undefined | Better HN

0 pointsanonymous9082132mo ago0 comments

Your ability to check your information environment against reality is frequently within your control and can be used to establish trustworthiness for the things that you cannot personally verify. And it is a choice to choose to trust things that you cannot verify, one that you do not have to make, even though it is unfortunately commonly made.

For example, let's take the Uyghur situation in China. I have no ability to check reality there, as I do not live in and have no intention of ever visiting China. My information environment is what the Chinese government reports and what various media outlets and NGOs report. As it turns out, both the Chinese government and media and NGOs report on other things that I can check against reality, eg. events that happen in my country, and I know that they both routinely report falsehoods that do not accord with my observed reality. As a result, I have zero trust in either the Chinese government or media and NGOs when it comes to things that I cannot personally verify, especially when I know both parties have self-interest incentives to report things that are not true. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious: I do not know and can not know what is happening around Uyghurs in China, and do not have a strong opinion on the subject, despite the attempts of various parties to put information in front of me with the intention to get me to champion their viewpoint. This really does not make me an extra special intellectual powerhouse, one would hope. I'd think this is the bare minimum. The fact that there are many people who do not meet this bare minimum is something that reflects poorly on them rather than highly on me.

On the other hand, I trust what, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about hard science, because in the course of my education I was taught to conduct experiments and confirm reality for myself. I have never once found what is written about hard science in Britannica to not be in accord with my observed reality, and on top of that there is little incentive for the Britannica to print scientific falsehoods that could be easily disproven, so it has earned my trust and I will believe the things written in it even if I have not personally conducted experiments to verify all of it.

Anyone can check their information sources against reality, regardless of their intelligence. It is a choice to believe information that is put in front of you without checking it. Sometimes a choice that is warranted once trust is earned, but all too often a choice that is highly unwarranted.

0 comments

manoDev2mo ago

You choose to trust Encyclopedia Brittanica, and someone else chooses to trust CNN or some guy on X with 100m followers.

This is an appeal to authority, you’re still not checking any facts by yourself, and that’s exactly how people get manipulated.

anonymous908213OP2mo ago

Why even bother responding to comments if you don't read them?

> because in the course of my education I was taught to conduct experiments and confirm reality for myself. I have never once found what is written about hard science in Britannica to not be in accord with my observed reality,

It's in the same sentence I mentioned Britannica!

> you’re still not checking any facts by yourself

Did you perhaps read it but not understand what my sentence meant because you don't know what an experiment is? Were you not taught to do scientific experiments in your schooling? Literally the entire point of my entire post is that I do not trust blindly, but choose who I trust based on their ability to accurately report the facts I observe for myself without fail. CNN, as with every media outlet I've ever encountered in my entire life, publishes things I can verify to be false. So too does some guy on Twitter with 100 million followers. Britannica does not, at least as it pertains to hard science.

imiric2mo ago

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, but you're not taking a few things into account.

First of all, most people don't think critically, and may not even know how. They consume information provided to them, instinctively trust people they have a social, emotional, or political bond with, are easily persuaded, and rarely question the world around them. This is not surprising or a character flaw—it's deeply engrained in our psyche since birth. Some people learn the skill of critical thinking over time, and are able to do what you said, but this is not common. This ability can even be detrimental if taken too far in the other direction, which is how you get cynicism, misanthropy, conspiracy theories, etc. So it needs to be balanced well to be healthy.

Secondly, psychological manipulation is very effective. We've known this for millennia, but we really understood it in the past century from its military and industrial use. Propaganda and its cousin advertising work very well at large scales precisely because most people are easily persuaded. They don't need to influence everyone, but enough people to buy their product, or to change their thoughts and behavior to align with a particular agenda. So now that we have invented technology that most people can't function without, and made it incredibly addictive, it has become the perfect medium for psyops.

All of these things combined make it extremely difficult for anyone, including skeptics, to get a clear sense of reality. If most of your information sources are corrupt, you need to become an expert information sleuth, and possibly sacrifice modern conveniences and technology for it. Most people, even if capable, are unwilling to make that effort and sacrifice.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse