5 ms·

Some people are just better pattern matchers

by afpx 5d ago

brookst 5d ago
That’s pretty much the heart of conspiracy theories and paranoia, yes. See apophenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
- deleted 5d ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5d ago
  [deleted]
- dns_snek 5d ago
  Yes, except these kinds of fears related to big tech/surveillance end up being true more often than not. Unsurprising given the profit incentives and the total lack of ethics in the industry. 10+ years ago you were considered a lunatic if you told people that putting internet-connected cameras and microphones everywhere is a bad idea because their TV would be used to spy on them, that their cameras would be accessed by the police without their consent for surveillance, or that car company employees would watch them walk around naked through the cameras on their car.
  - brookst 5d ago
    > more often than not Any data on that? Because to me it sounds like “because they are sometimes true, we should assume they are always true” But I’m open to data.
    - dns_snek 5d ago
      Is anyone tracking every prediction ever made in a spreadsheet that you could use to verify that the rate is literally >50%? No, not that I'm aware of. The only anecdata I can give is "look around you", how all major (and many smaller) companies are implementing invasive spying tech into their products, harvesting our personal information, selling it, or abusing it any way they can. They sell the products as one thing then shaft their customers and change the terms overnight at their earliest convenience. What you call "a conspiracy theory" is just "following clear market incentives". There's a clear motive for doing everything with a clear track record of doing so in the past. If someone made a derivative financial product that roughly equated to the prediction "Big tech will use any means to expand their access, to invade and abuse our privacy, and generally be willing to do anything in pursuit of profit" I would be willing to invest my life savings into it.
      - cindyllm 4d ago
        [dead]
ithkuil 5d ago
Being good at matching patterns doesn't mean the patterns you found have the causal relationships you think they have Superstition in pigeons: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1948-04299-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1948-04299-001
- afpx 5d ago
  but the pigeon doesn't have the benefit of using bayesian priors nor collaboration

Some people are just better pattern matchers

by afpx 5d ago

Some people are just better pattern matchers

That’s pretty much the heart of conspiracy theories and paranoia, yes. See apophenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

deleted 5d ago
[deleted]
deleted 5d ago
[deleted]
dns_snek 5d ago
Yes, except these kinds of fears related to big tech/surveillance end up being true more often than not. Unsurprising given the profit incentives and the total lack of ethics in the industry. 10+ years ago you were considered a lunatic if you told people that putting internet-connected cameras and microphones everywhere is a bad idea because their TV would be used to spy on them, that their cameras would be accessed by the police without their consent for surveillance, or that car company employees would watch them walk around naked through the cameras on their car.
- brookst 5d ago
  > more often than not Any data on that? Because to me it sounds like “because they are sometimes true, we should assume they are always true” But I’m open to data.
  - dns_snek 5d ago
    Is anyone tracking every prediction ever made in a spreadsheet that you could use to verify that the rate is literally >50%? No, not that I'm aware of. The only anecdata I can give is "look around you", how all major (and many smaller) companies are implementing invasive spying tech into their products, harvesting our personal information, selling it, or abusing it any way they can. They sell the products as one thing then shaft their customers and change the terms overnight at their earliest convenience. What you call "a conspiracy theory" is just "following clear market incentives". There's a clear motive for doing everything with a clear track record of doing so in the past. If someone made a derivative financial product that roughly equated to the prediction "Big tech will use any means to expand their access, to invade and abuse our privacy, and generally be willing to do anything in pursuit of profit" I would be willing to invest my life savings into it.
    - cindyllm 4d ago
      [dead]

ithkuil 5d ago

Being good at matching patterns doesn't mean the patterns you found have the causal relationships you think they have Superstition in pigeons: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1948-04299-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1948-04299-001

afpx 5d ago
but the pigeon doesn't have the benefit of using bayesian priors nor collaboration