Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Calling bullshit

callingbullshit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#61

Post by mapcars »

matwood wrote: post #29
simonbarker87 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone, engaged and skeptical or otherwise can miss falsehoods if it aligns with their values/beliefs already. Taking something like this should, in theory, give you tools to make sure that even if you really want to believe what you are reading/hearing because it aligns with your world view (or worse, comes from a source you respect and trust) then you can still determine how honest or accurate it is.

The latest SGU (Skeptics Guide to the Universe) podcast touched on your point, and how everyone is susceptible to false hoods particularly when those opinions make up a persons identity. Someone who identifies as 'liberal' or 'conservative' is more likely to fight facts that go against their beliefs. One possible solution presented, was to always attempt to self identify as a skeptic who is okay changing opinions as…

>always attempt to self identify as a skeptic who is okay changing opinions as new facts come in

>you're outside of most of the big popular groups

Story of my life

Re: Calling bullshit

#62

Post by tankenmate »

jankotek wrote: post #25

I am not sure I like this site. It uses strong language, but avoids anything controversial and provided case studies are pretty shallow. Nothing like some Youtube channels, where presenter spends one hour deconstructing some study, to its sources and sources of the sources.

I suspect this course is teaching you how to do this type of deconstruction rather than to provide examples that are entertaining or controversial. Teach a person to fish, etc.

Re: Calling bullshit

#63

Post by coldtea »

natural_capital wrote: post #11

I really like this idea, though struggle to understand the effectiveness. My guess is that the type of person who falls victim to 'bullshit' theory or messages is not the kind of person who is willing to dedicate time to an online course about learning to be more critical in thought. 'Bullshit' thinking has been largely successful because its an effortless pathway to establishing an opinion on something (queue System…

>My guess is that the type of person who falls victim to 'bullshit' theory or messages is not the kind of person who is willing to dedicate time to an online course about learning to be more critical in thought

Obviously it's not about them. There are still millions that understand the problem and are willing to think more critically -- but don't have all the skills, expertise etc to distinguish bullshit in its myriad forms.

Some statistics bullshit in the media for example is obvious, but other is so well hidden, it takes deeper knowledge of math and statistics, or abstract reasoning etc to recognize it.

>Conversely, the people who would be willing to read this sort of content are likely the people who are already reasonable skeptical about what they take as face value.

Reasonable skeptical people are getting duped every day in all kinds of subtle ways. Having the skills to recognize those, would be nice.

Re: Calling bullshit

#64

Post by coldtea »

norswap wrote: post #57
natural_capital wrote: post #11

I really like this idea, though struggle to understand the effectiveness. My guess is that the type of person who falls victim to 'bullshit' theory or messages is not the kind of person who is willing to dedicate time to an online course about learning to be more critical in thought. 'Bullshit' thinking has been largely successful because its an effortless pathway to establishing an opinion on something (queue System…

There are different ranks of bullshit. But it regularly pops up even in fields populated almost exclusively with smart and critical people (e.g. academia). May I suggest that maybe you are not attuned to nth-order bullshit? It's relatively harmless, but it's out there. In a way, seeing through all the bullshit is a feat of almost superhuman strength, even more so without falling prey to cynicism or nihilism.

>But it regularly pops up even in fields populated almost exclusively with smart and critical people (e.g. academia)

Even? I'd say mostly -- or at least on par.

Re: Calling bullshit

#66

Post by eternalban »

natural_capital wrote: post #11

I really like this idea, though struggle to understand the effectiveness. My guess is that the type of person who falls victim to 'bullshit' theory or messages is not the kind of person who is willing to dedicate time to an online course about learning to be more critical in thought. 'Bullshit' thinking has been largely successful because its an effortless pathway to establishing an opinion on something (queue System…

> I ... struggle to understand the effectiveness.

I agree that the demographic coverage is not even remotely 100%. Would it be fair to generalize your 'target audience critique' as "this can not possibly be of help to the unwashed masses"?

Here's my take on the general demographic critique. (This equally and critically applies to 'encryption & privacy' efforts that we geeks keep circling back to here and elsewhere.)

First a categorical definition from uncle Marx so that attendant HN Marxists do not accuse me of 'petite bourgoise' biases :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

I agree with Marx: The lumpen proletariat, as you note, are "not the kind of [people] who [are] willing to dedicate time to an online course." Equally, as we famously know, they remain unmoved by the fact that their idle chatter and exchanges of pixelated naughty bits are recorded and reviewed by "public servants" in service of the establishment class.

Thus, per this view, it is (as you point out) a /waste/ of effort to either try to equip them with cognitive tools, or, "user friendly" privacy tools.

One of my little pet theories is that the 1% -- the ratios are rough/symbolic -- require the psychological assent of the 10%. And, in my view, the 1% are critically depdendent on them for the operation and maintenance of the establishment order.

This 10% is courted, conditioned, and then integrated into the establishment order. Sometimes they are identified in school, taken under the wing of a mentor who gently shape their thoughts into a form suitable for fitting into the available slots. Others effectively auto-integrate by identifying with the 'attractive' propaganda of the establishment order. All end up as useful servants of the establishment.

Most of us are not familiar with mechanics and psychology of power.

To affect change in society, whether in 1000BC, or 2017 AD, the participation of the 10% is of absolute critical importance. The lumpen proletariat are moved to action only under the duress of severe hunger. Anything else, they don't budge.

All our efforts towards the betterment of our society should focus attention on the 10%.

Educate the young potential, and recovering older, members of 10%, and, provide them secure communication (which most certainly must not sacrifice technical rigour at the alter of the false god of "[general] usability").

Re: Calling bullshit

#67

Post by acjohnson55 »

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to.

The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments.

We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought.

I spend a lot of time debating with people who disagree with me politically. It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. So stop trying. Instead, make your point based on common morals, do it with compassion and generosity of spirit, and don't allow the goalposts of the debate to be moved. Throw in like two of couple of your choicest facts and sources, but don't expect them to help. Move on and repeat.

Re: Calling bullshit

#68

Post by coldtea »

krapp wrote: post #47
ThomPete wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stop with the claims about a post-truth era? It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths. It's that we have just realized that interpretation is not the same as truth and have now been made aware that there are other interpretations of the facts than our own. We don't live in a post-truth world, we live in a world were the truth is confused with difference of opini…

>It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths. "post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of political arguments for many people. See Karl Rove's quote about the "reality-based" community (which may or may not be apocryphal) versus the American empire which simply crea…

>"post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of political arguments for many people.

It mostly means:

"Some people can't accept Trump got elected, so when e.g. criticism of him being sexist/rapist etc because of some comments back in the day is discarded, they call it a post-truth world. At the same time, it's not post-truth when the same people discard allegations of rape for Bill Clinton and his wife helping with cover up".

Or, as I'd put it:, both party voters could not give a rats arse about the truth, but the Democratic party has a better stronghold on academics, columnists, intellectuals and "hi-bro" journalists, etc., the sort of people who would just single out the others' disregard of the truth as "post-truth".

Re: Calling bullshit

#70

Post by coldtea »

diyorgasms wrote: post #56
ThomPete wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never been. Perception have always been reality and politicians have always used that to get things their way. Thats why they study rhetorics not science. There is no objective transcendence between facts and politics decisions. You can believe that climate change is created by humans and still decide not to do anything about it because you also believe that technology will solve most of those problem, or that t…

This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.

>Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them.

"I never had sexual relations with that woman".

"Read my lips: there will be no more taxes".

"It depends on what the definition of is is".

"I will close down Guantanamo Bay".

Post reply on HN