Checking in... Anxiety about current events

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

Just to add my 2 cents...someone posted on Twitter about how STEM has overtaken education as an explanation for recent events. That made a lot of sense to me, that when you start to de-value liberal arts, critical thinking skills fall to the wayside. So you can end up with highly educated people, PhDs even, who believe in conspiracy theories. It's just that education in a "hard science" will tend to focus on formulas and plugging in numbers.  

This brings to mind a difference between my daughters.  One is a more rigid thinker with average intelligence.  The way she learns is by memorizing.  If she goes over something enough, she will score well, but then she has to start all over with the next concept.  She also tends to be my conspiracy theorist.  My other kid is more of a free thinker with higher intelligence.  She will question everything.  If I say it's A or B, she argues for C.  She will make connections between history and theories without being limited to "sides."

My kids have had the exact same upbringing and education, yet their minds are so different.

I'm not saying education doesn't make a difference - I'm sure it does - but I also think it has limits.

[OH_Homeschooler]

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

Trying not to violate the politics rules but ... they are terrified of a regime that leans toward communism, because that is what destroyed their families' lives in Cuba.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

[frogger]

So I think the point is that the more mediocre mainstream news outlets breed mistrust with their obvious bias. When that mistrust takes root some people simply won't listen to anything they say.  Building trust in society is huge. Now that people don't trust news outlets and major institutions they will look with scepticism on everything they say and feel they are being tricked. Listen to major Bernie supporters and you will hear it. 

 

The message about humans should include that all humans are fallible and biased. Even your favorite leader will be tempted to make his side look better, have other motives, and just downright screw up at time either by mistake or on purpose.

 

It is ok to agree with someone on one thing and not another. The message shouldn't be that really they are an evil mastermind trying to manipulate you. Once that message gets through, people won't listen to anything because they don't want to be manipulated. 

 

Moving to a different point, a few years (or maybe many, they blend together) I heard a man on a podcast that felt that Facebook and other similarly structured social media platforms, should change their algorithms so that when someone liked or read an article the recommended articles that popped up would be the opposite viewpoint. He was concerned about the echo chamber effect.

  Milton Friedman wrote way back in the early 80's, " On the contrary, no society could be stable if advocacy of radical change were costless much less subsidized."  Social media is costly but all the costs are paid for by the advertisers. The advertisers are subsidizing (sort of) the speech of people who have no investment in making sure what they say is true or not. Facebook and others know if they restrict anything there product will fly the coop. Now they are starting to because they are starting to see the damage. But the model sets up perverse incentives.

 

 

 I also think news and blogs cater to the audience because they don't have readership loyalty and readers don't pay. They are not the consumers but once again the product (for advertisers who do pay) so saying anything to reel them in is important. Any article that will get clicks and let's be honest. Emotion gets more clicks than boring data. 

 

 

[OH_Homeschooler]

18 minutes ago, SKL said:

This brings to mind a difference between my daughters.  One is a more rigid thinker with average intelligence.  The way she learns is by memorizing.  If she goes over something enough, she will score well, but then she has to start all over with the next concept.  She also tends to be my conspiracy theorist.  My other kid is more of a free thinker with higher intelligence.  She will question everything.  If I say it's A or B, she argues for C.  She will make connections between history and theories without being limited to "sides."

My kids have had the exact same upbringing and education, yet their minds are so different.

I'm not saying education doesn't make a difference - I'm sure it does - but I also think it has limits.

I definitely get that there will be individual differences, and people with a certain mindset will lean toward certain fields.

I went to a liberal arts college, and earned degrees in a "soft" science so I feel strongly that you can learn how to think critically, regardless of your natural thought orientation. I think there should be a class all undergrads would take along the lines of "Evaluating Evidence." Wouldn't that be amazing? It wouldn't necessarily change anyone's way of thinking, just get them to understand how different types of evidence would lead to different kinds of conclusions. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by OH_Homeschooler

[Not_a_Number]

30 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

That made a lot of sense to me, that when you start to de-value liberal arts, critical thinking skills fall to the wayside. So you can end up with highly educated people, PhDs even, who believe in conspiracy theories. It's just that education in a "hard science" will tend to focus on formulas and plugging in numbers.   

A Ph.D in a science doesn't focus on formulas or plugging in numbers. It just doesn't. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, frogger said:

So I think the point is that the more mediocre mainstream news outlets breed mistrust with their obvious bias. When that mistrust takes root some people simply won't listen to anything they say.

Great. That's exactly right. If people lie to you without admitting it, stop trusting them. That's the right attitude. The next step is to find people who mostly don't lie to you. 

 

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

The message about humans should include that all humans are fallible and biased. Even your favorite leader will be tempted to make his side look better, have other motives, and just downright screw up at time either by mistake or on purpose.

