Hmm, there are parts of this idea I like, but it feels incomplete. I agree with the first half (attempts to police misinformation will make the problem worse) and I like the idea of a more “antifragile” population when it comes to information intake, but I’m not sure how this doesn’t ultimately devolve into chaos.
Nobody can keep track of *everything* which is why we do actually need experts in things like medicine, law, science, etc. The true failure of this age isn’t misinformation, but the abandonment of the pursuit of truth by those who should be the most rigorous in pursuing it, in favor of ideology. I feel like that’s the root issue, but I’m not sure how to fix it.
I agree. Disinformation is everywhere - much of it coming through the mainstream media (mainly the more subtle kind, making it harder to detect). But people only care to the extent that it fits or runs counter to their narrative of the world. Some folk (like Gurwinder) may be on a quest for truth, most are not. As you say, ideology is the problem.
'most are not'....'on a quest for truth'. Yes absolutely agree...."Thanks to the internet, there is – unlike in the 1980s – now a wealth of journalism, of impeccable probity, investigating and interrogating the prevailing left-liberal narratives on race, gender and much else. Now, any open-minded person can - if the will is there - find persuasive, evidence-based refutations of those MSM narratives with their wilful seeking of ‘discrimination’, emotional ‘trauma’ and minority victimisation stories often diametrically opposed to evidence. If the will is there – therein lies the rub. As Saul Bellow put it “a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” https://thecritic.co.uk/reflections-on-the-counter-revolution-in-finchley/
Glenn Loury once called writing my "brilliant" and was "blown away" by my site and signed up. But when I took his hero to task -- he changed the rules. Chances are -- you will too.
For nearly 20 years, I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. So let's see how keen you are on "impeccable probity" when it comes at a cost:
F.A.I.R? — Your Record Is Who You Are, Not What You Believe:
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” — a quote that’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect."
In other words, the premise of this piece is dead wrong.
"I feel like that’s the root issue, but I’m not sure how to fix it." That you don't know how to fix it is one thing, but blowing off ideas from those who do is something else entirely. The value in expressing your concerns is that maybe someone will come along one day with an idea on how to address those concerns. Today is that day.
If you don't take the opportunity to look into the idea (and fully understand it before you pass judgment upon it): Just how concerned could you be? Are you here to solve problems or be entertained by the idea that you are? Solving problems takes work -- and I have yet to find anyone willing to do it. It wouldn't take much in this case, but to understand that -- you gotta understand the story (which takess time, effort, and guts to think it through).
Humans as social beings are naturally wired to trust others. If we have to ingrain people to come out of this natural inclination and not trust anyone/thing by default, we risk significant disruptions in the society.
Also, trust is a significant productivity enhancer. It is much easier to carry out transactions in a high-trust ecosystem, than in a low-trust ecosystem. So we will be imposing significant costs if we take this route of making people ever-skeptical.
Taken to the extreme, this could result in the fracturing of civilization as we know it: groups will form based on webs of trust and like-minded thinking. Each of those groups will have an inherently Xenophobic distrust other groups.
Hopefully that won't happen, but if American polarized political viewpoints are used as an example, I worry that it's closer than we think.
Great post! While I do agree with you that perhaps the most effective way of "conditioning" people to bullshit is to make them play in it, it still makes me sad.
Lex Fridman spoke about a similar topic on his podcast a few weeks ago. If we were to discover life on another planet, which would be the greatest discovery in human history, only half of the country would believe it.
There something about humanity becoming more cynical and skeptical that makes me worried.
Gurwinder, tu es toujours très intéressant et pertinent dans tes analyses
Une illustration :
Mes fils (14 et 17 ans) sont exposés continuellement au bullshit d’internet, ils sont très méfiants et critiques sur tout ce qu’ils voient, ce qui est bien.
La différence avec nous c’est qu’ils ne sont jamais choqués par ces mensonges, qui font partie de leur environnement et ne voient pas l’intérêt de lutter contre ça. Pour eux c’est normal, et ils n’y prêtent pas attention. Ils semblent ne pas trouver que la « vérité » soit une valeur à défendre comme un symbole absolu
Mais dans la vraie vie, ils ont pourtant les mêmes valeurs que nous, le soucis de l’honnêteté dans leurs relations et dans leurs actes au quotidien
Ce décalage paraît incompatible au départ, puis finalement très rassurant.
