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.".
I have. I'm not going to mention which ones as that would cheapen the general message, which is bigger than politics. And yes, I no longer believe them.
Triangulation. Take in news sources from opposite sides of the political (scientific etc) spectrum and take them all in in equal size/depth. They'll repeat their own message to make you believe you are "on the right side of the issue" but with triangulation both brainwashing attempts cancel out.
>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.".
to guard against this, as soon as i am aware of a catchphrase or common talking point, i mentally deconstruct it and find the truth. frighteningly, the most commonly repeated verbiages are, should we say, misleading.
but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your ear: the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.
> but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your ear: the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.
The very fact that both sides are convinced there are two sides suggests this is a false statement. The "sides", really the false divisions and classifications, are some of the biggest lies ever told. In any case, any inequality between them is not the problem. By way of analogy, if two glasses of water have unequal amounts of fecal matter with neither being even close to zero, wouldn't it be better not to drink either of them rather than suggest one is better than the other?
We have two political parties in the United States. Do you believe the voters for each side are at parity in their ability to understand reality? Do you believe it is helpful to suggest people choose neither?
You need to win all the small elections you can, from senator down to county dogcatcher, and not just win-but-lose the big one. Think of it as promoting internally.
The idea that having two de facto political parties means there are only two sides and you have to pick one of them is part of the lie. You do understand you can vote for Democrats for one office, Republicans for other offices, write your own name in for a third office, vote Green for a fourth office, and completely abstain on a final office when you either dislike both candidates or feel to ill-informed to cast a vote, right? But "choosing a side" goes way beyond voting, and in this election both 'sides' choose to vote against a side, not for one.
And as for disparity in the understanding of voters of these fictitious sides, the side that likes to claim the other side is uneducated and ignorant is, statistically speaking, less educated. That, too, is part of the lie.
but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your ear: the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.
Of course everyone will think the two sides are unequal, with the side that isn't theirs getting the worst of it.
> the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.
The good news is that you don't even have to worry about the "other side" just worry about the things that you believe. That was the point.
Also unlike hard sciences and logic the fact that there only two sides and one must be in either one, is also a thing to evaluate.
So you're right. First there is a need for a meta-evaluation, is my evaluation apparatus even working and how would I test if it is.
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. :)
Parse the wording of the statement(s) in question. Look for lapses existing between the actual language of a message and it's intended result. Wordsmith's are expert at saying nothing substantial while allowing(encouraging) the audience to perceive or project their biases to said message.
Ambiguous, leading statements allow a listener to assume the content in lieu of specifics.
In the spirit of the MSM's "Fake News" news lately, I submit a seemingly innocuous example: Of all of the "Supermoon" articles back in December(and priors), how many mention the fact that the closest full moonrise is indiscernable in size to the naked eye as the furthest full moonrise? Besides Phil Platt, I believe the answer is approaching 0. Yet, every MSM news site/channel promoted it as "the biggest in ~100 years", many webizens clicked the links, some even went out to watch it live and most now believe it appeared physically larger than any other full moonrise in ~100 years.
1. Admission. "I did it" is one way. (Thinking of caught on camera) - after admission often the search for truth stops.
As an aside one strong component of a couples ability to coexist is just this: how do they interpret relative truths. And how do they gain input for truth moments.
> after admission often the search for truth stops
There is also a phenomenon of false confessions, which sometimes has to do with psychological factors and sometimes with incentives like people being punished less harshly when they accept a plea bargain.
Since this subthread is talking about Orwell, I can point out that in Orwell's most famous work the authorities were very keen to obtain false confessions.
There are people who understand this, and there are people who think you can just debate everything forever, and that the one with the most supporting points and references to Latin names of argumentative fallacies wins.
Repetition makes lies seem true, but repetition also makes truth seem true. All persuasion (and indoctrination) happens through repetition, whether in a classroom setting, a forum like this one, or in sales.
This realization is also deeply depressing, because it means you're doomed to repeat yourself over and over if you want to persuade people.
Let's take Noam Chomsky for instance. He gives more than a hundred talks every year for the past 50 years. He has written dozens (if not a hundred) books, given thousands of interviews. His message is always the same. Because after you've figured out what your best and most persuasive arguments are the only thing left to do is repeat yourself over and over. Every day is groundhog day.
Startups also have to learn the value of repetition. Long form sales text works, because of repetition. Long form video demos work, because of repetition. Drip email campaigns work, because of repetition. It's often better to give customers one good reason to use your product, repeated three times than to give three distinct reasons why they should purchase. Counter-intuitive, perhaps, unless you've heard this argument before.
Another example is Ronald Reagan. I can't remember who said it, but one of the people around him was asked how he managed to become president and known as the great communicator, and the reply was along the lines of, "he made the same speech [1] every week for 25 years."
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 indoctrination and brainwashing seem to have a much higher rate of success in changing minds, which is indeed depressing.
The "brainwashing" part is not related to the repetition, but the way you "acquire" the information, "acquire" on the sense of taking it for yourself.
