21–26 of 26 posts
I don't understand. I feel like reading something ridiculously inaccurate would rather increase my skepticism about the next thing I read (let alone in the same newspaper) than decrease it as the statement suggests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a big assumption though, yes? Namely, that the accuracy of information, or lack thereof, will somehow be consistent across topic areas? Yes and no. It's more a method to rule out, not rule in. If a presenter gives bad information about something I know I can't trust them. If a presenter gives good information about something I know, it builds evidence that I can trust them. These two are different. The latter…
What if a presenter does both?
On subjects I'm not an expert in? Well I can't know.
The problem here is that I'm not an expert in everything. In fact, I'm not an expert in most things. I feel like people are taking this test as a perfect test. Far from it. There is no such test and never will be. But to everyone that is trying to counter this I'll ask you the inverse question: "Why should I trust someone when they've proven to mischaracterize a topic?" That's the heart of this metric.
If you've proven that you won't do enough research, I have reason to not believe you. If you've proven that you will do enough research, I have reason to believe you. It is statistical. Everything is. It is imperfect. Everything is. If you got suggestions about how to extend this and improve upon this, I'm listening. But I'm not just going to abandon it and start listening to people that have given me strong evidence to distrust them. That's a bit insane. It is also exactly what the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is making fun of: trusting people in things you don't know about that proved to be untrustworthy in things you do.
> In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. I don't understand. I feel like reading something ridiculously inaccurate would rather increase my skepticism about the next thing I read (let alone in the s…
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_sp... "I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 14 June 1807, Works 10:417…
I absolutely love the rationale for the name of the effect.