Ils ne s’encombrent pas de l’hypocrisie de certaines personnes qui consiste à s’indigner sur internet pour tout et rien, qui dans le même temps et dans la vraie vie se comportent comme des gros connards.
This feels like a richer exploration of "Firehosing" (https://gurwinder.substack.com/i/109084196/firehosing), but with a completely different outcome. In that brief explanation, bombardment of a population with disinformation results in apathy or withdrawal, whereas here, you're suggesting it might work a benefit of (at least the potential for) better engagement. In your assessment, does the vaccine metaphor continue to hold (i.e., there's a window of exposure that promotes health rather than degrades it)? Is that even possible in today's world? (I feel like it's already exceedingly difficult to find truth among an already vast sea of agenda-driven and manipulative narratives.)
I think firehosing confuses and demoralizes a population in the short term. But humans are infinitely adaptable, and once we're used to living in this cacophony we'll adapt to it and become less gullible for it.
That's an excellent point about regulation - you just cannot regulate or control the flow of information anymore unless you're in China. Plus, even if the US wanted to try and regulate it, it's almost a certainty that our elected officials couldn't agree on anything anyway so we might as well go with your idea of mithridatism.
Have you heard of the concept of anti-fragility coined by Nassim Taleb. You've applied it very well here to human information processing. I feel many elites miss this concept when trying to justify central control of the masses. They underestimate human propensity to learn and grow through adversity.
ok I really object to calling Wikipedia left liberal. You are calling truth itself left liberal. Its leads to the same mistakes that mainstream 'left liberal' publications make, giving space to conservative voices just to balance it out. Even if what they say is complete horseshit.
Wikipedia is not truth. It's a product of its sources (which are overwhelmingly left-liberal institutions) and of the civilization that maintains it (which is the most liberal civilization to ever exist.)
Don't get me wrong, I like liberalism. But devotion to it creates blindspots.
I love Wikipedia and use it all the time, maybe a little less trust in it might be good but as you've pointed out, we all overestimate the influence misinformation and bias has. Mainly Wikipedia is a quick lookup for factual information. In the UK teachers recommend using it but insist on article sources being checked, so the inoculation is part of education. Similar approaches are being taken with ChatGPT.
Despite this left-liberal bias it is important not to devalue the extent to which Wikipedia is a hugely valuable quick reference resource for satisfying one's curious about myriad things that don't really have any 'political' dimension (especially, in my case, history) - unless one is one of those (usually) lefty politics-obsessives who see every damn thing as 'political'.
In other words -- discernment is just part of the deal (as it is with everything).
On that note: “Bias” gets all the press when prejudice is paramount to the problem. If it were "just" bias, convincing you with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence would still be difficult — but you’d be willing to be convinced. Prejudice doesn’t roll that way. In fact, it doesn’t roll anywhere — as you don’t budge one bit, and take pride in it, no less.
As a friend comically put it: It’s not “Pride and Bias”
Well, most left liberals consider the truth to be "conservative horseshit", so anytime a mainstream publication accidently says something that's true would be an example.
Here’s my question: is censorship inevitable? Can we cull the tide of the human desire to control? How can we, the little substack writers and lay-intellectuals, hope to stop the combined forces of the censoring elites of the world?
I myself live in Qatar, a place where everyone has resigned to the fact that they don’t have any control over their lives. I try not to fall victim to the same mentality, but it can be hard to be optimistic. So, what’s the solution?
I believe ultimately, censorship of disinformation will fall out of fashion after authorities realize it's futile and counter-productive. At least that's my hope.
Most people are fundamentally not very bright and just want to watch funny videos on their phones. I'm not convinced your average joe is going to care about sifting out the truth from the bs.
