The man who studies the spread of ignorance
bbc.com
bbc.com
The best solution I've heard so far: on the age of 18, you will be given the following choice: a free scooter, or voting rights.
Just to clarify, in case this comment will be read by idiots: discrimination is bad. Votings rights are good. Access to education for everyone is good. If you're thinking that I argue for return to "good old times of racism and sexism", you're a moron.
(You would think that people aren't as stupid as to misunderstand such comment. Unfortunately, you would be mistaken).
Once people rioted etc. to actually win the vote, more subtle approaches had to be found to continue doing whatever was in the interests of the well connected few. Having lots of uninformed voters distracted by fluff is one of those tactics.
agreed.
but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed). not to disenfranchise the poor.
The poor often vote against their own interests [1]
So even for the poor, it is better to remove these voters from the voting pool.
[1] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/opinion-why-the-poor-vote-against...
Another reason I've often heard suggested as helping poor people in the US vote fot politicians who won't help their financial situation is that of the "American Dream", the idea that anyone who works hard can rise up and become wealthy. People could think "sure, I'm only earning $20k now, but I don't want to raise taxes for the millionaires because it could effect me in the future".
I don't have any data (might have a google around when I have more time if I remember) but I'm pretty sure the US is fairly unique in how many of it's poorer population votes towards the right wing of the political spectrum, thanks largely, I suspect, to religious regions, and possibly the american dream idea. Here in Europe, working class people who vote towards the right are more likely to be doing it either about stuff like immigration into the country, or when far right parties make themselves sound like common sense honest people compared to typical misleading politicians. But generally speaking, you rather expect a strong corrolation between less wealthy going left and more wealthy going right.
When I speak to most people on politics they truly believe their candidate is better on almost ALL the issues, not just a core value they agree with. Whatever the underlying lever you believe turns a specific set of people to one political party or another, they have an annoying habit of also buying into the other BS the party will spout.
>> agreed.
>> but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed) not to disenfranchise the poor.
The conversation could enter a loop at this point.
Also, since the same groups that spread the ignorance in the article, are often very active in trying to disenfranchise the poor, either they are incompetent or they know quite well that there's things they want to push through that widespread democractic representation would prevent, even in it's current dysfunctional state.
And they could save all the money they spend convincing poor people to vote against their own interests, and use it to convince lower middle class people to vote against their own interests (at least until they can disenfranchise them too).
>Second, there is no evidence that “culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern” among Frank’s working-class white voters. The apparent political significance of social issues has increased substantially over the past 20 years, but more among better-educated white voters than among those without college degrees. In both groups, economic issues continue to be most important.
Do the poor vote against their interests, or do upper-middle-class people in poor areas vote their own interests while suppressing the vote of the poor?
Collectively, everyone acting rationally produces unintended results. It's a weird phenomenon logically described here as the tragedy of the commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. Even if you try to do something counter-intuitive, whatever choice you make as an individual is still inconsequential in terms of voting.
For example let's say it's time to vote. I live in california and I'm a democrat, the voting is probably gonna go blue anyway regardless of whether or not I vote. So why not choose the scooter?
Let's say I end up choosing the scooter. Then, when the results come out, I realize not enough democrats voted because they all went for the scooter. Thus the state actually ended up being red.
So I decide to take a hypothetical time machine back into time to change my decision. Now I choose to vote Blue instead of get a free scooter. Well guess what? the outcome is still the same; the rest of california still makes the same decision regardless of whether or not I vote. The difference is, in one scenario I have a scooter, in the other scenario I don't have a scooter... every other factor in both outcomes remains the same. Whatever choice I make from an individual standpoint the Logical choice is ALWAYS the free scooter.
In the end to make a better world there needs to be a sort of collective idiocracy, which is kind of what's going on in this thread right now: (You all think you guys are so smart because you didn't go for the scooter).
How about this: free scooter for anyone who votes democrat! That makes more sense (if you're democrat).
Knowledge of how politics actually works seems to be one of these areas of intentional ignorance.
A popular alternative comedian in the UK tried to argue (correctly) that voting was pointless under our gerrymandered, first-past-the-post, two party system and was broadly ridiculed by the establishment media.
He didn't really argue that well for it, but he's a comedian, the fact that they couldn't really present a valid counterpoint as professional political pundits was depressing.
The "prisoner's dilemma" is a quantitative/mathematically rigorous description of the same concept that came out later in 1992.
