Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[gamayun]

My point is you can control what happens on FB. Just like we can control whether we choose to eat the whole box of lemon Oreo cookies in one sitting or not.

Errr, maybe a bad analogy.

[Painless]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Of course we, as the end "consumer" of media, must make the final judgements about the information we receive. Caveat emptor still applies here as well. Nor am I saying that national arms-length broadcasters are always without bias.

But we all know that not all people will be that discerning. Then add to that the firehose of sh1te that is the totality of all the possible "information" one is inundated with constantly....

Chris - you correctly state that the BBC can sometimes show bias - but you also indicate that you still consider it trustworthy and your go-to source. That's basically my point about the national broadcasters. Whereas in the US, there are mainly just for-profit outlets; many, possibly the majority choosing to attract a specific audience sector, and of these many having an unapologetically biased stance. You can't really point to a US broadcaster that someone else won't dismiss out of hand because members of their tribe claim that it's biased. (or the general chant of "librul" bias levelled against all "mainstream" media).

I do know that a US "BBC" is not a possibility, it's not in their DNA. But once upon a time, people trusted CBS (eg Walter Cronkite) and/or NBC; those broadcasters were doing quality work, people trusted them, and they weren't making their money by setting themselves upon each other. Can that level of commercial journalism ever arise again?

It's arguable that maybe a few of the papers still are - eg NY Times, Washington Post. Maybe even the Wall St Journal. But because somebody once found an article or two too [left/right] for their tastes, these sources are now dismissed totally by the tribes as "biased".

The majority of today’s news stations are so eager to be first to break a story, the “talking heads” will blindly read whatever is thrust in front of them.
Here in San Francisco the Asiana Airlines plane crash resulted in our local news anchor “breaking the news on the planes pilots names” as
Sum Ting Wong; Wi Tu Lo ; Ho Lee Fuk ; and Bing Ding Ow.

Really?

[44'cruisingcat]

I sometimes wonder if I might be wrong, but naaaaah.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Painless

The majority of today’s news stations are so eager to be first to break a story, the “talking heads” will blindly read whatever is thrust in front of them.
Here in San Francisco the Asiana Airlines plane crash resulted in our local news anchor “breaking the news on the planes pilots names” as
Sum Ting Wong; Wi Tu Lo ; Ho Lee Fuk ; and Bing Ding Ow.
Really?

Yes, really.
TRUE - But:
“... In this instance it appears that KTVU did attempt to verify the information with the proper agency, but someone from the NTSB also contributed to gaffe by confirming the purported pilots’ names. That agency’s Office of Public Affairs soon issued a press release apologizing for the incident, stating that KTVU had been misled by “a summer intern [who] acted outside the scope of his authority ...”
More ➥ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/news-you-can-lose/

➥

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOkTKfxu44

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by gamayun

My point is you can control what happens on FB. Just like we can control whether we choose to eat the whole box of lemon Oreo cookies in one sitting or not.

Errr, maybe a bad analogy.

Your only control is in the content you choose to publish... but you have no control over FB accessing any of your data stored on your phone/computor.. the first 'Allow' throws the door wide open.. the rest are window dressing...
Standard with all apps..

[boatman61]

Big scoop on France24.. A picture of an Egg has dethroned Kylie Jenner from the most liked Photos on Instagram..
Kinda puts the Yellow Vests Movement in perpective..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by gamayun

My point is you can control what happens on FB. Just like we can control whether we choose to eat the whole box of lemon Oreo cookies in one sitting or not.

Errr, maybe a bad analogy.

No, it's a perfect analogy. You nailed it. You can choose to eat a variety of things, and deliberately seek out a varied and healthy diet, or you can eat junky comfort food 24/7.

On FB, your news feed is a combination of what/who you choose to follow, plus what your friends send you... PLUS FB looking at all that and deciding that you'd probably also like THIS...

So for example if someone's a staunch libertarian, and they follow some like-minded sites, and they have FB friends they routinely complain about the gummint to... FB is gonna find some more libertarian and anti-gummint sources and suggest them.

