Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Charismatic falsehoods are a real problem in the media, especially because they're usually connected to an underlying truth that they take down, as well, when they're shot down.

Take the UVa rape case. This sort of thing happens often (and definitely not just at UVa) and the perpetrators often get away with it, because they tend to come from upper-middle and upper-class backgrounds and have access to the best legal representation their parents can buy. It's disgusting. Unfortunately, the holes in this particular story are going to lead people to conclude that fraternity-house rape isn't a problem because this one case was "refuted" (even though it's not clear that it has been refuted, only that she recalled some of the details incorrectly).

The "boy genius" making $72 million is another charismatic falsehood. The underlying truth is that the upper classes aren't any smarter or more competent than the middle classes. We like being reminded of that, when a public-school student (granted, from one of the best public high schools in the world) beats the pants off the market. Sadly (?) it turns out this was achieved in simulation rather than with real money, and 'nemanja already addressed why it would be hard to pull off on the real market. Unfortunately, the rich twats who control all the social access and the jobs where one can actually have a $72M impact are going to read this story and conclude that "the poors are just dishonest".

Being somewhat of an expert on the startup career, I'm familiar as well with the aggressive use of charismatic falsehood that people have to use to advance their own careers and gain credibility/worthiness in front of investors. They concoct a story that is factually false but, as they see it, betrays an underlying truth (pertaining to their own competence). Unfortunately, if they get caught, it takes down (i.e. falsely refutes) the underlying truth along with the (usually small) lie.

"Sadly (?) it turns out this was achieved in simulation rather than with real money.."

Actually he says directly that he doesn't know where she got the $72M figure. He doesn't say in this interview exactly how much he would have made in simulation, only that "The simulated trades percentage was extremely high relative to the S&P". The point being that I don't see any evidence here to support that claim that he made anywhere near $72M even in a simulation.

> Take the UVA rape case. This sort of thing happens often

By "this sort of thing" you mean the violent premeditated (large) gang rape of a sober, unwilling victim as part of an official fraternity event? No, that does NOT happen often. It seems unlikely that it has ever happened even once outside of fictional stories. Which is exactly what made the claim newsworthy.

Think about the situation described - it implies that 9 (nine!) young men with everything to lose conspired to commit a felony act that could ruin all of them if discovered and believed - an act easily traceable back to them - and then released the victim knowing that nobody would ever believe her word over theirs AND knowing none of them would ever spill the beans.

This is a movie-plot threat.

The story is only plausible if you start out with the assumption that frat members are ALL an oddly incorruptible strain of pure mustache-twirling cartoon evil AND you also assume that "rape culture" values completely guarantee the woman wouldn't be taken seriously.

Whereas relaxing either assumption in favor of ordinary common sense renders the UVA story absurd.

> even though it's not clear that it has been refuted, only that she recalled some of the details incorrectly

She recalled ALL of the details incorrectly. Essentially every claim that could be checked has not borne out.

Just in case you are also trying to claim that your statement of "It seems unlikely that it has ever happened even once outside of fictional stories" applies to "gang rapes of a sober unwilling victim" as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape

P.S. Gang rape of a non-sober unwilling[0] victim is still rape.

0: gang rape of a non-sober unwilling is redundant. You can't have a "gang rape of a non-sober willing victim". Your bias is crystal clear, and you should probably see a psychologist as you are likely a danger to those around you.

> Just in case you are also trying to claim that your statement [...] applies to "gang rapes of a sober unwilling victim" as well

I am assuredly not trying to claim that. The context of bros at an american college fraternity party was a necessary part of what made the claim an unbelievable (but newsworthy!) story.

(But hey, feel free to respond to more things I didn't say with irrelevant links, if inventing claims and attributing them to other people is what floats your boat!)

My chief crystal clear bias here is in favor of believing that most people who do terrible things that might result in large prison sentences don't want to get caught and this at least somewhat influences their behavior.

> you should probably see a psychologist as you are likely a danger to those around you

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

> Charismatic falsehoods are a real problem in the media,

No, printing false information is a real problem in the media.

Charisma is a whitewashing of the real problem - honesty in journalism. By failing to do the most basic topic research, or any fact checking of any kind, they are simply publishing falsehoods and lies in the name of profit. Essentially the same motivations that drive the issues above.

Fair enough. I wasn't implying that a falsehood being "charismatic" makes it OK for a journalist to print it. Sadly, it seems less likely to be checked when it's (a) reflective of a genuine truth (such as privileged frat bros getting away with sexual assault; UVa aside, it is a real problem) and (b) something that people want to believe ("we've finally caught one!") That doesn't make it right.

One of the problems with the tech press (and, increasingly, the mainstream press) is that it refuses to rise to the higher standard expected of a journalist. For private individuals to inflate their histories and reputations (using charismatic lies) is ethically OK, because one has to do it (paradoxically, and perhaps disturbingly) to gain credibility and trust in a world like Silicon Valley. Journalists, on the other hand, are supposed to cut that shit away and get to the facts. The problem is, with the tech press, that they value access (into a morally bankrupt sub-tract of the private sector, that will shut them out for any coverage other than effusive praise) more than doing their jobs.

Define "often" - rape rates have declined dramatically in recent years in the US, but you would not know it, judging by media-driven hysteria.

Let's go by the numbers, not by emotions:

The decline in rape since 1993: 60% [http://www.statisticbrain.com/rape-statistics/]

yes...at a lower level i believe its called "confirmation bias" and we are all guilty of it, no matter how hard we try.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com