If you learn something through repetition, it's a good thing, it is learning.
If you're fooled by repetition, then it's brainwashing.
Also important to note, that quite often, the one that fools you is yourself.
Now to distinct between "being fooled" and "learning". I would say that learning comprises understanding, while being fooled only comprises agreement. Thing is, defining "real understanding" is a pretty hard problem.
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 implies that whenever you're not persuaded it's the fault of the other person for not being persuasive enough. That's the opposite of open-mindedness. It is exactly because of the presumption that your current beliefs are true that you won't change your mind as easily as you might think. Even Scientologists say they'll leave the church if somebody could just provide them with evidence it's all baloney, but it's a standard of proof nobody can meet.
When I say all persuasion is repetition, it's really not an overstatement. Maybe you're closer to believing me this time ;-)
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.
I think the model is wrong, because it presumes people are rational agents that change their mind either through careful evaluation of the arguments or by outsourcing this rational evaluation to a trustworthy person. This model doesn't take repetition at all into consideration, so I don't think it holds up empirically.
Back in Aristotle's day it was about Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I don't think that model has stood the test of time either.
I don't want to open Pandora's Box, but look at Trump's speeches. He persuades through repetition, and it demonstrably works.
Ok, I didn't mean to beg the question by simply claiming that people can rationally evaluate statements.
The things people learn are not noise. They have structure, they have hidden consistencies. Whatever you think of the rationality or otherwise of thought, surely you will agree that trying to learn inconsistent facts is going to be more trouble than learning consistent facts which support each other in a cumulative way.
People might identify with the opinions of a politician because they already hold those opinions, or similar opinions. They are unlikely to ever agree with/be persuaded by complete inconsistent nonsense, however often it is repeated. Like, I mean nonsense that doesn't even have linguistic structure or maybe any meaning.
I guess we look at the world very differently, because:
> They are unlikely to ever agree with/be persuaded by complete inconsistent nonsense, however often it is repeated. Like, I mean nonsense that doesn't even have linguistic structure or maybe any meaning.
If the US election hasn't persuaded you that complete gibberish can be persuasive when repeated endlessly, there's nothing I can say that will.
It might be gibberish at a factual or logical level, but at least for a certain portion of the populace, it hits all the right emotional notes and checks all the right boxes in their value and belief systems.
Of course, you won't see it yourself if you don't share their worldview and are unable to empathize and put yourself in their shoes.
I think that's right, but in part because it's all gibberish people with wildly different values can hear him speak and still and hear what they want to hear.
I'm aware of the theory of the "big lie", and the fact that neurons that fire together, wire together...
But what about Feynman's injunction: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool." Is that kind of empirical principle just out of reach for the standard human?
In terms of repetition, I think David Hume's theory of causal inference is pretty relevant too.
Just because something is repeated regularly, e.g. seems to happen every day doesn't mean that on the day when it doesn't happen, our heads explode because we have built a rigid expectation. Instead we can usually discern possible, exceptional, reasons why it isn't happening.
I'm totally in agreement with you on the role of repetition in eroding the landscape of memory to create convictions. We might rarely remember a one off event that is never referred to. But you seem to be claiming that there's no higher-level activity, or even possibility of higher-level activity involved in mentally evaluating what to believe.
The famous Star Trek scene where Picard is encouraged/"brainwashed" to lie about the number of lights he sees comes to mind. He resists and continues to report what his senses tell him. This cultural theme of reason resisting the repetition of lies is a big one, and you haven't really presented any convincing evidence to discredit it.
> Is that kind of empirical principle just out of reach for the standard human?
What if it's out of reach even for the best among us? To me it looks like many of our core beliefs cannot be shaped through reason, and are not the product of reason in the first place. Our convictions have simply been copied from our environment through osmosis.
I'm sure you can't help but notice the amount of groupthink that takes place in any community, whether in real life or right here. How does this groupthink come to be? People don't really change their minds in long discussion threads like these; it certainly doesn't feel like they do. And yet minds get changed or there wouldn't be groupthink. By reading, responding, and reading some more, we slowly change over time; like water carves its way through rock. We shape HN by our responses and in turn HN shapes us: the relation is symbiotic.
We can, sometimes, if we try really hard, and then only for a moment, apply real reason. I see no evidence that this has a big impact on what people believe and how they act, though. People who are good at formal reasoning are good at arriving at the correct answer in reasoning puzzles, but there is no matching improvement when it comes to the decisions they make in their life. It's pretty clear that even really smart people can't reason themselves out of their problems. This is a big problem for the view that convictions are the product of reason.
In contrast, the friends you keep and the media you consume does make a tremendous impact on what you believe and how you act. Change who your friends are and, through repeated exposure, your convictions will change subliminally.
Ok. I think most of this sounds reasonable. We do necessarily adopt the attitudes and dispositions of those we associate with. HN is a pretty ambiguous place from that perspective: an internet gold-rush town inhabited by those who feel the need to justify/discuss their position by engaging online.
