In other news, water is wet
January 12, 2024 7:58 AM Subscribe
It really isn't that hard to verify information. For news articles, the best approach is to find corroborating and reliable sources which aren't just copying and pasting the content from the original source. If you can't find that, the information is at the very least unverified. Same thing goes for social media posts.
That said, I'm not surprised that most people are really bad at following this process. And of course the definition of a "reliable" source can vary widely.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:06 AM on January 12 [6 favorites]
That said, I'm not surprised that most people are really bad at following this process. And of course the definition of a "reliable" source can vary widely.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:06 AM on January 12 [6 favorites]
Unfortunately the main source this article talks about is search engines. Which have the appearance of being reliable but are anything but. Particularly when they are explicitly gamed by SEO tricks. I know, the search engine is just supposed to be the index, not the source. But that's not how people use them (or increasingly, how they are designed.)
posted by Nelson at 8:10 AM on January 12 [7 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 8:10 AM on January 12 [7 favorites]
I'm sorry, it's just that whenever someone says "it really isn't that hard to ..." I am reasonably sure I'm about to read a list of strategies that are only effective for a small subset of people who are rather privileged with both intellect and free time, and educated in fairly specific ways depending on the particular topic.
It's really quite difficult to verify information, especially with SEO, and even more so with AI hallucinations creeping into not only search results but source material.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:11 AM on January 12 [71 favorites]
It's really quite difficult to verify information, especially with SEO, and even more so with AI hallucinations creeping into not only search results but source material.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:11 AM on January 12 [71 favorites]
There are also some stories/subjects that are so fabricated and outlandish that if you're looking for them you will get plugged straight into the misinformation ecosystem who will state that "mainstream media isn't covering this because _____" when the answer is "because it's made up." I had to address this with an ostensibly liberal person regarding that weird Boebert story this week.
posted by Selena777 at 8:45 AM on January 12 [15 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 8:45 AM on January 12 [15 favorites]
... regarding that weird Boebert story this week.
Immediately Googles "weird Boebert story."
posted by heyitsgogi at 9:19 AM on January 12 [33 favorites]
Immediately Googles "weird Boebert story."
posted by heyitsgogi at 9:19 AM on January 12 [33 favorites]
I am reasonably sure I'm about to read a list of strategies that are only effective for a small subset of people who are rather privileged with both intellect and free time
This. One of Metafilter’s most frustrating blindspots for me is its failure to acknowledge the cognitive privilege enjoyed by its median user. Which all sounds very self-congratulatory and yay we’re smart, progressive backpattings all around, but it means we collectively miss out on so fucking much of why people view the world differently than we do. And that leads to us incorrectly writing people off as “evil” or “lacking empathy” when, no, they are simply ignorant or possibly just a bit less intelligent.
Dunking on others in cases where their problematic beliefs directly stem from an intelligence gap is ethically no different than dunking on them for any other form of ableism. It might feel good in the moment because their problematic beliefs can be hateful, hurtful, and negatively impact our lives, but it doesn’t actually address the issue. This is why it is so important to take the time and muster the patience to build bridges with people you disagree with - especially if the premise that we have a cognitive advantage is true.
posted by Ryvar at 9:19 AM on January 12 [47 favorites]
This. One of Metafilter’s most frustrating blindspots for me is its failure to acknowledge the cognitive privilege enjoyed by its median user. Which all sounds very self-congratulatory and yay we’re smart, progressive backpattings all around, but it means we collectively miss out on so fucking much of why people view the world differently than we do. And that leads to us incorrectly writing people off as “evil” or “lacking empathy” when, no, they are simply ignorant or possibly just a bit less intelligent.
Dunking on others in cases where their problematic beliefs directly stem from an intelligence gap is ethically no different than dunking on them for any other form of ableism. It might feel good in the moment because their problematic beliefs can be hateful, hurtful, and negatively impact our lives, but it doesn’t actually address the issue. This is why it is so important to take the time and muster the patience to build bridges with people you disagree with - especially if the premise that we have a cognitive advantage is true.
posted by Ryvar at 9:19 AM on January 12 [47 favorites]
I've learned over recent years that Media Literacy isn't nearly as easy as I've unconciously assumed it was, and gets harder the older one is, just as a result of folks having had to learn online media literacy as a sort of second language where I had the benefit of growing up with it. I remember years of responding to stuff my mom would send to me with the Snopes article debunking it, until eventually she started checking Snopes herself and then sending those links along as well when they confirmed something.
Good god, remember when it was that easy? Snopes? The past is a foreign country.
And I'm not making fun of boomers here. Rather, I'm recognizing that a generation who (at least in the states), came of age with a massive disillusionment in:re trust of institutions (Vietnam, Watergate, you name it) but who largely aren't super-comfortable with the ins and outs of online Media Literacy because that didn't even become a thing until they were in their forties or fifties, is going to be at an understandable disadvantage here. And Boomers aren't the only group affected either (just the largest group affected in my personal experience witnessing this.)
AND it's not as simple as knowing which sources are trustworthy or not, either. There's a lot of subconscious correcting for biases and such that we do. MSM sources are going to soft-pedal police brutality issues, selectively report on wars, have weird and sometime troublesome axes to grind (like the NYT's war on trans people) etc. The Anti-vax movement caught fire not because a lot of people read a single almost-immediately-discredited journal article, but because some generally reputable sources (in the UK, mostly) ran like hell with it for a while.
AND part of learning the nuances of what to trust and how much to trust it, etc. is just to be plugged in and engaged. And the "do your own research" concept is the funhouse mirror version of that. Folks are engaging, just in echo chambers of bullshit. Now, I know that the average informative post or comment on Metafilter is going to be more trustworthy than one from justaskingquestions.fart/immigration or whatever, but explaining why, to a person who is already invested in their opinion, while also knowing that a lot of nuances and "knowing how to read comments" is at play in what I read on the Blue, is daunting.
TL;DR I don't have a solution to this, but I sympathize with the people who get lost in the weeds, even as they frustrate the hell out of me on the daily.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:24 AM on January 12 [39 favorites]
Good god, remember when it was that easy? Snopes? The past is a foreign country.
And I'm not making fun of boomers here. Rather, I'm recognizing that a generation who (at least in the states), came of age with a massive disillusionment in:re trust of institutions (Vietnam, Watergate, you name it) but who largely aren't super-comfortable with the ins and outs of online Media Literacy because that didn't even become a thing until they were in their forties or fifties, is going to be at an understandable disadvantage here. And Boomers aren't the only group affected either (just the largest group affected in my personal experience witnessing this.)
AND it's not as simple as knowing which sources are trustworthy or not, either. There's a lot of subconscious correcting for biases and such that we do. MSM sources are going to soft-pedal police brutality issues, selectively report on wars, have weird and sometime troublesome axes to grind (like the NYT's war on trans people) etc. The Anti-vax movement caught fire not because a lot of people read a single almost-immediately-discredited journal article, but because some generally reputable sources (in the UK, mostly) ran like hell with it for a while.
AND part of learning the nuances of what to trust and how much to trust it, etc. is just to be plugged in and engaged. And the "do your own research" concept is the funhouse mirror version of that. Folks are engaging, just in echo chambers of bullshit. Now, I know that the average informative post or comment on Metafilter is going to be more trustworthy than one from justaskingquestions.fart/immigration or whatever, but explaining why, to a person who is already invested in their opinion, while also knowing that a lot of nuances and "knowing how to read comments" is at play in what I read on the Blue, is daunting.
TL;DR I don't have a solution to this, but I sympathize with the people who get lost in the weeds, even as they frustrate the hell out of me on the daily.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:24 AM on January 12 [39 favorites]
that leads to us incorrectly writing people off as “evil” or “lacking empathy” when, no, they are simply ignorant or possibly just a bit less intelligent.
Ignorant thickos - check.
posted by biffa at 9:34 AM on January 12 [6 favorites]
Ignorant thickos - check.
posted by biffa at 9:34 AM on January 12 [6 favorites]
the best approach is to find corroborating and reliable sources which aren't just copying and pasting the content from the original source
But that's the whole fucking problem! In a world where we're all very well aware of how both implicit and explicit biases shape our conclusions, how in the hell do we find these things? Especially given the incredible defunding of local news, who would usually be doing the lion's share of this work?
Like, when I go to do research on a question I have, it is often very easy for me to verify things quickly... because I'm an academic, and I have a shit ton of lived experience on how to assess source trustworthiness, and even apart from that half my friends are goddamn librarians! I have a ton of explicit training in identifying what sources pass my sniff test!
But like it or not, whatever your political bent, identifying trustworthy sources is so much harder now than it used to be. You're constantly trying to assess what the potential biases of any reporter are, and whether they're going to lunge out with some kind of hidden agenda that isn't explicitly stated. Media institutions have largely abandoned the concept of investigative reporting and journalism to the point that we all rely on fucking comedians and podcast writers and Youtubers to do the roles that investigative journalists used to, usually on the strength of however much their stable audience feels like paying for them to do! And before you sniff all "oh I would never, that's such an alt-right thing" at me, I want to know if you view John Oliver or Michael Hobbes as a trustworthy source for information.
(I mean, I listen to both of them--but they are, again, a comedian and a podcaster, and the main reason I do not have a Youtuber link here is that I don't like video. They meet my vibe and sniff tests based on previous attempts to triangulate information, but no one can be an expert on everything at once!)
posted by sciatrix at 9:38 AM on January 12 [21 favorites]
But that's the whole fucking problem! In a world where we're all very well aware of how both implicit and explicit biases shape our conclusions, how in the hell do we find these things? Especially given the incredible defunding of local news, who would usually be doing the lion's share of this work?