I would go with "Tragedy of the commons" over the game theory title since it came out earlier and is a much more readable article for the average layman! Also, "Tragedy of the commons" sounds more appropriate. Here's a link to the original article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
"Transport for London is spending £1 Billion on improving cycle infrastructure."
Sounds brilliant. However.
"Transport for London is spending 0.7% of their yearly budget for the next 10 years on a transport that accounts for 5% of the travel in the city."
Or
"Transport for London are spending £1Billion out of £110Billion budget on cycle infrastructure."
All three statements are true. However the first statement is a better soundbite.
In New York bike tracks have improved the speed of traffic http://www.fastcoexist.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-...
so basically, a bit over 100 UKP per head, per year.
Yearly transport budget £15,714M (15.7B) Population 8.5M Cycling 5% of travel. Total spend per head per year = £1,848 Of which, spend on cycling = £13 Modal spend should be = £92
Total spend per head over 10 years £130 not £920
Note the social ROI on cycling infra (health benefits and productivity increase) is between 3-35 times the cost of investment.
This is a pet hate of mine: it's very easy to use it to make a number sound 10 times larger, for good or ill.
Especially for a "master of puppets"/figurehead election like POTUS, the problem isn't "too many uninformed people", it's "too many topics in a single vote". Even assuming 90% of your voters are knowledgeable about 90% of the issues, they can't express any of their knowledge in that single button or pencil stroke.
The same is true for trying to "divine" meaning to the votes cast, as well: since every voter only expressed a single button press, it's easy to dismiss votes that don't align with your own views as uninformed.
You want elections with depth? Don't make voting mandatory (either socially or legally), and use topical voting instead of figurehead voting.
This is entirely feasible now with the internet. One of the primary assumptions which led to to the design of a representative republic which we have on paper was that it was impossible for everyone to assemble in order to vote on laws:
>In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good.
-John Adams, Thoughts on Government
I would say, though, that it would not be feasible given the current state of internet architecture. Internet infrastructure would need to become much more universally distributed and control would need to be relinquished by the current "internet gatekeepers" (i.e. Time Warner, Comcast etc.) as Aaron Swartz called them.
There is also the irony that in the US and elsewhere, the paper system is actively exploited and used as a means to make the electric system more insecure i.e. weakening/backdooring encryption.
With any new system, there will be technical challenges and unknowns that will be sorted out(ish) after trial and error as was the case with the Articles of Confederation which failed but then lead to the current longest lasting constitutional government today.
1.Minarets can no longer be built in Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009 2. Immigration quotas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...
I'm not an european citizen, have a job offer to work in a big tech company in Zurich and will not be able to get a visa even though I've got my Bachelors and Masters degree in Europe. Since the referendum passed, they're now requiring 3 years full-time work experience regardless of which education degree you hold.
Considering that 90% of voters have basically zero influence on the government, I think we wish that was our biggest problem.
51% of the voters may control 100% of the legislature (excluding staff) and executive (excluding appointees) but most of the government is not directly accountable to the voting populace.
As often as not, the winner doesn't have 50%+... and, in some circumstances, the "Winner" has fewer popular votes: Bush in 2000 had 47.8 to Gores 48.3 yet Bush got more Electoral Votes
--
Regard collaborative policy making as a form of data processing and you will recognize the triage processes used (by necessity).
Social cognition as applied to intractable complexity. Divide and conquer, just like economic specialization, is a problem solving optimization.
Aka, The Politics of Attention.
Direct democracy doesn't scale, copes poorly with subtleties. Representative democracy works pretty well, considering. But always benefits from more people participating.
We need to promote reason, promote awareness of cognitive biases (as a result of our evolutionary past), and rid ourselves of this notion that "standing up for what you believe" (regardless of its validity) is somehow a virtue.
"Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion."
So i'm not sure if you're serious, or being ironic...
Either way, that articles have to be "even handed" or present "both sides of the story" is a technique often used by spreaders of ignorance or partisans to deny rational points or treatments of information.
Here we have a scientist talking about the latest meta-study, well reviewed, on the safety profile of a certain type of vaccine. And now we need to balance that out with a crackpot who thinks vaccines are a form of government mind control.
However, if you think that the spread of ignorance is purely a right-wing phenomonon and that left-wing politicians are scrupulously truthful in all they do, then I don't know what to say to you.
purely a right-wing phenomonon
In your opinion then, what should we say to someone that thinks 2/3 is equal to 100%?