In a spirit of hopeful insight into what's going on, I'm linking to the Wikipedia page for Skagway, Alaska.
> If the US election hasn't persuaded you that complete gibberish can be persuasive when repeated endlessly, there's nothing I can say that will.
I depends. Mass media has proven that false. They almost unilaterally backed one candidate and attacked others, spewed lies and misinformation, and they failed to make a difference it seems. I would argue they made things worse. Here is a multi-billion dollar apparatus designed to persuade people and control opinions and it has failed. So it is not always true. I think there is stuff that is more nuanced in how it works, not simply "repeat this X amount of times and you're done, you'll get Y% more percentage of believers".
The media talks to their own base and you can't persuade people who don't tune in.
The media on the left did persuade their audience that Trump stood no chance of winning the election, even as Trump was drawing larger and larger audiences at every stump speech. Everybody could see the flood of pro-Trump signs, hats, and bumper stickers in swing states, but this was apparently of no consequence. People were expected to disbelieve their own eyes, and so they did. I think there was a stunning amount of groupthink going on in the media this past election. Who consumes the news all day, every day? Media people, politians, and policy wonks. And so they brainwashed themselves.
> People might identify with the opinions of a politician because they already hold those opinions,
Agree and I think it is even more than that. It is about how genuine they seem. I've listen to Hillary, Trump, Sanders and Obama, and some just naturally sound more genuine. Obama seemed genuine, like he believed what he was saying, Trump and Sanders as well. But not Hillary. She said all the right things, she was very polite, and seemed to be personable with jokes and remarks sprinkled here and there. But overall she sounded fake and scripted.
I posit, hearing someone who seems to truly believe what they say is a solid first step in persuading others to change their opinions. Otherwise it becomes an uphill battle and it is just pandering to people who already believe and agree with the argument.
I've read geometric/mathematical proofs that have convinced me immediately. Just seeing the logical steps flow from step to step was enough to prove the assertion was true.
I consider this as an object of argument as well, however, axioms seem to be the underlying structure of repetition for all proofs [as far as I understand mathematics].
> This realization is also deeply depressing, because it means you're doomed to repeat yourself over and over if you want to persuade people.
Yes. Embrace this.
Patience is a virtue; and not getting angry because the person you've stated something to doesn't get it even the third time you've stated it. I actually find it fun to try and come up with different ways to state things such that people might better understand it.
"Doesn't get it" isn't always (or even usually) the problem, though. It's more "wasn't listening" or "didn't have time to comprehend what you meant (or the implications of what you meant) before the conversation moved on."
The biggest component of success in communication comes down to saying things enough times that your message can actually be listened to and digested at least once. You can vary the way you say things each time, but literal repetition works nearly as well, because the problem is almost never "I don't know what those words in that order mean" but rather "I didn't hear half that sentence" or "I was thinking about lunch" or "that might have been important but it just sort of passed by and I forgot."
Richard Stallman is another example of someone who gives the same handful of speeches over and over (many times in almost exactly the same words). I've heard him describe over and over again the wastefulness of not being able to write software to interact with a university printer because the printer manufacturer choose to keep the necessary details secret.
his copyright and community talk has stayed with me since I heard it 12 years ago, it certainly was special (well argued) and left a lasting impression.
Repetition of a true message to a variety of audiences may be valuable because one gains a better understanding of the common misconceptions and opposing arguments. Which leads to subtly improved arguments and rhetoric. Also there's always the possibility that the message is in fact wrong and that this may be brought to light by new criticism or fresh evidence.
I forget who said something like this, but "the danger is not in being heard. The reality is in having a good idea and having to repeat yourself over and over."
Somewhat true but at some point, some people look around and realize even though something is at that point part of their psyche, they come to the realization that they've been had. I am aware that some people won't believe their eyes despite seeing evidence right in front of them, but a few aren't that foolish.
As that old Lincoln saying goes, you can fool some people all the time, all people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all the time.
Reminds me of the zillion articles that have been published over the years explaining why net neutrality is important. Sadly, this message doesn't even stick very well.
"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." Hitler's rules sound vaguely familiar.
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 everyone else so well that you already knew who people were likely talking about without anyone being named (yet, strangely, apparently want to deny that person should be considered for such a comparison at all).
> Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns.
It's not really clear that it's possible to separate human concerns from moral concerns, and I can only imagine someone arriving at the conclusion that "nothing obscures reality worse" by searching a pretty narrow set of reality-obscuring hazards.
It's not that great of a leap for the person you are replying to because "Hitler" and his supporters have been called nazis since the summer of 2015 and every comment connected to him inevitably turns into a discussion about neo-Nazis.
It's pretty clear who was being referring to.
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
If we really want to get picky it's worth pointing out that the person we aren't mentioning attacks multiple people at the same time and lies about little things all the time.
Said person is a jackass and an authoritarian but to compare him to a regime that killed millions using the loosest historical analogies does them a disservice and muddies the water.