Like, when I go to do research on a question I have, it is often very easy for me to verify things quickly... because I'm an academic, and I have a shit ton of lived experience on how to assess source trustworthiness, and even apart from that half my friends are goddamn librarians! I have a ton of explicit training in identifying what sources pass my sniff test!
But like it or not, whatever your political bent, identifying trustworthy sources is so much harder now than it used to be. You're constantly trying to assess what the potential biases of any reporter are, and whether they're going to lunge out with some kind of hidden agenda that isn't explicitly stated. Media institutions have largely abandoned the concept of investigative reporting and journalism to the point that we all rely on fucking comedians and podcast writers and Youtubers to do the roles that investigative journalists used to, usually on the strength of however much their stable audience feels like paying for them to do! And before you sniff all "oh I would never, that's such an alt-right thing" at me, I want to know if you view John Oliver or Michael Hobbes as a trustworthy source for information.
(I mean, I listen to both of them--but they are, again, a comedian and a podcaster, and the main reason I do not have a Youtuber link here is that I don't like video. They meet my vibe and sniff tests based on previous attempts to triangulate information, but no one can be an expert on everything at once!)
posted by sciatrix at 9:38 AM on January 12 [21 favorites]
Oh hi, this is one of the topics that I could talk about endlessly. And Navelgazer's comment about Boomers is a good lead-in to point out how much of a problem this is for all of us, including and maybe especially young people
I have taught information literacy at university libraries, and even at a university, it's not at all a required class -- so we only teach a small number of college students how to do research. Usually we don't get them until junior or senior year, and I've heard so many times how much what we taught them would have been really useful to have earlier in their college career. So only a small percentage, of a select privileged group of people, actually get any instruction at all on doing research, and it's really late in the game.
In this information age, the ability to find and evaluate information is truly a skill that needs to be part of the core curriculum in high school (or even earlier) -- EVERYONE needs to learn this stuff. And almost nobody is. In K-12 schools, libraries have been increasingly deprioritized, which looks like sometimes one librarian for an entire school district, or the "librarian" not being a professionally trained information professional, or even the library being closed completely. I'm sure some school libraries do have some info lit elements, but in the schools my son has attended, access to the library has been limited to a few minutes a couple times a week to check out a book.
Another problem is, so much of our good, well-researched information is locked behind paywalls. We're lucky that federal research is fairly accessible but so much of our professional journalism and research is subscription-only, leaving the masses without access to credible, relevant, unbiased information. Googling is such a sucker's game, with all the sponsored content, SEO, and just shitty, biased sources left and right. Even just posters in the schools, which bullet point the main things (checking for bias, timeliness, relevancy, authority, and purpose and basic ways to do that) would be a huge improvement.
If everyone learned about search strategy and evaluating information sources, as a matter of course during their government-mandated schooling, we'd all be better off as a society. This is a hill I will 100% die on because its so critically important to have a well-informed populace. (And of course the cynic in me knows that that's exactly why we don't teach info lit in the schools.)
posted by rabbitrabbit at 9:39 AM on January 12 [53 favorites]
I have taught information literacy at university libraries, and even at a university, it's not at all a required class -- so we only teach a small number of college students how to do research. Usually we don't get them until junior or senior year, and I've heard so many times how much what we taught them would have been really useful to have earlier in their college career. So only a small percentage, of a select privileged group of people, actually get any instruction at all on doing research, and it's really late in the game.
In this information age, the ability to find and evaluate information is truly a skill that needs to be part of the core curriculum in high school (or even earlier) -- EVERYONE needs to learn this stuff. And almost nobody is. In K-12 schools, libraries have been increasingly deprioritized, which looks like sometimes one librarian for an entire school district, or the "librarian" not being a professionally trained information professional, or even the library being closed completely. I'm sure some school libraries do have some info lit elements, but in the schools my son has attended, access to the library has been limited to a few minutes a couple times a week to check out a book.
Another problem is, so much of our good, well-researched information is locked behind paywalls. We're lucky that federal research is fairly accessible but so much of our professional journalism and research is subscription-only, leaving the masses without access to credible, relevant, unbiased information. Googling is such a sucker's game, with all the sponsored content, SEO, and just shitty, biased sources left and right. Even just posters in the schools, which bullet point the main things (checking for bias, timeliness, relevancy, authority, and purpose and basic ways to do that) would be a huge improvement.
If everyone learned about search strategy and evaluating information sources, as a matter of course during their government-mandated schooling, we'd all be better off as a society. This is a hill I will 100% die on because its so critically important to have a well-informed populace. (And of course the cynic in me knows that that's exactly why we don't teach info lit in the schools.)
posted by rabbitrabbit at 9:39 AM on January 12 [53 favorites]
The big worry for me is that media literacy feels like very weak sauce as a solution to our information problems.
Techno-utopians are excitedly making plans to bake large language model "AI" into everything we interact with, and are hand-waving away their fact-free word-remixes as "hallucinations" that'll eventually, somehow, work themselves out.
Political schemers like TFG and Bannon (and China, and Russia) are actively "flooding the zone with shit" for their own power-plays.
Marketing absolutely everything has so taken over as a concept that people feel like they need to become their own brand managers — putting a positive spin their personal narratives seems like the only way to succeed socially or financially. This has led to massive amounts of cynicism about what is and isn't true about anything.
And the few remaining new sites that actually attempt to produce fact-checked information are assailed on all sides for every misstep.
The problem isn't that people don't know how to fact check. The problem is that giant forces are working overtime to confuse fact and fiction.
So saying that we need more media literacy is much like saying we should fix the environment by recycling and driving electric cars. Or saying the answer to the drug epidemic is "just say no."
Any time you can take an overwhelming social ill and turn it into a personal responsibility problem, then people will be too distracted fighting over who's not being responsible enough to actually band together and demand change.
posted by heyitsgogi at 9:45 AM on January 12 [27 favorites]
Techno-utopians are excitedly making plans to bake large language model "AI" into everything we interact with, and are hand-waving away their fact-free word-remixes as "hallucinations" that'll eventually, somehow, work themselves out.
Political schemers like TFG and Bannon (and China, and Russia) are actively "flooding the zone with shit" for their own power-plays.
Marketing absolutely everything has so taken over as a concept that people feel like they need to become their own brand managers — putting a positive spin their personal narratives seems like the only way to succeed socially or financially. This has led to massive amounts of cynicism about what is and isn't true about anything.
And the few remaining new sites that actually attempt to produce fact-checked information are assailed on all sides for every misstep.
The problem isn't that people don't know how to fact check. The problem is that giant forces are working overtime to confuse fact and fiction.
So saying that we need more media literacy is much like saying we should fix the environment by recycling and driving electric cars. Or saying the answer to the drug epidemic is "just say no."
Any time you can take an overwhelming social ill and turn it into a personal responsibility problem, then people will be too distracted fighting over who's not being responsible enough to actually band together and demand change.
posted by heyitsgogi at 9:45 AM on January 12 [27 favorites]
Seems to me there ought to be classes in school about logical fallacies.
posted by The Half Language Plant at 9:47 AM on January 12 [3 favorites]
posted by The Half Language Plant at 9:47 AM on January 12 [3 favorites]
In my experience, organized disinformation campaigns frequently have a sort of a "catechism" of specialized language. The different corners of the lie-o-sphere, and my acquaintances who follow them, will rather suddenly all start talking about the same set of "facts," using the same language, and my acquaintances are baffled that I've not heard of these things, what with me usually seeming so well-informed.
Searching for the language used in the catechism brings up only results from within the lie-o-sphere, because no one outside of this circle is discussing the fiction at all yet. By the time I figure out what is happening, the disinformation machine has moved in to something new.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 9:49 AM on January 12 [19 favorites]
Searching for the language used in the catechism brings up only results from within the lie-o-sphere, because no one outside of this circle is discussing the fiction at all yet. By the time I figure out what is happening, the disinformation machine has moved in to something new.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 9:49 AM on January 12 [19 favorites]
Like, when I go to do research on a question I have, it is often very easy for me to verify things quickly... because I'm an academic, and I have a shit ton of lived experience on how to assess source trustworthiness, and even apart from that half my friends are goddamn librarians! I have a ton of explicit training in identifying what sources pass my sniff test!
YUP! I'm more or less a professional researcher, with a postgraduate degree, and one of my most valuable resources is a Slack channel I have constantly open with three friends: an Academic, an Historian, and a Journalist. Mostly we just make jokes all day but we can also check in on stuff like "what's the story here?" and come out with a decent picture pretty quickly. That's an absurdly privileged place to be in though, when it comes to knowing more or less the "truth" of things.
If everyone learned about search strategy and evaluating information sources, as a matter of course during their government-mandated schooling, we'd all be better off as a society. This is a hill I will 100% die on because its so critically important to have a well-informed populace. (And of course the cynic in me knows that that's exactly why we don't teach info lit in the schools.)
My partner, also a college professor, 100% agrees with you on this. For whatever that's worth. (So do I, but I don't interact with college students on a daily basis.)
posted by Navelgazer at 9:50 AM on January 12 [8 favorites]
YUP! I'm more or less a professional researcher, with a postgraduate degree, and one of my most valuable resources is a Slack channel I have constantly open with three friends: an Academic, an Historian, and a Journalist. Mostly we just make jokes all day but we can also check in on stuff like "what's the story here?" and come out with a decent picture pretty quickly. That's an absurdly privileged place to be in though, when it comes to knowing more or less the "truth" of things.
If everyone learned about search strategy and evaluating information sources, as a matter of course during their government-mandated schooling, we'd all be better off as a society. This is a hill I will 100% die on because its so critically important to have a well-informed populace. (And of course the cynic in me knows that that's exactly why we don't teach info lit in the schools.)
