Live data from Hacker News

Illusory Truth Effect

en.wikipedia.org

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#41
If you like this area of study I recommend studying object relations and reification.

Object relations is all about how we strive for consistency in how we observe the world. It helps explain how people react and understand things.

Reificaction is also a really cool tool to bring in since when people go around repeating some thing.

Hm, like "gig economy". Like you're supposed to sit there and just accept this loaded concept, which some may believe implies accepting falsehoods, let me explain:

Gig Economy: As if, you're powerless to shape environment. No statute could be created to make employement / labor more fair and stable (let alone generous). You can't influence it, analyze it, criticize it, lobby, vote. Somehow there isn't enough wealth to give everyone a living wage. Don't even bother. Let's imply the systems to fix it don't already exist - even when they do - and it could be done by the end of the year, a few months?

Reification is amazing because it's all about injecting life into abstract concepts. It's where we create and give meaning to new words - it's what comes before illusory truth repetition.

And it's amazing how things shift. For instance, USA - one big thing that makes us famous is big, fat paychecks. But today if you read the news and hear people speak, it's as if there's an implicit acceptance it's okay to give corporations welfare and consistency by the way of our laws, but not reciprocate by giving it to the workers?

Then sometimes you read that having better employment conditions and wages are "socialist"? Lol? You could say: Nope, capitalism is all about huge pay checks. We're sharing this success we created as a private collective of workers. And you're very welcome!

(And by the way, you all pay taxes that shore up the system, you're welcome for that too, as you're strengthening the system and helping downtrodden people you don't even know, you amazing humanist you)

When someone says "Gig economy", go "Wait a second, who said it was okay to accept that, and why are you referring to gigs as employement?", then you can say, "I define employment as pensioned, salaried, position paid enough to comfortably support a family 4"

Perhaps one could repeat "living wage" about 3 times every time they here "gig economy". Why tolerate anything less than comfort, stability and dignity for us? As if we lack the moral collective conscience and intelligence to do it? Lol?

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree in principle, but I have an issue with your use of the terms "logical/quantitative". A pedantic nitpick to be sure, but the "logical" mindset you describe is one of the most prevalent logical fallacies, that of the "false dilemma" [0]. Maybe there are even better ways to describe it than as a logical fallacy, but calling it "logical thinking" leads down the wrong track IMO. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fal…

He did not claim they were exclusive. Your comment is an example of the fallacy fallacy.

[deleted]

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#43
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It is not a specific big lie, but a class of lies that exploit a certain mass naïveté." At face value, yes. In practice the term is exclusively tied to Hitler's meaning, who coined the term. I'm not even sure if "Big Lie" has ever been used in another context, possibly because the term is a Nazi invention. To be clear, the "mass naïveté" of "The Big Lie" is (alleged by Hitler to be) the populace's, who "believed t…

When references disagree with you about a definition, it's time to realize that there can be more than one.

Can you point me to said references? I'm ready to acknowledge them, but I don't see them. The article in Wikipedia (linked to at the start of this thread) is exclusively about the use of the term by the Nazis and how they coined it.

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree in principle, but I have an issue with your use of the terms "logical/quantitative". A pedantic nitpick to be sure, but the "logical" mindset you describe is one of the most prevalent logical fallacies, that of the "false dilemma" [0]. Maybe there are even better ways to describe it than as a logical fallacy, but calling it "logical thinking" leads down the wrong track IMO. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fal…

He did not claim they were exclusive. Your comment is an example of the fallacy fallacy.

The "fallacy fallacy" is valid for itself, though:

> since the fallacy fallacy is itself a fallacy, it cannot be used to label an argument's conclusion as false without committing it in the process. "You have used the fallacy fallacy, therefore you are wrong"

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree in principle, but I have an issue with your use of the terms "logical/quantitative". A pedantic nitpick to be sure, but the "logical" mindset you describe is one of the most prevalent logical fallacies, that of the "false dilemma" [0]. Maybe there are even better ways to describe it than as a logical fallacy, but calling it "logical thinking" leads down the wrong track IMO. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fal…

Maybe "black and white thinking" is what's being described.

That's even worse.

I know GGP wrote about "computer scientists", but I've seen similar things spoken (even here) about software engineers - that they have "binary thinking", they "reason in ones and zeros", etc. Which infuriates me to no end, because it's hard for me to think of another domain except hard sciences that forces you to think quantitatively, in numbers and orders and probabilities. Excelling in software requires the opposite of "black and white thinking".

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#46
post #33

Perhaps this can be rationalized from a Bayesian context. Unless your prior is that you're 100% sure of something (which no one is) and you don't completely ignore what other people say, your posterior will eventually shift to the opposite side.

I think the error made here could also be described in Bayesian context: your posterior shifts to the other side because you keep counting repeated instances of the same information as new evidence.

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#47
post #33

Perhaps this can be rationalized from a Bayesian context. Unless your prior is that you're 100% sure of something (which no one is) and you don't completely ignore what other people say, your posterior will eventually shift to the opposite side.

I think the error made here could also be described in Bayesian context: your posterior shifts to the other side because you keep counting repeated instances of the same information as new evidence.

That would be an error if you know the repeated evidence has correlation 1. The studies try to make this clear to the participants, but it's plausible that after a week they forgot where they read some of the repeated facts and treat them instead as independent information. I'd be interested to see how the interval of repetition affects the results.

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe "black and white thinking" is what's being described.

That's even worse. I know GGP wrote about "computer scientists", but I've seen similar things spoken (even here) about software engineers - that they have "binary thinking", they "reason in ones and zeros", etc. Which infuriates me to no end, because it's hard for me to think of another domain except hard sciences that forces you to think quantitatively, in numbers and orders and probabilities. Excelling in software…

Don't worry, I'm with you.

I think the stereotype is that Computer Scientists are black and white thinkers, and that's true for some. But a senior software engineer should be skilled at thinking with nuance and considering uncertainties, biases, etc.

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#49
post #17
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lawyer’s job is not to actually find out the truth, like a scientist. A lawyer’s conclusion will not be tested by a harsh reality with which you can experiment. A lawyer’s job is entirely to convince other people of things. If people are convinced, the job is done; there are no further repercussions if the truth turns out to differ. Therefore, your lawyer friend likely has never thought about what logic is, or what…

There is also a distinction between logical and quantitative thinking. Some people operate mainly out of a "whether or not" mindset, and they are not inclined to think in terms of "how much", "to what degree", or "how likely". Scientists tend to be quantitative thinkers, although computer scientists are quite often logical thinkers.

Your comment reminded me of how many people think some tools, like IQ testing, are completely worthless because they're imperfect. An IQ score is not the same as intelligence, so it must be 100% unrelated to intelligence, in other words. This is not what's observed, to put it mildly.

Re: Illusory Truth Effect

#50
I wonder how this can easily backfire. Eg if someone repeats something repeatedly you can learn to believe it, but if you ever prove it wrong you never trust them again.
Post reply on HN