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

Calling bullshit

callingbullshit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#121

Post by TheGrumpyBrit »

swanson wrote: post #103
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

From Scott Adams (Dilbert): > Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.) > Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world. > Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves…

I used to really enjoy Adams' blog - he used to be fairly easy to read, conversational, and just controversial enough to be entertaining.

Over the last couple of years though, it seems that he's become obsessed with this whole "master persuader" idea. It made for interesting reading for the first month or so, but it's slowly taken over all of his other content to the point that he now seems afraid to actually express an opinion of his own, instead trying to angle his posts as a "persuasion". He actually seems to be spiralling into madness.

I just checked back and at least he's re-enabled comments now, so maybe there will be some entertaining reading there again (the comments were always the best part).

Re: Calling bullshit

#122

Post by mcguire »

croon wrote: post #100
ThomPete wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that facts (whether on TV or not) didn't use to matter more than they do today.

So you are claiming that no one cared about the Clinton scandal in the 90s? Because no one sure didn't seem to care about the numerous Trump ones.

Democrats surely didn't. And the prosecution side was pretty sketchy in its own right.

Re: Calling bullshit

#123

Post by DonHopkins »

battlebot wrote: post #72
simonbarker87 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone, engaged and skeptical or otherwise can miss falsehoods if it aligns with their values/beliefs already. Taking something like this should, in theory, give you tools to make sure that even if you really want to believe what you are reading/hearing because it aligns with your world view (or worse, comes from a source you respect and trust) then you can still determine how honest or accurate it is.

Like Climate Science? I have never seen so much bullshit and bullshit artists in one place except for DC, which is all bullshit all the time. Academia is the same, almost 100% bullshit these days--not much real science going on outside of medical research, physics, math, stuff you can't readily fake or make up as you desire. The software business runs on unbelievable amounts of bullshit and bullshit's brother, hype.…

No, we were not talking about climate science. Actually, we were talking about people like you who miss falsehoods and believe fashionable political propaganda instead of peer reviewed settled science, because it aligns with their prejudices and world views. So thanks for illustrating the point so unwittingly.

Re: Calling bullshit

#124

Post by wvh »

I'm sorry to be this negative, but people simply don't care. They don't care because thinking critically and trying to grasp subtle nuances and balance complex opinions about the world will not directly improve their lives. Convenient truths and easy emotions feel more comfortable and as if they have a direct "return on investment". Most people prefer simple truths, certainty and connection to/identification with a group over uncertainty, doubt and existential loneliness. (Or at least that's what I see, as somebody who is somewhat on the autistic spectrum and doesn't easily connect with a lot of this group-think.)

It's laudable to fight this, just very prone to disillusion.

Re: Calling bullshit

#125

Post by ci5er »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate.

You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O

What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that doesn't go off the rails) and not? Politics, economics (because it's related to politics?), and religion - no. No rationality to be had there. Anything that have to do with harmful invisible vapors (vaccines, electromagnetics, radiation, environmental toxins) and health - no. Any form of "alternative lifestyle", including digital nomadicism (!) - no. Law - all over the map. Computer programming - all over the map.

In fact, right now, I'm trying to think of something that humans debate rationally, and I'm having a difficult time thinking of one (I'm sure they exist - but I'm only lightly caffeinated so far).

Regardless of my inability to think of topics that we (humans) can debate about rationally, why do some topics "work" for rationality and some not?

> Move on and repeat.

Why? You just said it almost never helps.

Re: Calling bullshit

#126

Post by mcguire »

ThomPete wrote: post #58
diyorgasms wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.

When did facts use to matter and for what? The only disservice is to claim that things are somehow different when they are in fact the same.

You see, there was this Golden Age. Everyone was beautiful, honor and virtue flourished, and Truth was held above all else.

Some people say that this age was in the '50s. Others, the 1880s. Some even claim it was the 1790s.

Mostly, they're just barking mad.

Re: Calling bullshit

#128

Post by DonHopkins »

jankotek wrote: post #25

I am not sure I like this site. It uses strong language, but avoids anything controversial and provided case studies are pretty shallow. Nothing like some Youtube channels, where presenter spends one hour deconstructing some study, to its sources and sources of the sources.

How To Deconstruct Almost Anything: My Postmodern Adventure, by Chip Morningstar, June 1993.

"Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right." -- Donald Norman

http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html

Re: Calling bullshit

#129

Post by ThomPete »

wvh wrote: post #124

I'm sorry to be this negative, but people simply don't care. They don't care because thinking critically and trying to grasp subtle nuances and balance complex opinions about the world will not directly improve their lives. Convenient truths and easy emotions feel more comfortable and as if they have a direct "return on investment". Most people prefer simple truths, certainty and connection to/identification with a g…

It's not necessarily that they don't care, it's that not everything that matters to one person matters to the other.

The things which do matter to them however they care deeply about. And so it's much more accurate IMO to talk about misaligned perspectives rather than whether people don't care about the truth.

Re: Calling bullshit

#130

Post by brachi »

scandox wrote: post #82
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of…

> People know how to think critically in a particular context

I observe that we tend to make an implicit assumption that most statements contain an opinion, perception, and anectotes. It gets harder to think everything in terms of data, e.g. I could ask "What people? Did you perform a study yourself?" for your statement, however, if it aligns with my perception or makes sense even without hard data, I'm not going to do it.

> Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility

Any books you would recommend?

Post reply on HN