My partner, also a college professor, 100% agrees with you on this. For whatever that's worth. (So do I, but I don't interact with college students on a daily basis.)
posted by Navelgazer at 9:50 AM on January 12 [8 favorites]
Our local library will run media literacy classes for teens every so often. I very much appreciate them doing that.
posted by Kitteh at 9:51 AM on January 12 [3 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 9:51 AM on January 12 [3 favorites]
Not thrilled that my comment is now being painted as ableist and indicative of a lack of empathy, but oh well.
I mean, it is legitimately hard to divine the truth when there are no clear indicators of authenticity in the information - like early on in the COVID pandemic when all of the hydroxycholoroquine stuff was coming out, and before it had been properly debunked. And even I, a self-congratulatory privileged smart person with lots of free time, got swindled by a bad search result when trying to sign up for TSA Pre. Spoiler alert: there is no charge to set up an appointment! If you get to a site like http://tsa-signup-helper.pants, you have been scammed. Thankfully I was able to dispute the charge.
I have plenty of relatives who post articles to Facebook that are usually anodyne but almost certainly untrue, and 9 times out of 10 a simple web search pulls up either a "no, this is not true" page or, in some cases, a follow-up article that negates whatever was so outraging about the first one. And I don't think my relatives are stupid or lazy. It just takes energy to vet your info and people have to pick their battles.
I want to know if you view John Oliver or Michael Hobbes as a trustworthy source for information.
I do not. I don't know who Michael Hobbes is, and I think John Oliver is smarty and funny, but he's also very biased. I also don't look to Colbert or Stewart, either. In general I've found following personalities rather than organizations to be a losing proposition.
Yes to media literacy!
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:54 AM on January 12 [6 favorites]
I mean, it is legitimately hard to divine the truth when there are no clear indicators of authenticity in the information - like early on in the COVID pandemic when all of the hydroxycholoroquine stuff was coming out, and before it had been properly debunked. And even I, a self-congratulatory privileged smart person with lots of free time, got swindled by a bad search result when trying to sign up for TSA Pre. Spoiler alert: there is no charge to set up an appointment! If you get to a site like http://tsa-signup-helper.pants, you have been scammed. Thankfully I was able to dispute the charge.
I have plenty of relatives who post articles to Facebook that are usually anodyne but almost certainly untrue, and 9 times out of 10 a simple web search pulls up either a "no, this is not true" page or, in some cases, a follow-up article that negates whatever was so outraging about the first one. And I don't think my relatives are stupid or lazy. It just takes energy to vet your info and people have to pick their battles.
I want to know if you view John Oliver or Michael Hobbes as a trustworthy source for information.
I do not. I don't know who Michael Hobbes is, and I think John Oliver is smarty and funny, but he's also very biased. I also don't look to Colbert or Stewart, either. In general I've found following personalities rather than organizations to be a losing proposition.
Yes to media literacy!
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:54 AM on January 12 [6 favorites]
And that leads to us incorrectly writing people off as “evil” or “lacking empathy” when, no, they are simply ignorant or possibly just a bit less intelligent.
I'm sorry, but no, bigotry, hate, and white supremacy are not the result of "lack of intelligence". And while they can be the result of ignorance, it's also worth noting that oftentimes that ignorance is intentional and actively maintained and reinforced. At a certain point, refusing to hold people accountable for their behavior is actively harmful to both their victims and themselves.
This is why it is so important to take the time and muster the patience to build bridges with people you disagree with
You cannot build bridges with hate, and framing hate and bigotry as a "difference of opinion" is bad faith argumentation that is designed to conceal exactly what that difference is to avoid dealing with the questions it brings up.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:58 AM on January 12 [19 favorites]
I'm sorry, but no, bigotry, hate, and white supremacy are not the result of "lack of intelligence". And while they can be the result of ignorance, it's also worth noting that oftentimes that ignorance is intentional and actively maintained and reinforced. At a certain point, refusing to hold people accountable for their behavior is actively harmful to both their victims and themselves.
This is why it is so important to take the time and muster the patience to build bridges with people you disagree with
You cannot build bridges with hate, and framing hate and bigotry as a "difference of opinion" is bad faith argumentation that is designed to conceal exactly what that difference is to avoid dealing with the questions it brings up.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:58 AM on January 12 [19 favorites]
as a friend recently put it, doing one's own research is essential in this overloaded zeitgeist ... assuming you actually know how to do research. Unfortunately the interwebs have unleashed multitudes who didn't get that far in their formal education adventures.
But this doesn't even account for another "friend" who got all the training (undergrad degree etc) but still can't help himself posting egregious bullshit that supports his profoundly heartfelt anti-vax concerns. At some point, we've got realize that a lot of this just isn't rational, it's driven by paranoia, which (a quick google confirms), rates as a genuine personality disorder.
posted by philip-random at 9:58 AM on January 12 [8 favorites]
But this doesn't even account for another "friend" who got all the training (undergrad degree etc) but still can't help himself posting egregious bullshit that supports his profoundly heartfelt anti-vax concerns. At some point, we've got realize that a lot of this just isn't rational, it's driven by paranoia, which (a quick google confirms), rates as a genuine personality disorder.
posted by philip-random at 9:58 AM on January 12 [8 favorites]
Our local library will run media literacy classes for teens every so often. I very much appreciate them doing that.
So do I, Kitteh, but I guarantee you that these classes are full of teens who are already way better at research than their peers -- no teen who isn't into media literacy as a concept (or has parents who know it's important, which means they're already on that info-lit privilege track) is going to sign up for a class on it at the local library. The kids who need it most are the ones who wouldn't ever go to the library in the first place, given the option not to. Info lit needs to be baked into K-12 education.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 9:59 AM on January 12 [8 favorites]
So do I, Kitteh, but I guarantee you that these classes are full of teens who are already way better at research than their peers -- no teen who isn't into media literacy as a concept (or has parents who know it's important, which means they're already on that info-lit privilege track) is going to sign up for a class on it at the local library. The kids who need it most are the ones who wouldn't ever go to the library in the first place, given the option not to. Info lit needs to be baked into K-12 education.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 9:59 AM on January 12 [8 favorites]
Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot
The so-called bias blind spot arises when people report that thinking biases are more prevalent in others than in themselves. Bias turns out to be relatively easy to recognize in the behaviors of others, but often difficult to detect in one's own judgments. ...a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability.
posted by Brian B. at 10:09 AM on January 12 [18 favorites]
The so-called bias blind spot arises when people report that thinking biases are more prevalent in others than in themselves. Bias turns out to be relatively easy to recognize in the behaviors of others, but often difficult to detect in one's own judgments. ...a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability.
posted by Brian B. at 10:09 AM on January 12 [18 favorites]
You cannot build bridges with hate, and framing hate and bigotry as a "difference of opinion" is bad faith argumentation that
but how do we know it's genuine hate/bigotry until we first attempt to build a bridge?
Brings to mind something that came up recently in discussion with a few wiser, older types. Basically, "the means are the ends" is a pretty solid approach to life-the-universe-everything ... except in war. In other words, if it's peacetime and you're choosing to use bullying, aggressive tactics to achieve your highly vaunted values, don't be surprised when you end up with a bullying, aggressive end. In war on the other hand, that bullying and aggression is already a fact, all bets are off, we're just trying to survive ...
posted by philip-random at 10:09 AM on January 12 [4 favorites]
but how do we know it's genuine hate/bigotry until we first attempt to build a bridge?
Brings to mind something that came up recently in discussion with a few wiser, older types. Basically, "the means are the ends" is a pretty solid approach to life-the-universe-everything ... except in war. In other words, if it's peacetime and you're choosing to use bullying, aggressive tactics to achieve your highly vaunted values, don't be surprised when you end up with a bullying, aggressive end. In war on the other hand, that bullying and aggression is already a fact, all bets are off, we're just trying to survive ...
posted by philip-random at 10:09 AM on January 12 [4 favorites]
I'm sorry, but no, bigotry, hate, and white supremacy are not the result of "lack of intelligence". And while they can be the result of ignorance
This is equivalent to saying they are not the result of insufficient velocity but they can be the result insufficient distance. Intelligence * time = reduction in ignorance. I have decades of experience gently guiding conservative people away from white supremacy, ranging from well-intentioned unconscious racists to former active Wizard in the KKK - yes there is root hatred in terms of a basic need to find a categorical other that you or your group are for whatever reason better than, but so, so often the reinforcing “facts” are misplaced classism, which is much more susceptible to evaporating with a little illumination, and once you’ve broken the seal labeled “unquestioning,” momentum and a natural desire to improve can do a lot of the remaining work for you.
The amount of misinformation on trans people in the conservative sphere right now is equal parts daunting and horrifying. There is so much misunderstanding of intent and medical treatment protocol and just simply not understanding a whole new set of rules when they seem to change weekly - a lot of evangelicals are willing to swing on outward, overt discrimination if you sit down and calmly run them through a 101 (literally what I spent all of Christmas Day '21 doing). Babysitting the kids isn’t happening for probably the lifetime of the individual in question, but you can get them to stop spreading misinformation and even begin quietly opposing it in their own social circles, with the truly ingroup.