Agreed. Of course, that doesn't mean that there's no difference between people, either. All people are fallible. All people are not equally reliable. End of story. 

 

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

I also think news and blogs cater to the audience because they don't have readership loyalty and readers don't pay. They are not the consumers but once again the product (for advertisers who do pay) so saying anything to reel them in is important. Any article that will get clicks and let's be honest. Emotion gets more clicks than boring data. 

The advertising model is basically failing, actually. Most outlets are trying to move forward via subscription, because clicks don't pay enough anymore. 

[Moonhawk]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

I will also say that some of the most fearful people of the new administration, in my observation, are people who are refugees or children of refugees from Cuba.  They are terrified that some of the younger people on the left in Congress will have a lot of influence.  That would probably go along with your comment about trauma etc.  I mean, a lot of people right of center are concerned about what may change in the next 2-4 years, but most are not terrified.

 

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

Trying not to violate the politics rules but ... they are terrified of a regime that leans toward communism, because that is what destroyed their families' lives in Cuba.

So, my husband is actually the child of a Cuban refugee. I've been interested to see the stats of the Florida Cubans and their voting this election. Disclaimer: everything I say is anecdote just based on my being allowed to view the culture as an outsider, and I have not been a part of it for the past 1-2 years as my husband has distanced himself from his family. And Florida Cubans seem to be a much different kettle of fish because they have kept more insulated than those who settled in this area. 

The word "socialism" and "socialist" are definite triggers. Many of those that fled Cuba were wealthier than the socialists who took over, there is a lot of pain and anger around the revolution still and everything they lost (I know, for example, exactly how much money and what goods were taken from DH's father and grandmother, 40-50 years after the fact).

Castro is the devil (said in very fervent Spanish). But what's interesting to me is that while Castro is a dictator, but he is seen as the embodiment of socialism even moreso. And really, it's the socialism that they fear more than a dictator. I remember being expressed a view that if THEY had had someone stronger than Castro, the revolution wouldn't have happened. 

I agree the it is a very easy fear to whip up in this group, and the most effective propaganda for the group would be to paint the opposing side as socialists who want to take away their wealth again. They've already experienced the loss once -- they know it is possible and so to them is even more likely to happen again, and they will do quite a bit to stop that.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Moonhawk said:

Castro is the devil (said in very fervent Spanish). But what's interesting to me is that while Castro is a dictator, but he is seen as the embodiment of socialism even moreso. And really, it's the socialism that they fear more than a dictator. I remember being expressed a view that if THEY had had someone stronger than Castro, the revolution wouldn't have happened. 

I agree the it is a very easy fear to whip up in this group, and the most effective propaganda for the group would be to paint the opposing side as socialists who want to take away their wealth again. They've already experienced the loss once -- they know it is possible and so to them is even more likely to happen again, and they will do quite a bit to stop that.

I've seen the same fear in my mom's Russian friends. Frankly, it feels like a failure of generalization to me. The idea that you should fear "socialists" and "anyone on the left," as opposed to dictators and authoritarians. 

What it leads to is supporting authoritarians on the other side. And until those turn out to be bad for you, people don't learn. 

[frogger]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Great. That's exactly right. If people lie to you without admitting it, stop trusting them. That's the right attitude. The next step is to find people who mostly don't lie to you. 

 

 

The thing is you are advocating blindly following someone still. I listen to NPR and they get opposing arguments wrong all the time. Many hosts misuse economics terms. The guests are usually more on top of things but the idea that you expect people to blindly listen to those who are getting your argument completely wrong is kind of weird. Why would people do that? 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, frogger said:

The thing is you are advocating blindly following someone still. I listen to NPR and they get opposing arguments wrong all the time. Many hosts misuse economics terms. The guests are usually more on top of things but the idea that you expect people to blindly listen to those who are getting your argument completely wrong is kind of weird. Why would people do that? 

OK, sorry, I'm not following because I'm not sure who you mean by "you." 😄 Do you mean me or the generic "you"? 

[SKL]

15 minutes ago, frogger said:

So I think the point is that the more mediocre mainstream news outlets breed mistrust with their obvious bias. When that mistrust takes root some people simply won't listen to anything they say.  Building trust in society is huge. Now that people don't trust news outlets and major institutions they will look with scepticism on everything they say and feel they are being tricked. Listen to major Bernie supporters and you will hear it. 

 

The message about humans should include that all humans are fallible and biased. Even your favorite leader will be tempted to make his side look better, have other motives, and just downright screw up at time either by mistake or on purpose.

 

It is ok to agree with someone on one thing and not another. The message shouldn't be that really they are an evil mastermind trying to manipulate you. Once that message gets through, people won't listen to anything because they don't want to be manipulated. 

