roaming gangs doing 'pogroms' in Amsterdam, when in fact, the footage shown was very clearly of the Israeli fans terrorizing residents: [1] 0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXsPU25B60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXsPU25B60 1 - https://x.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1857352815343210804 https://x.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1857352815343210804
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  >The shareholders interests diverge significantly from those of humanity and the planet, and they hire commentators who align with their views How can we even be sure what are the interests of the humanity and the planet? Why shouldn't everyone ask if those interests are align to own goals?
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > How can we even be sure what are the interests of the humanity and the planet? Sometimes it's really easy, and yet we're still failing. Say a community is deciding whether to clean up a polluted river, and prevent the polluter from dumping chemicals in it that are killing fish and leaving residents with foul water. Person A says: "The polluter's interests conflict with the community's need for clean water." Person B says: "How can we even define what the community needs? Maybe some people don’t mind foul water. Maybe a little PFAS pollution and pesticide runoff is fine actually. We've no firm evidence that these chemicals cause harm. There's no proof that the rise in cancers since GreenWashCorp moved to town isn't just coincidence.” I would say that person B is ignoring a clear, shared need (clean water). The appeal to the status quo will do real harm to people if they listen to it. ... Flint still doesn't have clean water. Like many parts of the US. Which collective goods do you consider disposable - clean air, water, food? A livable climate? How sure do you think we need to be of what the "interests of humanity" are, before we defend them?

Kye 2y ago

I do lean on commentary a bit. Primary sources tend to be dense, or rely on specialist knowledge. But the key difference, I think, is I prefer commentators who refer to primary sources, explain what it means, and explain the ways it could be or is misunderstood. So my main input on a subject I'm not invested in enough to be knowledgeable about might be (for example) Abigail Thorn or LegalEagle, but they don't stand in for the source with their own heavily biased spin. I think the main difference is how seriously an entertainer takes the material. Even John Oliver cites sources and has a team of researchers and writers who try to make sure they represent the source material accurately.

sdeframond 2y ago

Interesting. Maybe there is space for a newspaper that links to primary sources, with minimum commentary.

bilbo0s 2y ago
I can recall an article about the famous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. It pointed out that millions watched Barack Obama opine on the situation. And further noted that millions watched a guy by the name of Bobby Jindal chime in as a sort of rebuttal/response to Barack Obama’s opinions. But during this time there was one channel CSPAN, that ran geological physicist, after petroleum engineer, after geological physicist to get their opinions. Needless to say, almost no one tuned in. All that to say, there is some evidence out there that even if such a newspaper were to exist, most of us wouldn’t read it.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > if such a newspaper were to exist, most of us wouldn’t read it. This isn't a reflection on humanity, but rather on the culture we live in. There are countries where people value higher quality media. They have better education, higher equality, more accountability in government and business, more diverse media ownership (not hard), etc. They are not perfect - that's not the point. Point is, there are many, many factors we can improve on before throwing in the towel. I really dislike seeing people blame the population for watching media that uses every psychological trick to blast bombastic propaganda and bullshit into people's brains from birth; it's truly victim blaming.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

mellosouls 2y ago

I'm not sure the reliance on primary sources is necessarily superior - or at least results in less of a reality "creation". I would say the important thing is to have trust in who or what is curating/filtering and commenting/interpreting your inputs (which in itself is a very challenging problem), whether primary or secondary.

smeej 2y ago
Part of what scared me was that his "authorities" on the matter were mainstream news commentators. It would have been one thing if he had been pointing to experts who actually knew the topic.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  "mainstream news commentators" but alternative news commentators would be fine? What is mainstream news? Joe Rogan? Rachel Maddow? Who are the experts? Ex-FBI and CIA agents, or Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr? Why are your sources better?
  - smeej 2y ago
    I didn't say that, because I didn't mean that. In this case, it was a newscaster on CNN. Couldn't tell you who. The question, specifically, had been whether a politician had or had not authorized a change to a law. My primary sources were the law before he changed it and the law after he changed it, which had different text. It wasn't even a situation that required interpretation. My brother wasn't arguing that the change was meaningless. He was arguing that the law had not changed. I appreciate that there are nuanced situations where interpretation matters a great deal, but newscasters are not experts on the things they report. That's not their job. Their saying something did or didn't happen when they don't even pretend to have been there, read the documents, or informed themselves about the situation isn't authoritative.

