Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Locked
enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by enigmaT120 »

Jacob wrote: "Forsooth, even in high school we measured the charge/mass ratio of an electron (Lorentz force) and showed how the electron charge was quantized (Milikan oil drop). If anyone seriously tells me that they've never done that, I'll believe them but I'll also believe that this is because HS education has been dumbed down further over the past 20 years, because I didn't go to a fancy private school. This was normal HS/standard part of the physics curriculum back in 1994."

That was normal high school, but not in the United States. I graduated HS in 1982, taking all the chemistry and physics (and math, for that matter) they had, and didn't do that. I guess I might not remember it. I went to a rural high school so that may have made a difference. Never did it in college either.

Oh: and I guess I can't blame you for the invention of dark matter and energy. That exasperates me even more than the invention (and worse, the later observation!) of the neutrino.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by jacob »

@enigma120 - https://www.pasco.com/prodCatalog/AP/AP ... apparatus/ (you'd be staring at a bunch of brightly illuminated dots (tiny droplets that carry a finite (quantized) number of charges through the scope). According to the sales page, this is now undergraduate physics.

Here's the one for the Lorentz force: http://www.spectrum-scientifics.com/Lor ... p/2480.htm (you'd basically just measure how the electron beam curves in the magnetic field from the dual coils. This is determined by the strength of the B-field and the voltage between the plates in the "accelerator". Apparently, this is also considered college physics now: http://demoweb.physics.ucla.edu/content ... o-electron.)

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by jennypenny »

@jacob (or anyone not in the US) -- What kind of other classes did you take in high school? Did you have to take history and gym and such every year?

I'm wondering whether other school systems require so many classes outside of core classes (language, math and science). Where we are, the kids have to take 4 years of math, english (language/literature), gym/health, and history (2 years US, 2 years other). They are also required to take 2 years of a foreign language and one year of art/music. Electives include more music if you're in the band or choir, continuing with language studies for all 4 years, computer science (still sadly an elective), or extra social science classes like psychology or maybe probability and statistics. Kids usually take 7 classes per year in a normal setting, or 8 (4 per semester) if they use block scheduling similar to colleges.

Does that look similar to what others take? Or do you focus more on STEM classes? Does everyone get the same type of high school education? Is the difference not just the quality of the education but also the curriculum?

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by jacob »

@jp - Systems keep changing all the time even inside a country, but as far as I can tell, the Danish system was quite different from the US system back then though it's converging. I went from 1991 to 1994. Everybody goes to the same public school (here public really means public, so Brits be aware) and follow each other all the way to the 9th grade regardless of skill or whether they learned anything. Here people split up and in my time about 50% went to vocational school (2-4 years + apprenticeship) to become electricians, plumbers, cooks, etc. If your teachers believe you're sufficiently "intellectually mature", you go to one of the high schools. Back then there was HF (a two-year short version of HS which got no respect), Gymnasiet (HS which was split into a mathematical line(me) and a language-line, and generally considered to be the toughest in terms of load and difficulty), handelsskolen (business high school), or HTX (like HF but with more shopclass and science) which had just been introduced.

Gymnasiet took about 2/3s of 50% of the public school "graduates"(*)... so about 1/3 of the population went to gymnasiet.

(*) Not sure it's practically possible to not graduate public school as long as you can spell your own name.

Gymnasiet was meant to prepare people to go to university. The core curriculum has Danish and History all three years. Otherwise a lot of classes were mandatory for 1 or 2 years but you could elect to boost them from that to 2 or 3 years. Lets call them A, B, and C levels. Most university studies would require relevant A levels + a given GPA to get in. E.g. physics at the university would require A levels in math and physics and B in chemistry.

Otherwise, the mandatory courses was nothing fancy or exotic. Two foreign languages(*) (for me it was English and German) (three if you're on the language line+latin), math, physics, chemistry (less of these three if you were on the language line), history, litterature, biology, music (no kidding), art (no kidding), and ancient history.

(*) These would build on top of the public school system. So in total I've taken 8 years worth of English and 5 years worth of German. Someone on the language line might have had 8 years worth of English, 7 years of German, 3 years of French, and 2 years of Spanish.

Most electives in my time was spent on boosting useful classes (taken B-levels to A-levels). The only fancy electives I remember was polisci (a popular one) and compsci. No courses in psychology or botanical gardening or such ... and stat (up to slightly below the CFA certification... so graduates would generally be prepared for most university directions(*) except more hardcore STEM fields already) would be part of math classes.