 

Moving to a different point, a few years (or maybe many, they blend together) I heard a man on a podcast that felt that Facebook and other similarly structured social media platforms, should change their algorithms so that when someone liked or read an article the recommended articles that popped up would be the opposite viewpoint. He was concerned about the echo chamber effect.

  Milton Friedman wrote way back in the early 80's, " On the contrary, no society could be stable if advocacy of radical change were costless much less subsidized."  Social media is costly but all the costs are paid for by the advertisers. The advertisers are subsidizing (sort of) the speech of people who have no investment in making sure what they say is true or not. Facebook and others know if they restrict anything there product will fly the coop. Now they are starting to because they are starting to see the damage. But the model sets up perverse incentives.

 I also think news and blogs cater to the audience because they don't have readership loyalty and readers don't pay. They are not the consumers but once again the product (for advertisers who do pay) so saying anything to reel them in is important. Any article that will get clicks and let's be honest. Emotion gets more clicks than boring data.

I agree with a lot of this.

Just yesterday I was thinking about how damaging those "logarithms" are, not just on fb ... I see it on youtube also.  Apparently you like to watch videos telling you that girls can't be doctors, so let's show you 200 more videos along those lines - and almost none opposing.  If you aren't aware of the trick, you are likely to believe that the world is full of people who think the same way you do ... so you must be right.  How is this OK?  Maybe they will re-think it?

[SKL]

19 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

I definitely get that there will be individual differences, and people with a certain mindset will lean toward certain fields.

I went to a liberal arts college, and earned degrees in a "soft" science so I feel strongly that you can learn how to think critically, regardless of your natural thought orientation. I think there should be a class all undergrads would take along the lines of "Evaluating Evidence." Wouldn't that be amazing? It wouldn't necessarily change anyone's way of thinking, just get them to understand how different types of evidence would lead to different kinds of conclusions. 

I know one of my daughters' 9th grade history teachers started the year with that kind of discussion.  I was very glad to hear that.

[Moonhawk]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

...If you're saying the US needs to stop allowing people to ever be wrong, let's agree to disagree and move on.

I don't think we should encourage people to be wrong. It's become convenient to label lies and misinformation as "a difference of opinion" and I think that's where the problem comes up.  I think there's a difference between opinion and facts. If it's demonstrably wrong, then no, I don't see why it should be allowed to spread unchecked.

I'm fine with people thinking we should prioritize different things -- strong military vs strong social programs, education over economy, environment before infrastructure, etc. That makes for good debate and a better overall policy.

I also think it's to be expected people who prioritize the same thing, like education, will have different and sometimes opposing views of what should be done. That's a good thing too.

But I think we should try to stop people from being wrong -- ie, not have correct facts to draw their opinions and priorities and plans from. 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Moonhawk said:

I'm fine with people thinking we should prioritize different things -- strong military vs strong social programs, education over economy, environment before infrastructure, etc. That makes for good debate and a better overall policy.

I also think it's to be expected people who prioritize the same thing, like education, will have different and sometimes opposing views of what should be done. That's a good thing too.

But I think we should try to stop people from being wrong -- ie, not have correct facts to draw their opinions and priorities and plans from. 

Right. There are debates like "Do charter schools or public schools do a better job educating children?" and then there are debates like "Where was Obama born?" One of those happens to be interesting, and one of those happens to be conclusively answered unless you have a religious commitment to the other side. Those aren't the same thing. 

[frogger]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, sorry, I'm not following because I'm not sure who you mean by "you." 😄 Do you mean me or the generic "you"? 

Yes, you seem to think the average person can just listen to NPR or any of your favored news outlets and that works. At least that is what you said earlier in the thread. 

 

I do think using reputation is a tool but I would just use it for a jumping off point.

 

 Pick a topic you want to have an opinion on and research it rather than just "find someone to trust". 

Recognize you will just have to say, "I don't know" about more things then you actually know about. Knowledge is dispersed and that is ok as long as power is also dispersed. 

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by frogger

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, frogger said:

Yes, you seem to think the average person can just listen to NPR or any of your favored news outlets and that works.

I didn't say it "works." I said it was better than talk radio if you don't want to be majorly misinformed. I don't even listen to NPR. 

[Frances]

19 hours ago, SKL said:

I will also say that some of the most fearful people of the new administration, in my observation, are people who are refugees or children of refugees from Cuba.  They are terrified that some of the younger people on the left in Congress will have a lot of influence.  That would probably go along with your comment about trauma etc.  I mean, a lot of people right of center are concerned about what may change in the next 2-4 years, but most are not terrified.

And others in the same group are terrified by our current populist, authoritarian president who tried to overturn valid election results. No one person speaks for an entire group. Plus one needs to keep in mind who each side chose to be their leader. That has far more influence than a handful of Congress people.

