Really? Such tactics are all over the media nowadays. Read Manufacturing Consent then look for all of the tactics in the western "propaganda model" of operation updated for 2020. The news has never been subtle about this sort of manipulation since at least the 80's. By comparison, what I see nowadays, it seems like journalists think everyone's a mental toddler.
Look for emotional language in articles. Then count up the hard facts. There's an inverse relationship. It's not supposed to be like this!
In the 80s the fairness doctrine was killed. In short words it required certain forms of opinion pieces to give an opposing viewpoint. [0]
Bringing this back would probably have a bigger impact on politics in this country than anything else we could do right now.
This would actually be an interesting empirical study, if anyone is sitting on a news DB stretching back a few decades.
Seems like it would be great to train a model on the historical corpus of news articles to visualize this trend and inform readers of this kind of deliberate manipulation. It might also be interesting to have a browser plugin that could use the model to "rewrite" articles to remove the manipulation as well.
Exactly!
For an easy demonstration, watch NHK news (Japan), then compare to any of {CNN,FOX,MSNBC,CBS,ABC,...}.
It's nice that one can be informed without being inflamed.
At all hours!
>I don't think of the problem as between socialism and capitalism but rather between suppression of ideas and free ideas. If it is that free ideas and socialism are better than communism, it will work its way through. And it will be better for everybody. And if capitalism is better than socialism, it will work its way through.
In the rest of the chapter he's pretty critical of Russia in particular, because of the soviet suppression of good science in favor of party-endorsed "facts," but that's more anti-autocratic than anti-communist.
Fun fact: In Feynman's formative years, 'libertarian' still meant 'anarchist'.
But also, he was actually supportive/accepting to female scientists when that was not a norm - up to supporting female scientist when under sexist attack.
That part matter too and part of his legacy too.
Passionate people who get some limelight may steer on this path. Passionate and humble people don't get their dopamine from other's or they do but to a much lesser extent. They don't crave it as much as the former.
All things said, I don't think Feynman should be judged on his moral values, he never claimed he was a priest or a monk, he loved life and gratification. He was inspiring to others and that is what matters.
I found Richard Feynman very inspiring and I still do.
He had better luck with his other two wife's.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200604154641/http://blog.nucle...
Given that the most clever and intelligent among us could be better prepared for subterfuge, it perhaps makes the question of "Is Feynman trustworthy?" rather difficult.