> 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.
He agrees that "to compare Trump’s feckless racism and compulsive lying was inevitably to trivialize Hitler’s crime and the victims of genocide", but also explains in substantial detail how Trump's playbook closely follows Hitler's.
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:
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.)
There are also subtle narratives in the mind that, like fish swimming in water, it is generally not noticeable. Even facts can be co-opted to support those stories:
"I am a good person."
"I am a just person."
"I do the right things."
"I am a hero."
"I am right because the facts support me."
"I am not to blame."
"I am to blame."
"I am successful."
"I am a failure."
It's the lies people tell themselves that make room for allowing opening for lies other people want to say. "Here, you repeat the lies I want to hear about me, and I'll repeat the lies you want to hear about you."
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.
Can I ask you a question? Are you trolling or what are your aiming here? Now it's of course downvoted to oblivion, but I'd like to know why even here, amongst smart people, we go down into so cheap comments and even try to defend changes that will eventually make lifes of people like me a living hell.
It's ridiculous to compare Trump to Hitler. It's a childish emotional response from people who have spent a lot of their adult life in left leaning echo chambers.
If you have a policy you want to criticize, by all means do. Don't shut your brain off and try to imply the president is the same as a man responsible for genocide. It puts you in the same camp as the people claiming Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist.
>Now it's of course downvoted to oblivion
Don't talk about downvotes, it makes for boring conversation.
The parent didn't mention Trump. You are the one who brought up Clinton.
And now you're whining hypocritically about childishness, when your childishness started all this.
The vast majority of Americans voted against Trump, who has been and continues to be the main dog-whistler-wink-winker for the only real echo chamber, of racist ideas like Obama wasn't born here, or was a Muslim, or supported terrorism, or created death panels, or whatever complete gutless "big lie" bullshit you seem to want to overlook.
I think this is simply survivors bias for every information transmitted orally. It had to be repetitive, or people couldnt remember it. See here for the Ilyad:
> For an oral poet, however, such repetition is not a fault, but a vital technique (Lord 3–67). Repetition is a psychological necessity in oral discourse, which vanishes as soon as it is uttered
It's also useful when the text makes no sense, is offensive, outdated and/or just plain wrong, so with repetition they can always say "that's how we always did it so it's right" to shun off the people who grow up, think for themselves and start questioning the texts.
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.
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).
I've heard that many times but I wonder if it's true. The article cites studies but I didn't bother to check the studies themselves. It cites some contemporary anecdotes but I didn't bother to check if they were accurate. It seems to confirm my experience so I'll accept it as reasonable.
The article is clearly trying to put Trump in a bad light and other comments here are applying it to other politicians and corporations. I think the important point is that repetition doesn't discriminate truth but can be dangerous because it can seem like it does. On important issues there is no substitute for research and accurate methods to interpret new data.
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.
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.
It's not some people. It's most people. Investigating claims rigorously is very difficult, even for highly skilled individuals. And it usually has very minimal direct impact on the mundane aspects of day-to-day to life. For many, there isn't an easy answer to the question: "Why should I bother, given everything else going on in my life?"
Honestly, it's pretty great how many people are willing to spend time and effort that doesn't directly benefit them (on a base material level) to care about this stuff.
It's also harder than one may think to do this well. You have be fairly skeptical 24/7, even of yourself and your own thoughts. I think that doing it halfway likely leads to lots of seemingly well-rationalized ideologies.
I like to think I'm getting better at being generally skeptical and slowly layering together a coherent, mutually supportive set of usefully accurate mental models of how the world works, but I find it very tough to know to what extent I'm fooling myself or not. One simple maxim I've found useful is to try to avoid allowing any idea from becoming "sacred" and above questioning. While not practical for daily life, I think it's a great fundamental background orientation for our thoughts and perception of the world.
> I like to think I'm getting better at being generally skeptical and slowly layering together a coherent, mutually supportive set of usefully accurate mental models of how the world works
I remember running across that site a few months ago when it was posted on HN. I really like his basic description of meaning as a nebulous, contextual, and participatory dynamic. I also remember some good points about how the universe is one cohesive thing, but the stuff inside varies immensely in the degree of connectedness, and that these connections are often quite nebulous.
> But to constantly ignore or avoid objective evidence? How do people not become ill at the thought?
Information bubbles. Too many people only consume information that aligns with their beliefs. To many, they don't feel that they are ignoring or avoiding objective evidence because they easily dismiss it as lies without any evidence.
How important is it for you to know that the world is round? What would change in your life, if you didn't know that seemingly important fact? How about that homeopathic medicine is a fraud, or that global warming is man made or that vaccines don't cause autism? If you were wrong about all of those things, what changes about your life right away? That's why people don't exercise critical thinking. It just doesn't matter if you know the truth about things, for most people, most of the time. (Until it does, of course, and you die of cancer because you tried to pray it away instead of getting chemo).