You can help people dig out of hate with information. What you cannot do is help people dig out of contempt, period. If they’re laughing at you, it’s over and someone else will need to try again (much) later. But this fight can be won, and that’s why it’s so important for progressive white dudes to have uncomfortable, compassionate conversations with their extended families.
posted by Ryvar at 10:31 AM on January 12 [9 favorites]
This is equivalent to saying they are not the result of insufficient velocity but they can be the result insufficient distance. Intelligence * time = reduction in ignorance. I have decades of experience gently guiding conservative people away from white supremacy, ranging from well-intentioned unconscious racists to former active Wizard in the KKK - yes there is root hatred in terms of a basic need to find a categorical other that you or your group are for whatever reason better than, but so, so often the reinforcing “facts” are misplaced classism, which is much more susceptible to evaporating with a little illumination, and once you’ve broken the seal labeled “unquestioning,” momentum and a natural desire to improve can do a lot of the remaining work for you.
The amount of misinformation on trans people in the conservative sphere right now is equal parts daunting and horrifying. There is so much misunderstanding of intent and medical treatment protocol and just simply not understanding a whole new set of rules when they seem to change weekly - a lot of evangelicals are willing to swing on outward, overt discrimination if you sit down and calmly run them through a 101 (literally what I spent all of Christmas Day '21 doing). Babysitting the kids isn’t happening for probably the lifetime of the individual in question, but you can get them to stop spreading misinformation and even begin quietly opposing it in their own social circles, with the truly ingroup.
You can help people dig out of hate with information. What you cannot do is help people dig out of contempt, period. If they’re laughing at you, it’s over and someone else will need to try again (much) later. But this fight can be won, and that’s why it’s so important for progressive white dudes to have uncomfortable, compassionate conversations with their extended families.
posted by Ryvar at 10:31 AM on January 12 [9 favorites]
@rabbitrabbit -- Do you have any thoughts on how to teach media literacy to elementary-aged kids at home? Disinformation is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" things, and I don't really know how to teach my kid how to identify it. She's pretty clever, and she definitely understands that the internet is full of lies, but I don't know how to give her a framework to actually develop her own "smell test" for this stuff.
posted by uncleozzy at 10:34 AM on January 12 [2 favorites]
posted by uncleozzy at 10:34 AM on January 12 [2 favorites]
@uncleozzy: The National Association for Media Literacy Education has a good parents' guide. A lot of it boils down to teaching kids how to ask questions and think critically by modeling it for them.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 10:49 AM on January 12 [12 favorites]
posted by rabbitrabbit at 10:49 AM on January 12 [12 favorites]
Also, this probably isn't as important as the rest of the conversation here, but can we appreciate that the study on data voids comes to us from danah boyd?
posted by Navelgazer at 10:58 AM on January 12 [13 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 10:58 AM on January 12 [13 favorites]
100% was just about to say that Danah Boyd and the Data Void is a killer band name.
posted by Pickman's Next Top Model at 11:05 AM on January 12 [21 favorites]
posted by Pickman's Next Top Model at 11:05 AM on January 12 [21 favorites]
One bad experience in third grade can make you think of yourself as a "bad kid". Or make reading, then books, then thinking and talking critically about ideas, as something other people seem to get -- but how they process that exists, essentially, behind a black curtain in a space you never go, so it's not relevant to you.
You're locked out of whatever makes other people happy and successful. Because of the way you started thinking of yourself in the third grade, after a humiliation or a teacher's look of annoyance, and the self-fueling cycle of anxiety and anger and failure that has built year after year since then.
Eventually, if someone starts giving you a little self-esteem back, you realize that whatever is going on behind that black curtain was created by people who don't even like you.
This is common. It's hard to imagine if you haven't experienced it, but it's a core understanding that informs most modern education of teachers.
These kinds of experiences aren't anybody's fault - they happen because of teacher/student ratios, stresses on adults who happen to be caring for children, adults who don't know how much effect their bad mood really has, and circumstances of birth that no child has control over.
They're very, very common. They're the difference between you having a masters degree and you barely graduating high school; the difference between you seeing how dumb ChatGPT really is, and you finding a YouTube bro's ideas connecting contrails and autism bracingly insightful.
Please find another word to use instead of "intelligence".
posted by amtho at 11:17 AM on January 12 [15 favorites]
You're locked out of whatever makes other people happy and successful. Because of the way you started thinking of yourself in the third grade, after a humiliation or a teacher's look of annoyance, and the self-fueling cycle of anxiety and anger and failure that has built year after year since then.
Eventually, if someone starts giving you a little self-esteem back, you realize that whatever is going on behind that black curtain was created by people who don't even like you.
This is common. It's hard to imagine if you haven't experienced it, but it's a core understanding that informs most modern education of teachers.
These kinds of experiences aren't anybody's fault - they happen because of teacher/student ratios, stresses on adults who happen to be caring for children, adults who don't know how much effect their bad mood really has, and circumstances of birth that no child has control over.
They're very, very common. They're the difference between you having a masters degree and you barely graduating high school; the difference between you seeing how dumb ChatGPT really is, and you finding a YouTube bro's ideas connecting contrails and autism bracingly insightful.
Please find another word to use instead of "intelligence".
posted by amtho at 11:17 AM on January 12 [15 favorites]
Media Literacy because that didn't even become a thing until they were in their forties or fifties
As a Boomer, I have to say the need for media literacy was obvious by the time I was in college. Back then, it was mostly marketers and advertising, but there was also cold war propaganda, tobacco denial, etc. I didn't understand why it wasn't being taught in high school. After all, Bernays had started writing about it back in the 20s.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:19 AM on January 12 [5 favorites]
As a Boomer, I have to say the need for media literacy was obvious by the time I was in college. Back then, it was mostly marketers and advertising, but there was also cold war propaganda, tobacco denial, etc. I didn't understand why it wasn't being taught in high school. After all, Bernays had started writing about it back in the 20s.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:19 AM on January 12 [5 favorites]
And of course the definition of a "reliable" source can vary widely.
It is apparent that for some, “reliable” means “agreeing with my pre-existing biases.”
I do not exclude myself from this group.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:22 AM on January 12 [3 favorites]
It is apparent that for some, “reliable” means “agreeing with my pre-existing biases.”
I do not exclude myself from this group.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:22 AM on January 12 [3 favorites]
> These kinds of experiences aren't anybody's fault - they happen because of teacher/student ratios...
I can think of someone whose fault that is.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:32 AM on January 12 [6 favorites]
I can think of someone whose fault that is.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:32 AM on January 12 [6 favorites]
CheeseDigestsAll: Indeed. I was referring to online media literacy as not being a thing that Boomers grew up with. Y'all for sure had extensive experience in being bullshitted by supposedly trustworthy sources and knowing it.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:33 AM on January 12 [4 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 11:33 AM on January 12 [4 favorites]
> but how do we know it's genuine hate/bigotry until we first attempt to build a bridge?
"Aaugh!" shouts Charlie Brown as Lucy pulls the football away. He falls on his ass, and is left to stare up at the sky wondering how he fell for this yet again.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:21 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]
"Aaugh!" shouts Charlie Brown as Lucy pulls the football away. He falls on his ass, and is left to stare up at the sky wondering how he fell for this yet again.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:21 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]
well, Charlie Brown's an idiot because he always takes a full-on kick.
posted by philip-random at 12:26 PM on January 12
posted by philip-random at 12:26 PM on January 12
My daughter's elementary school did some media literacy teaching. It was a bit lukewarm due to being age appropriate, but I expect the high school she's in now will ramp it up a bit.
My pet hypothesis about "doing the research" is that for many people their research process is pretty much the same as their shopping process. So, they find what they want.
posted by house-goblin at 12:37 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]
My pet hypothesis about "doing the research" is that for many people their research process is pretty much the same as their shopping process. So, they find what they want.
posted by house-goblin at 12:37 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]
but how do we know it's genuine hate/bigotry until we first attempt to build a bridge?
Because at the end of the day, there is no distinction, and "ironic" bigotry is still bigotry.
This is equivalent to saying they are not the result of insufficient velocity but they can be the result insufficient distance. Intelligence * time = reduction in ignorance.
As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." Your "equation" there is missing a key term - the willingness of the person involved to actually engage and put in the work - and as long as that is zero, neither time nor information (and as was pointed out above, "intelligence" is a poor and heavily loaded term here) will be able to achieve anything. And that's not getting into Adam Serwer's famous point of "the cruelty is the point", as there are people out there who do know the score, and willingly and knowingly choose to hurt others.
But this fight can be won,
Two points here:
* One, I don't agree that we can "win this fight" (or more to the point, this particular front of the fight), because I don't agree that the source of it is a lack of understanding. For some people it is, and so we can leave them off ramps - but for many hate and bigotry is a choice. And I think that there is a long running self-deception that isn't the case, because we don't want to think about what willingly choosing hate means.
* Two, even if I did believe that this fight could be "won", I would question the cost of doing so. In his video on how people are radicalized, Ian Danskin has a section about how deradicalization cannot be the sole or even a primary type of praxis - in fact, he bluntly points out how this drains capacity from other efforts we could be doing to improve things. And as he also points out, it sends a bad message when we spend more time and effort on deradicalizing bigots than we do on aiding and supporting their victims. Deradicalization is attractive for a number of reasons - but those reasons should make us wary of wading in, lest we get so tied up with individual trees that we fail to see the forest.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:50 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]
Because at the end of the day, there is no distinction, and "ironic" bigotry is still bigotry.
This is equivalent to saying they are not the result of insufficient velocity but they can be the result insufficient distance. Intelligence * time = reduction in ignorance.
As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." Your "equation" there is missing a key term - the willingness of the person involved to actually engage and put in the work - and as long as that is zero, neither time nor information (and as was pointed out above, "intelligence" is a poor and heavily loaded term here) will be able to achieve anything. And that's not getting into Adam Serwer's famous point of "the cruelty is the point", as there are people out there who do know the score, and willingly and knowingly choose to hurt others.
