Live data from Hacker News

Why Fiction Beats Truth

nytimes.com

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#42
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?

Most people believe that they, and they alone are the guardians of universal truth. Ries and Trout really hit the nail on the head when they discuss the folly of trying to change a mind.

“You want to change something in a computer? Just type over or delete the existing material. You want to change something in a mind? Forget it.” ―Ries and Trout, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing

“The mind, as a defense against the volume of today’s communications, screens and rejects much of the information offered it. In general, the mind accepts only that which matches prior knowledge or experience.” ―Ries and Trout, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#43
post #9

2 must have Churchill quotes: Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on (unsourced, but why not attribute it to Churchill anyhow? he deserves it)

A little "factoid" I like is that Aristotle believed men had more teeth than women, and even gave a reasoned argument for why. But he never felt the need to count teeth, because his reasoning was just so good.

Did Aristotle really do this? I've never looked it up, but it does match his reliance on reasoned arguments to arrive at objective truths. :-P

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#44
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.…

That sounds about right.

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

"As Secretary of State Powell summarized in his February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."[34] On February 11, 2003, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion."[35][36] On April 10, 2003, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer reiterated that, "But make no mistake—as I said earlier—we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."[37] Despite the Bush Administration's consistent assertion that Iraqi weapons programs justified an invasion, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz later cast doubt on the Administration's conviction behind this rationale by saying in a May 2003 interview: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue—weapons of mass destruction—because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."[38]"

"After the invasion, despite an exhaustive search led by the Iraq Survey Group involving a more than 1,400 member team, no evidence of Iraqi weapons programs was found. On the contrary, the investigation concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of weapons of mass destructions and ceased production in 1991 when sanctions were imposed.[39][40][41] The failure to find evidence of Iraqi weapons programs following the invasion led to considerable controversy in the United States and worldwide, including claims by critics of the war that the Bush and Blair Administrations deliberately manipulated and misused intelligence to push for an invasion. "

I wonder what kind of mischief these fellows are up to these days, or have they all retired?

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#45

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…

> political stances are projections of high-dimensional conceptual structures to lower-dimensional space

Did you come up with this way of looking at it, or is this from some sort of a dedicated "field of study"? This seems to me an extremely good description of what's going on in society lately, from fake news to disagreement on a wide variety of issues, and perfectly explains why opposing sides both think they are right - because often they are both right, they've just chosen different perspectives (subsets of dimensions) for their lower-dimensional conceptual understanding of the larger high-dimensional problem. Throw in the low precision, low dimension capabilities of language and communication, a lack of intellectual humility, and you've got the perfect recipe for a complete gong show even if everyone is trying to be honest.

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#46
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say there's also an element of enjoying a narrative, whether we call them memes or myths, that is satisfying and fits a story we know. Some time around 2000 I started seeing most news (especially long form) through this lens and I discount/research it a bit more the more it follows a standard narrative. Usually, it's a sign that facts have been cherry picked or out of context to fit, thought that's not always the…

I find memes to be often low effort half/quarter-truths or no truth at all and their humor lies within the irony that they aren't true at all. What is the impact on society when people in masses are consuming and entertaining themselves with this "content"?

Depends on which definition of meme you're using:

- a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc., that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.

- an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

The former refers to things like the sometimes clever pictures you see on social media, the latter refers to things like what you read in the newspaper (often referred to as facts), but both kinds have widely varying levels of truth.

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#47
post #40
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.

Often it is the case that the falsehood or myth that people are telling is actually a cover for a truth that they are trying to hide. For instance we don't want a black president because we're racist becomes Obama's birth certificate was fake. Or we want to destroy Iran because we don't like Islamic theocracy becomes Iran is oppressing its own people therefore we must liberate it. The myth hides the truth and the myth may be entirely false or partially false but a convenient cover for the truth that all believers can rally behind... while the truth would implicate the followers as not just or immoral or racist, etc.

Re: Why Fiction Beats Truth

#50
post #49

Bypass? Ahh is by Yuval that guy who wrote homo deus so he probably repeats his ideas and this is promo for his book

I can't say I like everything he says, but he's got a lot of good stuff to say.

For a while I used to bypass NYtimes by having them redirect from Facebook (they fixed it):https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.nytimes.com/2019...
Post reply on HN