I don’t think the logic follows. If we treat misinformation as a disease or poison, I agree that vaccination or use of a mithridate can render the body resistant to the adverse effects, but that’s not what you’re advocating for. A small dose teaches resistance, but you’re saying we should stand under a waterfall with our mouths open. If misinformation is the Black Death, you’re saying the best response is to open the city gates. You’re one step short of directly importing plague rats. You’re Father Mulcahy giving the camp dog bowls of vodka until it gets so sick it avoids alcohol entirely. But does that mean we’ll get so sick of misinformation from the internet that we’ll give it up entirely? In favor of what? The post? What will stop people from sending lies through the mail?
I think a good internal bullshit detector is an important tool in anyone’s kit, but you don’t need one to empty a bog of manure. You need a shovel. And boots. And maybe better cattle management.
But how do you make this reality? We could treat digital spaces the same as physical spaces for the purpose of public accommodations law, forcing all platform operators to accept all comers. Of course opinions are not immutable human characteristics, but they would have to be treated as such in this case. And there would of course be exceptions for illegal content, but not an inch past that line. But then we have the advertiser question to contend with - how do we force advertisers not to pull their ads in the face of political pressure?
Sure, maybe humanity will become more robust at critically consuming information, but that's only an answer to half the problem. The entire other half of the problem is that there must at least be a mechanism by which to determine what's true.
If all you have is a sea of misinformation and some truth hidden in there somewhere, but no mechanism to determine which it is, no ability to run the experiment yourself, or even to determine is this a real person or organisation, then you won't likely get very far. More like you'll probably fall into an arbitrary information silo that sounds plausible and appeals to your intuitions.
Hmm, there are parts of this idea I like, but it feels incomplete. I agree with the first half (attempts to police misinformation will make the problem worse) and I like the idea of a more “antifragile” population when it comes to information intake, but I’m not sure how this doesn’t ultimately devolve into chaos.
Nobody can keep track of *everything* which is why we do actually need experts in things like medicine, law, science, etc. The true failure of this age isn’t misinformation, but the abandonment of the pursuit of truth by those who should be the most rigorous in pursuing it, in favor of ideology. I feel like that’s the root issue, but I’m not sure how to fix it.
I agree. Disinformation is everywhere - much of it coming through the mainstream media (mainly the more subtle kind, making it harder to detect). But people only care to the extent that it fits or runs counter to their narrative of the world. Some folk (like Gurwinder) may be on a quest for truth, most are not. As you say, ideology is the problem.
'most are not'....'on a quest for truth'. Yes absolutely agree...."Thanks to the internet, there is – unlike in the 1980s – now a wealth of journalism, of impeccable probity, investigating and interrogating the prevailing left-liberal narratives on race, gender and much else. Now, any open-minded person can - if the will is there - find persuasive, evidence-based refutations of those MSM narratives with their wilful seeking of ‘discrimination’, emotional ‘trauma’ and minority victimisation stories often diametrically opposed to evidence. If the will is there – therein lies the rub. As Saul Bellow put it “a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” https://thecritic.co.uk/reflections-on-the-counter-revolution-in-finchley/
Glenn Loury once called writing my "brilliant" and was "blown away" by my site and signed up. But when I took his hero to task -- he changed the rules. Chances are -- you will too.
For nearly 20 years, I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. So let's see how keen you are on "impeccable probity" when it comes at a cost:
F.A.I.R? — Your Record Is Who You Are, Not What You Believe:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/03/27/f-a-i-r-your-record-is-who-you-are-not-what-you-believe/
Expert opinion is most helpful in domains where mistakes cause you to exit the domain of expertise.
Source: https://twitter.com/AStratelates/status/1417589853651226627
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” — a quote that’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710): "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect."
In other words, the premise of this piece is dead wrong.
"I feel like that’s the root issue, but I’m not sure how to fix it." That you don't know how to fix it is one thing, but blowing off ideas from those who do is something else entirely. The value in expressing your concerns is that maybe someone will come along one day with an idea on how to address those concerns. Today is that day.
If you don't take the opportunity to look into the idea (and fully understand it before you pass judgment upon it): Just how concerned could you be? Are you here to solve problems or be entertained by the idea that you are? Solving problems takes work -- and I have yet to find anyone willing to do it. It wouldn't take much in this case, but to understand that -- you gotta understand the story (which takess time, effort, and guts to think it through).
