3 ms·

When I specifically asked him if he had read the bill in question to which he was objecting, which was available on the Web, he said that he had not, because he

by reuven 13y ago

When I specifically asked him if he had read the bill in question to which he was objecting, which was available on the Web, he said that he had not, because he doesn't surf the Web. He, not I, equated "surfing" with "reading documents." The impression I got from that conversation was that Stallman makes no effort to go out and find things that would be useful and of interest to him. I don't call that "surfing," but "research" and "responsible," especially from someone who then calls upon people to contact their public representatives. I don't care how much he hangs out on Hacker News, or elsewhere. I do care that he clearly indicated, in that conversation, that he will not do the necessary legwork (which doesn't even require using your legs) that can even help to strengthen his arguments. I also think that it's helpful for everyone to read things from opposing and diverse viewpoints. By only reading those documents that his supporters send him, I worry that Stallman is ignoring arguments that may inform his own, or even change them.

leephillips 13y ago
His lack of research about issues that he expresses strong opinions about leads to things like this: http://lee-phillips.org/StallmanOnFinkelstein.html http://lee-phillips.org/StallmanOnFinkelstein.html
aestra 13y ago
>I worry that Stallman is ignoring arguments that may inform his own, or even change them. Of course he is! It is called confirmation bias. It is very very strong, especially with people like Stallman who hold strong beliefs. We are all guilty of it to some extent. Here's some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/ http://socialpsychologyeye.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/confirmation-bias-satire-and-stephen-colbert/ http://socialpsychologyeye.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/confirma... Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. ---- The most interesting is the last link. They did a study about the show The Colbert Report, which is satire, He plays a parody of conservative political pundits. The study looked at the viewer's political beliefs and what they thought of Colbert's. "More liberal participants believed Colbert was liberal and that the show was satirical. More conservative participants believed Colbert was conservative and genuinely believed his “satirical” arguments. Essentially, viewers of liberal and conservative orientations tended to perceive Colbert as supporting whatever views they personally held."
- untog 13y ago
  I actually read a fascinating article about the Colbert Report saying that conservative viewers of the show thought that he was a conservative satirising a liberal satirising a conservative. Fascinating, really.
belorn 13y ago
In general, it is important to do independent and individual research before voicing an opposition. However, it does depend on context. If this unnamed bill just happens to be SOPA, I am actually happy that we do not put such restrain on opposing voices. At some point, group action is more important than a handful individuals that has the time and energy to research the question independently.

by reuven 13y ago

leephillips 13y ago

His lack of research about issues that he expresses strong opinions about leads to things like this: http://lee-phillips.org/StallmanOnFinkelstein.html http://lee-phillips.org/StallmanOnFinkelstein.html

aestra 13y ago

>I worry that Stallman is ignoring arguments that may inform his own, or even change them. Of course he is! It is called confirmation bias. It is very very strong, especially with people like Stallman who hold strong beliefs. We are all guilty of it to some extent. Here's some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/ http://socialpsychologyeye.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/confirmation-bias-satire-and-stephen-colbert/ http://socialpsychologyeye.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/confirma... Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. ---- The most interesting is the last link. They did a study about the show The Colbert Report, which is satire, He plays a parody of conservative political pundits. The study looked at the viewer's political beliefs and what they thought of Colbert's. "More liberal participants believed Colbert was liberal and that the show was satirical. More conservative participants believed Colbert was conservative and genuinely believed his “satirical” arguments. Essentially, viewers of liberal and conservative orientations tended to perceive Colbert as supporting whatever views they personally held."

untog 13y ago
I actually read a fascinating article about the Colbert Report saying that conservative viewers of the show thought that he was a conservative satirising a liberal satirising a conservative. Fascinating, really.

belorn 13y ago

In general, it is important to do independent and individual research before voicing an opposition. However, it does depend on context. If this unnamed bill just happens to be SOPA, I am actually happy that we do not put such restrain on opposing voices. At some point, group action is more important than a handful individuals that has the time and energy to research the question independently.