All of those things actively affect others' wellbeing when put into public policy. And a democracy gives the masses the ability to put those beliefs in public policy.
Would it affect you tight away? No, but in a Generation our children contract more disease, less of them go into stem fields because of the distrust and dissonance that has been spread, and the air your children breath becomes more polluted.
For an elaboration on your first answer, look up The Last Psychiatrist. Lots of interesting analysis of American society within the framework of narcissism. And to be honest I was convinced by a lot of his arguments, it's a very applicable framework.
> Why is it so hard to admit when they or someone they support makes a mistake?
One of the critical aspects is social pressure. If they ever made fun of the thing they are supposed to be convinced of, convinced others (publicly especially) against it, they will throw every cognitive, emotional, and other tricks against every believing that.
That is why public ministering and proselytization as a necessary step in participating in many religions -- it is not just to simply bring others into the faith, but it is to inoculate those who do it against every disavowing it. I posit that social media and everyone messaging each other false-hoods is part of this public display of belief. Later on going against that is very hard, because there is solid evidence of them making fun of it just a week before. Nobody wants to be seen flip-flopping or being a hypocrite.
2) Simple lack of practice in critical thinking? They are acting in good faith but just not seeing the con.
Interestingly critical thinking of often orthogonal to other proxies for what society thinks "intelligence" is. Often it goes the opposite way -- the smarter the person thinks they are (maybe the more diplomas they have hung on their wall), the less likely they are to ever change their positions, because they will:
a) Have to confront the fact that they have chosen or supported an invalid one before. And with 3 diplomas on the wall, that is surely not something they would do
b) They have a greater capability at rationalization. When the CEO has a bad day because they had a fight at home and goes to work and shuts down a project or fires someone publicly, they will rationalize it to themselves in many other ways except "I really was upset for another reason, and made a stupid mistake, I just wasn't thinking straight". They'll use their intelligence to make something up that sounds reasonable.
Just to clear up any notion that I'm being bitter, I graduated at the top of my class.
There needs to be entire coursework in critical thinking, starting in primary school. Unfortunately, most of my primary school education outside of maths and language was just rote memorization of facts.
Why does the article not mention the russia-hysteria as another prime example of baseless repetitive untruth of the current news cycle? It's also surprisingly light on its facts and logic: in the american left-right debate is there really excessive repetition from one side more than the other?
Is it really a matter of repetition or a matter of trust? Does it matter that fact-checkers point out the errors in trumps tweets? He has gained the trust of his followers, while the fact-checkers have a bad reputation and shady relationships with establishment. Even if they get the facts right, people don't trust them to make decisions right. It's more about what you plan to do with the facts than who has the most facts, and policy decisions are not deterministic, no matter how many facts you throw at them.
Same goes for establishing scientific facts indeed. Peer review is based on a few, reputable reviewers, rather on a crowd of anonymous but trust-less fact-checkers.
Indeed. It's astounding how many of the Trump-Russia claims simply fell apart: the supposed lifting of sanctions on selling IT equipment to the FSB that in fact specifically forbade that, the secret communications link with Russia that turned out to be a sub-sub-subcontractor sending marketing emails for Trump hotels, the fake Clinton email that Trump could only have got from Russian outlet Sputnik... or from the Trump supporter on Twitter whose misreading of a real email went viral and lead to that article, the supposed pro-Russian change to Republican foreign policy that left almost all the anti-Russian parts intact but matched up neatly with Trump's long-stated foreign policy views, and so on ad nauseam. Despite this, the endless repetition turned it into something that everyone simply knows is true.
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried/
As he landed his crew with care/
Supporting each man on the top of the tide/
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice/
That alone should encourage the crew/
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice/
What I tell you three times is true."
154 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 244 ms ] threadBut 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.".
to guard against this, as soon as i am aware of a catchphrase or common talking point, i mentally deconstruct it and find the truth. frighteningly, the most commonly repeated verbiages are, should we say, misleading.
but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your ear: the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.
The very fact that both sides are convinced there are two sides suggests this is a false statement. The "sides", really the false divisions and classifications, are some of the biggest lies ever told. In any case, any inequality between them is not the problem. By way of analogy, if two glasses of water have unequal amounts of fecal matter with neither being even close to zero, wouldn't it be better not to drink either of them rather than suggest one is better than the other?
And as for disparity in the understanding of voters of these fictitious sides, the side that likes to claim the other side is uneducated and ignorant is, statistically speaking, less educated. That, too, is part of the lie.
Of course everyone will think the two sides are unequal, with the side that isn't theirs getting the worst of it.
The good news is that you don't even have to worry about the "other side" just worry about the things that you believe. That was the point.
Also unlike hard sciences and logic the fact that there only two sides and one must be in either one, is also a thing to evaluate.
So you're right. First there is a need for a meta-evaluation, is my evaluation apparatus even working and how would I test if it is.