(*) Business high school was intended for business school (which was separate from the rest of the university system) and HTX was directed at engineering schools (ditto). It was possible to cross-over (from gymnasiet to business school) and people did do that. Maybe 10-20% of the time.

The number of class hours per week (45 minutes/hour) was about 28-32. You'd usually have to turn in an essay in Danish, German, or English once a month (=> you'd be written one almost every week). These would be about 800 words (half-assed) to 1600 words (solid). STEM classes would require a lab report (2-3 pages) or something akin to the question on half of a written final exam every two weeks.

Indeed, a lot of that work was simply doing final exams (usually you'd be allocated 4 hours for that) but taking them home and getting 2-3 weeks to do them.

In conclusion, everyone on the mathematical line were 90% the same. The overlap with the language line was maybe 60% ... same as the overlap with business school, I'm guessing here... It's also my impression that every high school had about the same quality. Point being ... the main purpose of highschool was to act as a feeder system for the universities.

enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by enigmaT120 »

As I said I went to a rural school, but how the heck is the U.S. even remotely competitive in the world?

subgard
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by subgard »

Confirmation bias addiction.
Having one's biases confirmed is probably about as addictive as internet porn.
Prior to the internet, both porn and bias confirmation was in hard copy and was simply too much trouble to keep up a daily habit.
But the internet now delivers massive amounts of both porn and bias confirming "facts" directly to the brain's reward center 24/7.
The whole post-modern "That's just your opinion" is simply an after-the-fact rationalization, similar to the excuses an alcoholic uses to justify drinking.

So, the problem is not some complicated logical fallacy about facts, but an addictive habit for consuming information that makes one feel good.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by Ego »

@subgard, a novel and interesting idea! I believe it is original thinking as well because I googled confirmation bias addiction and found nothing.

So, an alcoholic will face the consequences of their addiction but then turn around the next evening and drink themselves blind once again. Does a confirmation-bias addict do the same by following the directions of their delusional road map smack dab into reality wall, but then reverting to the same road map the next day? If so, what's the solution?

subgard
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by subgard »

@Ego, That might be the big problem. There is no big or obvious problems for the addicted individual. But, it causes bigger problems in society that don't seem connected to the individual's clicking on "news" links.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by steveo73 »

I also read subgard's post and I think there is some real truth there. At the same time I think that some people simply lack the ability to think critically. So they have an inability to logically look at the facts. What can you do in that situation.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jennypenny: If the problem is due to some flaw in the educational system, I don't think it will be solved by pushing more kids into more STEM classes because these debates are not primarily being held between people with advanced degrees in art history vs. people with advanced degrees in physics. They are being fought at the divide between those with more than the average amount of STEM education and those with WAAAAAY more than the average amount of STEM education. IMO, the antidote, which is not very popular on this forum, although Jacob by no means precludes it in his book, is a more liberal well-rounded education, rather than the opposite. If we tell kids that the purpose of an education is mostly to obtain a job that pays good money, then we are not promoting a society that values erudition. IOW, the tendency to dismiss a paper on the topic of the Ethnobotany of Palm Management in Pre-Colonial Peru as useless, is an example of not seeing the forest for the trees, that is likely to lead to a widening spread of anti-intellectual posturing. IOW, if we are a society that values efficient production because we value a high level of consumption, and there are individuals in our society that can earn 6-figures or achieve a net-worth of 50 million, with the bare minimum practical education necessary to obtain a job in engineering/finance/tech, then this is the manner by which we will end up hoisted upon our own petard.

OTOH, as after-the fact analysis of recent debacles such as the sub-prime mortgage crisis reveal, there are instances when Fat Tony does seem to be better informed than the Expert with letters after name. BUT, I think identity of the "tinkerer" who should also be respected is not that easy to ferret out. For instance, I think some amateur hobbyist aquarium enthusiast might be worth listening to on the topic of global climate change, but not somebody writing contrarian op-ed articles published by Forbes.

