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

Why Fiction Beats Truth

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#31

Post by inflatableDodo »

nullc wrote: post #8

So what should one do when one finds themselves being turned into roadkill under the wheels of someone else's socially useful fiction? I feel like the author of the piece might even advocate going along with-- or at least not wasting your energies fighting-- many cases of socially useful fiction. But that hardly works when you happen to be the person or of the creed one targets.

>So what should one do when one finds themselves being turned into roadkill under the wheels of someone else's socially useful fiction?

Leave home.

edit - that was maybe slightly personal as responses go, but I think in a situation where you find yourself to be a pawn in someone else's psycosis, then you should extracate yourself from it and try and help at arms length unless you have a will of iron.

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#32

Post by inflatableDodo »

trabant00 wrote: post #13

Another: two polar opposite political stances can be true at the same time. Immigraton can be and is both good and bad. So are social help programs. Guns. Government intervention. Surveilance. Etc. Your truth is not the only truth. There are an infinite true perspectives on a issue. Another perspective is not false just because it opposes yours and yours is true.

>Your truth is not the only truth.

I prefer Roisin Murphy's 'You can't hide from the truth, because the truth is all there really is.' What you are describing seems more like relative accuracy of broadly stated opinions.

edit - Roisin Murphy, 'The Truth' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMUngA6EQ5Y

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#33

Post by mncharity »

Someone described[1] preferring the 'capitalist enemy' FT, to the NYT, because "the Financial Times is just a better paper. It covers the world as it is - a global battle not of ideas or values, but of economic and political interests." (And "the Times [is] bloated with opinion pieces and op-eds".)

So here we have a op ed, exploring why people believe fictions, which somehow fails to emphasize that it's economically profitable to lie to people. Even with its focus on leadership, that's odd.

As for cost, the NYT rarely manages to mention "regulatory capture"[2], consistently described TPP as a free trade treaty, but not Canadian resentment of being arm-twisted by Hollywood via USMCA to extend copyright term, nor China's of US pharma currently attempting similar.

The NYT had an ad slogan, "The Truth you deserve". Which seemed to me perhaps poor advertising, as I frequently thought "No, we deserve better." Or... perhaps they were right.

[1] https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-t... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22regulatory%20capture...

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#34

Post by inflatableDodo »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #18
trabant00 wrote: post #13

Another: two polar opposite political stances can be true at the same time. Immigraton can be and is both good and bad. So are social help programs. Guns. Government intervention. Surveilance. Etc. Your truth is not the only truth. There are an infinite true perspectives on a issue. Another perspective is not false just because it opposes yours and yours is true.

I agree, but it's important to understand this strictly, and not come to the conclusion that all views are equal and equally true. To more mathematically minded people I'd explain it like this: two political stances can be correct at the same time, because political stances are projections of high-dimensional conceptual structures to lower-dimensional space. Both a circle and a rectangle are correct 2D projections of…

>To more mathematically minded people I'd explain it like this: two political stances can be correct at the same time, because political stances are projections of high-dimensional conceptual structures to lower-dimensional space. Both a circle and a rectangle are correct 2D projections of a 3D cylinder. But if your 2D projection of a cylinder looks like a hexagon, you're wrong.

This is brilliant. I tend to fall back on category theory and multivalent logic for the same job.

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#35

Post by analyst74 »

nullc wrote: post #8

So what should one do when one finds themselves being turned into roadkill under the wheels of someone else's socially useful fiction? I feel like the author of the piece might even advocate going along with-- or at least not wasting your energies fighting-- many cases of socially useful fiction. But that hardly works when you happen to be the person or of the creed one targets.

On an individual level, as long as crossing you has more perceived consequences than benefits, people will generally think twice before turning you into a social roadkill.

On the other hand, due to various forms of prejudice, certain characteristics (race, gender, accent, and what not) increase your chance of victimization. This while sad, becomes fuel to people who dedicate their lives to fight for injustices.

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#37

Post by j7ake »

What do you mean by truth? We act on heuristics that are sufficiently good approximations to be useful.

For example, we act as if the world is flat when we run or drive. We act as if the world is spherical when we fly across continents.

However, both are only approximations to the reality (Earth is an ellipsoid). We use them because they are useful. It is reasonable to have multiple views of the world that changes with scale.

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#38

Post by BubRoss »

Buttons840 wrote: post #19
TeMPOraL wrote: post #6

Fourth: for almost anything in life, knowing the truth doesn't matter in practice - instead, people believe things that make for good social objects, i.e. catalysts of discussions with other people. In cases were being wrong leads to direct and near-immediate consequences, people tend to learn the truth quickly. The problem with that is that today, a lot more things have delayed effects, or effects that only material…

Well said. So, someone spouts a well researched conspiracy and others engage in a conversation and the person gets to recite their well prepared talking points. That feels good to the person, that's positive reinforcement. That's a story they can take to their online echo chamber for even more positive feedback. They hold on to the conspiracy as something to talk about, and as something they can feel superior about.…

> So should we just avoid debate? That doesn't seem right.

He never said that at all.

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#40

Post by cam_l »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #6

Fourth: for almost anything in life, knowing the truth doesn't matter in practice - instead, people believe things that make for good social objects, i.e. catalysts of discussions with other people. In cases were being wrong leads to direct and near-immediate consequences, people tend to learn the truth quickly. The problem with that is that today, a lot more things have delayed effects, or effects that only material…

I think there is another aspect to your social importance thing. That is that the truth is varied, layered, often contextual. But falsehoods are fixed, easy to understand and remember. They are much easier to conform to socially if all you are using them for is a chat, signaling or shibboleth.
Post reply on HN