The continual refusal to acknowledge the serious damage the current office holder has done to our democratic norms and institutions, even after last week’s events, continues to amaze me. The techniques just vary from placing the blame elsewhere (it was actually antifa or it’s all the fault of the left and the MSM because they just hate the president and never gave him a chance), seeking to minimize (it wasn’t an insurrection  or attempted coup, just protestors trying to be heard and fix the “stolen” election), turning the tables and playing the victim (big tech is trying to silence all conservative voices), trying to equate two things that aren’t remotely the same (people who were unhappy about the 2016 results marching to show their unhappiness about the election of a narcissist is equivalent to the sitting president continually falsely claiming the election was stolen, refusing to concede, and inciting people to do something about it) or instilling fear of the other side (this was relentless during the last four years with all of the lies, disinformation, and propaganda around what will happen if Ds are in charge and reached a climax in regards to the “stolen” election). 
 

On one hand, it’s understandable, as when you can’t defend the indefensible, you turn to instilling anger and fear. But it’s also why we ended up in this mess and why things likely won’t get much better. Facts matter and when we can’t agree on a set of shared facts, there isn’t much hope for unity or progress.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Frances

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Frances said:

Facts matter and when we can’t agree on a set of shared facts, there isn’t much hope for unity or progress.

And I think the only way to agree on a set of shared facts is for people to stop being so gullible, lol. 

For what it's worth, I know plenty of people who would vote like I do who are just as gullible as the opposite side. They just happened to have picked people I agree with to be their prophets. 

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I don't think we should encourage people to be wrong. It's become convenient to label lies and misinformation as "a difference of opinion" and I think that's where the problem comes up.  I think there's a difference between opinion and facts. If it's demonstrably wrong, then no, I don't see why it should be allowed to spread unchecked.

I'm fine with people thinking we should prioritize different things -- strong military vs strong social programs, education over economy, environment before infrastructure, etc. That makes for good debate and a better overall policy.

I also think it's to be expected people who prioritize the same thing, like education, will have different and sometimes opposing views of what should be done. That's a good thing too.

But I think we should try to stop people from being wrong -- ie, not have correct facts to draw their opinions and priorities and plans from.

As a guiding principle, though, it's dangerous, because people aren't accurate about what's fact and what's opinion.  Or about what's evidence of fact/opinion.  Once there was supposedly a lot of "evidence" that people with darker skin had lower IQs, less self-control, and so on.  So that was what was taught as "fact."  We think that's all in the past, but I guarantee there is some current "common knowledge" that will be debunked in the near future.  Even "scientific facts" change repeatedly over short periods of time.

Pretty much all of human progress has occurred because someone voiced an idea that was "ridiculous" at the time.

If you're talking about specific provable facts, such as whether a certain office was wiretapped, then yes, I want people to have the truth and debunk the lies.  But I don't believe speech has to be fully vetted and proven before it can be expressed.  I'm not afraid of people exploring new ideas with each other.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Frances said:

... when we can’t agree on a set of shared facts, there isn’t much hope for unity or progress.

But that is the whole point of democracy.  It recognizes that we don't all agree, but we can still coexist.

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I didn't say it "works." I said it was better than talk radio if you don't want to be majorly misinformed. I don't even listen to NPR. 

Well, we can agree on that. 

 

I'm thinking I wouldn't specifically target hate radio, I mean talk radio. What I would probably try to convince people of is to look for emotional manipulation. Are they trying to rile you up? What is the goal? Are they looking at possible solutions (or the cost and benefit of different policies) or just complaining about the other side. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

This is sort of out of left field for me. Why would this be the case?

 

 

Just to add my 2 cents...someone posted on Twitter about how STEM has overtaken education as an explanation for recent events. That made a lot of sense to me, that when you start to de-value liberal arts, critical thinking skills fall to the wayside. So you can end up with highly educated people, PhDs even, who believe in conspiracy theories. It's just that education in a "hard science" will tend to focus on formulas and plugging in numbers.   

 

The people I know who are into conspiracy theories are PhDs in liberal arts areas.  They see that it fits in with their questioning, not taking specific answers, etc.  Some of them see the STEM people who are into hard science not able to think as deeply and critically as they are and to accept the answer that is given.  

I am not saying that I agree with them, but in my circle it isn't the STEM people who are conspiracy people--its the liberal arts people. 

[Frances]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

But that is the whole point of democracy.  It recognizes that we don't all agree, but we can still coexist.

As already pointed out, we can disagree on policy, approaches, issues, what’s best for the country, etc. But if we can’t agree on even the most basic facts, then we can’t really meaningfully discuss any of the rest. The continual lies, disinformation, and propaganda coupled with many living in media and social media bubbles means we can’t even really reach the point of democratically debating and discussing issues, policies, etc because we aren’t starting with a set of basic shared facts.

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, frogger said:

Well, we can agree on that. 