However, I will note for the record that my background is that I am somebody who was accepted into the physics program at a very high-ranking university after my sophomore year in college, and then flunked out (not a new experience for me, I first flunked my way out of school when I was 14, so that I could have more free time to read and pursue good-looking ski bums, my own dear INTJ daughter was much better behaved during her teen years.) My appeal to be readmitted on the basis of "didn't know I was too stupid" was denied on the basis of my SAT scores being too high. Therefore, I occasionally still suffer from the complex guilt/ego matrix of the chronic underachiever in this realm, and my posts should be read with grain-of salt due to possibility of projected emotional reactivity.





subgard said: So, the problem is not some complicated logical fallacy about facts, but an addictive habit for consuming information that makes one feel good.
Yes! In fact, one of the primary reasons I joined this forum was that I wanted confirmation of my biased opinion that an individual could survive and be happy on less than $10,000/year, because I was embroiled in a debate with my BF-at-the-time who believed that income/spending at the level of $40,000/year was necessary. I felt it was important to gather some evidence and social support for my position because if I accepted his opinion then I would also have to accept that I was a "kept" woman who was being financially supported by her arrogant BF, who also believed that he was more intelligent than her, which would obviously be an intolerable situation.

So, the solution to this problem as it applies to issues such as global climate change and peak copper, would be to change everything about our society that would cause anybody to have any inherent self-interest in the further exploitation of natural resources, or at least change the balance to some very large degree. For instance, Jill Stein had a 401k plan that held some investments in companies that profit from the exploitation of natural resources, but the sum of a variety of other factors were more relevant in determining her political stance on these matters.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

"But, it causes bigger problems in society that don't seem connected to the individual's clicking on "news" links."

Problems like believing Trump won because of Russia, or going along with decades of war in the middle east, etc.

No, seriously, I like this cognitive bias addiction theory precisely because it is agnostic as to the truth content of any particular news source. From where I'm standing, the legacy media provides plenty of stimulation for those whose cognitive bias is of the center/center-right neoliberal bent. Just because it's mainstream doesn't mean it's not supporting a cognitive bias addiction. Any news (or concept or fact) that doesn't support one's own bias is seen as wrong, fake, or biased itself.

The only solution IMO is to recognize that ALL news is necessarily and inherently biased if only for the fact that the primary motive is profit, not truth. It can't be taken at face value. The problem appears to be that most people's framework for distinguishing truth amounts to little more than: "Believe without question the narratives that best fit my cognitive bias."

No matter where you're going for news, that's going to lead you astray.

My problem with the fake news hype is that it is not advocating for deeper thought or questioning of every source, but the opposite--more complicit trust in the legacy media that has revealed its own untrustworthiness a bit too much in the last year alone. Now we have censorship bills in Congress seeking to establish a Ministry of Truth to determine what is and isn't "foreign propaganda" and Facebook stepping in to censor "fake news" based on Snopes, which is a couple of Californians with Google.* Sorry, but that is absolutely wrong as well... and if legacy media followers get to claim that "calling out bias in the legacy media opens the door to Russian disinformation", then I get to claim "blindly following the legacy media opens the door to American disinformation... and a totalitarian propaganda state."

*No need to comment on the sources, feel free to find your own sources** for both stories if these don't satisfy your CB craving... If you can't find any CNN, MSNBC, or other legacy media reporting on it, I can only laugh and say, "Hmm, how strange." ;)

**Actually, here is the House bill so you can hear it from the horse's ass, er, mouth: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ ... 93/summary See sec. 501.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by Ego »

Spartan_Warrior wrote: The only solution IMO is to recognize that ALL news is necessarily and inherently biased if only for the fact that the primary motive is profit, not truth. It can't be taken at face value. The problem appears to be that most people's framework for distinguishing truth amounts to little more than: "Believe without question the narratives that best fit my cognitive bias."
I think you are close. Yes, all news is biased. Yes, at the core most is designed to manipulate the reader/watcher to buy products. Even NPR has, to a much smaller extent, an editorial consciousness geared to the mindset of potential large donors.

It is similar to the problem faced by the helmsman of a ship in fog under the influence of a slight wind, moderate swell and a subtle current. Think of those influences as media bias. When we are out to sea with no other landmarks or tools to judge the effects of the bias, a good helmsman accurately counteracts the almost imperceptible movement. With no gps and a sun blotted by fog, it is easy to get mixed up. For some, the risk is in failing to recognize the bias and not compensating at all. Other inexperienced sailors have the a-ha moment when they realize the bias exists and then suffer the helmsman's second deadly sin. Overcompensation. Both end up on the same rocks.