... which is probably what the person wants anyway, but the net effect is an amplified mirror; FB shows them the world in the way they already see it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by gamayun

My point is you can control what happens on FB. Just like we can control whether we choose to eat the whole box of lemon Oreo cookies in one sitting or not.

Errr, maybe a bad analogy.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, it's a perfect analogy. You nailed it. You can choose to eat a variety of things, and deliberately seek out a varied and healthy diet, or you can eat junky comfort food 24/7.

On FB, your news feed is a combination of what/who you choose to follow, plus what your friends send you... PLUS FB looking at all that and deciding that you'd probably also like THIS...

So for example if someone's a staunch libertarian, and they follow some like-minded sites, and they have FB friends they routinely complain about the gummint to... FB is gonna find some more libertarian and anti-gummint sources and suggest them.

... which is probably what the person wants anyway, but the net effect is an amplified mirror; FB shows them the world in the way they already see it.

And just like over-indulgence in Oreo cookies, a steady diet of news & commentary from only like-minded sources leads to lethargy if not rigor mortis, except in this case of the brain.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by gamayun

It takes about 15 minutes to get through new FB posts, only reading the things that interest me so I am always kinda shocked when I hear that people don't use it for the value it can provide...

I'm the opposite- surprised when I meet people who just want to read the things that interest them, letting FB do the filtering. Very convenient, but when the filter algorithm is literally secret code written by quirky SF Bay area nerds... I'll pass. (no offense to the bay area)

The echo chamber is a comfortable place, but I often end up learning more from people who disagree with me. Is the concept of a healthy debate becoming obsolete?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by cyan

I'm the opposite- surprised when I meet people who just want to read the things that interest them, letting FB do the filtering. Very convenient, but when the filter algorithm is literally secret code written by quirky SF Bay area nerds... I'll pass. (no offense to the bay area)

The echo chamber is a comfortable place, but I often end up learning more from people who disagree with me. Is the concept of a healthy debate becoming obsolete?

Yes..
At least in Oxford and Cambridge where PC has become the norm..
Healthy debate is outa the window.. all you need is a couple of placard waving students and cancellations of visiting lecturers begin.
Its a sad world we live in today.

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Your only control is in the content you choose to publish... but you have no control over FB accessing any of your data stored on your phone/computor.. the first 'Allow' throws the door wide open.. the rest are window dressing...
Standard with all apps..

And I give my apps permission to follow my every movement. I know they're collecting data and a lot if it makes my life easier. Why should I get paranoid about this? I don't follow fads. I don't make impulse buys. I pull up news from a variety of sources, directly from the sources. I research issues from scientifically valid sites. I pull up FB news about sailing when I have the interest in the subject. I use the grocery store discounts and sometimes use their coupons (especially for Noosa lemon yogurt, yumm) but most go in the garbage. I just don't share the same freak out sense others have about this. I know I'm being ad targeted and I know the news aggregator on my phone leans liberal and outdoorsy (but People Magazine, really?!?). So how exactly am I being manipulated? Because I buy Noosa instead of Dannon and I sometimes look at an article about Jason Momoa? Certainly there are worse things out there such as spending too much spare time arguing a point that changes no one's mind on these forums....? (But healthy debate is fun - gotta fess up to that obsession!)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by cyan

I'm the opposite- surprised when I meet people who just want to read the things that interest them, letting FB do the filtering. Very convenient, but when the filter algorithm is literally secret code written by quirky SF Bay area nerds... I'll pass. (no offense to the bay area)

The echo chamber is a comfortable place, but I often end up learning more from people who disagree with me. Is the concept of a healthy debate becoming obsolete?

Despite "secrecy", I don't think the filter algorithms are all that special or inscrutable. Their goal, stated broadly, is to make members happier and willing to stay and read longer by pointing them to stuff that they will probably like. The secrecy is around the nuts and bolts about how you index, weigh words and phrases, make associations, and the process involves custom lists, machine-learning and self-training - all things which are trade secrets for obvious reasons.