 

I'm thinking I wouldn't specifically target hate radio, I mean talk radio. What I would probably try to convince people of is to look for emotional manipulation. Are they trying to rile you up? What is the goal? Are they looking at possible solutions (or the cost and benefit of different policies) or just complaining about the other side. 

Yeah, that’s one thing you can look for. But you can also look for general reliability. People can lie to you while looking rational. 

[Moonhawk]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

As a guiding principle, though, it's dangerous, because people aren't accurate about what's fact and what's opinion.  Or about what's evidence of fact/opinion.  Once there was supposedly a lot of "evidence" that people with darker skin had lower IQs, less self-control, and so on.  So that was what was taught as "fact."  We think that's all in the past, but I guarantee there is some current "common knowledge" that will be debunked in the near future.  Even "scientific facts" change repeatedly over short periods of time.

Pretty much all of human progress has occurred because someone voiced an idea that was "ridiculous" at the time.

If you're talking about specific provable facts, such as whether a certain office was wiretapped, then yes, I want people to have the truth and debunk the lies.  But I don't believe speech has to be fully vetted and proven before it can be expressed.  I'm not afraid of people exploring new ideas with each other.

...Yes, obviously? Nothing I said would be in the way of progress. Quite the opposite.

I don't feel like pulling up scientific evolution of knowledge and people knowingly sharing demonstrably false "thoughts" to further their social or political side are comparable. 

Things that were taught as fact before were in part flawed because of the beginning bias they were formed under. So, I agree, it was taught and presented as fact. But as more evidence -- more accurate, less biased evidence -- was shown, that fell to the wayside [mostly].

Why should it be different in a political or social climate? Why should we allow people to cling to old "evidence" that was biased in its inception even if it's been disproven with more accurate and unbiased methods?

Just because something has happened in the past and we are continually learning and adding to our knowledge doesn't mean we should allow things that are demonstrably wrong to be taught as a viable option. That doesn't stop human or scientific progress and I don't understand why we are trying to draw a false equivalence.

Just because "people aren't accurate about what's fact and what's opinion" doesn't mean it's OKAY to allow it if you can show them the difference. How do you expect this wanted human progress to happen if we don't step up to these most basic corrections? 

I am not saying "Stop All Questioning", I am saying "Stop Spreading Lies Pretending To Be Opinions." I did not say anything about vetting and I am concerned that I was read that way.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

As already pointed out, we can disagree on policy, approaches, issues, what’s best for the country, etc. But if we can’t agree on even the most basic facts, then we can’t really meaningfully discuss any of the rest. The continual lies, disinformation, and propaganda coupled with many living in media and social media bubbles means we can’t even really reach the point of democratically debating and discussing issues, policies, etc because we aren’t starting with a set of basic shared facts.

Right. It’s like saying we aren’t scientists unless we learn to trust faulty equipment. Well.... no. We need to have valid measurements. What we’re supposed to argue about is the reason for them.

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

As already pointed out, we can disagree on policy, approaches, issues, what’s best for the country, etc. But if we can’t agree on even the most basic facts, then we can’t really meaningfully discuss any of the rest. The continual lies, disinformation, and propaganda coupled with many living in media and social media bubbles means we can’t even really reach the point of democratically debating and discussing issues, policies, etc because we aren’t starting with a set of basic shared facts.

Well I do think that the vast majority of Americans do share a set of "basic" facts, while also holding certain different doubts and opinions as well as misconceptions.

Right now we're focusing on those fringes that don't represent most of us.  While we shouldn't ignore those people, we also shouldn't overgeneralize the problem.

 

[Not_a_Number]

I would say that where Obama was born is a basic fact. And we don't have any kind of agreement on that. 

[frogger]

10 minutes ago, Frances said:

And others in the same group are terrified by our current populist, authoritarian president who tried to overturn valid election results. No one person speaks for an entire group. Plus one needs to keep in mind who each side chose to be their leader. That has far more influence than a handful of Congress people.

The continual refusal to acknowledge the serious damage the current office holder has done to our democratic norms and institutions, even after last week’s events, continues to amaze me. The techniques just vary from placing the blame elsewhere (it was actually antifa or it’s all the fault of the left because they just hate the president), minimizing (it wasn’t an insurrection  or attempted coup, just protestors trying to be heard and fix the “stolen” election, turning the tables and playing the victim (big tech is trying to silence all conservative voices), or instilling fear of the other side (this was relentless during the last four years with all of the lies, disinformation, and propaganda around what will happen if Ds are in charge and reached a climax in regards to the “stolen” election). On one hand, it’s understandable, as when you can’t defend the indefensible, you turn to instilling anger and fear. But it’s also why we ended up in this mess and why things likely won’t get much better. Facts matter and when we can’t agree on a set of shared facts, there isn’t much hope for unity or progress.