"“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”"
Or, you could accept the much more straightforward and believable explanation that Trump has unique appeal for racists, xenophobes and those who are extremely frustrated with the conservative establishment. He's the first candidate in a long time to appeal to that bloc; hence his popularity.
Trump isn't even a successful businessman - he'd be wealthier if he'd parked his inheritance in an index fund rather than trying to manage it.
Doesn't everybody?
In my opinion it's just a matter of priorities, and how the voter thinks the social and financial crisis should be tackled. How is someone like Hillary cleaner than Trump for example?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
"Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore."
Mexico is never going to pay for the wall. I know it's been standard practice to make Latin American countries pay for US drugs policy, but this is over the top. "Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages" is in particular going to be a Drugs War x2; how do you identify illegal wages? The gunboat diplomacy thing is likely to do huge damage to US-Mexican relations and probably contradicts NAFTA. Starting a trade war works in both directions: Mexico could start kicking out US companies.
"End birthright citizenship": he's put this under "Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States", despite the fact that it directly contradicts the 14th Amendment. This is probably the biggest anti-factual thing in the whole document, as it contradicts itself. It also results in stateless children, and the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who aren't Mexican nationals either.
"End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.": does that apply to tourist visas? Is this the end of the visa waiver programme? Either he's completely serious about ending tourism to America or he's eliding the fact that people will illegally immigrate on tourist visas.
> [Abolishing jus soli] [...] results in stateless children, and
> the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who
> aren't Mexican nationals either.
Anyway, it contravenes the 14th Amendment.
(The EU has article 8 instead, which means that in practice you have to deport a whole family or not at all).
(I chose not to go near the "refuse to let any Muslims into the country" proposal, which is even more extraordinarily unworkable, but not on that bit of his website)
It worked for Jimmy Carter when he blocked all Iranians from entering the US.
And what of Muslim Americans?
At any rate, it was pretty clear to me that the actual implementation would be people from north Africa, the Middle East, Iran, ect. When Sanders says that he wants to "make college more affordable," I doubt that the actual bill he would present to Congress would be one sheet of paper saying "make college more affordable."
Finally, if you are incapable of having a discussion without attacking people, find another forum. I hear Twitter is good for vitriolic people.
Secondly - there is no such clarity around this being a ban on people from specific countries. If he wanted to clarify this, he could have done, but he has not.
He has specifically mentioned the UK as place where there are radical Muslim terrorists (which is true). Would they be freely allowed into the US?
How about non-Muslim people from North Africa and the Middle East?
It may be temporarily reasonable to put a list of countries on a 'no visa' list, but that is not what he said at all.
Given that people across the world have not understood this as what he meant, he could easily have clarified himself but he has chosen not to.
Since he knows how he was understood, either he did mean what he said, or he is intentionally inflaming the situation.
Either way this is disqualifying behavior for a presidential candidate.
You're editing it into a more reasonable-sounding version. Whereas there are plenty of people who think he means it literally and might vote for that.
Plenty of us would say that Trump's "ban all Muslims" is itself attacking people! So we're kind of in the land of ad hominem to start off with. We could discuss Trump's attack ads, and measure them for vitriol?
Next time you watch a speech by Donald Trump, don't look at him, look at the faces of the people behind him. He is winning them emotionally, not factually.
Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.
True. Not factual.
A lot of us in the sciences forget that the distinction exist. Or worse, want to pretend it doesn't.
Also relevant: Lee McIntyre's book on willful ignorance in the Internet age. With so many facts readily at hand, the flip side of agnotology is an audience who decides to stay ignorant in the face of contrary facts.
http://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Int...
For instance: the fact is that 32,727 people died from terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014.
The truth is that this is number is insignificant. Over 55 million people died in 2014.
The truth is also that we fear what we feel is random more than what we feel is the result of our actions. We are disproportionately afraid of black swan events. This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp.
Facts are just facts. Truth is the interpretation of facts.
So another example would be relative effects in medical and nutritional studies. That the red meat was correlated with 3-fold increase of cancer in some tests is absolutely meaningless. What matters is the absolute size, because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about.
you must be kidding - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probabili...
The risk of getting only colorectal cancer is almost 5% and dying from that cancer - 2%.
The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc..
I'd say your post is a perfect example of spreading of ignorance even when the Google is just one click away.