The problematic area is the ethics of this sort of automated aggregation; is it good for society if people are left to marinate in an amplified soup of their own opinion-bubbles of fake news, distortion and bias, or is there an obligation on the part of the filter to only serve up info that has been verified as factual and accurate?

I'm all for healthy debate. Define healthy, though, first.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by gamayun

...I just don't share the same freak out sense others have about this. I know I'm being ad targeted and I know the news aggregator on my phone leans liberal and outdoorsy (but People Magazine, really?!?). So how exactly am I being manipulated? Because I buy Noosa instead of Dannon and I sometimes look at an article about Jason Momoa? Certainly there are worse things out there such as spending too much spare time arguing a point that changes no one's mind on these forums....? (But healthy debate is fun - gotta fess up to that obsession!)

As long as you understand that you ARE being manipulated, and HOW you’re being manipulated, then I guess it’s all good.

This is a general statement gamayun, not aimed only for you, but it is interesting how none of us believes we are being manipulated by advertising or marketing or politicians, or the church priest, yet all evidence shows that we are. There’s mountains of research on this stuff, and decades (perhaps centuries) of experience. People — ALL PEOPLE — are able to be influenced and manipulated. If you you are immune, then you are a serious outlier.

Knowing this should give us all pause with regard to the power we are willingly handing over to corporations like FB and Google. Their ability to aggregate personal data, and their dominance in many of our lives, gives them unprecedented power over us.

They also give us many things in return. Lots of “free” services and stuff. It’s no different than all those points credit cards, or coupons, or a multitude of other tools marketers use. It’s always two way trade. As long as you understand what you are giving up, and recognize that you are being manipulated in ways that are hard for you to discern, then the trade might be worth it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

...it is interesting how none of us believes we are being manipulated by advertising or marketing or politicians, or the church priest, yet all evidence shows that we are. There’s mountains of research on this stuff, and decades (perhaps centuries) of experience. People — ALL PEOPLE — are able to be influenced and manipulated. If you you are immune, then you are a serious outlier.

The thing I have been trying to stress is that bias/manipulation isn't a two-state thing; there are degrees to which a source or a story has bias. One source (A) may be considered by some to have a leaning, perhaps simply because most editors went to school X; another source (B) may have been set up for the express purpose of promoting a specific viewpoint. They are not equal, and should not be relied upon nor dismissed equally.

So in terms of news, it is important and necessary to seek out sources who have the best track record for honesty and accuracy. That is, if one cares about honesty and accuracy... many do not.

Knowing this should give us all pause with regard to the power we are willingly handing over to corporations like FB and Google. Their ability to aggregate personal data, and their dominance in many of our lives, gives them unprecedented power over us.

They also give us many things in return. Lots of “free” services and stuff. It’s no different than all those points credit cards, or coupons, or a multitude of other tools marketers use. It’s always two way trade. As long as you understand what you are giving up, and recognize that you are being manipulated in ways that are hard for you to discern, then the trade might be worth it.

At this point it seems the advertising info trading is still relatively benign; it's just ad targeting. When this data is used to affect whether we get a mortgage, or are accepted to a college, or hired, or visited by guys in sunglasses... that would be a problem.

[gamayun]

I totally believe we are being manipulated, whether for good or for our "bad." That's why we have to understand it, not close our eyes and wish it would go away. Every so few years, I pay $2 to a site that makes sure I am not targeted with credit cards and new mortgage refi's in my mail box. Just wish I could get the local Dollar Store to quit sending me trees-worth of ads about their REALLY GOOD CHEAP CRAP! How is this not targeted to our every whims? How is not Christmas and Valentine's day manipulative...? How is not cultural norms manipulative?! Or parents (i.e., recent research that babies pick up all sorts of tics - gesturing with hands while talking, etc. - from their parents). Seriously. Life is one big manipulation. Google et al., just made multi-billions off it.

Oh, and please don't get me riled up about real estate agents and car salesmen....