I agree the President has done terrible damage to our nation in the form of influence.

 

That being said, I wish people could see the danger of policy coming from the president and of allowing them to take more and more power. They shouldn't be making policy. They should be voted on based on character to up hold the law and do what they are told. The American ideal was dispersion of power for a reason. One flake with a lot of power can do damage. Nobody wants to restrict power when their side holds the office but by doing so they are damaging our system. Congress should be debating and arguing policy. Presidents should simply be executing that policy. 

 

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, frogger said:

They should be voted on based on character to up hold the law and do what they are told.

Told by whom? Is that historically the role of the president? Because that sounds dubious to me. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[MercyA]

28 minutes ago, Frances said:

The continual lies, disinformation, and propaganda coupled with many living in media and social media bubbles means we can’t even really reach the point of democratically debating and discussing issues, policies, etc because we aren’t starting with a set of basic shared facts.

Right. My county had a positivity rate of *26%* only about a week ago. We are at something like 17% now. And, yet, for most people, life goes on as usual. Kids are playing sports. My church is talking about starting up Sunday School again next week. And a friend just signed up her 5-year-old child for a completely optional, just-for-fun, inside group activity. 

Yet there are literally no facts I could share with my church, or my friend, or those in my community that would change their mind about the basic rightness of going forward with these activities. My husband and I have literally been told "different people have different facts" and there is no way to know which facts are right and which are wrong, because everyone has an agenda. Also, "think of the children" and "don't live in fear" and on and on. 

Sharing facts with people is like throwing pebbles against a brick wall. They just bounce off with no effect. I am completely dismayed.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

My husband and I have literally been told "different people have different facts" and there is no way to know which facts are right and which are wrong, because everyone has an agenda.

Right. I've heard that kind of thing, too. Once you get into this epistemological quagmire, there's no getting out. There are no facts! No one knows anything! The only things you can believe are the ones you see with your own eyes! 

... hence the people who only decided COVID was serious after they or a family member got very sick. But that's a really sad way to live and leads to really stupid decisions. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[MercyA]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

... hence the people who only decided COVID was serious after they or a family member got very sick. But that's a really sad way to live and leads to really stupid decisions. 

I know two people in my church to whom that happened. One seemed to change, but now seems, from the little I can see, to be going mask-less again. The other is the friend who just signed up her kindergartener for a purely optional indoor activity.

My husband says many people are unable, at this point, to admit they've been wrong, because it would mean grappling with the difficult truth of what they have done.

[Pawz4me]

5 minutes ago, MercyA said:

 

My husband says many people are unable, at this point, to admit they've been wrong, because it would mean grappling with the difficult truth of what they have done.

I think this is very true, both with regard to Covid and the insurrection.

It's hard for most of us to admit we've been wrong about any but the smallest of things. And these are really big things.

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I know two people in my church to whom that happened. One seemed to change, but now seems, from the little I can see, to be going mask-less again. The other is the friend who just signed up her kindergartener for a purely optional indoor activity.

My husband says many people are unable, at this point, to admit they've been wrong, because it would mean grappling with the difficult truth of what they have done.

I think your husband is right about that. It's too hard for people to feel culpable, so they'd rather feel defensive and angry.  It's a common psychological mechanism 😕 . 

[frogger]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Told by whom? Is that historically the role of the president? Because that sounds dubious to me. 

The constitution's largest and first article covered congress because Congress was supposed to be the ones who "legislated". Putting things into practice was supposed to be the President's job because working with a huge group is messy. 

 

The most obvious and simple example is Congress is supposed to declare war. It is hard to move fast and be organized in moving troops with a Congress though. They declare war. The president is supposed to be the Commander in Chief of the military. 

 

The Congress is supposed to represent the people, which includes many ideas and different viewpoints. To ignore the will of the people to do what your favored group wants is exactly what Trump wanted to do. 

[SKL]

27 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I would say that where Obama was born is a basic fact. And we don't have any kind of agreement on that. 

See, that fuss is a fringe thing.  Most people either accept it or really don't care.  Not that it even matters any more.  Bringing up stuff like this to prove that America can't engage in useful discourse today is illogical IMO.

[SKL]

23 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Told by whom? Is that historically the role of the president? Because that sounds dubious to me. 

Congress makes laws, the prez enforces them ... to be simplistic. 

We have a lot of issues in Congress that have made it less effective than it should be.  The drift toward prez taking over legislative duties has been going on for a while.

[Not_a_Number]

18 minutes ago, frogger said:

The constitution's largest and first article covered congress because Congress was supposed to be the ones who "legislated". Putting things into practice was supposed to be the President's job because working with a huge group is messy. 

I'm really not a history buff, although perhaps that'll change after homeschooling, but I'm just asking: what is historically the role of the president? I don't think going back to what the Constitution says or doesn't say is fruitful. 

