Live data from Hacker News

Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

larvatus.com

11–20 of 82 posts

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#11
post #7

10 years ago, I was a religious Techcrunch reader. I read every article. Eventually, I noticed something peculiar: I'd have an idea for a startup, and six months or so later (about the time it would've taken me to do it) someone would come out with that idea! It happened enough times that it pushed me to stop reading the same tech news as everyone else, because I didn't want to succumb to group think. I've since exte…

[deleted]

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#12
I'd be curious if everyone is also experiencing the so called "the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" in the same way Crichton describes.

In my own areas of expertise -- data analysis and economics -- the answer is "Yes, very much so". Certainly there are pockets of high quality writing, but that mostly comes from experts writing on their own blogs in their own areas of expertise, or from periodic guest articles by the same experts. Mainstream economics writing is, as a rule, terrible. Statistical literacy is arguably even worse.

What's it like for everyone else? What's your area of expertise and is this endemic to your field?

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#13
Fake news is not new. It is at least as old as the oldest written texts. The religions of the world are the largest fake news outlets out there, and those are going along just fine. I mean they kind of have to be - even if you do believe in one of them the rest must be concluded as millenia old fake news.

"Our times are different" thrown around without care is a very widespread cognitive error.

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#14
post #2

Coincidentally I just finished State of Fear last night, a Crichton novel about Eco terrorism. To be honest parts of it made me uncomfortable but with an open mind it can be a very interesting read. His idea of the PLM complex is a pretty interesting take on our current state of affairs.

I enjoyed the book immensely, but I think its overall tone is destructive of goodwill towards activism in AGW, and it was hugely selective in its use of statistics. Crichton, had he lived, might well have come to regret this book more than others, although I guess he too might have been subject to confirmation bias on things.

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#15
post #12

I'd be curious if everyone is also experiencing the so called "the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" in the same way Crichton describes. In my own areas of expertise -- data analysis and economics -- the answer is "Yes, very much so". Certainly there are pockets of high quality writing, but that mostly comes from experts writing on their own blogs in their own areas of expertise, or from periodic guest articles by the same e…

Yes I had this exact experience. Since the news can't report correctly the things I do understand I have to assume they are misreporting the things I don't understand. Generally this means if I want to learn about a new subject I need to find the experts in the fields blog or read a book.

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#16
post #12

I'd be curious if everyone is also experiencing the so called "the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" in the same way Crichton describes. In my own areas of expertise -- data analysis and economics -- the answer is "Yes, very much so". Certainly there are pockets of high quality writing, but that mostly comes from experts writing on their own blogs in their own areas of expertise, or from periodic guest articles by the same e…

I experience it all the time when reading / watching / listening to news reports about technology, often rather visibly rolling my eyes at their nonsensical depictions of how things work.

I don't, however, feel like that automatically invalidates the articles on other subjects. It's possible (probable, even) that different news outlets will have different specializations - different strong and weak categories - and that tech might be a weak spot while, say, local events might be a strong spot. After all, I certainly ain't an expert on, say, politics or medicine or economics, so why should I expect journalists to be experts in technology?

The answer to that rhetorical question, of course, is that it's the job of a news publication to hire people who can competently report on the topics they cover, or else to not attempt to cover those topics. But that still doesn't invalidate the other articles automatically; it just means I should get a second opinion :)

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#17
post #7

10 years ago, I was a religious Techcrunch reader. I read every article. Eventually, I noticed something peculiar: I'd have an idea for a startup, and six months or so later (about the time it would've taken me to do it) someone would come out with that idea! It happened enough times that it pushed me to stop reading the same tech news as everyone else, because I didn't want to succumb to group think. I've since exte…

All of us have a baked in Negativity bias - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

And in the current environment of negative info overload, things are going to feel much worse than they really are.

We don't live in a static world. Things are always changing and the environment of negative info overload will change too. Even though most people can't imagine how that is going to happen, it will happen. Why? Because the number of people sick of this unnatural state of opinion overload is increasing everyday.

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#19
Because news media is not in the business of facts as such, they are in the business of a story. The buzzword today is "narrative". They will fit their reporting into a compelling or provocative narrative to move more newspapers and magazines. Hence, news about Bush's tariffs must not be reported alone, but must be contextualized in terms of a narrative about what a dangerous man he is and how he undermines his own goals when it comes to preventing terrorism. This will sell more copies of the Times both to people who agree with the narrative and people who are looking to challenge it.

You can see this unfolding right now. The New York Times Magazine, for instance, is currently running stories about slavery and plantations, and tying those into modern stories about race, justice, and capitalism, as part of its "Project 1619" which is explicitly about selling the narrative that USA culture is a slaver culture. This "hot takey" interpretation of American history is being promoted because it will sell more magazines than a more nuanced view of history.

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#20
post #12

I'd be curious if everyone is also experiencing the so called "the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" in the same way Crichton describes. In my own areas of expertise -- data analysis and economics -- the answer is "Yes, very much so". Certainly there are pockets of high quality writing, but that mostly comes from experts writing on their own blogs in their own areas of expertise, or from periodic guest articles by the same e…

IMO the “Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect” maybe should be titled the “Gell-Mann Amnesia Affect” in many cases since the people complaining about it are often in the position to fix, but don’t. Instead they complain about it.

To be more specific, if you think reporters are getting things wrong, you can call them and tell them what the real scoop is; most reporters are very easy to get ahold of, and would to get the real scoop.

The reality is that most people who really know what they are talking about, don’t like talking to the press. They either consider it a waste of their time, or have an agenda and are only interested in talking to reporters to advance that agenda.

In fact I think a lot of the times people think reporters are “getting it wrong,” it is at least partially because the reporting doesn’t comport with their view on things. Economics would be a classic example of a discipline full of differing theories and schools about how to interpret the basic measurable facts (or even how facts should be measured).

Post reply on HN