In the spirit of the MSM's "Fake News" news lately, I submit a seemingly innocuous example: Of all of the "Supermoon" articles back in December(and priors), how many mention the fact that the closest full moonrise is indiscernable in size to the naked eye as the furthest full moonrise? Besides Phil Platt, I believe the answer is approaching 0. Yet, every MSM news site/channel promoted it as "the biggest in ~100 years", many webizens clicked the links, some even went out to watch it live and most now believe it appeared physically larger than any other full moonrise in ~100 years.
edit:added "in" to discernable.
swapped ~ for +/-.
As an aside one strong component of a couples ability to coexist is just this: how do they interpret relative truths. And how do they gain input for truth moments.
There is also a phenomenon of false confessions, which sometimes has to do with psychological factors and sometimes with incentives like people being punished less harshly when they accept a plea bargain.
Since this subthread is talking about Orwell, I can point out that in Orwell's most famous work the authorities were very keen to obtain false confessions.
This realization is also deeply depressing, because it means you're doomed to repeat yourself over and over if you want to persuade people.
Let's take Noam Chomsky for instance. He gives more than a hundred talks every year for the past 50 years. He has written dozens (if not a hundred) books, given thousands of interviews. His message is always the same. Because after you've figured out what your best and most persuasive arguments are the only thing left to do is repeat yourself over and over. Every day is groundhog day.
Startups also have to learn the value of repetition. Long form sales text works, because of repetition. Long form video demos work, because of repetition. Drip email campaigns work, because of repetition. It's often better to give customers one good reason to use your product, repeated three times than to give three distinct reasons why they should purchase. Counter-intuitive, perhaps, unless you've heard this argument before.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
That would probably be the distinction I would draw between persuasion in general and indoctrination / brainwashing. Of course, generally indoctrination and brainwashing seem to have a much higher rate of success in changing minds, which is indeed depressing.
Phrasing the challenge as "sound enough logic" puts the burden of proof in the wrong place. It implies that whenever you're not persuaded it's the fault of the other person for not being persuasive enough. That's the opposite of open-mindedness. It is exactly because of the presumption that your current beliefs are true that you won't change your mind as easily as you might think. Even Scientologists say they'll leave the church if somebody could just provide them with evidence it's all baloney, but it's a standard of proof nobody can meet.
When I say all persuasion is repetition, it's really not an overstatement. Maybe you're closer to believing me this time ;-)
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.
Back in Aristotle's day it was about Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I don't think that model has stood the test of time either.
I don't want to open Pandora's Box, but look at Trump's speeches. He persuades through repetition, and it demonstrably works.
The things people learn are not noise. They have structure, they have hidden consistencies. Whatever you think of the rationality or otherwise of thought, surely you will agree that trying to learn inconsistent facts is going to be more trouble than learning consistent facts which support each other in a cumulative way.
People might identify with the opinions of a politician because they already hold those opinions, or similar opinions. They are unlikely to ever agree with/be persuaded by complete inconsistent nonsense, however often it is repeated. Like, I mean nonsense that doesn't even have linguistic structure or maybe any meaning.
> They are unlikely to ever agree with/be persuaded by complete inconsistent nonsense, however often it is repeated. Like, I mean nonsense that doesn't even have linguistic structure or maybe any meaning.
If the US election hasn't persuaded you that complete gibberish can be persuasive when repeated endlessly, there's nothing I can say that will.
Of course, you won't see it yourself if you don't share their worldview and are unable to empathize and put yourself in their shoes.
But what about Feynman's injunction: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool." Is that kind of empirical principle just out of reach for the standard human?
In terms of repetition, I think David Hume's theory of causal inference is pretty relevant too.
Just because something is repeated regularly, e.g. seems to happen every day doesn't mean that on the day when it doesn't happen, our heads explode because we have built a rigid expectation. Instead we can usually discern possible, exceptional, reasons why it isn't happening.
I'm totally in agreement with you on the role of repetition in eroding the landscape of memory to create convictions. We might rarely remember a one off event that is never referred to. But you seem to be claiming that there's no higher-level activity, or even possibility of higher-level activity involved in mentally evaluating what to believe.
The famous Star Trek scene where Picard is encouraged/"brainwashed" to lie about the number of lights he sees comes to mind. He resists and continues to report what his senses tell him. This cultural theme of reason resisting the repetition of lies is a big one, and you haven't really presented any convincing evidence to discredit it.
What if it's out of reach even for the best among us? To me it looks like many of our core beliefs cannot be shaped through reason, and are not the product of reason in the first place. Our convictions have simply been copied from our environment through osmosis.
I'm sure you can't help but notice the amount of groupthink that takes place in any community, whether in real life or right here. How does this groupthink come to be? People don't really change their minds in long discussion threads like these; it certainly doesn't feel like they do. And yet minds get changed or there wouldn't be groupthink. By reading, responding, and reading some more, we slowly change over time; like water carves its way through rock. We shape HN by our responses and in turn HN shapes us: the relation is symbiotic.
