6 ms·

The problem is that you have every Jane and Joe who's ever put a line through a set of points making graphs and arguments that conflict with the consensus of ep

The problem is that you have every Jane and Joe who's ever put a line through a set of points making graphs and arguments that conflict with the consensus of epidemiologists/social statisticians. It's fine (and good!) to investigate that sort of thing and share your results, but then you should be sharing "I did this sort of analysis, it seems to conflict with all these other analyses, does anyone know why? Maybe X?". Instead you have "OMG when you do this it looks like Y, the powers that be are lying to us!". For a non-critical issue this would lower the quality of discourse slightly, but it's not an exceptional problem. In the case of critical major issues involving active disinformation this is highly irresponsible behavior.

mistermann 6y ago
> For a non-critical issue this would lower the quality of discourse slightly, but it's not an exceptional problem. In the case of critical major issues involving active disinformation this is highly irresponsible behavior. Assuming your description of "the" problem is accurate (I suspect it isn't - and it's "a" problem, not "the" problem, pardon the nitpicking), what do you propose should be done about it? On an individual basis, a community basis, a governmental basis, etc - what should be do? Because as far as I can tell, we (the citizens of planet Earth) seem to be stuck in this recursive loop of anger, finger pointing, and general failure. And it doesn't seem like anyone else notices. Well, mostly no one. https://i.imgur.com/QA6vSzC.png https://i.imgur.com/QA6vSzC.png
- TTPrograms 6y ago
  I'd say that behavior is similar to if an individual in, say, a school or assembly, shouted "FIRE" upon witnessing a chemistry demonstration involving a controlled flame. If that somehow caused a stampede resulting in loss of life they might be held accountable by the courts. These acts on social media can be quite similar philosophically, so one would expect that the legal treatment should be similar (albeit perhaps adjusted proportionately for impact and reasonableness of the held belief). I don't necessarily think that's what should be done in practice, but it seems consistent with how western society responds to this behavior in other settings. I don't necessarily think there is a good solution, either - I just mean to say that people who do that, even if they are well-meaning, are behaving unethically. That's because they believe in their own perspective with 100% probability, but that's obviously unreasonable from a Bayesian perspective. If they accounted for even a small probability that they are wrong then their behavior would change dramatically.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > I don't necessarily think there is a good solution, either - I just mean to say that people who do that, even if they are well-meaning, are behaving unethically. That's because they believe in their own perspective with 100% probability, but that's obviously unreasonable from a Bayesian perspective. If they accounted for even a small probability that they are wrong then their behavior would change dramatically. Completely agree, but I believe this behaviour applies to 90%+ of those who express confident opinions on the matters of the day, and downvote anyone who dares question those opinions when they can't put together a convincing argument for their strong assertions. Some evidence for the frequency of this behaviour exists, we could have insight into it, but I suspect we shall choose to not discuss such things. Only downvote them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://behavioralscientist.org/epistemic-humility-coronavirus-knowing-your-limits-in-a-pandemic/ https://behavioralscientist.org/epistemic-humility-coronavir... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/ (These links are not directed at you personally, just to be clear).
    - mistermann 6y ago
      Looks like either every single person I reply to disapproves of my words, or we have yet another busy little beaver, eh dang? Let's see how this one fares.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Not the OP, but one thing that is vital is that those in power are inscrutably honest and value scientific method, IMO. If a politician stands between the scientific advisors and the people then when they make pronouncements saying "this is for medical reasons" when in fact the reasons are primarily financial, or tempered by the interests of other parties (their personal backers), that needs to be made clear. When the UK said "we're using different models" they should have been publishing those models, among with the facts they were relying on, published a list of all people who had input to that decision and the context. A rolling diary of all people any senior politician had contact with; a list of every shareholding by any member of a politician's family; and such information need to be openly accessible in real time. Basically we need to treat them as an obsessive helicopter-parent would treat their teenage children, they need to have tracking devices, they need to have "friends" (employees of opposition parties) that attend every meeting they go to, they've down they simply can't be trusted. But of course you can't do any of those things because corrupt politicians won't vote for it. We're stuck at a local minima of democraacy, IMO. How to progress? I don't see a way, politicians have enough of the population in their thrall (eg using media manipulation) to sustain the current system. Two things that may help are to have bodies parallel to government adopted ones, like UK's SAGE but excluding the politicians, and have media that will report direct from those bodies to the people rather than via a filter of politicisation. Maybe then enough people can get onboard to bit-by-bit elect trustworthy officials interested in government for the good of the people.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > When the UK said "we're using different models" they should have been publishing those models, among with the facts they were relying on, published a list of all people who had input to that decision and the context. Everything should be published (it isn't), and nothing should be censored, without good reason (not the case today). That so few people seem to realize this is mind boggling to me. But then, it's human nature, so it shouldn't be surprising. > How to progress? I don't see a way, politicians have enough of the population in their thrall (eg using media manipulation) to sustain the current system. Two things that may help are to have bodies parallel to government adopted ones, like UK's SAGE but excluding the politicians, and have media that will report direct from those bodies to the people rather than via a filter of politicisation. Maybe then enough people can get onboard to bit-by-bit elect trustworthy officials interested in government for the good of the people. This idea, and others like it, seem like a very plausible way out of this mess. I really see no other way. But how much effort, in man-hours, is being expended in this direction, as compared to, oh I don't know, people having the same arguments year after year, in thread after thread?