To the comment below: it seems you again ignored the chance to google for the info, in particular for the link between prostate cancer and red meat/obesity/etc. The same goes for breast cancer too. Even when specifically pointed out to easy available source of clear info, you still continue to spread ignorance.
The last study that made people panic about meat[0][1] estimated an increase of 18% of the chance you'll get colorectal cancer. Using your data, it means the rate of getting that cancer rises from 5% to 5.9% and the risk of dying from it rises from 2% to 2.36%. That is not a significant increase.
> The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc..
Well, it's important to qualify precisely. The list you provided shows that the dominant part of the 40%/20% stat is prostate (15%/2.7%) and breast cancer (12%/3%), followed by lung cancer (7%/6%). That's about 1/2 of your the risk of developing and dying from cancer accounted for in stuff not directly related to food and beverages. The rest is spread among other cancer types (turns out there's quite a lot of them) with most of them having rates below 3%/1%, so still, even 2-fold increase in risk of getting a particular type of cancer doesn't mean much.
[0] - http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/26/451950828/pro...
[1] - http://mashable.com/2015/10/31/processed-meat-cancer-risk/
> This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp.
Is it effective? What are the criteria by which one could judge?
I lived half my life in England while the IRA was active, I have a friend who was in a building in London when the IRA threatened to blow it up (it wasn't an empty threat, the device was in place and armed). Neither of us lose any sleep over it.
My children have friends and acquaintances who were shot at Utøya (we live not far away). None of them are letting the event stop them being politically active.
But if I read English language newspapers like the Daily Mail now I am bombarded with 'terrorism' related 'news' and the newspaper tries very hard to give the impression that everyone is really worried.
I'm not convinced that people are that worried.
But, the fear is very well alive and visible when it comes to more abstract issues, like policy decisions. Should we invade the Middle East or not? Should we kick out Muslims or not? Should we hate immigrants or not? Should we let the government surveil us more or not? The general population's answer to all of that seems to be a resounding "yes". And the attacks that happen every now and then make things harder for those who disagree.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338173/Terror-attac...
Terror attacks in Paris means visitor numbers across Europe tumble and France has already lost £1.4bn in tourism revenue
Take a look at the number of European tourists visiting Tunisia and Egypt.
Did the IRA achieve the restoration of the 32-county republic declared in 1916 and ratified in 1919? No. But they did get a devolved administration, with power-sharing guarantees to prevent the domination of one community by the other and with their political wing holding nearly a third of the seats in its legislature and nearly a third of the positions in its executive.
Your version of the truth is as facty as the version you are refuting.
> Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.
There's a risk with going too far with that though. A scientist who makes their writing too creative can do more harm than good to the domain, and to public perception of science. The risk increases exponentially if the work is being managed by a creative director - they'll likely take liberties with accuracy in order to make the work more general-population-friendly. Science is a hard thing to explain right. Yes, quite a lot of even the most advanced concepts can be presented simply, but it's a very delicate and precise work, if you want the simplification to be right, and not misleading.
--
As for space education, Kerbal Space Program is absolutely the best thing ever. It's hard to even count the number of people 12 y.o. and less who are proficient in basic orbital mechanics, math included, thanks to this game. Seeing kids talking about Δv budgets and orbital transfers really warms my heart. The game's realism, combined with fun setting and identifiable characters, makes it a perfect vehicle for teaching physics intuition that is hard to acquire even for professionals. And the best thing? It even teaches hard math the right way!
You don't have to know or learn any math to play KSP and have fun. You can literally eyeball your Mun mission. But as you play you quickly discover the benefits of learning a bit of theory. It makes your rockets more efficient. It makes your maneuvers better. It helps you understand why your ship seems to go away from your space station when you accelerate towards it. Soon, your game turns from this[0] to this[1] (via mods, and yes, all those numbers and plots mean something to you).
I don't think the Flynn effect is applicable.
The problem is that this concentrates the power in the hands of a few, who can be manipulated by more traditional means.
So really I can't blame ignorant people. I only believe in global warming over the other opposing claims made by corporate sponsored studies only because one conclusion seems more likely then the other. I cannot definitively say that I believe in global warming because the logic categorically says it is true. There rarely exists any logic that tells me a=c because b=a and b=c, if you catch my drift.
I've only found such logic to exist for atheism. Yet a good number of people in this world are still ignorant in that regard.
I propose a new word: "agnotroll"
"He is a well know agnotroll, you should just ignore his agitprop."