We can, sometimes, if we try really hard, and then only for a moment, apply real reason. I see no evidence that this has a big impact on what people believe and how they act, though. People who are good at formal reasoning are good at arriving at the correct answer in reasoning puzzles, but there is no matching improvement when it comes to the decisions they make in their life. It's pretty clear that even really smart people can't reason themselves out of their problems. This is a big problem for the view that convictions are the product of reason.
In contrast, the friends you keep and the media you consume does make a tremendous impact on what you believe and how you act. Change who your friends are and, through repeated exposure, your convictions will change subliminally.
In a spirit of hopeful insight into what's going on, I'm linking to the Wikipedia page for Skagway, Alaska.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagway,_Alaska
I depends. Mass media has proven that false. They almost unilaterally backed one candidate and attacked others, spewed lies and misinformation, and they failed to make a difference it seems. I would argue they made things worse. Here is a multi-billion dollar apparatus designed to persuade people and control opinions and it has failed. So it is not always true. I think there is stuff that is more nuanced in how it works, not simply "repeat this X amount of times and you're done, you'll get Y% more percentage of believers".
The media on the left did persuade their audience that Trump stood no chance of winning the election, even as Trump was drawing larger and larger audiences at every stump speech. Everybody could see the flood of pro-Trump signs, hats, and bumper stickers in swing states, but this was apparently of no consequence. People were expected to disbelieve their own eyes, and so they did. I think there was a stunning amount of groupthink going on in the media this past election. Who consumes the news all day, every day? Media people, politians, and policy wonks. And so they brainwashed themselves.
Agree and I think it is even more than that. It is about how genuine they seem. I've listen to Hillary, Trump, Sanders and Obama, and some just naturally sound more genuine. Obama seemed genuine, like he believed what he was saying, Trump and Sanders as well. But not Hillary. She said all the right things, she was very polite, and seemed to be personable with jokes and remarks sprinkled here and there. But overall she sounded fake and scripted.
I posit, hearing someone who seems to truly believe what they say is a solid first step in persuading others to change their opinions. Otherwise it becomes an uphill battle and it is just pandering to people who already believe and agree with the argument.
Premises which are already accepted are used to conclude further ones.
Yes. Embrace this.
Patience is a virtue; and not getting angry because the person you've stated something to doesn't get it even the third time you've stated it. I actually find it fun to try and come up with different ways to state things such that people might better understand it.
The biggest component of success in communication comes down to saying things enough times that your message can actually be listened to and digested at least once. You can vary the way you say things each time, but literal repetition works nearly as well, because the problem is almost never "I don't know what those words in that order mean" but rather "I didn't hear half that sentence" or "I was thinking about lunch" or "that might have been important but it just sort of passed by and I forgot."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XvwNKpDUkiE
It's a somewhat tedious story but it's all about the freedom to control your own hardware.
or with Stallman's edits (I'm not sure if he's modified this chapter) in
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom_2.0/Chapte...
They all work by repetition but last one hurts people ability to thing rationally.
As that old Lincoln saying goes, you can fool some people all the time, all people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all the time.
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.
Edit: I think you can also apply that description to several parties in the modern media environment.
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 everyone else so well that you already knew who people were likely talking about without anyone being named (yet, strangely, apparently want to deny that person should be considered for such a comparison at all).
> Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns.
It's not really clear that it's possible to separate human concerns from moral concerns, and I can only imagine someone arriving at the conclusion that "nothing obscures reality worse" by searching a pretty narrow set of reality-obscuring hazards.
It's pretty clear who was being referring to.
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
If we really want to get picky it's worth pointing out that the person we aren't mentioning attacks multiple people at the same time and lies about little things all the time.
Said person is a jackass and an authoritarian but to compare him to a regime that killed millions using the loosest historical analogies does them a disservice and muddies the water.
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.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-mun...
He agrees that "to compare Trump’s feckless racism and compulsive lying was inevitably to trivialize Hitler’s crime and the victims of genocide", but also explains in substantial detail how Trump's playbook closely follows Hitler's.
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.)
"I am a good person."
"I am a just person."
"I do the right things."
"I am a hero."
"I am right because the facts support me."
"I am not to blame."
"I am to blame."
"I am successful."
"I am a failure."
It's the lies people tell themselves that make room for allowing opening for lies other people want to say. "Here, you repeat the lies I want to hear about me, and I'll repeat the lies you want to hear about you."
(Diversity is strength)^64
(We're a nation of immigrants)^128
(America's was sinful before the civil rights protests)^256
(The Second World War was a good war)^512
(Only Jews and Gypsies suffered in World War II)^1048576
I don't think comparing Hillary to Hitler is that appropriate.
Plenty of people are making the exact same "cheap" comparison to Trump, except to you that's likely ok. You're witnessing a difference of opinion.
If you have a policy you want to criticize, by all means do. Don't shut your brain off and try to imply the president is the same as a man responsible for genocide. It puts you in the same camp as the people claiming Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist.
