Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 208 posts

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#161

Post by KptMarchewa »

ryangittins wrote: post #159
ElevenLathe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of anyone that considers jury duty an "annoyance for a cause greater than ourselves". Normal people know intuitively that it is a waste of time, that lawyers, cops, clerks, and judges are just running an extended grift on working people and the rest of society, and that nobody will be harmed by their lying their way out of having to miss work for 7 dollars a day.

What's the alternative? Professional jurors?

In great majority of countries there are no jurors, just judges.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#162

Post by ElevenLathe »

ryangittins wrote: post #159
ElevenLathe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of anyone that considers jury duty an "annoyance for a cause greater than ourselves". Normal people know intuitively that it is a waste of time, that lawyers, cops, clerks, and judges are just running an extended grift on working people and the rest of society, and that nobody will be harmed by their lying their way out of having to miss work for 7 dollars a day.

What's the alternative? Professional jurors?

I would say the opposite: shanghai citizens into serving as cops, prosecutors, judges, bailiffs, etc., so that there is some hope that they might influence the process instead of just being another material that the professionals process (like defendants).

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#163

Post by godelski »

btilly wrote: post #152
dredmorbius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but the Glass-Steagall Act was repealled in 1999, under then-president Bill Clinton, and is posited as a substantial contributor to the 2007-8 Global Financial Crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_repeal_of_the... > https://web.archive.org/web/20111019192852/http://prospect.o... >

So there are things that happened under Clinton that have been posited as contributing to the financial crash, so the guy who was President for the last 8 years leading up to the crash must be blameless. Yeah, not buying it. There are lots of things that happened under Bush that are also posited as contributing to the crash. And 8 years is more than long enough for Bush's policies to have contributed.

> so the guy who was President for the last 8 years leading up to the crash must be blameless.

That's not the argument being made. The argument being made is that actions under a president outlast the president and have to be considered as part of their legacy. Bush isn't blameless but that also doesn't mean Clinton gets off Scot-free.

The argument is about how attribution to current events doesn't solely lie upon the current acting head of state.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#164

Post by godelski »

slavik81 wrote: post #87
dredmorbius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but the Glass-Steagall Act was repealled in 1999, under then-president Bill Clinton, and is posited as a substantial contributor to the 2007-8 Global Financial Crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_repeal_of_the... > https://web.archive.org/web/20111019192852/http://prospect.o... >

Canada had no equivalent of the Glass-Steagall Act, but its banks didn't suffer like the US banks did. Why would the seperation of commercial and investment banks only be important in the United States and not in other countries?

Other banks were also buying US based securities.

But you also seem to be assuming that there was a single causal factor or that people are claiming there is a single causal factor. Neither of these are true. There were many factors at play.

My only claim with Clinton was that he did things that helped lead to the events and people do not attribute that to him because he was not the acting head of state. My claim was not about a singular causality, and that would be a pretty bad faith read.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#165

Post by godelski »

somenameforme wrote: post #85
godelski wrote: post #18

The actual title is > Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change Not "Study: Americans consistently overestimate how much culture has changed." And from the abstract > Participants overestimated the amount of change on 29 attitudes (57%), underestimated change on 10 attitudes (20%), estimated change in the wrong direction on 10 attitudes (20%), and estimated change correctly on only two attitudes (4%). (o…

Look at the methods. The most accurate title would be: "Americans taking online surveys for pennies consistently overestimate how much culture has changed." I went into more detail here [1], but the sample is based on Amazon Mechanical Turk/Prolific. This survey is not just only Americans (or at least those that can pass for such; they had to be able to answer: "students in their second year of high school are called…

Yeah this does seem like a pretty significant bias. Though different than the normal significant bias of college age students that many of these frequently sample from.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#166

Post by DubiousPusher »

SilverBirch wrote: post #126
exo-pla-net wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The need for representative sampling is something understood by first year undergraduates on first exposure to the concept. What you've written is the reddit equivalent of criticizing a study with "correlation does not imply causation". Yeah, scientists are familiar with the idea, believe it or not. Scientists in fact go to great lengths to ensure their sampling is representative, and studies published in good journa…

Even if you grant the idea that a person working at MTurk is just a normal person, which personally I doubt. You have to contend with both the fact that they're highly likely to be lying about their identity in order to maximize the number of tasks they can be included in, and they're also likely giving trash answers in order to complete the survey as fast as possible. I spent a bit of time doing mturk for a while, a…

> Even if you grant the idea that a person working at MTurk is just a normal person,

Just want to point out that surveys are not looking for "normal" participants. They need a representative sample which, given human diversity, would include many people who are "abnormal" across a wide array variables.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#167

Post by latchkey »

mistermann wrote: post #149
asveikau wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, thank you. The internet is funny. Neutral tones can come across as aggressive. Aggression, generally, though, can totally be all in the head of the perceiver.

Oh, it isn't just the internet that's funny, overall society/humanity is this way - we are swimming in it daily, and complain about it endlessly. I sometimes wonder if the reason no one seems super interested in fixing things is because we've been living in it for so long, we instinctively write it off as being "just the way it is" &/or "there's nothing you can do about it".

Stuff is literally engineered to create that sort of thinking.

Case in point: trying to find a contact number, is intentionally buried on websites.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#168

Post by UncleMeat »

jesuscript wrote: post #94
barrysteve wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ancient greeks did not have this relationship to (written) knowledge. Greeks had to have a human vouch for the validity of the written document. Tying truth to written history is noble but also flawed.

It would hurt historians feelings to know that they are essentially just, what we call today, “hot takes” on history. It’s often well written and credentialed (appeal to authority), but ultimately it’s just one dude’s hot take on events. For example, many people in America have a hot-take about what life is like in China. How? We heard it from somewhere, never lived a day there. Can’t be that simple right? You say yo…

I'm married to a historian.

I don't think this would hurt historians feelings. The idea that there are an infinity of different narratives one can express through the archive and that each author places part of themselves into the writing and that one can never achieve the TRUE HISTORICAL RECORD (TM) is not interesting or frustrating information for historians. They teach that shit in year one of grad school at the latest.

You will see books that are "here is my hot take on Lincoln" but you won't see them say "we got Lincoln all wrong." They'll simply see how their different view and analysis fits into the wider tapestry of historical writing.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#169

Post by UncleMeat »

watwut wrote: post #114
jesuscript wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would hurt historians feelings to know that they are essentially just, what we call today, “hot takes” on history. It’s often well written and credentialed (appeal to authority), but ultimately it’s just one dude’s hot take on events. For example, many people in America have a hot-take about what life is like in China. How? We heard it from somewhere, never lived a day there. Can’t be that simple right? You say yo…

> It would hurt historians feelings to know that they are essentially just, what we call today, “hot takes” on history. Interestingly, the actual historians I came accros would not be shocked by such claim at all. They do make their own claims of that sort. However, arbitrary fans of Ancient Greece would be shocked.

Yeah this is my experience too. A lot of "fans of history" who've never actually studied historiography make big bold claims about the limitations of the field like historians didn't learn that in their early 20s.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#170

Post by verteu »

danuker wrote: post #122
qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but the public social sciences are dead anyway. If you want to do research on humanity you go were the actual data is. FGN. Everything else is peanuts.

What is FGN?

I think it's "Facebook/Google/Netflix."
Post reply on HN