5 ms·

"Confirmation bias - the tendency to pay more attention to evidence that supports what you already believe - is a well-documented and common human failing." ..

"Confirmation bias - the tendency to pay more attention to evidence that supports what you already believe - is a well-documented and common human failing." ... Search bubbling doesn't help. "Not only does more exposure to these alternative narratives help engender belief in conspiracies, he says, but the Internet's tendency toward tribalism helps reinforce misguided beliefs." ... In other words, just read the New York Times (or BoingBoing, since it's Maggie Koerth-Baker) and ignore everything else. Edit: Oh, and the Alex Jones reference at the end is a nice ad hominem too - as long as we're counting logical fallacies - since nothing he has ever cited could possibly be accurate because: blow-hard, and conspiracy. Also: creationism, because: complicated!

jpatokal 13y ago
Did you just try to discredit an article about conspiracy theories by alleging that the article is in fact part of another conspiracy theory? I think you just proved the article's point.
- vy8vWJlco 13y ago
  Self-promotion is hardly a conspiracy (unless you can have a conspiracy of one, from a simple conflict of interest... namely in the form of: "alternative narratives are bad," says the author, quoting on behalf of a well-established narrative).
mpyne 13y ago
"Tribalism" is not incorrect though. You mention Bradley Manning in hacktivist circles and they'll nearly unanimously tell you that man is a hero who didn't do anything wrong at all. And then Snowden comes in and goes out of his way to mention in his interview that, 'oh by the way, I carefully chose specific things to leak as I didn't want to risk national security, I just want to help my country'. Gee, who does that sound different from? But it won't matter that Snowden has chided Manning, because Manning is part of the tribe, and it's not enough that the tribe upholds his principles (which they surely share), but the tribe must also uphold all his actions. I grew up for years only seeing this kind of tribalism amongst the GOP supporters (the types who idolized Rush Limbaugh despite his divorces and drug use, or claimed that waterboarding is OK because Ashcroft said so). It's quite disappointing to have seen that become such an issue outside of the GOP as well.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  A lot of people prefer indiscriminate leaking, and feel that any national security cost is worth it. Just because Snowden thinks of it differently doesn't mean that we now all have to think of leaking that way - that's tribal.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    “I don’t desire to enable the Bradley Manning argument that these were released recklessly and unreviewed,”
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  >'oh by the way, I carefully chose specific things to leak as I didn't want to risk national security, I just want to help my country' That's an interesting quote from him, seeing as he has apparently provided thousands of documents to Greenwald: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/how-edward-j-snowden-orchestrated-a-blockbuster-story.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/how-edward-j-snowden-or...
  - mpyne 13y ago
    And if he actually looked at and carefully reviewed all of those (which is possible after 3 months at the NSA) then his point would still apply, would it not? Manning, on the other hand, leaked too much: "his review of leaked Afghanistan and Iraq battlefield reports revealed techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, the name of an enemy target, the names of criminal suspects and troop movements". [1] Does explaining how the U.S. Army was neutralizing IEDs so that Taliban could work around those methods and continue to kill and maim Afghan civilians, children, and ISAF soldiers really help you as a citizen? How many families died from roadside bombs that were designed to avoid these neutralization methods thanks to Manning's leaks? Are you sure the answer is 0? But again, this is what I mean by tribalism. You try to discredit Snowden's own point since Manning is in the tribe. Does it even occur to you that it's possible Manning could have gone overboard in his goal for transparency? That he could have done 1 thing wrong and 999 things right? [1] http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130611/NEWS06/306110044 http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130611/NEWS06/306110044

jpatokal 13y ago

Did you just try to discredit an article about conspiracy theories by alleging that the article is in fact part of another conspiracy theory? I think you just proved the article's point.

vy8vWJlco 13y ago
Self-promotion is hardly a conspiracy (unless you can have a conspiracy of one, from a simple conflict of interest... namely in the form of: "alternative narratives are bad," says the author, quoting on behalf of a well-established narrative).

mpyne 13y ago

"Tribalism" is not incorrect though. You mention Bradley Manning in hacktivist circles and they'll nearly unanimously tell you that man is a hero who didn't do anything wrong at all. And then Snowden comes in and goes out of his way to mention in his interview that, 'oh by the way, I carefully chose specific things to leak as I didn't want to risk national security, I just want to help my country'. Gee, who does that sound different from? But it won't matter that Snowden has chided Manning, because Manning is part of the tribe, and it's not enough that the tribe upholds his principles (which they surely share), but the tribe must also uphold all his actions. I grew up for years only seeing this kind of tribalism amongst the GOP supporters (the types who idolized Rush Limbaugh despite his divorces and drug use, or claimed that waterboarding is OK because Ashcroft said so). It's quite disappointing to have seen that become such an issue outside of the GOP as well.

pessimizer 13y ago
A lot of people prefer indiscriminate leaking, and feel that any national security cost is worth it. Just because Snowden thinks of it differently doesn't mean that we now all have to think of leaking that way - that's tribal.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  “I don’t desire to enable the Bradley Manning argument that these were released recklessly and unreviewed,”
aspensmonster 13y ago
>'oh by the way, I carefully chose specific things to leak as I didn't want to risk national security, I just want to help my country' That's an interesting quote from him, seeing as he has apparently provided thousands of documents to Greenwald: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/how-edward-j-snowden-orchestrated-a-blockbuster-story.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/how-edward-j-snowden-or...
- mpyne 13y ago
  And if he actually looked at and carefully reviewed all of those (which is possible after 3 months at the NSA) then his point would still apply, would it not? Manning, on the other hand, leaked too much: "his review of leaked Afghanistan and Iraq battlefield reports revealed techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, the name of an enemy target, the names of criminal suspects and troop movements". [1] Does explaining how the U.S. Army was neutralizing IEDs so that Taliban could work around those methods and continue to kill and maim Afghan civilians, children, and ISAF soldiers really help you as a citizen? How many families died from roadside bombs that were designed to avoid these neutralization methods thanks to Manning's leaks? Are you sure the answer is 0? But again, this is what I mean by tribalism. You try to discredit Snowden's own point since Manning is in the tribe. Does it even occur to you that it's possible Manning could have gone overboard in his goal for transparency? That he could have done 1 thing wrong and 999 things right? [1] http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130611/NEWS06/306110044 http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130611/NEWS06/306110044