But this fight can be won,
Two points here:
* One, I don't agree that we can "win this fight" (or more to the point, this particular front of the fight), because I don't agree that the source of it is a lack of understanding. For some people it is, and so we can leave them off ramps - but for many hate and bigotry is a choice. And I think that there is a long running self-deception that isn't the case, because we don't want to think about what willingly choosing hate means.
* Two, even if I did believe that this fight could be "won", I would question the cost of doing so. In his video on how people are radicalized, Ian Danskin has a section about how deradicalization cannot be the sole or even a primary type of praxis - in fact, he bluntly points out how this drains capacity from other efforts we could be doing to improve things. And as he also points out, it sends a bad message when we spend more time and effort on deradicalizing bigots than we do on aiding and supporting their victims. Deradicalization is attractive for a number of reasons - but those reasons should make us wary of wading in, lest we get so tied up with individual trees that we fail to see the forest.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:50 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]
"Aaugh!" shouts Charlie Brown as Lucy pulls the football away.
My own posting to this site in the early 2000s easily qualifies as misogynistic hate (which you can go read if you really want or you can enjoy the rest of your day but not both). The first group I fell in with fresh out of fundie evangelism was, if not quite 4chan bad, definitely not far off.
Despite those posts, jessamyn took the time to befriend me and over the next two years and 5~6MB of uncompressed DM text staged a slow intervention that radically altered the ideological course of my life. Less intentional but no less important were the impact corb, KathrynT and a few others had - a quiet well-timed favorite or olive branch in a thread where I was really struggling, or a deep, comprehensive breakdown of the internal mechanics of one vein of conservative thought or another, stuff that I’d lived but hadn’t yet unpacked.
And a big part of why that worked is that all of them were palpably brilliant, and rewarded good faith engagement with patient, sound arguments. And if one of them had ever mentioned anything in the way of antivax (back when it was very much in fashion for lefty moms), crystal energy, or any other brand of left-flavored moonbeam bullshit every bit of that work would’ve instantly been undone because of contempt. It takes time, and effort, and there is a window during which it can still go wrong before it becomes a self-sustaining, internally piloted process of continued growth.
It is 2024, we are all very very tired, and I sympathize with people not wanting to wade in sewage in the slim hopes of finding something other than shit. But if you can, it’s important and it is never hopeless and I know this because I have lived both sides of it.
On preview:
For some people it is, and so we can leave them off ramps
For the sake of peace I’ll leave my response at: I am very grateful for all the people in my life who took the time and made the effort to go beyond “leave them off ramps.”
posted by Ryvar at 1:00 PM on January 12 [30 favorites]
My own posting to this site in the early 2000s easily qualifies as misogynistic hate (which you can go read if you really want or you can enjoy the rest of your day but not both). The first group I fell in with fresh out of fundie evangelism was, if not quite 4chan bad, definitely not far off.
Despite those posts, jessamyn took the time to befriend me and over the next two years and 5~6MB of uncompressed DM text staged a slow intervention that radically altered the ideological course of my life. Less intentional but no less important were the impact corb, KathrynT and a few others had - a quiet well-timed favorite or olive branch in a thread where I was really struggling, or a deep, comprehensive breakdown of the internal mechanics of one vein of conservative thought or another, stuff that I’d lived but hadn’t yet unpacked.
And a big part of why that worked is that all of them were palpably brilliant, and rewarded good faith engagement with patient, sound arguments. And if one of them had ever mentioned anything in the way of antivax (back when it was very much in fashion for lefty moms), crystal energy, or any other brand of left-flavored moonbeam bullshit every bit of that work would’ve instantly been undone because of contempt. It takes time, and effort, and there is a window during which it can still go wrong before it becomes a self-sustaining, internally piloted process of continued growth.
It is 2024, we are all very very tired, and I sympathize with people not wanting to wade in sewage in the slim hopes of finding something other than shit. But if you can, it’s important and it is never hopeless and I know this because I have lived both sides of it.
On preview:
For some people it is, and so we can leave them off ramps
For the sake of peace I’ll leave my response at: I am very grateful for all the people in my life who took the time and made the effort to go beyond “leave them off ramps.”
posted by Ryvar at 1:00 PM on January 12 [30 favorites]
I just picked up an ILLed book from my department's library entitled Nobody's Fool that came out last year (authors Simons and Chabris and here's an NPR interview with them, not to be confused with the Russo book by the same title that is fiction). I think it's worth a look. It approaches scams, hoaxes, zone-shit-flooding, and similar phenomena from the point of view of how they hack our fallible brains -- heuristics, mental shortcuts, and such --
and,
crucially, CRUCIALLY
offers sensible, feasible techniques for countering those habits of thought.
If I were to build a course for high schoolers or undergrads on Not Getting Snookered, I think this book could be a dandy textbook.
posted by humbug at 1:08 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]
and,
crucially, CRUCIALLY
offers sensible, feasible techniques for countering those habits of thought.
If I were to build a course for high schoolers or undergrads on Not Getting Snookered, I think this book could be a dandy textbook.
posted by humbug at 1:08 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]
I'm a librarian with what I am confident is a higher than average level of media literacy, and I've still fallen for completely fabricated news stories at least a couple of times. Navigating this stuff has never been easy, and it's never going to get easier.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:29 PM on January 12 [11 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:29 PM on January 12 [11 favorites]
> These kinds of experiences aren't anybody's fault - they happen because of teacher/student ratios...
I can think of someone whose fault that is.
Oh? Is it because some people are just naturally bad? Or unintelligent? Or do they become hateful due to being posessed by demons?
posted by amtho at 1:36 PM on January 12
I can think of someone whose fault that is.
Oh? Is it because some people are just naturally bad? Or unintelligent? Or do they become hateful due to being posessed by demons?
posted by amtho at 1:36 PM on January 12
Some off ramps look a lot like bridges.
posted by house-goblin at 1:41 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
posted by house-goblin at 1:41 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
> It is 2024, we are all very very tired, and I sympathize with people not wanting to wade in sewage in the slim hopes of finding something other than shit. But if you can, it’s important and it is never hopeless and I know this because I have lived both sides of it.
I see your point.
But this 2018 article by Isabelle Robinson is still fresh in my mind:
I Tried to Befriend Nikolas Cruz. He Still Killed My Friends.
The apple that he had thrown at my back rolled slowly along the tiled floor. A cafeteria aide rushed over to ask me if I was O.K. I don’t remember if Mr. Cruz was confronted over his actions, but in my 12-year-old naïveté, I trusted that the adults around me would take care of the situation.
[...]
Despite my discomfort, I sat down with him, alone. I was forced to endure his cursing me out and ogling my chest until the hourlong session ended. When I was done, I felt a surge of pride for having organized his binder and helped him with his homework. Looking back, I am horrified. I now understand that I was left, unassisted, with a student who had a known history of rage and brutality.
When we say we can care for both the Nikolas Cruzes and the Isabelle Robinsons of the world, in practice it turns out we forget about the Isabelle Robinson part.
And for anyone who says I'm being overly dramatic by bringing up a mass shooting as a point of comparison, I ask: how many mass shootings have we had this month already? How many mass shootings have been orchestrated because of social media disinformation?
How many anti-semites, racist uncles, anti-vaxxers, grifters, 4chan misogynist campaigners, anti-science creationists, Holocaust deniers, and elected fascists have used "do your own research" as cover for their bigotry?
Are we debating them or platforming them?
Are we being good listeners or good enablers?
posted by AlSweigart at 1:42 PM on January 12 [13 favorites]
I see your point.
But this 2018 article by Isabelle Robinson is still fresh in my mind:
I Tried to Befriend Nikolas Cruz. He Still Killed My Friends.
The apple that he had thrown at my back rolled slowly along the tiled floor. A cafeteria aide rushed over to ask me if I was O.K. I don’t remember if Mr. Cruz was confronted over his actions, but in my 12-year-old naïveté, I trusted that the adults around me would take care of the situation.
[...]
Despite my discomfort, I sat down with him, alone. I was forced to endure his cursing me out and ogling my chest until the hourlong session ended. When I was done, I felt a surge of pride for having organized his binder and helped him with his homework. Looking back, I am horrified. I now understand that I was left, unassisted, with a student who had a known history of rage and brutality.
When we say we can care for both the Nikolas Cruzes and the Isabelle Robinsons of the world, in practice it turns out we forget about the Isabelle Robinson part.
And for anyone who says I'm being overly dramatic by bringing up a mass shooting as a point of comparison, I ask: how many mass shootings have we had this month already? How many mass shootings have been orchestrated because of social media disinformation?
How many anti-semites, racist uncles, anti-vaxxers, grifters, 4chan misogynist campaigners, anti-science creationists, Holocaust deniers, and elected fascists have used "do your own research" as cover for their bigotry?
Are we debating them or platforming them?
Are we being good listeners or good enablers?
posted by AlSweigart at 1:42 PM on January 12 [13 favorites]
even un-fabricated stories can be totally nonsense or blown out of proportion by media hype. Is Homo naledi really a separate species? Did they really bury their dead? It's not totally clear, and when a lot of short-form mainstream science reporting is lightly-rewritten press-releases it's basically impossible to tell. "Is this hyped scientific paper what the media says it is" is actually a very tricky question to answer for yourself, and the only way to get a sense of it is to... do your own research and poke around, unless you have a friend in the field.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:43 PM on January 12
posted by BungaDunga at 1:43 PM on January 12
like when the new york times is elevating dubious studies about trans youth there's only so far that media literacy and rules of thumb can help. evil ideas laundered through the house style of Serious Journalists Just Asking Questions can tick every Media Literacy box for credibility.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:49 PM on January 12 [9 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 1:49 PM on January 12 [9 favorites]
I think a lot of this problem comes from the death of shame. I posted during Trump's first run, this isn't the year Republicans became horrible; it's the year they dropped all the pretense. The same is true for misinformation. You can publish any old shit now with no consequence. It will still get in front of eyeballs. There will be no substantial lasting blowback on your professional reputation.
