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

A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 155 posts

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#51

Post by theoh »

gizmo wrote: post #49
CoryG89 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take your point, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say that all persuasion happens through repetition. Maybe I'm a bit full of myself, but I like to think that with sound enough logic, I could be persuaded from my position by hearing an argument only once. That would probably be the distinction I would draw between persuasion in general and indoctrination / brainwashing. Of course, generally indoctrinat…

Learning is repetition. Exercises. Flash cards. Midterms followed by exams. You either hear the argument once and you repeat it to yourself, or you get the argument spoon fed multiple times, but the bottom line is the same. Without repetition there is no memorization or internalization, and no learning can take place. Phrasing the challenge as "sound enough logic" puts the burden of proof in the wrong place. It impli…

Um, what about the Elaboration Likelihood Model? It's about persuasion and it contends that there are two ways it happens: through a rational evaluation of the material, or based on the credibility of the source (and other social cues).

Now, sometimes you might come to believe something through repetition, but it's possible to verify things (some of the time) and you shouldn't just claim that repetition is the only route.

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#52

Post by furyofantares »

wwweston wrote: post #30
Shubley wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that this is contemporary writing. They likely wrote it in such a way with the goal of forming this comparison in your mind. I think one needs to look at older writings to get a take that isn't designed to reinforce the constructed media narrative du jour. Even then its hard to get decent info on this topic because its always been so morally charged. Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns. Ed…

And yet they didn't single out a specific figure, nor did the poster above. As you say, there may well be more than one party someone might apply this description to. Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some mysterious reason. Probably just "constructed media narrative du jour," right? Certainly not because the person might actually be a quintessential example that stands out from everyo…

> Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some mysterious reason.

Doesn't seem mysterious. The claim you are responding to is that, intentional or not, the author described Trump but said they were describing Hitler. That Trump came to mind is unsurprising.

Trump is commanding an absurd proportion of the media and social media's attention. Readers and authors are overprepared to see Trump everywhere in a world where it's hard to load a web page without seeing his name and face on it. Sometimes I go to a news site and load each section one by one to see if there is a single section that doesn't feature him prominently -- sometimes the sports or entertainment sections manage to avoid Trump, but not always.

I personally find the Hitler comparisons to be about as absurd as the birther movement was. And yet when I read the word "Hitler", my first thought is "Trump" and not "holocaust" or "tiny moustache". That isn't because I find the comparison apt -- I find it absurd. It's because Trump is so prominent in my attention and because absurd comparisons to Hitler have been made so many times that it's becoming expected.

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#53

Post by desireco42 »

lacampbell wrote: post #5

I wish once people realised this, they had the courage to apply this to their own dearly held beliefs, particularly political or social ones - how many of those are just lies repeated ad nauseum that clearly aren't true? But I think most peoples reaction is just to say "Yeah! that's totally what those other people do that our side never does because we're right.".

Once you do, you no longer look at the world the same, but also don't have in common with majority of the people. It is a little bit like waking up from Matrix. :)

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#54

Post by leeoniya »

> Eating carrots improves your eyesight

it doesn't improve your visual acuity, but it can have a positive effect on your overall eye health [1]. there's vastly more to eyesight than sharpness/clarity. my wife is an optometrist.

[1] http://yoursightmatters.com/carrots-really-improve-eyesight/

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#55

Post by makomk »

Shubley wrote: post #17
coldcode wrote: post #14

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."…

Bear in mind that this is contemporary writing. They likely wrote it in such a way with the goal of forming this comparison in your mind. I think one needs to look at older writings to get a take that isn't designed to reinforce the constructed media narrative du jour. Even then its hard to get decent info on this topic because its always been so morally charged. Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns. Ed…

Indeed, it's important to remember that publications like Wired do have a narrative they want to push. My favourite example of this is still these two articles about the possibility of hacking election machines to rig the election:

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/wireds-totally-legit-guide-rig... - from before the election, claiming it was basically impossible and would require a massive conspiracy

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/hacked-not-audit-election-rest... - from after the election, arguing the safeguards against hacking are ineffective and casting doubt on the security of the election

Both articles are backed up by a convincing-sounding set of facts and expert opinions, yet despite the available evidence not actually changing they come to completely opposite conclusions. All that changed was that before the election "hacking voting machines is impossible" was the better anti-Trump narrative, and after he won there was suddenly a reason to cast doubt on the results. It's all about the narrative. (Which is one reason you should question the endlessly-repeated claim that there's "no such thing as alternative facts". Careful selection of which facts to include and exclude is a great way to create a narrative.)

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#56

Post by weberc2 »

r00fus wrote: post #34
programminggeek wrote: post #23

If you think that this is something limited to what evil Trump is doing, you are a fool and you don't understand yourself or the world around you at all.

Of course it isn't just him, he's just the most visible and powerful such example.

When the media constantly focuses on him as the target, it starts to feel as though they don't really care about the story they're pushing, they only want you to notice how many of these bad things are associated with Trump. It seems dishonest. Personally, I think a better example would have been the wage gap myth; the author could have even noted that Obama was guilty of promoting it. (Disclaimer: I voted for Obama and I did not vote for Trump).

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#57

Post by notadoc »

Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter. Facts don't matter.

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#58

Post by WhitneyLand »

What makes some people more vulnerable to accepting things uncritically? Why is it so hard to admit when they or someone they support makes a mistake?

I have an ego, I don't like being wrong, and I think I'm right a lot. Ok, so far I get it. But to constantly ignore or avoid objective evidence? How do people not become ill at the thought?

1) Clinical narcissism or sociopathy? It's all an intentional means to an end.

2) Simple lack of practice in critical thinking? They are acting in good faith but just not seeing the con.

3) Their morale code does not exclude machiavellian tactics and they just want to win.

Maybe the population has all three types collaborating both knowingly and unknowingly across different roles.

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#59

Post by makomk »

r00fus wrote: post #34
programminggeek wrote: post #23

If you think that this is something limited to what evil Trump is doing, you are a fool and you don't understand yourself or the world around you at all.

Of course it isn't just him, he's just the most visible and powerful such example.

Trump is certainly the example that's repeated again and again, and there's no doubt that does seem to have convinced a lot of people.

Re: A glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth

#60

Post by curun1r »

coldcode wrote: post #14

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."…

The thing to remember about Hitler was that his outcome happened in stages, each progressively more unlikely than the one preceding it. Comparisons to him should really have a date attached to them. It's easy to focus on the killed-millions-of-people ending, but it's likely that wasn't the inevitable conclusion of his tactics, views or whatever aspect of him is being compared. If someone compared a young chess prodigy to Bobby Fisher, we wouldn't think that it's being suggested that he'll die a paranoid schizophrenic loner. And yet when someone compares someone to an early-stage Hitler, we automatically assume the comparison is hyperbolic and can be dismissed by showing how unlikely the person being compared is to end like Hitler.
Post reply on HN