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

How to Mislead with Facts

consilienceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 297 posts

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#51

Post by denton-scratch »

xdennis wrote: post #38
Ma8ee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you can take another step and ask why professions dominated by women in general are less well paid than similar ones dominated by men, and why it is mostly women who reduce their work hours while the kids are small and why not more men do the same.

Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable, not because they're jobs dominated by women. Doctors used to be exclusively men. Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?

> Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable

I don't know any nannies, but it's not true that teachers are easily replaceable. Not good ones, anyway.

Good teachers need to show these skills:

* Classroom management (possibly in classes with disturbed kids)

* Curriculum knowledge (requires regular training)

* Social work skills

* Child psychology

* Understanding of various learning impediments

The fact that teachers are cheap is not evidence that they're easily replaced.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#52

Post by Broken_Hippo »

xdennis wrote: post #38
Ma8ee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you can take another step and ask why professions dominated by women in general are less well paid than similar ones dominated by men, and why it is mostly women who reduce their work hours while the kids are small and why not more men do the same.

Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable, not because they're jobs dominated by women. Doctors used to be exclusively men. Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?

The jobs are viewed less valuable once women start working them. As in, a profession that was male-dominated starts paying less once it becomes the opposite [1}. It isn't really fair to use doctors as and example since it is still a male-dominated profession, with over 60% being male [2]. I'd also mention that obviously, teachers aren't that easily replaced, considering the shortage that has only gotten worse during covid [3]. A lot of states in the US will basically let anyone be a substitute: I know of at least one person that is teaching high school without a teaching license, but they might be technically a long-term substitute.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over... [2] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/nation-s-physician-workfo... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59687947

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#53

Post by Broken_Hippo »

ncmncm wrote: post #31

The New York Times mastered all this long ago. It is not necessary to lie. All you need is to be selective about what truths you tell, and where. Some goes on the front page, some on page 13, other bits nowhere at all. Hans Blix's UN reports, before the invasion, about Iraq's entire lack of any WMD whatsoever were too important to completely ignore, but were easy enough to bury in a back page. The entire lack of any…

Misrepresenting facts in this way is still a form of lying. Speaking technical truths doesn't change that. Most lies aren't complete fabrications, honestly, even when they do contain a few.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#54

Post by civilized »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #50
xdennis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example: Rittenhouse carried a gun. Left wing sources said it was illegal and he was charged with it. Right wing sources (e.g. Viva & Barnes) said it was actually legal because of how the law was written and predicted it would be dismissed by the judge. Politifact factchecked the claim that it was legal as false. The judge dismissed the charge. Politifact updated their page, not to admit they were wrong, but to doubl…

A judge dismissing a charge doesn't mean that the gun was legal, though: There are a lot of different reasons to dismiss. Technicalities and not having enough strong evidence for that particular charge are two that come to mind.

The judge dismissed because the statute is unclear, and a general legal principle says that unclear rules must be read to favor whoever they're being applied against. This principle is a basic protection against tyranny by arbitrary application of muddled rules.

In other words, the legislature may have tried to make what Rittenhouse did illegal, but they failed to do so clearly enough, and that means it is legal.

Even if we allow for a gray area of "legal but not perfectly legal", it's not the legitimate province of media fact-checkers to arbitrate the boundaries of that -- for the same reason it's not legitimate for the state to arbitrate the boundaries of its own vague laws. Media fact checks are, in part, a tool for the media to discredit and damage the reputations of people it doesn't like. So the media doesn't get to write the rules of what is a fact, and gray areas should be construed in favor of the person being criticized.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#55

Post by tgv »

blueflow wrote: post #35
tgv wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which in and of itself doesn't mean anything. At face value, it promotes extreme relativism, but contradicts itself. Nietzsche as the proto-edge-lord.

He is exactly right. The universe as it is and how we humans perceive it are two different worlds. Many words that we consider "abstract" are made up and have no equivalent in the physical universe, but we still use them because it fulfills some purpose for us.

> Many words that we consider "abstract" are made up

What have you been smoking? All words are made up. But that isn't related to the question fact vs interpretation at all. The word "Earth" is made up, your name is made up, "human" is made up, the air that you breathe is made up, yet you are (most likely) a human on Earth, and you'd hate it if that air suddenly disappeared.

Anyway, the quote contradicts itself/reduces itself to ravings of a lunatic, so isn't worth taking seriously.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#56

Post by jml7c5 »

xdennis wrote: post #30
throw3838 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook recently admitted at court, that its fact checking is "personal opinion" rather than authoritative source. They did it to avoid fine. If something claims authority, but with no responsibility and no oversight...

And the judge bought it: > The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. [1]: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Faceb...

"Protected opinion" is not equivalent to "opinion".

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#57

Post by motohagiography »

Faster heustistic is to check not whether the facts are true, but if the implied conflict that connects them is real.

The old adage about how "dog bites man," may be true but it's not news, whereas "dog bites capitalist oppressor" is essentially all news these days, and it may even be construed as not entirely untrue, even though it seems obvious the dog has not developed class consciousness and thrown off the leash of exploitation and seized the means of food production in its righteous jaws of justice on behalf of the global oppressed, but by manufacturing the conflict that links the facts, an entirely contrived fabrication qualifies as not entirely un-true.

Simply, just ask whether the facts are used as decoration and plumage for what reduces to an extravagent lie.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#58

Post by zaphar »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #53
ncmncm wrote: post #31

The New York Times mastered all this long ago. It is not necessary to lie. All you need is to be selective about what truths you tell, and where. Some goes on the front page, some on page 13, other bits nowhere at all. Hans Blix's UN reports, before the invasion, about Iraq's entire lack of any WMD whatsoever were too important to completely ignore, but were easy enough to bury in a back page. The entire lack of any…

Misrepresenting facts in this way is still a form of lying. Speaking technical truths doesn't change that. Most lies aren't complete fabrications, honestly, even when they do contain a few.

The most effective form of lying is lying by omission. It's harder to detect, easier to defend as just ignorance, and is perhaps more effective than outright false claims.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#59

Post by kareemm »

Ma8ee wrote: post #41
xdennis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable, not because they're jobs dominated by women. Doctors used to be exclusively men. Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?

> Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. It is a rather sad and naive view of the value of work if you think that it is decided by market value. My work as a developer has a high market value because what I do is generating revenue for my employer. The work of the teacher who shapes the future of our children or the work of…

> Good teachers and good nannies aren't easier to replace than good carpenters or construction workers. But since many men who are in charge of setting salaries don't understand that they aren't as well paid.

I'm not sure teachers and nannies are good examples. Public school teachers are largely unionized which would eliminate differences in pay between men and women. And many nannies are effectively small business people who set their own rates.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#60

Post by nec4b »

denton-scratch wrote: post #51
xdennis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable, not because they're jobs dominated by women. Doctors used to be exclusively men. Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?

> Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable I don't know any nannies, but it's not true that teachers are easily replaceable. Not good ones, anyway. Good teachers need to show these skills: * Classroom management (possibly in classes with disturbed kids) * Curriculum knowledge (requires regular training) * Social work skills * Child psychology * Understanding of various learning…

Unfortunately we don't hire only good teachers.
Post reply on HN