I'm starting to see it even in Japan, the shame-based-society capital of the world. People just don't give a fuck anymore, so just do whatever you can get away with.
Unfortunately that does not suggest a solution.
posted by ctmf at 1:51 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]
I'm starting to see it even in Japan, the shame-based-society capital of the world. People just don't give a fuck anymore, so just do whatever you can get away with.
Unfortunately that does not suggest a solution.
posted by ctmf at 1:51 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]
And for anyone who says I'm being overly dramatic by bringing up a mass shooting as a point of comparison
You are not being overly dramatic. At all. This is still a death cult.
posted by Ryvar at 2:24 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]
You are not being overly dramatic. At all. This is still a death cult.
posted by Ryvar at 2:24 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]
Some off ramps look a lot like bridges.
But an off-ramp isn't a bridge for two key reasons: unidirectionality and intentionality. The first is important because part of our fight against hate and bigotry is containment - we are fighting against the spread of hate, and thus we want to limit people moving towards it (which is why treating hate as just another position is so dangerous.) The second one is important because again, you cannot shift someone who is unwilling to be shifted. It's not just that they have to meet us halfway, but that they have to show that they are willing to put the work in. (That said, we have to show that there is a positive way forward for them as well - that there is a reason to take the off-ramp.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:34 PM on January 12
But an off-ramp isn't a bridge for two key reasons: unidirectionality and intentionality. The first is important because part of our fight against hate and bigotry is containment - we are fighting against the spread of hate, and thus we want to limit people moving towards it (which is why treating hate as just another position is so dangerous.) The second one is important because again, you cannot shift someone who is unwilling to be shifted. It's not just that they have to meet us halfway, but that they have to show that they are willing to put the work in. (That said, we have to show that there is a positive way forward for them as well - that there is a reason to take the off-ramp.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:34 PM on January 12
I looked at TFA and didn't read the whole thing sorry, and then I scanned the long thread to see if anybody had mentioned this nugget:
>... many believe that results from search engines are more reliable than traditional news, such as radio, newspapers or television
which brought me to a screeching halt: where do these people imagine the search engines get their results? Step 0 of evaluating the relevance of a hit is looking at where it comes from. And I'm not surprised that lots of people aren't good at this but I never really thought through the implications of just treating the search engine as an oracle. Which of course a lot of people are going to do.
This is why I have doubts that humans are wise enough or good enough to have something like the Internet without using it to destroy the world.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:38 PM on January 12 [10 favorites]
>... many believe that results from search engines are more reliable than traditional news, such as radio, newspapers or television
which brought me to a screeching halt: where do these people imagine the search engines get their results? Step 0 of evaluating the relevance of a hit is looking at where it comes from. And I'm not surprised that lots of people aren't good at this but I never really thought through the implications of just treating the search engine as an oracle. Which of course a lot of people are going to do.
This is why I have doubts that humans are wise enough or good enough to have something like the Internet without using it to destroy the world.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:38 PM on January 12 [10 favorites]
evil ideas laundered through the house style of Serious Journalists Just Asking Questions can tick every Media Literacy box for credibility.
I would say transphobic NYT articles might pass the authority test, but media literacy also includes looking for bias and purpose. It includes critical thinking skills. It trains people to ask themselves what the intent of the author could be. Well-respected papers and journals still contain absolute garbage from time to time so source evaluation has to include skepticism of all sources, including those generally regarded as authoritative and credible.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 2:39 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]
I would say transphobic NYT articles might pass the authority test, but media literacy also includes looking for bias and purpose. It includes critical thinking skills. It trains people to ask themselves what the intent of the author could be. Well-respected papers and journals still contain absolute garbage from time to time so source evaluation has to include skepticism of all sources, including those generally regarded as authoritative and credible.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 2:39 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]
> Oh? Is it because some people are just naturally bad? Or unintelligent? Or do they become hateful due to being posessed by demons?
Student/Teacher ratio is a policy decision, and the policymakers, up and down the chain, who decide how much funding to allocate to schools for hiring teachers bear responsibility for it.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:33 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]
Student/Teacher ratio is a policy decision, and the policymakers, up and down the chain, who decide how much funding to allocate to schools for hiring teachers bear responsibility for it.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:33 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]
Some off ramps look a lot like bridges.
But an off-ramp isn't a bridge for two key reasons: unidirectionality and intentionality. The first is important because...
I think this argument about "the reachout to the hateful" is a bit of derail and has played out, to no definite conclusion, many times before in similar threads.
That said, despite having driven over many bridges that were unidirectional, and even ones that switched back and forth according to who got there first, I mostly agree with your arguments. However, I'm not sure anybody has argued that building bridges to the bigoted should be the primary praxis, much less the sole one.
And where I really depart is when it comes to somebody making a very personal choice to engage with somebody harbouring hateful views, especially when that somebody is friend or family.
posted by house-goblin at 3:46 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]
I've only ever been told to "do my own research" by interlocutors who didn't want to show their sources for whatever reason. If you don't have sources to cite, what you did ain't "research".
I don't "do my own research" because I am "not a librarian".
I fix my own car because I'm a mechanic. I minister to my own computers because I'm a sysadmin. I make my own bread because I'm a baker. Those are things I've been taught and trained to do.
I don't have the training to research arbitrary questions. Most people don't. I suspect that's part of the reason why we have public libraries, with librarians who can help with these queries and refer us when more specialized expertise is needed.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 3:58 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]
I don't "do my own research" because I am "not a librarian".
I fix my own car because I'm a mechanic. I minister to my own computers because I'm a sysadmin. I make my own bread because I'm a baker. Those are things I've been taught and trained to do.
I don't have the training to research arbitrary questions. Most people don't. I suspect that's part of the reason why we have public libraries, with librarians who can help with these queries and refer us when more specialized expertise is needed.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 3:58 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]
>>>These kinds of experiences aren't anybody's fault - they happen because of teacher/student ratios...
>>I can think of someone whose fault that is.
>Oh? Is it because some people are just naturally bad? Or unintelligent? Or do they become hateful due to being posessed by demons?
I think a point here is that the choices that fund the number of teachers we have, or how well we fund education to create a better environment are systematic, political, and there are definitely people who can be blamed, at least as figureheads for the policies and beliefs they help manifest, and the material impact that has on education.
It's a cliché in the UK, say, to blame Thatcher for the things that were enacted and enabled and empowered by her, but it doesn't mean there isn't truth value in pointing at her as a key part in unleashing the systems that broke education amongst many other things. Those individuals are - unlike their casually blamed societal victims - also a useful stepping stone to seeing the larger problem of the political views those individuals represent, the deliberate systems that have helped create conditions that ruin so many lives through their interweaving consequences.
So the comment might be aimed down, but I don't think so. I'm not equating cognition with mental health, but it's useful to think of Mark Fisher's famous comments on how we don't see endemic mental health problems as a systemically produced problem but as individual flaws. And we can never treat the epidemic of mental illness when it continues being located as isolated flaws in the millions of individuals suffering, instead of seen in the context of the economic and social conditions that produce conditions conducive to ill health. You can't fix anything systemically when everything is individuated.
All these people operating in information bubbles didn't create the bubbles themselves to start with; an approach to education and technology certainly created the environment which they now are part of reproducing, knowingly or not. So yes, I blame plenty of politicians and Bannons individually for how our education systems are devalued and defunded; at the same time I recognise my contradictions and also see them as figureheads of - and often useful idiots working for - a deeper problem.
They're good to point at, but also the least interesting part of dismantling the things that manufacture disinformation and dismantle education. Removing the educational structures that provide tools for kids of all abilities to think critically certainly isn't hurting those systems no matter anyone's intelligence. Hate the capitalist and the capitalism, etc.
Ahem. Steps away from lefty ranting...
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 4:40 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]
>>I can think of someone whose fault that is.
>Oh? Is it because some people are just naturally bad? Or unintelligent? Or do they become hateful due to being posessed by demons?
I think a point here is that the choices that fund the number of teachers we have, or how well we fund education to create a better environment are systematic, political, and there are definitely people who can be blamed, at least as figureheads for the policies and beliefs they help manifest, and the material impact that has on education.
It's a cliché in the UK, say, to blame Thatcher for the things that were enacted and enabled and empowered by her, but it doesn't mean there isn't truth value in pointing at her as a key part in unleashing the systems that broke education amongst many other things. Those individuals are - unlike their casually blamed societal victims - also a useful stepping stone to seeing the larger problem of the political views those individuals represent, the deliberate systems that have helped create conditions that ruin so many lives through their interweaving consequences.
So the comment might be aimed down, but I don't think so. I'm not equating cognition with mental health, but it's useful to think of Mark Fisher's famous comments on how we don't see endemic mental health problems as a systemically produced problem but as individual flaws. And we can never treat the epidemic of mental illness when it continues being located as isolated flaws in the millions of individuals suffering, instead of seen in the context of the economic and social conditions that produce conditions conducive to ill health. You can't fix anything systemically when everything is individuated.
All these people operating in information bubbles didn't create the bubbles themselves to start with; an approach to education and technology certainly created the environment which they now are part of reproducing, knowingly or not. So yes, I blame plenty of politicians and Bannons individually for how our education systems are devalued and defunded; at the same time I recognise my contradictions and also see them as figureheads of - and often useful idiots working for - a deeper problem.