[Bootsie]

39 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Right. My county had a positivity rate of *26%* only about a week ago. We are at something like 17% now. And, yet, for most people, life goes on as usual. Kids are playing sports. My church is talking about starting up Sunday School again next week. And a friend just signed up her 5-year-old child for a completely optional, just-for-fun, inside group activity. 

Yet there are literally no facts I could share with my church, or my friend, or those in my community that would change their mind about the basic rightness of going forward with these activities. My husband and I have literally been told "different people have different facts" and there is no way to know which facts are right and which are wrong, because everyone has an agenda. Also, "think of the children" and "don't live in fear" and on and on. 

Sharing facts with people is like throwing pebbles against a brick wall. They just bounce off with no effect. I am completely dismayed.

Do these people disagree on the facts or what do with those facts?  

There is a difference at coming to a different decision about behavior based on a correct set of facts and disagreeing on the facts themselves.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

They are trying to tell me that we had the cleanest election ever while the Solarwinds hack had been happening under their noses all year? Those two things cannot exist in the same space in my opinion. 

Why are these related? 

 

1 minute ago, Plum said:

If you take away the fact that the big bad orange man was saying this, the idea that there weren’t any problems whatsoever with this election and there was nothing to see here is magical thinking.

OK, let's have some evidence something bad happened. Maybe it's just me, but I would expect that somewhere in 60 court cases we would have actual evidence, if this evidence existed. All we have is conspiracy theories and statements by people who talked to someone who talked to someone who saw something. 

Of course elections have been tampered with before. People want to win, so they cheat, lol. If you want this not to happen, you strengthen election security. For example, you can make sure there are backup paper ballots for all machine-cast ballots so that you can ACTUALLY check everything if you're worried about your machines. 

[Not_a_Number]

Here's something I random Googled up, lol. You can tell me if it's right or not: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/the-president-was-never-intended-to-be-the-most-powerful-part-of-government/

[Garga]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Here's something I random Googled up, lol. You can tell me if it's right or not: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/the-president-was-never-intended-to-be-the-most-powerful-part-of-government/

Oo!Oo! I know! I know!  I’m taking a government class with my 10th grade son, and the framers of the constitution viewed the president as being sort of like an executive assistant to Congress.  That position was not supposed to have much power at all.  

Over the past 200ish years, it’s grown into what it is today. I’m pretty sure Teddy Roosevelt had a lot to do with expanding the powers, as did FDR during the WWII.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Garga

[Pawz4me]

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

So say I question the election results. Not because I’m Q or have really paid any attention to  anything the President has said about it, but because it doesn’t pass my bs detector. They are trying to tell me that we had the cleanest election ever while the Solarwinds hack had been happening under their noses all year? Those two things cannot exist in the same space in my opinion. If you take away the fact that the big bad orange man was saying this, the idea that there weren’t any problems whatsoever with this election and there was nothing to see here is magical thinking. Do I want it to be true? Nope. Can I hold in my head that it is a possibility? Yes. Does that make me Q for thinking that or saying that out loud? In the current environment, maybe. Shhhh.... I’m not supposed to think, say or post such things. I have a HUGE problem with that.  

Ummm . . . I'm not getting how these things are related?

Wasn't the Solarwinds hack of federal organizations? Elections are held at the state level. We have 50 state elections, not one federal election.

[MercyA]

10 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Do these people disagree on the facts or what do with those facts?  

Both.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

Both.

That's because it's EASIER to come up with conclusions you like when you have facts you like, too! 

So, for example, you can say something like "OK, so almost 400,000 Americans that we know of have died of COVID over the past year, and that's a ton, and there's obviously a risk to people over 50 if they catch it, but I don't care. I think my kids' activities are more important." 

And you might be right, for some kids! Maybe you have a super anxious kid who won't tolerate being at home much. Maybe you're super worried about social skills. Maybe you're about to lose it yourself without some childcare. 

But think how much more PALATABLE it is to think that there is no trade-off, that there really aren't almost 400,000 people dead of COVID, that it's all a huge lie to control you, and it's VIRTUOUS to sign your kid up for all the activities to protest the control. 

It's intellectual laziness. It's refusing to accept the fact that decisions have consequences. It's refusing to admit that facts matter. 

[kbutton]

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Given EVERYTHING that’s gone on and the insane views currently espoused as fact, no, it wasn’t obvious. I’m no longer willing to presume that these sorts of comments are offered in jest. Have you looked around lately? People will believe ANYTHING and we’re all supposed to nod along b/c they’re earnest in their belief. 

