4 ms·

Apparently we take the "point" of a story to heart even if dishonestly told, and we think we won't, because we think it's dishonestly told So yeah, very powerf

by gte910h 13y ago

Apparently we take the "point" of a story to heart even if dishonestly told, and we think we won't, because we think it's dishonestly told So yeah, very powerful, perhaps too powerful Source: http://boingboing.net/2013/12/24/you-are-not-so-smart-podcast-0-3.html http://boingboing.net/2013/12/24/you-are-not-so-smart-podcas...

dredmorbius 13y ago
Given that most people are (or have been) subject to prodigal amounts of audio-video storytelling, much of it with a blessed or orthodox narrative, even getting a biased counterpoint serves a purpose. Far better, as I've described below, to view documentaries critically. Again: the ability today to do fact-checking in an instant (I've pulled up a few dozen references to Mr. McRaney here) means that it's far, far easier to do critical reading and viewing than previously. Much of what I'm researching online currently has to do with material not of the immediate present, dating from 25 to 2500 years ago, roughly. Which I can now access in ways that simply weren't possible before. I can also hit new commentary on old stuff. Such as, say, the significance (or not) of Adam Smith's "invisible hand": This link shows the exploration of the concept: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/FbXJLzny5Mj https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/FbXJLzny... If you want the meat of it, Gavin Kennedy's done the scholarship: "Adam Smith and 'The Myth of the Invisible Hand - A View from the Trenches'" Gavin Kennedy, Heriot-Watt University - Edinburgh Business School September 6, 2012 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2142856 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2142856 So: setting up a conflict between narratives does provide that consciousness-expanding opportunity for you to explore for the truth. I absolutely do agree that humans generally have a trust bias: we tend to believe that a speaker is telling the truth, and that their story can be believed. Finding that this isn't the case is highly disorienting. I've had a few encounters with pathological (and/or psychopathic) lairs, and it's very disturbing (especially when you backtrack and find just how and when the lies started). What's similarly troubling is the amount of deception that occurs everyday in commerce, politics, religion, and even science (as well as the more typical hunting grounds of suspicious activity: mysticism, crime, etc.).
- nkvl 13y ago
  There is a whole genre of educational documentaries that basically have no point of view (other than general, popular consensus). For me, the best documentaries are basically audio books with very good illustrations, and while audio books don't work for me at all, documentaries do. From watching hundreds of hours of them, I think the best ones actually lack an overarching story (seeng as how reality usually doesn't have an epic climax). Because the content is being delivered so fast, there's some latency involved here, but the medium lends itself well to repeat watching, listening, or both. Something like BBC/PBS "Universe" stuff from the late 90's aged very well because they are snapshots of discoveries and problems that now are not nearly as exciting anymore, but they tell you a lot about the very recent history of the subject. This goes for a lot of other subjects, whether it's art, or math, or history. Documentaries can be historical documents in themselves, just check out "Civilization" from 1970 (I think), or "The Human Animal" from 1994. Soundtrack, narration opening, editing, those all hold clues to trusting or not trusting the content, and it's pretty easy to establish credibility and historical context early on. But they can also be the equivalent of an amazing lecturer. Edit: one obvious addition to the biography section would be "The Quest For Tannu Tuva", parts of an autobiographical interview with Feynman, on YouTube as well. Edit 2: "The Strange Life and Death of Dr. Alan Turing" from 1992 as well.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    I caught Civilzation in one of its early re-broadasts, though was too young to appreciate it at the time. I've downloaded it and it's on my watch list. Note though: the programs almost always had some point of view. Burke editorializes a few times in Connections (particularly in the 1st, 2nd, and final episodes). Clarke has a distinct vision of Western Civilization. Carl Sagan's thoughts on the importance of science, possiblities of extraterrestrial life, and against mysticism and nonscientific thinking are clear in Cosmos. The fact that the views are more aligned with convention don't lessen this any.
- gte910h 13y ago
  One of the things covered in the talk I linked is even if we're attempting to view it critically, and even if we're confident we can view a story critically, it usually still effects us
winstonx 13y ago
That is the nature of effective propaganda. The best defense you have is your mind. Be skeptical and fact-check; good documentaries contain lots of truth.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  The interesting cases are pieces which cite a large number of verifiable truths, but then skew specific bits. I think I referenced my Karen Hudes rebuttal on this post already, if not, it's in HN's search from a few weeks back. Ruppert's another case. His history's solid. His conclusions a bit shakier (at least for the timeline).