They're good to point at, but also the least interesting part of dismantling the things that manufacture disinformation and dismantle education. Removing the educational structures that provide tools for kids of all abilities to think critically certainly isn't hurting those systems no matter anyone's intelligence. Hate the capitalist and the capitalism, etc.
Ahem. Steps away from lefty ranting...
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 4:40 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]
I'd never considered that the bizarre insular language that, say, QAnon community uses is a deliberate reinforcement technique.
The Qanoners are rather unique in that they had things like Operation Northwoods along with corporations are screwing you, or the example of language - space aliens have been observing/interacting with humans for some time.
The first 2 will have hits of various quality along with people denying such ever happening. The loud denials only help reinforce the others when denied. Especially when the denials scream 'conspiracy theory'.
A person I know is into the idea of the alien past visitation. Tells me to 'do the research' but then he adds in how it's not the grays/lizardmen and whatever. But one has to look for the isotopes at (star name), an asteroid was deflected X0,000 years ago, and how they are just watching 'cuz the history of life as "they" know it is most of the creatures like us wipe ourselves out.
By selecting that star name+isotopes that limits to people repeating the same story beats but no mention of who has said what or source documents. An asteroid deflection and a tale about extinction - plenty of repeated and otherwise unattributed versions indexed. As for a 'they' - yea good luck on using that.
Because ChatGPT pulled in lots of text his alien things were findable with the right prompting. At some point they changed things so his entering text he knew stopped returning answers.
Another language constrains what you get back example - the secret space military program. That one has one of the first and better known people claiming they were part of it made it up for attention. There is at least 1 documentary on it on youtube that lays out the key words to find the self-referring stories. Key words like 40 years and age regression. Sometimes the stories offer up how the missing Pentagon accounting money is the cover for the program spending so if one wants to grasp why on 9/10/2001 the war on poor Pentagon accounting that was announced has not went so well and that has acted as a hook.
At one point during the end of the Trump time in office and Twitter was not Musky the Qanonners were being deleted on the regular some of them where adding haha. to the end of a post. If one had that as a reply from a new account 20+ other Qanon accounts would pile on and they'd start following the new account posting haha. No grand conspiracy needed.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:41 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]
The Qanoners are rather unique in that they had things like Operation Northwoods along with corporations are screwing you, or the example of language - space aliens have been observing/interacting with humans for some time.
The first 2 will have hits of various quality along with people denying such ever happening. The loud denials only help reinforce the others when denied. Especially when the denials scream 'conspiracy theory'.
A person I know is into the idea of the alien past visitation. Tells me to 'do the research' but then he adds in how it's not the grays/lizardmen and whatever. But one has to look for the isotopes at (star name), an asteroid was deflected X0,000 years ago, and how they are just watching 'cuz the history of life as "they" know it is most of the creatures like us wipe ourselves out.
By selecting that star name+isotopes that limits to people repeating the same story beats but no mention of who has said what or source documents. An asteroid deflection and a tale about extinction - plenty of repeated and otherwise unattributed versions indexed. As for a 'they' - yea good luck on using that.
Because ChatGPT pulled in lots of text his alien things were findable with the right prompting. At some point they changed things so his entering text he knew stopped returning answers.
Another language constrains what you get back example - the secret space military program. That one has one of the first and better known people claiming they were part of it made it up for attention. There is at least 1 documentary on it on youtube that lays out the key words to find the self-referring stories. Key words like 40 years and age regression. Sometimes the stories offer up how the missing Pentagon accounting money is the cover for the program spending so if one wants to grasp why on 9/10/2001 the war on poor Pentagon accounting that was announced has not went so well and that has acted as a hook.
At one point during the end of the Trump time in office and Twitter was not Musky the Qanonners were being deleted on the regular some of them where adding haha. to the end of a post. If one had that as a reply from a new account 20+ other Qanon accounts would pile on and they'd start following the new account posting haha. No grand conspiracy needed.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:41 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]
Thanks onebuttonmonkey for elaborating on my thought so well, that's exactly what I was getting at.
The poor conditions in our schools don't happen randomly; there are people in our political systems whose job it is to bear strict liability for outcomes. Although we are all subject to the tyranny of systems, and I have philosophical doubts about free will and our ability to be individually responsible for anything, good or bad, I have come to understand that legal theory has a nuanced-enough scale of liability to be able to deal with situations where malicious intent doesn't need to be proven. It is the job of leaders to bear strict liability for the failures of their administrations.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:05 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]
The poor conditions in our schools don't happen randomly; there are people in our political systems whose job it is to bear strict liability for outcomes. Although we are all subject to the tyranny of systems, and I have philosophical doubts about free will and our ability to be individually responsible for anything, good or bad, I have come to understand that legal theory has a nuanced-enough scale of liability to be able to deal with situations where malicious intent doesn't need to be proven. It is the job of leaders to bear strict liability for the failures of their administrations.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:05 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]
Thanks I-Write-Essays and I'm glad you didn't mind me co-opting your comment with my own politics. How I wish there were any leaders around right now who accepted liability - hell, even acknowledged a whiff of responsibility - for themselves and their administrations; or that we were able to hold them liable regardless of their own disregard for us. I'm not exactly overburdened with hope on that score, mind
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 5:22 PM on January 12
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 5:22 PM on January 12
“Do the research” is what people who automatically distrust traditional forms of expertise do because they think Google searches are somehow more honest. Search results are raw truth that they can interpret themselves rather than relying on material digested by some snob who is probably trying to put one over on you.
This is, of course, not how you actually do research.
Francesca Tripodi studied how many conservatives approach information the way they read their bibles for truth. It’s interesting.
posted by zenzenobia at 5:43 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]
This is, of course, not how you actually do research.
Francesca Tripodi studied how many conservatives approach information the way they read their bibles for truth. It’s interesting.
posted by zenzenobia at 5:43 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]
I think John Oliver is smarty and funny, but he's also very biased. I also don't look to Colbert or Stewart, either.
I am not a huge fan of any of them, but mostly because a lot of the times I think their efforts are more to keep the pot boiling rather than working from genuine inspiration, but, to me, trust is gained by not lying, a lot more than simply not working from a bias. The latter is simply and refreshingly anti-both-side-ism, laudable, not sufficient, but laudable.
Having said this, I ask you: have you ever encountered Oliver, Colbert, or Stewart actually lying? I sure as heck have come across lies from Rush, Tucker, that ilk.
posted by Chitownfats at 6:12 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]
I am not a huge fan of any of them, but mostly because a lot of the times I think their efforts are more to keep the pot boiling rather than working from genuine inspiration, but, to me, trust is gained by not lying, a lot more than simply not working from a bias. The latter is simply and refreshingly anti-both-side-ism, laudable, not sufficient, but laudable.
Having said this, I ask you: have you ever encountered Oliver, Colbert, or Stewart actually lying? I sure as heck have come across lies from Rush, Tucker, that ilk.
posted by Chitownfats at 6:12 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]
Why can't I find the SEO data void that confirms my belief that Tom Selleck was into the Promise Keepers in the '90s? Did I really just make that up by myself?
posted by TimidFooting at 8:05 PM on January 12
posted by TimidFooting at 8:05 PM on January 12
I think John Oliver is smarty and funny, but he's also very biased.
And the problem with that is?
We have a massive cultural issue with conflating bias and honesty, which is another part of the issue with disinformation and deception. (See also: Nazis in suits like Richard Spencer and David Duke.) There is nothing wrong with John Oliver being biased as long as he is a) open about his bias and b) still presents information in a truthful manner. And inversely, organizations that try to present as "unbiased" while engaging in active deception help push disinformation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:22 PM on January 12 [9 favorites]
And the problem with that is?
We have a massive cultural issue with conflating bias and honesty, which is another part of the issue with disinformation and deception. (See also: Nazis in suits like Richard Spencer and David Duke.) There is nothing wrong with John Oliver being biased as long as he is a) open about his bias and b) still presents information in a truthful manner. And inversely, organizations that try to present as "unbiased" while engaging in active deception help push disinformation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:22 PM on January 12 [9 favorites]
Part of the issue is that the people who most need to learn about conducting proper research, establishing bona fides, etc. regularly reflect the view, "that I am entitled to have my own opinions" with the implicit underpinning that therefore they are entitled to find support for their opinions, and then happily both-sides any contrary view.
I am having a bit of luck pointing out that the techniques that you learn from the work that is establishing the quality of your source, is excellent preparation for avoiding scams, and that rather than relying on SEO - go to a reputable website and see if that provides a trail of verified information.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 12:36 AM on January 13 [2 favorites]
I am having a bit of luck pointing out that the techniques that you learn from the work that is establishing the quality of your source, is excellent preparation for avoiding scams, and that rather than relying on SEO - go to a reputable website and see if that provides a trail of verified information.
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 12:36 AM on January 13 [2 favorites]
Elections Canada to launch online disinformation tool to prepare votes for the next federal election.
While I think this is noble, you're gonna find it really hard to reach the voters who are very much entrenched in the "I did my own research" mentality. They will see this tool as federal misinformation, I bet.
posted by Kitteh at 4:18 AM on January 13 [1 favorite]
While I think this is noble, you're gonna find it really hard to reach the voters who are very much entrenched in the "I did my own research" mentality. They will see this tool as federal misinformation, I bet.
posted by Kitteh at 4:18 AM on January 13 [1 favorite]
I fix my own car because I'm a mechanic. I minister to my own computers because I'm a sysadmin. I make my own bread because I'm a baker. Those are things I've been taught and trained to do.That's what a college education is supposed to be for. Teaching you how to use a library to become an expert.
I don't have the training to research arbitrary questions.
