Carl Bergstrom on data manipulation, fake news,& using science as a lie detector
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I think this is somewhat like convincing people that believed the early studies on hydroxychloroquine. A narrative was built and despite multiple studies and RCTs, it continues in many circles. If the initial data showed a different picture, I have a hard time imagining the on-going challenge of fighting this disinformation battle. (it would have been another).
It's incredibly easy if you control the narrative factories. For example, consider the sudden switch from "masks don't work unless they're N95, you need an MD to put one on correctly, and if you buy them you're an egotistical asshole who's putting our medical workers in danger" to "even plain cloth masks are useful, everyone must wear one at all times, and if you didn't buy one you're an egotistical asshole who's putting everyone in danger" earlier this year. Took less than a week.
I was pro-mask since before the narrative switch, but it would be completely irresponsible to sit back and say "oh well, good on them for correcting themselves, that's how science works after all". That was a real "we've always been at war with Eastasia" moment: a naked exercise of power, which could be used just as easily to switch from a true narrative to a false one, or from one lie to another.
As it’s still going on, I’d say it took more than a week.
I agree the switch occurred and surely things should have been handled better, but your post comes across as weirdly paranoid.
I don't consider "We have had both ongoing hostilities and peace talks with both Eurasia and Eastasia for the entire time Oceania has existed.", even if true, to be a refutation of the claim that the narrative switched to "we've always been at war with Eastasia".
So plainly put, what is "narrative the overwhelming majority of people [you've] encountered"? And what's it got to do with masks that may slow covid?
Yes, I just choose not to, to emphasise the danger of putting politics ahead of epistemic integrity.
> So plainly put, what is "narrative [[about masks and covid]] the overwhelming majority of people [you've] encountered"?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24031462:
> > the sudden switch from "masks don't work unless they're N95, you need an MD to put one on correctly, and if you buy them you're an egotistical asshole who's putting our medical workers in danger" to "even plain cloth masks are useful, everyone must wear one at all times, and if you didn't buy one you're an egotistical asshole who's putting everyone in danger" earlier this year. Took less than a week.
I assumed that was obvious from context, since your comment was responding to claims about those narratives.
Stressen, Meutern, Flegeln! as a juxtaposition of Messen, Steuern, Regeln which is German for [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentation_and_control_en...
The battle for hearts and minds [2] https://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/battle-hearts-and-min... is nothing new, now fought by cybernetic means. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
Considering this, as a precaution to not having ones strings pulled by mechanisms of media, regardless of state- or non-state actors in the [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy I implented a mental default-deny for pull requests in the spirit of [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed
Stressen as in stress back if someone/thing is stressing you.
By Meutern as in mutiny.
And lastly by Flegeln as in being a Yahoo, Redneck, Hick, Hool, Honk, Punk etc. about it.
(Edit: Vanishing fast into the off, yelling Geronimo Banzai!)
It seems like paradigm shifts happen more often than we think. They always surprise me, at least (BLM, same sex marriage, legalized pot in the US). Reading between the lines, I think he's saying that barring a paradigm shift, this new kind of "anti-democratic populism" is going to be around for a while.
OK, maybe. But I think that it is just as often political correctness as science that allows one to dismiss such assertions out of hand. As much, as a gentile, I would like to be able to dismiss "The Jews really are smarter than the rest of us" out of hand, some unpopular assertions may in fact be true. And I think truth has to come before other considerations. (Though it may be best not to make such assertions at all if there's not a good reason to.)
Overall, though, I really liked what Bergstrom had to say. What he had to say about mockery being unproductive was some practical wisdom.
But I would say that the set of assertions for which one is justified in rejecting them out of hand is perhaps smaller than he is suggesting.
For example, there was fake news recently in which the Gates Foundation was said to be inserting subcutaneous chips into folks who had received vaccines. It turned out to be untrue, but not obviously so. The technology exists and if not abused it could be an inexpensive and effective form of record keeping.
I may have missed it, but I don't see TFA actually arguing for that at all.
> one shouldn't believe claims just because someone [or something] asserts them
Seems to be the overall point.
If some guy rolls in with a paranoid schizophrenic telling you someone is a criminal using facial features, you need to be able to say that is nuts.
Maybe "Carl Bergstrom on data manipulation, fake news, and the importance of using science as a lie detector"
Like: 1% of people use data to bullshit
Or like: 99% of people use data to bullshit
But perhaps they are simply afraid to provide the actual data because people will use it to bullshit ...