How Would You Tell the Story of America’s Decline over 30 years in the Gutter Games of Government? https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/04/15/how-would-you-tell-the-story-of-americas-decline-over-30-years-in-the-gutter-games-of-government/
Humans as social beings are naturally wired to trust others. If we have to ingrain people to come out of this natural inclination and not trust anyone/thing by default, we risk significant disruptions in the society.
Also, trust is a significant productivity enhancer. It is much easier to carry out transactions in a high-trust ecosystem, than in a low-trust ecosystem. So we will be imposing significant costs if we take this route of making people ever-skeptical.
Taken to the extreme, this could result in the fracturing of civilization as we know it: groups will form based on webs of trust and like-minded thinking. Each of those groups will have an inherently Xenophobic distrust other groups.
Hopefully that won't happen, but if American polarized political viewpoints are used as an example, I worry that it's closer than we think.
Great post! While I do agree with you that perhaps the most effective way of "conditioning" people to bullshit is to make them play in it, it still makes me sad.
Lex Fridman spoke about a similar topic on his podcast a few weeks ago. If we were to discover life on another planet, which would be the greatest discovery in human history, only half of the country would believe it.
There something about humanity becoming more cynical and skeptical that makes me worried.
Gurwinder, tu es toujours très intéressant et pertinent dans tes analyses
Une illustration :
Mes fils (14 et 17 ans) sont exposés continuellement au bullshit d’internet, ils sont très méfiants et critiques sur tout ce qu’ils voient, ce qui est bien.
La différence avec nous c’est qu’ils ne sont jamais choqués par ces mensonges, qui font partie de leur environnement et ne voient pas l’intérêt de lutter contre ça. Pour eux c’est normal, et ils n’y prêtent pas attention. Ils semblent ne pas trouver que la « vérité » soit une valeur à défendre comme un symbole absolu
Mais dans la vraie vie, ils ont pourtant les mêmes valeurs que nous, le soucis de l’honnêteté dans leurs relations et dans leurs actes au quotidien
Ce décalage paraît incompatible au départ, puis finalement très rassurant.
Ils ne s’encombrent pas de l’hypocrisie de certaines personnes qui consiste à s’indigner sur internet pour tout et rien, qui dans le même temps et dans la vraie vie se comportent comme des gros connards.
This feels like a richer exploration of "Firehosing" (https://gurwinder.substack.com/i/109084196/firehosing), but with a completely different outcome. In that brief explanation, bombardment of a population with disinformation results in apathy or withdrawal, whereas here, you're suggesting it might work a benefit of (at least the potential for) better engagement. In your assessment, does the vaccine metaphor continue to hold (i.e., there's a window of exposure that promotes health rather than degrades it)? Is that even possible in today's world? (I feel like it's already exceedingly difficult to find truth among an already vast sea of agenda-driven and manipulative narratives.)
I think firehosing confuses and demoralizes a population in the short term. But humans are infinitely adaptable, and once we're used to living in this cacophony we'll adapt to it and become less gullible for it.
That's an excellent point about regulation - you just cannot regulate or control the flow of information anymore unless you're in China. Plus, even if the US wanted to try and regulate it, it's almost a certainty that our elected officials couldn't agree on anything anyway so we might as well go with your idea of mithridatism.
Let me know if you'd be interested in writing an Op-Ed Guest post on AI Gurwinder for A.I. Supremacy Newsletter. We have an audience of soon 30k.
I suspect you could write a fairly interesting piece on the prospects of Generative A.I. and what it might do to us.
https://aisupremacy.substack.com/p/guest-posts-on-ai-supreamcy
Have you heard of the concept of anti-fragility coined by Nassim Taleb. You've applied it very well here to human information processing. I feel many elites miss this concept when trying to justify central control of the masses. They underestimate human propensity to learn and grow through adversity.
Ah ok! Thank you - you're a great writer!
Thank you for writing such good articles and producing Eternalised (I assume this is also you). I am a huge fan of yours!
I appreciate your appreciation, but can only take credit for the articles — I have no idea who produces Eternalised!
ok I really object to calling Wikipedia left liberal. You are calling truth itself left liberal. Its leads to the same mistakes that mainstream 'left liberal' publications make, giving space to conservative voices just to balance it out. Even if what they say is complete horseshit.