This is a bit indirect, but it seemed a good place to mention it; I've read news commentaries over the last few months that start along the lines of, "We feel we can't be quite about this any longer..." . Then the editor or journalist mentions the reason for the silence is that addressing something so wild was to give credence to the wild idea in the first place, and that if you don't give fuel to the fire, the idea will die. If I saw this once, I might have thought it was interesting. I saw it often enough that I thought maybe it's a principle that people tend to follow, and maybe people need to apply this principle differently to the echo chamber nature of social media. 

IRL, I do see parents, teachers, group leaders do this kind of thing--it's a phase, let's ignore it, and it will die out. If it doesn't, then I can deal with it. 

1 hour ago, frogger said:

So I think the point is that the more mediocre mainstream news outlets breed mistrust with their obvious bias. When that mistrust takes root some people simply won't listen to anything they say.  Building trust in society is huge. Now that people don't trust news outlets and major institutions they will look with scepticism on everything they say and feel they are being tricked.

I think this is what happens, but I think it's important to tackle why it happens--bias is not precisely the same as lying. It can go there, but it can simply be a different perspective that is out of place or is being used disproportionately while still being true.

People need to start reacting to something that is untrue as though it is untrue and look for factual information. They need to recognize bias and develop a way of sizing it up that is more flexible than True or False--adding or changing context, looking up additional information from another viewpoint, comparing it to bare facts (and bare facts can also stop short of being true if they aren't complete), etc. to get to the heart of what makes it biased.

Some media bias checkers rate not only left, center, and right, they also rate how often things have failed fact checks, and they tend to give the gist of what makes the site biased (word choice, for instance), and how often, or whether the site tends to have articles from both sides vs. aiming for center. This seems to be lost on people.

1 hour ago, Moonhawk said:

I don't think we should encourage people to be wrong. It's become convenient to label lies and misinformation as "a difference of opinion" and I think that's where the problem comes up.  I think there's a difference between opinion and facts

This is also related to my comment on frogger.

1 hour ago, frogger said:

What I would probably try to convince people of is to look for emotional manipulation. Are they trying to rile you up? What is the goal? Are they looking at possible solutions (or the cost and benefit of different policies) or just complaining about the other side. 

I think this is one measure, but not the only one. This particular measure is lost on my friends and family right now, IMO.

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, that’s one thing you can look for. But you can also look for general reliability. People can lie to you while looking rational. 

How would you measure general reliability in this context? A fact checker? Adherence to norms? 

50 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I agree that the fringe opinions are not widespread. However, many people believe ideas that originated with the fringe. I saw an article (sorry - don't have the cite) recently about how QAnon influencers camouflage QAnon theories for mainstream people. For example, a friend's husband just bought a generator because he read online that the government was going to impose a blackout. Her husband is not into QAnon but the blackout thing originated with QAnon influencers. 

Yes!!! This is 80% of my friend list on FB, especially if the information given taps into end-times paranoia, and scoring triple points if it hits nationalism too.

31 minutes ago, kand said:

I don’t know how to fix the system now being so partisan that congress works lockstep with the president when they are of the same party, no matter what. 

Sometimes parties do a better job of being cohesive to achieve a desired outcome. Sometimes a leader insists on loyalty tests. Those are not really the same thing, and I think they can both be a problem when unchecked, but one can be a much greater problem. The loyalty test leads to things being run like the mafia, IMO, and it can come from the bottom up as well as the top down. It doesn't factor in principle. At least if people are being united to achieve an outcome, there is a possibility the outcome is one that appeals to some universal good. The loyalty test has less likelihood of being altruistic from the get go.

[Katy]

7 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Ummm . . . I'm not getting how these things are related?

Wasn't the Solarwinds hack of federal organizations? Elections are held at the state level. We have 50 state elections, not one federal election.

Not to mention in the areas where the election was close the ballots were hand counted.  Nothing changed.

[Ausmumof3]

15 minutes ago, Plum said:

So say I question the election results. Not because I’m Q or have really paid any attention to  anything the President has said about it, but because it doesn’t pass my bs detector. They are trying to tell me that we had the cleanest election ever while the Solarwinds hack had been happening under their noses all year? Those two things cannot exist in the same space in my opinion. If you take away the fact that the big bad orange man was saying this, the idea that there weren’t any problems whatsoever with this election and there was nothing to see here is magical thinking. Do I want it to be true? Nope. Can I hold in my head that it is a possibility? Yes. Does that make me Q for thinking that or saying that out loud? In the current environment, maybe. Shhhh.... I’m not supposed to think, say or post such things. I have a HUGE problem with that.  

But hasn’t there been pretty significant checks/recounts already?  I must admit I haven’t followed that closely but it seems like there’s been quite a lot of legal challenges that theoretically should have turned something up if there was something really substantial.  And also there’s quite a large gap to overcome.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Katy said:

Not to mention in the areas where the election was close the ballots were hand counted.  Nothing changed.

And some of the time, it was overseen by Republican officials.