Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ahhh....no.
Al Jazeera is funded by the Radical Islamists.
RT (Russia Today) has more credibility.

Sorry but it's the gold standard for unbiased news.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’ve already written extensively here on CF about how negative the growing dominance of liberals over conservatives in academia. It is a very bad development.

It's nothing new. It's been going on as long as I can remember but has gotten worse. The liberals are very intolerant and prefer an homogeneous existence.

[john61ct]

Meet the KGB Spies Who Invented Fake News
https://youtu.be/h5WjRjz5mTU

The Seven Commandments of Fake News
https://youtu.be/S-4iwYkAivA

How Disinformation Is Taking Over the World
https://youtu.be/yA-FCxFQNHg

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by cyan

Definitely!
Intolerance does seem a bit odd coming from the left, though, and increasing. Take Berkeley, California, the iconic (ironic?) modern free speech birthplace in the US. In place of the lefty hippie love types who would join together in protest of war last century, we now have that side joining in protest to actively prevent speeches from certain people that they don't like. What a weird, confused modern twist.
I think Exile may have a point, and it may not be as subjective as you think.

I do think there is a growing intolerance growing in some areas of academia, led by what I (and many) call the regressive left. Again, I’ve written about this here and elsewhere. I think it is a deeply troubling development, and the irony of where it is happening should be lost on no one.

There is plenty of right wing intolerance that I could enunciate, and I suspect you and Ex could as well. Which is worse is something I leave to the babblers of editorial content. To me, it’s all bad.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

... Al Jazeera is funded by the Radical Islamists.
RT (Russia Today) has more credibility.

That's a bold statement, requiring evidence.

Al Jazeera is one of the world's leading media companies with more than 80 news bureaus around the globe, multiple international news, sports and family channels, and now 12 bureaus in the United States. Known globally for its factual, fair and even-handed coverage, Al Jazeera has won many of the journalism profession's most prestigious awards, including the Emmys, the Gracies, the Peabody's, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Freedom Award and the DuPont Award.

A few articles about Al Jazeera:

“AL JAZEERA: A REVERSAL OF PERSPECTIVE”
➥ http://web.media.mit.edu/~a_hashmi/p...hmi_medill.pdf

“Qatar's Al-Jazeera TV: The Power of Free Speech”
➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20070103...s/0006_me2.htm

“Al-Jazeera's popularity and impact”
➥ BBC NEWS | Middle East | Al-Jazeera's popularity and impact

[boatman61]

One of the reasons it is one of the News channels I watch to help clarify/balance my view of whats happening in the world.. having little nationalistic bias myself.
What alarms me is how Predictive Algorithms are influencing so many things these days to the extent that folks do not realise they are being led by the nose up the garden path.. you no longer choose what you get to read its selected for you.. even to support your beliefs when you search for the negative.. it leads you to the weakest arguements against your 'history'
Hell.. The UK police even use them to decide whether or not to make an arrest these days..
Its a Brave New World..

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Predictive Algorithms are influencing so many things these days to the extent that folks do not realise they are being led by the nose up the garden path.. you no longer choose what you get to read its selected for you

You mean **if** people let algorithms select the **sources** of their news feeds, or get their actual news feed from social media?

That would be pretty stupid IMO.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by john61ct

You mean **if** people let algorithms select the **sources** of their news feeds, or get their actual news feed from social media?

That would be pretty stupid IMO.

You dont get a choice..
Do a search on Google and you get what Googles accumulated info on you believes will make you happiest.. if it cannot do that it goes to default and throws up stuff about bikes and boats for me.
FB and Instagram feed you with what your info says you prefer/believe..
I am not talking about fresh News as most will go to the sites like AJ, BBC,RT etc..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

...What alarms me is how Predictive Algorithms are influencing so many things these days to the extent that folks do not realise they are being led by the nose up the garden path.. you no longer choose what you get to read its selected for you ...
Its a Brave New World..

Indeed, Huxley is proving to be more prescient than Orwell in this regard. We are all happily taking our Soma, and most don’t even notice or care.

So much of today’s Internet is geared around one simple thing: selling you more crap. The algorithms that operate your search results and “news” feeds (much of which isn’t news) are geared to keeping you satisfied. The apps, the sites like FB and indeed CF, are geared towards keeping you using the tool, because just like a retail store, the longer you remain, the greater the likelihood that you’ll spend.