ccppurcell 2y ago

Unless you are an extremely astute observer of every human endeavour, relying on primary sources like this is a way to bake in your biases. Of course relying on a small number of specific commentators is as well. But don't pretend you are being more rational here.

DeathArrow 2y ago

Maybe both your brother and father expect the influencers whom they trust to not break their trust. Which should be a decent expectation. Not everyone has the time and energy to dig after primary sources of truth, sometimes multiple sources of truth, read, comprehend and summarize what happened. They rather depend on someone to distill the whole thing for them.

yapyap 2y ago
This is in concept a great point and may actually be what’s happening but as you allude to with “should” in “Which should be a decent expectation.” sadly that isn’t the case anymore, when a good chunk of listened to influencers are more driven by the money and/or power (where basically money is just an abstracted form of power) conveying what really happened is less of a concern to them, at times they tend to not even look at primary sources either (depending on which influencers we’re talking about here).
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  Of course. But many people are wired to usually assume good intentions from other people.
smeej 2y ago
I think the trouble was that it didn't take any time to pull up the facts. A quick search for the text of the law before and after the change, for example, on the phone already in my hand, to show the difference, easily happens in real time during the conversation. That should be enough to make someone stop and think, shouldn't it? When you think something is true about the world and someone can show you it's false in real time? How do you not even stop and consider that information?
cogman10 2y ago
I think "trust" is the wrong word I see for how commentators are treated. It's more of a blind faith. I can think very specifically of an example where a political commentator, in private, said what they were publicly saying was crazy garbage. When I brought that up to my parents, it did not change their view of him. Effectively the response was "Well, all commentators lie" and they continued following him. At least in my case, I think this is mainly a religion thing. I grew up mormon and one quote that sticks in my mind is the following: > When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God. I've seen this sort of mentality extend in non-religious contexts. Basically "Well, don't you think X would have already thought about Y? Why are you questioning?"

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

As I get older, the nuances of linguistic meaning of words and the personal variation of the linguistic deconstruction across political viewpoints, sometimes individual, is becoming apparent. "Freedom" for example in the political sphere ultimately comes down to what aspects of opposed politics you want to oppress. Like the actual fictional meaning of libertarianism, it really is defined as the freedom to do what you want, but regulate anything that people may do to you. So much of rhetoric is linguistically clarified by gender swapping to reveal sexist double standards, or appending "white" to key words to make the racist undercurrent component more apparent. I know this is incendiary, but for example in huge amounts of right wing rhetoric like something as basic as "I'm voting for America", a classic vapid pseudo patriotic statement that somehow marks a divide between parties, if you translate it to "white America" on the right vs "multicultural America" on the left, all of a sudden the organizing emotional undercurrents become clear. Obviously loaded rhetoric exists on the left. Oh course my opinion is that it is far more pervasive on the right however. Such is the media universality we exist in, the assault of media advertising, we often aren't even aware of the loaded meanings. So let organizing linguistic phrasings, which becomes psychological worldviews, are compounded with deeply complex and layered visual and audio aspects: stalwart conservative white man with authoritative voice., for example. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. I find Trump's often smorgasborg of word political salad instructive often because such ramblings are actually a mass deconstruction of right wing rhetoric. It removes the framing and just goes to the loaded words