Wikipedia is not truth. It's a product of its sources (which are overwhelmingly left-liberal institutions) and of the civilization that maintains it (which is the most liberal civilization to ever exist.)
Don't get me wrong, I like liberalism. But devotion to it creates blindspots.
I love Wikipedia and use it all the time, maybe a little less trust in it might be good but as you've pointed out, we all overestimate the influence misinformation and bias has. Mainly Wikipedia is a quick lookup for factual information. In the UK teachers recommend using it but insist on article sources being checked, so the inoculation is part of education. Similar approaches are being taken with ChatGPT.
Despite this left-liberal bias it is important not to devalue the extent to which Wikipedia is a hugely valuable quick reference resource for satisfying one's curious about myriad things that don't really have any 'political' dimension (especially, in my case, history) - unless one is one of those (usually) lefty politics-obsessives who see every damn thing as 'political'.
In other words -- discernment is just part of the deal (as it is with everything).
On that note: “Bias” gets all the press when prejudice is paramount to the problem. If it were "just" bias, convincing you with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence would still be difficult — but you’d be willing to be convinced. Prejudice doesn’t roll that way. In fact, it doesn’t roll anywhere — as you don’t budge one bit, and take pride in it, no less.
As a friend comically put it: It’s not “Pride and Bias”
How Would You Tell the Story of America’s Decline over 30 years in the Gutter Games of Government? https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/04/15/how-would-you-tell-the-story-of-americas-decline-over-30-years-in-the-gutter-games-of-government/
Could you provide a specific example of a “left liberal” publication giving space to conservative horseshit to balance something out?
Well, most left liberals consider the truth to be "conservative horseshit", so anytime a mainstream publication accidently says something that's true would be an example.
Here’s my question: is censorship inevitable? Can we cull the tide of the human desire to control? How can we, the little substack writers and lay-intellectuals, hope to stop the combined forces of the censoring elites of the world?
I myself live in Qatar, a place where everyone has resigned to the fact that they don’t have any control over their lives. I try not to fall victim to the same mentality, but it can be hard to be optimistic. So, what’s the solution?
I believe ultimately, censorship of disinformation will fall out of fashion after authorities realize it's futile and counter-productive. At least that's my hope.
I hope so too. But I’m afraid I’m not as optimistic as you are. I’m not sure there exists an example in history where such has been the case.
Most people are fundamentally not very bright and just want to watch funny videos on their phones. I'm not convinced your average joe is going to care about sifting out the truth from the bs.
I don’t think the logic follows. If we treat misinformation as a disease or poison, I agree that vaccination or use of a mithridate can render the body resistant to the adverse effects, but that’s not what you’re advocating for. A small dose teaches resistance, but you’re saying we should stand under a waterfall with our mouths open. If misinformation is the Black Death, you’re saying the best response is to open the city gates. You’re one step short of directly importing plague rats. You’re Father Mulcahy giving the camp dog bowls of vodka until it gets so sick it avoids alcohol entirely. But does that mean we’ll get so sick of misinformation from the internet that we’ll give it up entirely? In favor of what? The post? What will stop people from sending lies through the mail?
I think a good internal bullshit detector is an important tool in anyone’s kit, but you don’t need one to empty a bog of manure. You need a shovel. And boots. And maybe better cattle management.
But how do you make this reality? We could treat digital spaces the same as physical spaces for the purpose of public accommodations law, forcing all platform operators to accept all comers. Of course opinions are not immutable human characteristics, but they would have to be treated as such in this case. And there would of course be exceptions for illegal content, but not an inch past that line. But then we have the advertiser question to contend with - how do we force advertisers not to pull their ads in the face of political pressure?
Sure, maybe humanity will become more robust at critically consuming information, but that's only an answer to half the problem. The entire other half of the problem is that there must at least be a mechanism by which to determine what's true.
If all you have is a sea of misinformation and some truth hidden in there somewhere, but no mechanism to determine which it is, no ability to run the experiment yourself, or even to determine is this a real person or organisation, then you won't likely get very far. More like you'll probably fall into an arbitrary information silo that sounds plausible and appeals to your intuitions.