No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media • Hacker News Board

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#51

Post by alisonkisk » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:03 AM UTC

mafuyu wrote: post #29

This post doesn't quite do it for me. There is indeed a huge amount of low quality and low information news content going around. However, to me, the issue is not the lack of novel or high quality articles around a single topic or set of topics, as the bell curve bit seems to imply. For one, frequency bias is real, and people aren't able to dig deep into every single issue they read about online. There's just too muc…

> cobble together responses from peers or sources they trust to build up their view.

A demoralizing moment was when I realized that I have a decent resistance to BS stories and advertising, but then I'll trust the opinions of friends and "convention wisdom" ... who formed their opinions based on BS stories and advertising.

> Video evidence of police brutalizing protesters and news reporters cut through a lot of the noise and made things clear.

And sometimes they are edited to make the perpetrator look the victim, giving a clear but wrong view.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#52

Post by alisonkisk » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:05 AM UTC

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #12

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #8

I don't understand why news sites do not add references and footnotes to their articles. I have been working on an idea for a site that makes "mind maps" of a graph of facts inside of news articles to show how conclusions are reached. However, I think the average person's critical reasoning skills would not appreciate this and just believe what they want to hear.

I believe the word you're looking for is bibliography. If so, then I would love for all people that hold the title journalist or reporter to start including one. Use it for every statement. Will it slow down time to print? Sure. But factual accuracy and provability are worth enough that I would pay such a news source.

Journalists have sources. They name sources. They avoid linking to sources because sources are their competition for attention and ad/subscription revenue.

It's the same reason shops don't link to their competitors' or wholesalers' websites

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#53

Post by new_guy » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:37 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #38

glitcher wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree. I have been tempted to buy the logical fallacies and critical thinking posters from The Thinking Shop[1] as gifts for certain family members, but I know too much of my motivation comes from the self-centered position of wanting to prove I'm right, which I didn't want to perpetuate. Instead I just read through the posters and ended up recognizing several items I probably need to work on myself. The…

There are twenty four logical fallacies listed there... twenty four Genuine question: how does one keep 24 logical fallacies in mind when evaluating arguments? Do you mentally iterate through all these fallacies? Don't get me wrong: they are very valid and I think they will make me better and my arguments better. I just want to understand how people without photographic memories do this.

There's more like over 200 logical fallacies.

A good starting point is https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton-ebook/dp/B...

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#54

Post by CyberDildonics » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:41 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #38

glitcher wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree. I have been tempted to buy the logical fallacies and critical thinking posters from The Thinking Shop[1] as gifts for certain family members, but I know too much of my motivation comes from the self-centered position of wanting to prove I'm right, which I didn't want to perpetuate. Instead I just read through the posters and ended up recognizing several items I probably need to work on myself. The…

There are twenty four logical fallacies listed there... twenty four Genuine question: how does one keep 24 logical fallacies in mind when evaluating arguments? Do you mentally iterate through all these fallacies? Don't get me wrong: they are very valid and I think they will make me better and my arguments better. I just want to understand how people without photographic memories do this.

You don't need to know them all for them to be useful (this falls into what the poster calls the "black and white" fallacy.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#55

Post by anfilt » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:23 AM UTC

mundo wrote: post #33

A number of commenters seem hung up on the actual measurement of information, which I think is a little ancillary to the point (which I think is valid). So I'll add that I think the author's point here is that the press has shifted from focusing on surprising news to reiterating things we already know, because that is a good way to reassure and flatter their audience. Consider a headline like, "Trump says illegal imm…

When you say "reinforcing and emphasizing things we do know" is honestly concerning. That is a common tactic in propaganda. Especially when you consider propaganda's goal is a systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs and attitudes. Using different events to reiterate the same thing is just trying reinforce whatever idea/fact is being reiterated.

It's even worse when what is being reiterated is not true because reiteration effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect). This can be even aggravated further since a lot modern news is not just a statement of facts, but can also include various opinions which may be only partially related to that fact, but get reinforced as well.

However, repeating something over and over will decrease information density. Heck it's used in error correction when dealing with noisy/lossy channels the information theoretic sense. So reiterating things of course will reduce information density.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#56

Post by im3w1l » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:40 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

As I read this, I think what the author is saying is that today's media is more about creating "Narratives" rather than communicating "Information." My Grandfather, who was an attorney, shared with me that attorneys cut apart narratives with evidence to get to the truth. If all of the evidence is available, the only surviving narrative is most likely the truest representation of an event. At the time, I didn't apprec…

A huge part of narrative building is story selection. If there are groups A, B, C all of which do good and bad stuff to each other, media will create a narrative by highlighting again and again bad things that A does to B, leaving out the good things, leaving out what B does, and leaving out C entirely.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#57

Post by brigandish » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:46 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #38

glitcher wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree. I have been tempted to buy the logical fallacies and critical thinking posters from The Thinking Shop[1] as gifts for certain family members, but I know too much of my motivation comes from the self-centered position of wanting to prove I'm right, which I didn't want to perpetuate. Instead I just read through the posters and ended up recognizing several items I probably need to work on myself. The…

There are twenty four logical fallacies listed there... twenty four Genuine question: how does one keep 24 logical fallacies in mind when evaluating arguments? Do you mentally iterate through all these fallacies? Don't get me wrong: they are very valid and I think they will make me better and my arguments better. I just want to understand how people without photographic memories do this.

Find good examples that are easy to understand and absurd enough to stick in your head. For example (ha) the fallacy of composition Wikipedia page has a good one[0]:

> "This tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."

The fallacy of division page[1] also has a good one:

> 1. The second grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream

> 2. Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson elementary

> 3. Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream

You can also categorise large numbers of common fallacies, for instance fallacies of relevance, and then - which is the larger point about fallacies - you don't need to know which exact fallacy someone has committed (they don't care, for one) but you know it's fallacious because what their argument relies upon is irrelevant.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Edit: formatting

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#58

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

glitcher wrote: post #2

> our opinions should be formed from a careful examination of arguments and evidence on each side of the issue, reading from only one perspective is akin to not reading at all The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith a…

> throwing straw men down slippery slopes.

I don't know if you just invented that phrase, but I love it, and it gives me the perfect visual for the general state of online discourse these days.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#59

Post by redwall_hp » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

mfer wrote: post #3

glitcher wrote: post #2

> our opinions should be formed from a careful examination of arguments and evidence on each side of the issue, reading from only one perspective is akin to not reading at all The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith a…

> The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings This highlights both a problem an opportunity. How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one? How many know what good evidence looks like or how to spot beliefs and assumptions making their way into something? I would…

One would assume that such a skill should be a requirement to be a part of the profession of journalism. Presupposing, of course, that the goal of journalism is to inform. Don't hire people who aren't qualified.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#60

Post by brigandish » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:53 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #9

mfer wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings This highlights both a problem an opportunity. How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one? How many know what good evidence looks like or how to spot beliefs and assumptions making their way into something? I would…

> How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one? Even if you could spot "good" arguments that really isn't enough without knowing that it's also made in good faith. If the person making an argument doesn't actually believe what they're saying, is arguing with a particular outcome, or is arguing with an ulterior motive like flame-bait then you also shouldn't bother engaging them even if it's well…

How would you know whether someone is making a good faith argument? Without some outward signifier like a cartoon character for an online avatar, which even then wouldn't provide any measure of certainty, it would require mind reading.

> People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time.

If you want to get along in some kind of shallow fashion then the former are better, if you want to find truth or open your mind to possibilities then the latter will outstrip the former by a long way. Both are needed in life but to dismiss either as stupid or bad intentioned seems a stretch.