Recognizing both our own biases and those of the media, then compensating correctly is the key. Right now, we've got a country full of people who believe they are the only ones on the boat to have had the a-ha moment. They think they are the only people who realize the true influence the wind, swell and current have on the ship. Consequently they shift from no compensation to overcompensation.

The thing I am trying to figure out is why such a large number of those people are almost gleeful in their knowledge and can't wait for the boat to crash. It seems that those who should have a reasonable concern for the danger presented by the rocks, feel nothing at all. They do not worry about the very real consequences of over compensation.

I just recently read that 1 in 6 Americans is now taking some form of psychiatric medication and most of those who are medicated come from the insured middle and upper classes. These people are more influential than those who cannot afford to drug their anxiety. Add to that the (increasing) numbers who use marijuana, alcohol and other non-prescription drugs to deaden anxiety.

For millions of years our level of anxiety helped us to calibrate the proper compensation when dealing with unknowns. It helps us to steer away from the rocks. Now we've got a significant portion of the population taking drugs to deaden it.

Coming full circle, it has been reported that 70% of television news ad revenue during non-election years comes from big pharma.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Ego said: The thing I am trying to figure out is why such a large number of those people are almost gleeful in their knowledge and can't wait for the boat to crash.
Same reason a lot of male fantasy fiction involves everybody on the planet dying except the protagonist and 3 attractive females.

enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by enigmaT120 »

Some of us are already standing on the rocks watching the boat come in to crash.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by BRUTE »

Ego wrote:The thing I am trying to figure out is why such a large number of those people are almost gleeful in their knowledge and can't wait for the boat to crash.
why is this so surprising? it seems typical for humans. brute has this himself, and he thinks it stems from the fact that most individuals are not particularly attached to abstract positive outcomes, but to a narrative. if brute's narrative isn't playing out, why should he root for anyone else's? burn this mother fucker to the ground.

@7Wannabe5

technically, that sounds like post-apocalyptic fiction, which brute would classify more under scifi than fantasy. fantasy has elves and shit. in general, most fantasy tries to create/recreate a "good old time", whereas scifi explores more of a "what if (all humans expect brute and 3 hotties died)". exceptions with both obviously exist.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@BRUTE: Exactly. You expressed it much better than me. Also, I meant male-fantasy fiction, not male fantasy-fiction.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by Ego »

BRUTE wrote:brute has this himself, and he thinks it stems from the fact that most individuals are not particularly attached to abstract positive outcomes, but to a narrative. if brute's narrative isn't playing out, why should he root for anyone else's? burn this mother fucker to the ground.
Exactly. The rebellion/status-quo-destruction narrative is more important than the reality that the person who is haphazardly swinging the club of rebellious-destruction is succeeding in bashing his own head.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by jacob »

@ego/brute - In terms of torching stuff ... what you're talking about is summarized by the fable/idiom of the "dog in the manger". I think that idiom aptly summarizes the anti-globalization sentiments that are currently washing over the world. Another metaphor is "burning down the barn" which is done when the barn has become so rotten or rat-infested that it's preferable to just start over rather than trying to salvage it. Now, burning down the barn doesn't cover burning down other people's barns in the process (so torching is more like a free-market sentiment), but dog in the manger does (making it more of a democracy sentiment where we all go down together insofar the democratic process so decides).

It's amazing how thousand year old fables and proverbs keep summarizing the human condition. Yet it's not so surprising after all. If we count genetic generations, humans have only been "civilized"(*) for a very short time---about 100 gens, not very long. In terms of human genetics, civilization is a rather precarious construct. Humans might know how to make a sandwich, but practically no humans know how to build a toaster.---Even building a fire would require some serious #adulting these days. In terms of widespread scientific education beyond the point where more than 20% can quote Ohm's law, we're talking less than 3-5 generations depending on which country you're in. Probably less than that. We're mostly relying on a few phenotypic outliers to drive technology.

(*) Meaning food from farming and the existence of cities and everything good and bad that follows as an organizing principle of human values.

However, I think post-factualism is different from the dog in the manger. After all, everybody likes technology and science. It's practically the god(s) of our civilization:-P

Here, much in the same way that radio and TV was initially seen as a way to educate the public with insight on everything from algebra to geopolitics only to see it turning into game shows and crime procedurals (in the spirit of Bernays and Lippman), I think the same mistake has been made wrt to the internet. Initially the popular internet (less than a decade after Eternal September), intellectuals predicted it would lead to the "wisdom of the crowd" believing that the internet would be a way to distill the best insights of vast amounts of humans ... but but ... the same thing happened.