mistermann 6y ago

> For a non-critical issue this would lower the quality of discourse slightly, but it's not an exceptional problem. In the case of critical major issues involving active disinformation this is highly irresponsible behavior. Assuming your description of "the" problem is accurate (I suspect it isn't - and it's "a" problem, not "the" problem, pardon the nitpicking), what do you propose should be done about it? On an individual basis, a community basis, a governmental basis, etc - what should be do? Because as far as I can tell, we (the citizens of planet Earth) seem to be stuck in this recursive loop of anger, finger pointing, and general failure. And it doesn't seem like anyone else notices. Well, mostly no one. https://i.imgur.com/QA6vSzC.png https://i.imgur.com/QA6vSzC.png

TTPrograms 6y ago
I'd say that behavior is similar to if an individual in, say, a school or assembly, shouted "FIRE" upon witnessing a chemistry demonstration involving a controlled flame. If that somehow caused a stampede resulting in loss of life they might be held accountable by the courts. These acts on social media can be quite similar philosophically, so one would expect that the legal treatment should be similar (albeit perhaps adjusted proportionately for impact and reasonableness of the held belief). I don't necessarily think that's what should be done in practice, but it seems consistent with how western society responds to this behavior in other settings. I don't necessarily think there is a good solution, either - I just mean to say that people who do that, even if they are well-meaning, are behaving unethically. That's because they believe in their own perspective with 100% probability, but that's obviously unreasonable from a Bayesian perspective. If they accounted for even a small probability that they are wrong then their behavior would change dramatically.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > I don't necessarily think there is a good solution, either - I just mean to say that people who do that, even if they are well-meaning, are behaving unethically. That's because they believe in their own perspective with 100% probability, but that's obviously unreasonable from a Bayesian perspective. If they accounted for even a small probability that they are wrong then their behavior would change dramatically. Completely agree, but I believe this behaviour applies to 90%+ of those who express confident opinions on the matters of the day, and downvote anyone who dares question those opinions when they can't put together a convincing argument for their strong assertions. Some evidence for the frequency of this behaviour exists, we could have insight into it, but I suspect we shall choose to not discuss such things. Only downvote them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://behavioralscientist.org/epistemic-humility-coronavirus-knowing-your-limits-in-a-pandemic/ https://behavioralscientist.org/epistemic-humility-coronavir... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/ (These links are not directed at you personally, just to be clear).
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Looks like either every single person I reply to disapproves of my words, or we have yet another busy little beaver, eh dang? Let's see how this one fares.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Not the OP, but one thing that is vital is that those in power are inscrutably honest and value scientific method, IMO. If a politician stands between the scientific advisors and the people then when they make pronouncements saying "this is for medical reasons" when in fact the reasons are primarily financial, or tempered by the interests of other parties (their personal backers), that needs to be made clear. When the UK said "we're using different models" they should have been publishing those models, among with the facts they were relying on, published a list of all people who had input to that decision and the context. A rolling diary of all people any senior politician had contact with; a list of every shareholding by any member of a politician's family; and such information need to be openly accessible in real time. Basically we need to treat them as an obsessive helicopter-parent would treat their teenage children, they need to have tracking devices, they need to have "friends" (employees of opposition parties) that attend every meeting they go to, they've down they simply can't be trusted. But of course you can't do any of those things because corrupt politicians won't vote for it. We're stuck at a local minima of democraacy, IMO. How to progress? I don't see a way, politicians have enough of the population in their thrall (eg using media manipulation) to sustain the current system. Two things that may help are to have bodies parallel to government adopted ones, like UK's SAGE but excluding the politicians, and have media that will report direct from those bodies to the people rather than via a filter of politicisation. Maybe then enough people can get onboard to bit-by-bit elect trustworthy officials interested in government for the good of the people.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > When the UK said "we're using different models" they should have been publishing those models, among with the facts they were relying on, published a list of all people who had input to that decision and the context. Everything should be published (it isn't), and nothing should be censored, without good reason (not the case today). That so few people seem to realize this is mind boggling to me. But then, it's human nature, so it shouldn't be surprising. > How to progress? I don't see a way, politicians have enough of the population in their thrall (eg using media manipulation) to sustain the current system. Two things that may help are to have bodies parallel to government adopted ones, like UK's SAGE but excluding the politicians, and have media that will report direct from those bodies to the people rather than via a filter of politicisation. Maybe then enough people can get onboard to bit-by-bit elect trustworthy officials interested in government for the good of the people. This idea, and others like it, seem like a very plausible way out of this mess. I really see no other way. But how much effort, in man-hours, is being expended in this direction, as compared to, oh I don't know, people having the same arguments year after year, in thread after thread?