But even when you don’t spend, you are feed stock for what Harvard business proof Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism”.

Originally Posted by john61ct

You mean **if** people let algorithms select the **sources** of their news feeds, or get their actual news feed from social media?

That would be pretty stupid IMO.

It’s hard to see what is designed to be hidden. Most people aren’t stupid about this, they just don’t know, or more importantly, don’t care. And those the do care make the trade willingly because they like all the services they get “for free.” It’s Soma after all — it makes the world a better place .

It is possible to make it harder for the invisible systems to track and manipulate you. There are blockers and monitors one can use. Stay away from the biggies like Facebook and Google. Never sign up for these things. Use alternative search tools, and never follow the clickbait.

The problem is, almost the entire business model of the Internet has become one of “surveillance capitalism.” Using Ghostery, I can see there are currently six invisible trackers running here on CF as I type. The sites which are clean are very few, and far between.

All this tracking feeds the Soma algorithms that then feed you. It is virtually impossible to be 100% free of it. And this can now be paired with all the more established tracking embedded in our financial systems (credit/debit cards, points/club/airmiles cards, etc).

[senormechanico]

Mike,


My jaw dropped when I read this quote from you.



"The five moral foundations:

• Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm"

Wasn't it the democrats in Virginia and New York who passed a law allowing infanticide for a baby born alive after a botched abortion?

The left is going over the cliff in their zeal to "out progressive" each other.
What's next? Offing old people against their will to save money for other progressive causes?

Wake up, people !

[weavis]

Getting close to thread termination due to politics.

[Exile]

Yeah, it seems like we're going over the top on the politics. Mike - I obliged your request awhile back that I refrain from Obama-bashing when I compared that administration and your comments about the current one with regard to respecting freedom of speech & the press. I don't think a "psychological study" purporting to objectify personality differences between liberals & conservatives does anything but perpetuate bogus stereotypes in a rather partisan way. Seems like it's just asking for pushback.

Back to the algorithms . . . it sounds like we're talking about two different things here, both of which have already been discussed to some extent. Boatie is suggesting algorithms exist to lead the unknowing reader towards news and opinion information which could easily contribute to the problem of confirmation bias. Mike is saying such algorithms exist only to sell us more stuff and there's no manipulation of people's beliefs going on. I don't want to mischaracterize, so did I get this right?

Based on some links Mike posted earlier, it sounds like whether or not the former is actually going on may be debatable. As for the efforts to sell us more stuff, this may only be a "problem" if we assume it is causing people to buy stuff they otherwise don't need or want, and therefore wouldn't buy if they had not been exposed to the algorithms. But isn't this just a more efficient form of the same sort of more generalized advertising we're exposed to all the time? We all still have our own free will, right? For example, I like being reminded by the ad on CF for 'Ocean Planet Energy Systems' since I like checking out the latest & greatest energy products & technologies for my boat. I haven't purchased anything as of yet because I haven't yet felt the need, but I don't see the difference between educating myself about solar panels from a vendor's website or from an interesting forum thread about someone's DIY installation. Is there real harm from this sort of more individualized advertising that I'm just not aware of but should be?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

... Wasn't it the democrats in Virginia and New York who passed a law allowing infanticide for a baby born alive after a botched abortion? ...

Yes, it was Democrats in Virginia and New York who introduced proposed updates to their respective abortion laws. Virginia's failed, while New York's passed.

NO, neither bill proposed "allowing infanticide for a baby born alive after a botched abortion". You've been duped by right wing conservative pundits, and venal Republican politicians.

New York’s Reproductive Health Act permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”
In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”
Previously, abortions after 24 weeks were justified only in cases where the mother’s life was at risk
RHA ➥ https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240

The Virginia statute change would have reduced the number of physicians needed for late-term abortion approval from three to one, and would allow the procedure for any medical reason (including a woman’s mental health).
The bill would have also allowed for second-term abortions to be performed outside of licensed hospitals.
The bill would not have allowed for abortions after a baby has entered the birth canal.
The bill was defeated in the Virginia State House.
HB 2491 ➥ http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp...191+ful+HB2491


Complex, unfamiliar concepts do not lend themselves to capsule explanation, hence I linked to the actual legislative bills.