I think we got something else. This was inevitable too --- failing to appreciate how the system adapts to itself.

Post-factualism or post-rationalism is better described by "the fox and the sour grapes" than the "dog in the manger". Yet I don't think sour grapes optimally describes where we're currently at in terms of the failure of the "internet-driven wisdom of the crowd". Maybe we need a new fable for this particular issue.

Before the internet, the "sour grape"-attitude when it came to facts was more of a "I don't get it, so it can't be that important/it's probably useless anyway", IOW, "my folksy wisdom beats your educated knowledge". Sour grapes is a resolution for cognitive dissonance.

With the internet, facts operate more like drinking fine wines. What I see now ... and what I think we've yet to "science" (note, how this is increasingly turning into a verb ... just like every other asset is turned into a $@#$ service these days) is a world where

* most people don't distinguish between facts and factoids. I.e. most see no difference in people's minds between data they know/verified/understand and data that they spent 5 minutes googling . Most people treat/think of both the same way. IOW "my 5 minutes of google is as good as your 10,000 hours of study", because "wisdom of the google crowds". Knowledge is generally no longer believed to matter anymore than whatever one googles on the interwebs.

* many people now think that "doing your research" means googling and/or establishing the truthiness of something based on what their social media facebook friends or favorite blogs say about something. Or whatever top three search result says as long as it confirms their personal opinion. This process is also self-reinforcing because agreeing with your social circle will get you more likes/monkey-petting in such circles. Subscribing to a blog or clicking on every single "news"-link (fake or not) in one's facebook stream is now considered to be just as good as a university degree or expert knowledge.

As a result people end up throwing URLs at each other as a form of debate much like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Futur ... l_Congress

So for this post-factual world, I've been looking at a new heuristic. Namely to establish whether a person's epistemology is based on post-factual metrics, i.e page one google search results, fav. blogger, a celebrity, a politician, ... or whether they're more "solid" than that. Claiming that "I've done my research" or "I read all the news" or "I have all the bestest facts" is easy. Whereas making a coherent (framework-based) argument that isn't composed of dressed up factoids is hard.

I now decide where to spend my time/argue/educate based on that. It's basic intellectual triage+wheaton levels---can this person be reached and am I the one to do it? If not, I ignore! Why reason with someone who isn't using reason in the first place. It's a waste of time. And now that unreason is en vogue ... it's better to focus one's effort on detecting unreason than fighting a war of reason with someone who's impervious. Of course such an attitude is fracturing when it comes to society ... but isn't this what the fourth turning is about ... we've probably reached a point where we need some creative destruction to rid ourselves of claptrap ideas and magic thinking ...

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by BRUTE »

jacob wrote:So for this post-factual world, I've been looking at a new heuristic. Namely to establish whether a person's heuristic is based on post-factual metrics, i.e page one google search results, fav. blogger, a celebrity, a politician, ... Claiming that "I've done my research" or "I read all the news" or "I have all the bestest facts" is easy. Whereas making a coherent (framework-based) argument that isn't composed of dressed up factoids is hard.

I now decide where to spend my time/argue/educate based on that. It's basic intellectual triage+wheaton levels---can this person be reached and am I the one to do it? If not, I ignore! Why reason with someone who isn't using reason in the first place. It's a waste of time. And now that unreason is en vogue ... it's better to focus one's effort on detecting unreason than fighting a war of reason with someone who's impervious. Of course such an attitude is fracturing when it comes to society ... but isn't this what the fourth turning is about ... we've reached a point where we need some creative destruction to rid ourselves of bad directions ...
very interesting. maybe the crux of the problem is that, with the internet, it's now impossible to counter all the incoming bullshit arguments. used to be that there would be a political debate at the Thanksgiving table, a few arguments in the social circle among friends, in the family, and something at work. it was feasible to carry out a handful of intellectual arguments per week. with the internet, brute could (and sometimes does) spend days arguing without even making a dent. therefore, correcting wrongness has lost its appeal - nobody's going to change. why even try?

throwing URLs at each other is something brute has observed in the Vegetarian/Keto threads on here. brute has basically stopped responding to steveo73 and Ego there. it's a Wheaton level thing - what they're saying isn't even wrong. it sounds akin to "tide comes in, tide goes out - can't explain that!". brute has spent quite a few years debating these things 5-7 years ago, and has now tired of it. the only reason he still gets involved in those debates is to sow a counter opinion, to let bystanders know that there is doubt about veganism and other errors in thinking.