I expect the modal doer-of-own-research on public controversy has not really mastered that. Kind of hard to do on a computer without institutional access to the paywalled databases.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:36 AM on January 13 [5 favorites]
I think John Oliver is smarty and funny, but he's also very biased.
And the problem with that is?
The problem is that is the same problem I have with any Big Personality that is Telling It Like It Is - there is a lot of opinion woven into whatever they say. And that's fine! He's an entertainer. But I don't look to him for news.
I might hear something that he says, and then use the Evil Search Engine to find other articles or whatever about that topic and see if there are corroborating accounts or other takes, etc. I approach discerning the least biased take on an event in the same way that I approach finding recipes - there are a lot of recipes for blueberry muffins out there, and if I scour a bunch I'll begin to suss out what the fundamental components and processes are by basically doing a union of the recipes. It's the same with accounts of world events - there are certain pieces of information that pretty much everyone agrees on, usually, and those are the things worth taking to heart. That's much easier to do than the recipe thing, honestly.
There's a big difference between doing the internet equivalent of looking at a bunch of different magazine and newspaper accounts of an incident to suss out the facts, if they exist, and looking for things that agree with something you've already decided is true.
And so my issue with using John Oliver as a Trusted Source Of Truth is that, while he very well may be telling the truth 99% of the time, I will have already lowered my guard and opened myself up to manipulation if he started not telling the truth. You kind of have to assume that anyone can, in isolation, be full of shit. The entertainment complex is not your friend, no matter how much it may align with your politics.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:35 AM on January 13 [3 favorites]
And the problem with that is?
The problem is that is the same problem I have with any Big Personality that is Telling It Like It Is - there is a lot of opinion woven into whatever they say. And that's fine! He's an entertainer. But I don't look to him for news.
I might hear something that he says, and then use the Evil Search Engine to find other articles or whatever about that topic and see if there are corroborating accounts or other takes, etc. I approach discerning the least biased take on an event in the same way that I approach finding recipes - there are a lot of recipes for blueberry muffins out there, and if I scour a bunch I'll begin to suss out what the fundamental components and processes are by basically doing a union of the recipes. It's the same with accounts of world events - there are certain pieces of information that pretty much everyone agrees on, usually, and those are the things worth taking to heart. That's much easier to do than the recipe thing, honestly.
There's a big difference between doing the internet equivalent of looking at a bunch of different magazine and newspaper accounts of an incident to suss out the facts, if they exist, and looking for things that agree with something you've already decided is true.
And so my issue with using John Oliver as a Trusted Source Of Truth is that, while he very well may be telling the truth 99% of the time, I will have already lowered my guard and opened myself up to manipulation if he started not telling the truth. You kind of have to assume that anyone can, in isolation, be full of shit. The entertainment complex is not your friend, no matter how much it may align with your politics.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:35 AM on January 13 [3 favorites]
> That's what a college education is supposed to be for. Teaching you how to use a library to become an expert.
That's what a middle and high school education is supposed to be for. College should not be when you're learning basics like that. College is higher education. That's when you should be starting on your specialization and building advanced understanding of basics like media literacy and critical thinking.
The fact that people don't consider even learning basics until they're at college level, if they even get to college, is part of the problem.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:21 AM on January 13 [6 favorites]
That's what a middle and high school education is supposed to be for. College should not be when you're learning basics like that. College is higher education. That's when you should be starting on your specialization and building advanced understanding of basics like media literacy and critical thinking.
The fact that people don't consider even learning basics until they're at college level, if they even get to college, is part of the problem.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:21 AM on January 13 [6 favorites]
You kind of have to assume that anyone can, in isolation, be full of shit.
You do realize that this is the attitude that gave us cryptocurrency, right? And I mean that literally - one of the core points in the original Bitcoin paper is how to build a currency absent a base of trust.
Beyond that, your argument doesn't actually address the point that bias and honesty are two separate things - in fact, you fall into our societal trap of assuming that "lack of bias" somehow bestows a veneer of honesty, which is the argument behind bothsidesism. Your argument that you can somehow discern the Platonic Ideal of Blueberry Muffins shows a misunderstanding of how recipes work as the end result of a recipe is often impacted by the specific techniques used in its creation (particularly in baking), and thus an attempt to try to get a workable muffin recipe by combining recipes via common elements sans an understanding of the actual goals of the recipe is only going to result in a bland mess that misses the mark.
I'm reminded of the old joke about a liberal being someone so open minded that they refuse to take their side in an argument. And while we should take Keynes' apocryphical statement of "when the facts change, I change my mind" to heart, that also means noting that we didn't get to our positions randomly and thus should not be so willing to toss them aside without evidence for doing so out of a misplaced desire for "even handedness".
(This, by the way, is why the "tribalism" argument is so toxic - it's an attempt to try to do an end run around actually understanding someone's position by reversing the arrow of causality, arguing that people take on the worldview of the people they align with, rather than understanding that people naturally gravitate to people who share their own worldview.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:51 AM on January 13 [4 favorites]
You do realize that this is the attitude that gave us cryptocurrency, right? And I mean that literally - one of the core points in the original Bitcoin paper is how to build a currency absent a base of trust.
Beyond that, your argument doesn't actually address the point that bias and honesty are two separate things - in fact, you fall into our societal trap of assuming that "lack of bias" somehow bestows a veneer of honesty, which is the argument behind bothsidesism. Your argument that you can somehow discern the Platonic Ideal of Blueberry Muffins shows a misunderstanding of how recipes work as the end result of a recipe is often impacted by the specific techniques used in its creation (particularly in baking), and thus an attempt to try to get a workable muffin recipe by combining recipes via common elements sans an understanding of the actual goals of the recipe is only going to result in a bland mess that misses the mark.
I'm reminded of the old joke about a liberal being someone so open minded that they refuse to take their side in an argument. And while we should take Keynes' apocryphical statement of "when the facts change, I change my mind" to heart, that also means noting that we didn't get to our positions randomly and thus should not be so willing to toss them aside without evidence for doing so out of a misplaced desire for "even handedness".
(This, by the way, is why the "tribalism" argument is so toxic - it's an attempt to try to do an end run around actually understanding someone's position by reversing the arrow of causality, arguing that people take on the worldview of the people they align with, rather than understanding that people naturally gravitate to people who share their own worldview.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:51 AM on January 13 [4 favorites]
Or do they become hateful due to being posessed by demons?
Sort of. If someone is indoctrinated into a state of envy or prosperity gospel, and if they don't prosper, then they resent those who seem to do fine without envy or a vending-machine faith. These would-be victims want to believe any lie or conspiracy that ruined them because it alleviates their self-pity by blaming anyone not sad for them. Their anger becomes politically weaponized. Extremism isn't just off-brand politics, but the excess their delusions require in order to deny their self-loathing.
posted by Brian B. at 1:02 PM on January 13 [3 favorites]
Sort of. If someone is indoctrinated into a state of envy or prosperity gospel, and if they don't prosper, then they resent those who seem to do fine without envy or a vending-machine faith. These would-be victims want to believe any lie or conspiracy that ruined them because it alleviates their self-pity by blaming anyone not sad for them. Their anger becomes politically weaponized. Extremism isn't just off-brand politics, but the excess their delusions require in order to deny their self-loathing.
posted by Brian B. at 1:02 PM on January 13 [3 favorites]
Your argument that you can somehow discern the Platonic Ideal of Blueberry Muffins
Not the Platonic Ideal. The core basis, upon which a basic blueberry muffin is built. So if I want to make my own special muffins, I know where to start and what to build on, and how to identify potential issues with any blueberry muffin recipes I encounter. Which is a thing! I've had to work around errors I've seen in recipes many times, and if I didn't know what to look for by understanding some fundamentals, I would have just made bad, or at least less delicious, food.
But anyway, I'm not a bothesidesing crypto truther bro. And I'm not looking for even-handededness. I just always cross-check my information, no matter what the source. You're kind of making it out like me not blindly trusting John Oliver is some sort of character flaw and, well, I emphatically disagree with that viewpoint.
people naturally gravitate to people who share their own worldview
Obviously and clearly. And that's how blind spots form. You're not going to argue that people don't have blind spots, are you? Particularly regarding people they like and trust?
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:27 AM on January 16 [1 favorite]
Not the Platonic Ideal. The core basis, upon which a basic blueberry muffin is built. So if I want to make my own special muffins, I know where to start and what to build on, and how to identify potential issues with any blueberry muffin recipes I encounter. Which is a thing! I've had to work around errors I've seen in recipes many times, and if I didn't know what to look for by understanding some fundamentals, I would have just made bad, or at least less delicious, food.
But anyway, I'm not a bothesidesing crypto truther bro. And I'm not looking for even-handededness. I just always cross-check my information, no matter what the source. You're kind of making it out like me not blindly trusting John Oliver is some sort of character flaw and, well, I emphatically disagree with that viewpoint.
people naturally gravitate to people who share their own worldview
Obviously and clearly. And that's how blind spots form. You're not going to argue that people don't have blind spots, are you? Particularly regarding people they like and trust?
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:27 AM on January 16 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry, it's just that whenever someone says "it really isn't that hard to ..." I am reasonably sure I'm about to read a list of strategies that are only effective for a small subset of people who are rather privileged and have people who do the emotional and undervalued labor, like making appts, reminding about appts, managing parking, transportation, and so on, the details of modern life can be overwhelming, but not so much if you have good staff/ spouse, where spouse may include a person who fills that traditional role at work..
posted by theora55 at 8:38 PM on January 18 [1 favorite]
posted by theora55 at 8:38 PM on January 18 [1 favorite]
« Older Bartleby, the Large Language Model | Am I better now? Idk. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Nelson at 8:03 AM on January 12 [29 favorites]