“The controversy around Virginia’s new abortion bill, explained”
➥ https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/1820542...-ralph-northam

“Here Are the Facts Behind an Abortion Controversy Engulfing Virginia Democrats”
➥ http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...fanticide.html

“Fake News About Abortion in Virginia” ~ by Michelle Goldberg, Opinion Columnist
No, Democrats aren’t trying to legalize infanticide.
➥ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/o...athy-tran.html

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yeah, it seems like we're going over the top on the politics. Mike - I obliged your request awhile back that I refrain from Obama-bashing when I compared that administration and your comments about the current one with regard to respecting freedom of speech & the press. I don't think a "psychological study" purporting to objectify personality differences between liberals & conservatives does anything but perpetuate bogus stereotypes in a rather partisan way. Seems like it's just asking for pushback.

Whoa… hold on. What I am quoting is long-established psychological and behavioural economic research. It’s as controversial as saying there are differences between the sexes. This is not some one-off, fringe research.

There is no intent to bash anyone here. The research shows there ARE psychological differences between those who profess to be liberals compared to those who claim to be conservatives. These are facts (the scientific term).

I don’t mean to offend anyone, and there’s plenty of stuff to discuss here. I certainly don’t want to have this thread spiral off into never-never land. But I encourage you Ex to actually look into this research. It’s not new, and I’m sure you’ll find it fascinating.

Originally Posted by Exile

Back to the algorithms . . . it sounds like we're talking about two different things here, both of which have already been discussed to some extent. Boatie is suggesting algorithms exist to lead the unknowing reader towards news and opinion information which could easily contribute to the problem of confirmation bias. Mike is saying such algorithms exist only to sell us more stuff and there's no manipulation of people's beliefs going on. I don't want to mischaracterize, so did I get this right?

My view is that the primary motivation is based on good old economics — nothing new here in that sense, just taken to the next frontier of digital. Manipulation of people is core to effective marketing and selling. If it is profitable to manipulate people’s political or philosophical beliefs, then that will be done. BUT, that would be odd or rare. The most effective manipulation happens along the lines of reinforcing existing beliefs, not trying to change them.

Originally Posted by Exile

Based on some links Mike posted earlier, it sounds like whether or not the former is actually going on may be debatable. As for the efforts to sell us more stuff, this may only be a "problem" if we assume it is causing people to buy stuff they otherwise don't need or want, and therefore wouldn't buy if they had not been exposed to the algorithms. But isn't this just a more efficient form of the same sort of more generalized advertising we're exposed to all the time?

Yes, and yes. As I wrote above, it’s the same old thing, but with digital tracking and manipulation, it has taken it to a whole new level. And I’m not saying it’s all bad. There ARE real benefits to these services, and even to being “served” targeted ads. They’re targeted to our desires. But it’s still about selling us more.

Originally Posted by Exile

We all still have our own free will, right? For example, I like being reminded by the ad on CF for 'Ocean Planet Energy Systems' since I like checking out the latest & greatest energy products & technologies for my boat. I haven't purchased anything as of yet because I haven't yet felt the need, but I don't see the difference between educating myself about solar panels from a vendor's website or from an interesting forum thread about someone's DIY installation. Is there real harm from this sort of more individualized advertising that I'm just not aware of but should be?

Yes, I say there is measurable harm — in the sense that you are likely being manipulated into buying more, or something you might not have outside of this kind of marketing effort. There’s really nothing new about any of this. It’s just that digital tracking tools, combined with the mergers of previously disparate databases (like Google click monitoring combined with credit card data, for example), and Big Data analytical techniques, have all taken this game to a whole new level.

We can discuss whether one sees this as a gentle continuum, or whether it is (as I believe) better seen as a quantum leap in manipulation. But it is a significant change. And like all changes, there is positive and negative aspects.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by boatman61

You dont get a choice..

Do a search on Google and you get what Googles accumulated info on you believes will make you happiest.. if it cannot do that it goes to default and throws up stuff about bikes and boats for me.

FB and Instagram feed you with what your info says you prefer/believe..

I am not talking about fresh News as most will go to the sites like AJ, BBC,RT etc..

To me the definition of News is what you're calling "fresh news".

And no need to use the web to "visit sites", that's what RSS is for.

Forums SMS and email are the only SM I use, certainly have no interest in the two examples you give.

Googling is (re)search.