another interesting factor about that vegan/keto debate is how arguments are made and judged. neither brute nor steveo73/Ego are actual nutrition scientists. all information isn't just 2nd hand, it's probably 5th hand to 10th hand. presumably, everyone involved has done an n=1 study or they wouldn't be as convinced of their own ways. brute sure has. so there are 2 sides, neither of which will believe anything the other says, or even consider it. their frameworks are so different that even considering the opposite opinion is akin to madness.

what shall the innocent bystander think, and how will he judge the arguing? neither side has any credentials. both sides are throwing URLs (though brute has gotten to lazy, because the others aren't going to read them anyway, just as brute never reads the vegan sites any more) that the other side will denounce as biased or idiotic. confidence? brute is beyond the point of confidence regarding Keto, it's just literal truth to him. he thinks steveo73 and Ego are slightly less confident in the sense that they still have something to lose if it were proven they were mistaken. maybe akin to how jacob is confident about climate change differently than a human who's heavily invested, but didn't do all the science himself - there's no way jacob could've been wrong (in his mind), so his defense isn't a defense of his own identity, it's a defense of truth. but how can the bystander differentiate this from the ignorant zealot, who also has 100% confidence on faith alone?

in a way, the internet has led to a splintering and self-sorting. there are now small tribes for everything. brute wouldn't have found the ERE community, and probably not the Keto community, without the internet. at the same time, the lack of barriers means that all but the most extreme communities are quickly overrun by idiots ("herp derp is donut a carb" in the Keto communities), driving the more experienced individuals further into the frontier.

instead of re-organizing the society around brute by arguing convincingly, it's become way more efficient to (physically and mentally) distance himself, effectively re-organizing himself. the side effect of everyone doing this is probably the fractal tribal dynamic observed at least over the last 10 years.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

Post by steveo73 »

BRUTE wrote:he thinks steveo73 and Ego are slightly less confident in the sense that they still have something to lose if it were proven they were mistaken. maybe akin to how jacob is confident about climate change differently than a human who's heavily invested, but didn't do all the science himself - there's no way jacob could've been wrong (in his mind), so his defense isn't a defense of his own identity, it's a defense of truth. but how can the bystander differentiate this from the ignorant zealot, who also has 100% confidence on faith alone?
I'm honestly not like this. I know it's a self-assessment but I think I'm really good at looking at the facts and deriving a realistic conclusion.

So when it comes to diet I know what is right although I don't follow the right thing to do all the time. There isn't a cognitive bias though. I accept that I eat some meat and some junk food even though I know it's not the best option. I think this debate is past the point of no return but if someone came up with some proper facts I'd look at it. I haven't seen those facts yet and I've seen a tonne of evidence on the flip side.

As for climate change I think it's pretty clear that the science is no-where near where it needs to be. All you have to do is look at the non-factual comments stating local climate change and people honestly believing that is due to anthropogenic global warming. I mean this is basically crazy stuff.

Maybe I can draw some parallels here. A dietary zealot would believe that drinking carrot juice can cure cancer. It might be that eating well (a healthy vegan diet) might lower your chance of developing cancer but I think only a fool would believe that drinking carrot juice will cure cancer.

The question becomes how can you differentiate between the ignorant zealot and the informed individual. I think the zealot draws conclusions that aren't provable from the data or the facts. They also can't see that there is a chance of some other point of view. I for instance can see that some meat in your diet is probably okay. I accept that there is a realistic line. A zealot for climate change won't admit for instance that the models aren't working and that extreme weather events cannot be attributed to AGW. Now there will be times when the zealot is correct. Some people have been cured via drinking carrot juice. Climate does change and it has been warming for 200 years so a local creek might have dried up because of this warming. The zealot though can't accept the complexity in the cancer cure or the creek drying up. They are too caught up in their beliefs that they can't discern reality.

So 100% confidence on faith alone is way too harsh a statement because it's not at that level where it's clear that someone to me is a zealot. A zealot simply can't accept the complexity of the situation and draws conclusions that are not supported by the data/science/facts.

For the record I think that your belief on ketogenic diets would have to be considered in that category. You have drawn a conclusion not supported by the data. You have your anecdotal belief and you can't remove yourself from the situation.

Locked