46 – Social Media and Outrage Culture The Bayesian Conspiracy 0:00 / 01:31:060:00 VolumeReady to listen << 15s15s >>Playback speed1.0x1.25x1.5x1.75x2.0x2.25x2.5x2.75x3.0x3.25x3.5x3.75x4.0x Notes+> 46 – Social Media and Outrage Culture Download ↓Comment× Close The Only Way to Win is Not to Play Major source used by Eneasz – Our Mind Can Be Hijacked Meditations on Moloch A recent Molochian short story Eneasz likes – Three Bodies at Mitanni The Two Income Trap Age of Em Superstitious Mice The Capt America/National Anthem Meme – spread by Russians? Tristan Harris on Sam Harris’s podcast, and his article Steven referenced Facebook Purity – use it, it’s good TheZvi’s post Against Facebook. (It’s long, but you can skip the “break down of the 30 items” section in the middle, that’s really just there for documentation) The Toxoplasma of Rage Grover Norquist Alonzo Fyfe on the moral duty to Secure One’s Beliefs and Moral Negligence Ken Ham vs Bill Nye 7 comments Some major problem with the recording happens at 3:38. On my podcast app the entire thing breaks, in online and offline mode and so it’s not a server problem. On the website it seems an entire chunk of the discussion was corrupted and simply skipped over. Well that’s not good. ty for the heads up, I’ll get it fixed today Should be working now. You’ll have to delete your local copy & re-download though. Pingback: Rational Feed – deluks917 Regarding the need to be more informed to win arguments, I think that Street Epistemology is a perfect tool for engaging with people who may know more about a topic then you do. Even if the topic at hand is well above your level, asking questions like “why do you believe this is true?” are a good way to encourage the interlocutor to examine their own position as an outsider. btw, I’ve gotten into the SE crowd on Facebook etc. since your episode on it, so thanks! 1.) Whoa whoa whoa! At 23:00 ish you guys appear to be unsure about what conservatism and liberals and all that means. I think this is a great point because I think that’s also a result of your two party system. Either you’re in the red camp or you’re in the blue camp. Again, sorry about bringing germany into this (I don’t really follow much politics outside germany and the US nowadays, when it’s not making major news headlines) again.. we have a party, the FDP (Free Democratic Party, and I think free and liberal are sorta interchangeable, anyway, even news speakers call them “die Liberalen” – the liberals) which basically stands for less governmental control in all areas: Less surveillance, less control in the economy, all that. And I think that’s what liberals are about. In the US you have the red camp, which is pro surveillance and against personal freedoms (like abortions, gay marriage, all that) but also against governmental control over businesses and the blue camp which is more against surveillance (although I’m not sure there), definitely more pro personal freedoms and more pro governmental control of the economy. I don’t think either of them are pure liberals, both have some aspects. And apparently you can only be in one camp or be cast out by both sides but it doesn’t seem viable to embrace parts from both sides. 2.) About facebook marking fb purity as malicious content: Some antivir things mark other antivir programs as malicious content too. And I think when you use a feature that is supposed to prevent malware from being spread to prevent the spreading of other software or content you MASSIVELY lose credibility. What will people do when they want to install something and get a malware warning, especially when they downloaded it from a trustworthy source (like a big computer magazine’s website)? They google if it’s actually malware, how to react. What do they find? “No it’s not, it’s just avira hating kaspersky (or replace both with any other $antivirproviders)”. And the next time a user gets a malware warning? He’s way more likely to ignore it. In the end it works for the companies since they can say “your fault you got malware, you got a warning and ignored it” but the fact that they have deliberate false positives built in is definitely part of the reason why people ignore the warnings. 3.) Linkedin is the worst. It asks people for their email password, some people give it, it grabs their contacts list and then bugs everyone in the list to join Linkedin. I think that’s worse than “List of 25 things (each on its own page), #x will make you y”. You brought up the alcohol thing again. You mentioned it before in the Nootropics episode and dismissed it pretty quickly since you didn’t have a source and though it was probably bullshit (I rate that as about 85% likely). Didn’t find the original reference (Obviously as soon as you search for something anti-booze you get lost in all the rhetoric) but I did find a NatGeo article that credit’s agriculture to the consumption of alcohol so there is some counter evidence at least. Otherwise thanks for the tips. I have one friend who loves those colored backgrounds but he’s pretty conspiracy friendly so I can probably get him to stop by mentioning the advertisement thing. Comments are closed for this episode.
Some major problem with the recording happens at 3:38. On my podcast app the entire thing breaks, in online and offline mode and so it’s not a server problem. On the website it seems an entire chunk of the discussion was corrupted and simply skipped over.
Regarding the need to be more informed to win arguments, I think that Street Epistemology is a perfect tool for engaging with people who may know more about a topic then you do. Even if the topic at hand is well above your level, asking questions like “why do you believe this is true?” are a good way to encourage the interlocutor to examine their own position as an outsider. btw, I’ve gotten into the SE crowd on Facebook etc. since your episode on it, so thanks!
1.) Whoa whoa whoa! At 23:00 ish you guys appear to be unsure about what conservatism and liberals and all that means. I think this is a great point because I think that’s also a result of your two party system. Either you’re in the red camp or you’re in the blue camp. Again, sorry about bringing germany into this (I don’t really follow much politics outside germany and the US nowadays, when it’s not making major news headlines) again.. we have a party, the FDP (Free Democratic Party, and I think free and liberal are sorta interchangeable, anyway, even news speakers call them “die Liberalen” – the liberals) which basically stands for less governmental control in all areas: Less surveillance, less control in the economy, all that. And I think that’s what liberals are about. In the US you have the red camp, which is pro surveillance and against personal freedoms (like abortions, gay marriage, all that) but also against governmental control over businesses and the blue camp which is more against surveillance (although I’m not sure there), definitely more pro personal freedoms and more pro governmental control of the economy. I don’t think either of them are pure liberals, both have some aspects. And apparently you can only be in one camp or be cast out by both sides but it doesn’t seem viable to embrace parts from both sides. 2.) About facebook marking fb purity as malicious content: Some antivir things mark other antivir programs as malicious content too. And I think when you use a feature that is supposed to prevent malware from being spread to prevent the spreading of other software or content you MASSIVELY lose credibility. What will people do when they want to install something and get a malware warning, especially when they downloaded it from a trustworthy source (like a big computer magazine’s website)? They google if it’s actually malware, how to react. What do they find? “No it’s not, it’s just avira hating kaspersky (or replace both with any other $antivirproviders)”. And the next time a user gets a malware warning? He’s way more likely to ignore it. In the end it works for the companies since they can say “your fault you got malware, you got a warning and ignored it” but the fact that they have deliberate false positives built in is definitely part of the reason why people ignore the warnings. 3.) Linkedin is the worst. It asks people for their email password, some people give it, it grabs their contacts list and then bugs everyone in the list to join Linkedin. I think that’s worse than “List of 25 things (each on its own page), #x will make you y”.
You brought up the alcohol thing again. You mentioned it before in the Nootropics episode and dismissed it pretty quickly since you didn’t have a source and though it was probably bullshit (I rate that as about 85% likely). Didn’t find the original reference (Obviously as soon as you search for something anti-booze you get lost in all the rhetoric) but I did find a NatGeo article that credit’s agriculture to the consumption of alcohol so there is some counter evidence at least. Otherwise thanks for the tips. I have one friend who loves those colored backgrounds but he’s pretty conspiracy friendly so I can probably get him to stop by mentioning the advertisement thing.