by gte910h 13y ago

dredmorbius 13y ago

Given that most people are (or have been) subject to prodigal amounts of audio-video storytelling, much of it with a blessed or orthodox narrative, even getting a biased counterpoint serves a purpose. Far better, as I've described below, to view documentaries critically. Again: the ability today to do fact-checking in an instant (I've pulled up a few dozen references to Mr. McRaney here) means that it's far, far easier to do critical reading and viewing than previously. Much of what I'm researching online currently has to do with material not of the immediate present, dating from 25 to 2500 years ago, roughly. Which I can now access in ways that simply weren't possible before. I can also hit new commentary on old stuff. Such as, say, the significance (or not) of Adam Smith's "invisible hand": This link shows the exploration of the concept: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/FbXJLzny5Mj https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/FbXJLzny... If you want the meat of it, Gavin Kennedy's done the scholarship: "Adam Smith and 'The Myth of the Invisible Hand - A View from the Trenches'" Gavin Kennedy, Heriot-Watt University - Edinburgh Business School September 6, 2012 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2142856 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2142856 So: setting up a conflict between narratives does provide that consciousness-expanding opportunity for you to explore for the truth. I absolutely do agree that humans generally have a trust bias: we tend to believe that a speaker is telling the truth, and that their story can be believed. Finding that this isn't the case is highly disorienting. I've had a few encounters with pathological (and/or psychopathic) lairs, and it's very disturbing (especially when you backtrack and find just how and when the lies started). What's similarly troubling is the amount of deception that occurs everyday in commerce, politics, religion, and even science (as well as the more typical hunting grounds of suspicious activity: mysticism, crime, etc.).

nkvl 13y ago
There is a whole genre of educational documentaries that basically have no point of view (other than general, popular consensus). For me, the best documentaries are basically audio books with very good illustrations, and while audio books don't work for me at all, documentaries do. From watching hundreds of hours of them, I think the best ones actually lack an overarching story (seeng as how reality usually doesn't have an epic climax). Because the content is being delivered so fast, there's some latency involved here, but the medium lends itself well to repeat watching, listening, or both. Something like BBC/PBS "Universe" stuff from the late 90's aged very well because they are snapshots of discoveries and problems that now are not nearly as exciting anymore, but they tell you a lot about the very recent history of the subject. This goes for a lot of other subjects, whether it's art, or math, or history. Documentaries can be historical documents in themselves, just check out "Civilization" from 1970 (I think), or "The Human Animal" from 1994. Soundtrack, narration opening, editing, those all hold clues to trusting or not trusting the content, and it's pretty easy to establish credibility and historical context early on. But they can also be the equivalent of an amazing lecturer. Edit: one obvious addition to the biography section would be "The Quest For Tannu Tuva", parts of an autobiographical interview with Feynman, on YouTube as well. Edit 2: "The Strange Life and Death of Dr. Alan Turing" from 1992 as well.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I caught Civilzation in one of its early re-broadasts, though was too young to appreciate it at the time. I've downloaded it and it's on my watch list. Note though: the programs almost always had some point of view. Burke editorializes a few times in Connections (particularly in the 1st, 2nd, and final episodes). Clarke has a distinct vision of Western Civilization. Carl Sagan's thoughts on the importance of science, possiblities of extraterrestrial life, and against mysticism and nonscientific thinking are clear in Cosmos. The fact that the views are more aligned with convention don't lessen this any.
gte910h 13y ago
One of the things covered in the talk I linked is even if we're attempting to view it critically, and even if we're confident we can view a story critically, it usually still effects us

winstonx 13y ago

That is the nature of effective propaganda. The best defense you have is your mind. Be skeptical and fact-check; good documentaries contain lots of truth.

dredmorbius 13y ago
The interesting cases are pieces which cite a large number of verifiable truths, but then skew specific bits. I think I referenced my Karen Hudes rebuttal on this post already, if not, it's in HN's search from a few weeks back. Ruppert's another case. His history's solid. His conclusions a bit shakier (at least for the timeline).