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

61–70 of 297 posts

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#61

Post by the-alt-one »

kareemm wrote: post #59
Ma8ee wrote: post #41

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. 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 p…

>Public school teachers are largely unionized which would eliminate differences in pay between men and women.

No, it wouldn't. Why would it?

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#62

Post by specialist »

Tinkerbell School of Progress. Clap louder and surely Tinkerbell will fly. Like the evergreen advice to teach critical thinking. Certain to work. Next time.

There's no profit in pursuing "truth" in the face of tenacious anti-truth. Truthiness is an outgrowth of identity. And identity is impervious to logic, reason, facts.

The best we can do is help ourselves navigate the chaos.

It's a real simple checklist:

- Share your work.

- Cite your sources.

- Sign your name.

And then you can start productive analysis, fact checking, verification. Anything less should be treated as gossip, propaganda, or trolling (distraction).

Lastly, I have no idea what to do about identity.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#63

Post by blueflow »

tgv wrote: post #55
blueflow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/reduc…

"Earth", "Air" and "Human" are not abstract nouns because they have physical things we can match those words to.

Contrast that to abstract nouns like "truth", "danger" or "happiness", which are actually interpretations of something other. Statements using these tend to be opinions or non-verifiable. Fact-Checking doesn't work for them.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#64

Post by Broken_Hippo »

nec4b wrote: post #60
denton-scratch wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Even bad teachers have to meet the standards, which are usually set by law. A preschool teacher, who often gets paid just over minimum wage, usually requires a 2 year degree (for head start-like programs). A teacher? 4 year degree, with a preference for a masters and in many places, absolutely no pay during the summer months.

It isn't like any other industry hires only "good" people, though, so calling out teaching for that - especially if your area has a shortage - seems a bit unfair.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#65

Post by throwaway22032 »

darawk wrote: post #14

I love the idea of this article, but it doesn't address the reason things are the way they are. Facts get checked for literal accuracy because that's what's easy to actually do in a reasonably unbiased way. We stop there not because that's all we want, but because everything after that is too messy to even come close to systematizing. If they've got a well thought out framework for systematizing high quality contextu…

Well, if we talk about the big issue of the past couple of years, we can certainly contextualize in the context of that because we have an end goal for the communication, which is to attempt to convince an individual to take action A over action B.

So you can easily show high quality contextualisation - it's showing that the case against is less preferable, e.g. arguing against yourself.

For example, Government posters can say "if you go outside, you have an x% change of having coronavirus, an y% chance of passing that on to someone, who then has a z% chance of being seriously disabled or dying, and they have an a% chance of not obtaining that disease via some other mechanism".

You take the opposing viewpoint and try to dismantle it. This is the role of the media, to inform, not to latch onto micro-facts like "lockdown saves lives" and push them because they're easy wins.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#66

Post by flavius29663 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #52
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?

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…

Are doctors being paid less? Isn't this about supply and demand? If you flood the market with women that used to be housewives, the salaries will go down. But high demans fields stay highly paid, even increase.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#67

Post by bjoli »

This inevitably makes me think of a video about how meat consumption is not as bad by "things I've learned" on youtube. Search for that name and "meat" and you will inevitably find it. I thiught the claims in the video sounded too good to be true, so I read the study most of the claims in the video were based on.

They were comparing against a scenario where we kept producing the food fed to animals, but that humans had to eat it. Which meant no actual land gains, only a modest reduction in co2 emissions, and that people would become unhealthy by eating 4500kcal/day, mostly from corn.

Even worse than the 3.1mn views is that the study in question was covered positively on TV and in newspapers.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#68

Post by hackerfromthefu »

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...

Sounds like perhaps it was the judge that was bought?

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#69

Post by rajin444 »

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…

> The work of the teacher who shapes the future of our children or the work of nurse that take care of our dying parents don't generate any revenue, and thus has a lower market value, but I, and I think we as a society should, value it much more.

Teachers are glorified babysitters in the vast majority of instances due to many countries making truancy illegal. Yes, a great teacher is extremely valuable, but the vast majority of teachers are not great because there is not a high demand for great teachers. It’s even worse that we’re ruining the environment for both great teachers and great students by forcing students who have no interest in learning to be there.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#70

Post by Broken_Hippo »

flavius29663 wrote: post #66
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are doctors being paid less? Isn't this about supply and demand? If you flood the market with women that used to be housewives, the salaries will go down. But high demans fields stay highly paid, even increase.

Obviously, the job market doesn't respond to demand in that way. Otherwise, more places would be paying more right now with the current shortages. Teachers, for example, should be getting raises.

I was responding to the fact that doctors aren't female-dominated right now, a point you missed. Which they aren't. We haven't flooded it with a bunch of women: We have a limited capacity to train doctors. Nor are we getting folks in the market that used to be housewives: That time period has long since moved, though in many places, women still carry household responsibilities in addition to work. Rather than a flood, women are replacing men, mostly. Which is generally how it goes: Women replace men in some fields, and then pay goes down.

Post reply on HN