DeathArrow 2y ago
If someone says he votes for "America" why should we assume it's "White America" or "Multicultural America" unless we want to introduce a divide and fuel hate. In the 1970s and 1980s when someone said he "voted for America" that affirmation was taken at face value, no one asked "which America" and no one assumed that there is more than one American. I am not an American, so please correct me if I am wrong.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  In the political sphere of America, It echoes back to the southern strategy all the way back to the civil war, slavery, and the fundamental racial divide. Staunchly racist Americans have alls existed as large key demographic for coalition building. I used to be in the '70s and '60s. It was in the Democratic party, simply because Republicans were the ones that invaded the South and the civil war. Around the time of the Nixon election, Republicans pivoted to the southern strategy to use the civil Rights act of of the Lyndon Johnson administration to turn racist Democrats into racist Republican voters. To do so such large shifts in voting allegiance requires substantial election/ linguistic /propagandistic engineering over decades. Trump is AMAZING at such linguistic engineering, amazingly while making no actual structural linguistic sense. It's abhorrent to smart people,but speaks right to the core of dumber voters. Rational voters are succumbed by other means ...

navane 2y ago

What other people think shapes our reality, more so than the other way around. Because of that, the primary sources are barely relevant. Our thoughts are our lives. Other's thoughts shape our society, as we elect the people in power. Just as in the stock market, the people can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent (sane?). This makes the "reality" of today the collective minds of the people in our society. We're all on stage together and there are no rules.

77pt77 2y ago
> We're all on stage together and there are no rules. Until the stage is gone.

dandanua 2y ago

It's the problem of human culture, not of the world. Today all astronomers agree in what position the Sun will be in a particular time. On the other hand, humans can't agree on basic facts which are heavily politicized (e.g., how immigration affects economy). In such questions people don't care about respecting the truth, they care about what would be more profitable to them.

photonthug 2y ago

> But how are we ever supposed to talk about reality if we can't even agree what counts? One of my tactics here is to refuse to discuss politics at all, but to encourage any/all discussion of economics and philosophy. One effect of this is to remove lots of trigger words and names, which helps those who feel persecuted or embattled to take a step back. Another effect is you get a much more clear perspective on how they actually operate wrt to belief and evidence. If you find an economic or philosophical/ethical/moral POV that’s directly contradicting a persons stated political views, don’t just leap on the opportunity to point it out. First realize that the person you’re talking to is probably in a significant amount of psychic pain already from shouldering this kind of cognitive dissonance for decades. Activate your compassion/empathy. This way you can twist the knife better when you do leap on the hypocrisy to try and kill it! Soon you’ll have no friends left and that solves the problem of dealing with political discussions

smeej 2y ago
This took a turn that feels inevitable now that I see it, but I did not see coming, and made me laugh out loud. Thanks for this!
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
My best friend recently said microeconomics is "bullshit" and I don't know how to handle that. I take it for granted, like algebra, it's like saying gravity is bullshit. What other model is there? They didn't propose one. > Soon you’ll have no friends At the rate I'm going. Of course this could all be fallout from the biggest Shiri's Scissor ever fired, hitting the US.
- hammock 2y ago
  >What other model is there? They didn't propose one. Start with Praxeology (the methodology of Austrian economics). Specifically, Mises’ Human Action. The simple axiom that all preferences are subjective instantly eliminates a lot of the foundation of micro (and macro) economics as it is typically taught today.

jasonhong 2y ago

There was an interesting thread in reddit's /r/AskHistorians about common mistakes amateur historians make, and the top comment was this > Valuing primary sources over secondary, and first person accounts over records. Primary sources are great in that they are created in or near the moment; however, the lack the scope and broader understanding hindsight provides to secondary sources. First person accounts are great until you start accounting for perspective bias, mirror imaging, qui bono, intended audience, and time between experience and narration; all of these can have drastic effects on first person accounts. See the whole thread here: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16d474n/what_are_some_common_mistakes_that_an_amateur/jznj6c6/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16d474n/what... Now, the context of the OP is less about history and more about contemporary events, but the key point here is that there is different value in primary vs secondary sources, and that primary sources aren't always categorically better. As a personal example, I grew up not knowing a lot of racist dog whistles that some politicians use, something I would have missed if I had only read or listened to the primary source (ie the politician). Having secondary sources interpret and explain things was highly valuable to me. However, the OP also has a really good point that sometimes these secondary sources can't always be fully trusted. It's a tough epistemological problem about who and what you can trust, interleaved with social influences, mass media, and personal worldview.