>Now it's of course downvoted to oblivion
Don't talk about downvotes, it makes for boring conversation.
The parent didn't mention Trump. You are the one who brought up Clinton.
And now you're whining hypocritically about childishness, when your childishness started all this.
The vast majority of Americans voted against Trump, who has been and continues to be the main dog-whistler-wink-winker for the only real echo chamber, of racist ideas like Obama wasn't born here, or was a Muslim, or supported terrorism, or created death panels, or whatever complete gutless "big lie" bullshit you seem to want to overlook.
Just give it a fucking rest.
-- early false statements are seen by many
-- later corrections down-thread are seen by few
-- popular promoted, true but unpopular hidden
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5queq5/how_high_perfo...
http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Read_Iliad.htm
> For an oral poet, however, such repetition is not a fault, but a vital technique (Lord 3–67). Repetition is a psychological necessity in oral discourse, which vanishes as soon as it is uttered
The article is clearly trying to put Trump in a bad light and other comments here are applying it to other politicians and corporations. I think the important point is that repetition doesn't discriminate truth but can be dangerous because it can seem like it does. On important issues there is no substitute for research and accurate methods to interpret new data.
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/
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.
Honestly, it's pretty great how many people are willing to spend time and effort that doesn't directly benefit them (on a base material level) to care about this stuff.
It's also harder than one may think to do this well. You have be fairly skeptical 24/7, even of yourself and your own thoughts. I think that doing it halfway likely leads to lots of seemingly well-rationalized ideologies.
I like to think I'm getting better at being generally skeptical and slowly layering together a coherent, mutually supportive set of usefully accurate mental models of how the world works, but I find it very tough to know to what extent I'm fooling myself or not. One simple maxim I've found useful is to try to avoid allowing any idea from becoming "sacred" and above questioning. While not practical for daily life, I think it's a great fundamental background orientation for our thoughts and perception of the world.
You may be interested in the Meaningness project: http://meaningness.org
HN discussion from a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13136458
Btw, here is the fixed link: https://meaningness.com/
And HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13136458
Information bubbles. Too many people only consume information that aligns with their beliefs. To many, they don't feel that they are ignoring or avoiding objective evidence because they easily dismiss it as lies without any evidence.
Would it affect you tight away? No, but in a Generation our children contract more disease, less of them go into stem fields because of the distrust and dissonance that has been spread, and the air your children breath becomes more polluted.
One of the critical aspects is social pressure. If they ever made fun of the thing they are supposed to be convinced of, convinced others (publicly especially) against it, they will throw every cognitive, emotional, and other tricks against every believing that.
That is why public ministering and proselytization as a necessary step in participating in many religions -- it is not just to simply bring others into the faith, but it is to inoculate those who do it against every disavowing it. I posit that social media and everyone messaging each other false-hoods is part of this public display of belief. Later on going against that is very hard, because there is solid evidence of them making fun of it just a week before. Nobody wants to be seen flip-flopping or being a hypocrite.
2) Simple lack of practice in critical thinking? They are acting in good faith but just not seeing the con.
Interestingly critical thinking of often orthogonal to other proxies for what society thinks "intelligence" is. Often it goes the opposite way -- the smarter the person thinks they are (maybe the more diplomas they have hung on their wall), the less likely they are to ever change their positions, because they will:
a) Have to confront the fact that they have chosen or supported an invalid one before. And with 3 diplomas on the wall, that is surely not something they would do
b) They have a greater capability at rationalization. When the CEO has a bad day because they had a fight at home and goes to work and shuts down a project or fires someone publicly, they will rationalize it to themselves in many other ways except "I really was upset for another reason, and made a stupid mistake, I just wasn't thinking straight". They'll use their intelligence to make something up that sounds reasonable.
To add to this, I think an additional problem is academia.
So much of success and even prestige in academia is garnered through skills that do not involve critical thinking.
Who hasn't had a conversation with someone at the top of their field who has strong, factually unsupported, convictions about another?
Entire fields are subject to self-interested ideologies, rather than facts (i.e. my undergrad degree in economic science was more propaganda science at all): http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/12/13/economics-scien...
Just to clear up any notion that I'm being bitter, I graduated at the top of my class.
There needs to be entire coursework in critical thinking, starting in primary school. Unfortunately, most of my primary school education outside of maths and language was just rote memorization of facts.
Is it really a matter of repetition or a matter of trust? Does it matter that fact-checkers point out the errors in trumps tweets? He has gained the trust of his followers, while the fact-checkers have a bad reputation and shady relationships with establishment. Even if they get the facts right, people don't trust them to make decisions right. It's more about what you plan to do with the facts than who has the most facts, and policy decisions are not deterministic, no matter how many facts you throw at them.
Same goes for establishing scientific facts indeed. Peer review is based on a few, reputable reviewers, rather on a crowd of anonymous but trust-less fact-checkers.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829781
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-th...
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice/ That alone should encourage the crew/ Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice/ What I tell you three times is true."