smeej 2y ago
And I didn't do a good enough pointing out that my complaint was focused on mainstream news media as the secondary source, not expert commentary. I don't think primary sources are some be-all, end-all, standalone authority. I'm just concerned that mainstream news media is so many layers abstracted from them, but people rely on them as though they have some sort of firm enough grounding in "reality" to support a worldview.
bomewish 2y ago
I mean, all secondary sources are (by definition) based in some way on primary sources. So the advice is necessarily epistemologically incomplete.

dingnuts 2y ago

The word that stands out to me most in this comment is "mainstream" where it appears before "media". If the issue is primary sources vs commentary, it shouldn't matter if the person is listening to NBC, CNN, FOX, or Joe Rogan Experience -- those are /all/ commentary. And by the way, which ones are mainstream? What does "mainstream" even mean? The only people I ever hear complain about the "mainstream media" are on one side of the political spectrum and who somehow always fail to notice that their media is actually more popular. More mainstream, if you will. > It was the first time in a long time that I've realized just how removed from what actually happens so many people are. "Wake up sheeple!" Give me a break, lol.

smeej 2y ago
In this case, it was a CNN newscaster, which is about as "mainstream media" as it gets, but I would extend the same criticism to anybody else who doesn't even pretend they have any background knowledge or research supporting their claims, just a teleprompter to read it from. The comparison was between source material and commentary, specifically commentary by people who don't even claim to understand the topic in any depth.

disambiguation 2y ago

Yeah I mean no matter how you look at it, it comes down to the individual ability to appraise the quality of something. You're always going to be bottlenecked by that. Its hard to talk someone out of their own judgment because you have to pass their test at the same time. Also you're assuming everyone values the cold hard truth above all else. They're probably getting more emotional validation out of their sources.

agoodonehere 2y ago

Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan might have some insight that you might find usefull.

77pt77 2y ago

> It was the first time in a long time that I've realized just how removed from what actually happens so many people are This is your fundamental mistake. These are not people. They don't have personhood. Nothing will ever change that.

jalapenos 2y ago

You just don't talk about it with them. You can't change the mind of someone who doesn't care what's real. The problem comes down to consequences. He can run his mouth and basically second-hand-make-up how he says reality is, and he gets to enjoy the benefits of that, whatever those may be (e.g. being able to pretend he's smarter and more moral than he is). But he suffers no costs for it. In fact, he imposes all the costs on you - it's bothering you enough you're posting on the internet about how much mental and emotional effort you're spending arguing with him. This is why there should be way more of people putting their money where their mouths are, or else being called cowards. Wagers should become commonplace - skin in the game. E.g. if you're talking about a point of law, that's easy to get an objective answer on. Agree with him that you'll pick a lawyer at random, and put the question to them. The loser has to either pay $1 and admit they were wrong publicly (plus the lawyer's fee), or pay $10k if they refuse to admit it even after that (or held on trust for a charity or whatever). And be sure to get it in writing so the weasel can't squirm out of it.

smeej 2y ago
He's my brother. And the last of my three siblings still alive. Had I known this was his perspective ahead of time, I would never have brought it up, and I never will again, but he's not just some random person being wrong on the internet. He's someone I grew up with, shared my whole life with. I think being upset to find out not only does he think we live in different realities, but he thinks mine is populated by heartless bastards is pretty fair.
- jalapenos 2y ago
  Yeah the "he" in my example is really me thinking of specific recalcitrant toerags I've had to deal with before. You could try asking your brother's motivations/feelings rather than the facts, since that's what's driving it.