The man who studies the spread of ignorance(bbc.com)
bbc.com
The man who studies the spread of ignorance
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance
9 comments
I particularly like the Swiss solution: employ topical referenda, and stop insisting that "everyone should vote". I'd rather have 60% of the people abstaining to vote because they don't care or don't know, than having them "sell" their vote to the lowest bidder with the nicest tie.
Especially for a "master of puppets"/figurehead election like POTUS, the problem isn't "too many uninformed people", it's "too many topics in a single vote". Even assuming 90% of your voters are knowledgeable about 90% of the issues, they can't express any of their knowledge in that single button or pencil stroke.
The same is true for trying to "divine" meaning to the votes cast, as well: since every voter only expressed a single button press, it's easy to dismiss votes that don't align with your own views as uninformed.
You want elections with depth? Don't make voting mandatory (either socially or legally), and use topical voting instead of figurehead voting.
Especially for a "master of puppets"/figurehead election like POTUS, the problem isn't "too many uninformed people", it's "too many topics in a single vote". Even assuming 90% of your voters are knowledgeable about 90% of the issues, they can't express any of their knowledge in that single button or pencil stroke.
The same is true for trying to "divine" meaning to the votes cast, as well: since every voter only expressed a single button press, it's easy to dismiss votes that don't align with your own views as uninformed.
You want elections with depth? Don't make voting mandatory (either socially or legally), and use topical voting instead of figurehead voting.
>use topical voting instead of figurehead voting.
This is entirely feasible now with the internet. One of the primary assumptions which led to to the design of a representative republic which we have on paper was that it was impossible for everyone to assemble in order to vote on laws:
>In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good.
-John Adams, Thoughts on Government
This is entirely feasible now with the internet. One of the primary assumptions which led to to the design of a representative republic which we have on paper was that it was impossible for everyone to assemble in order to vote on laws:
>In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good.
-John Adams, Thoughts on Government
This is not feasible with the internet. Digital voting is a very, very bad idea. The long and short of arguments against online voting is that we've had several hundred years to figure out all the ways to cheat with paper votes and not nearly enough time to secure a similar system online. People spend billions on each presidential election- an online vote would become a target impossible to secure.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24488
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24488
The argument that an electric system is not feasible because it cannot be made 100% secure is null and self defeating if at the same time it is implicitly in support of a legacy paper system which is already exploited and cannot be made 100% secure. A better argument would be a cost-benefit analysis of both systems instead of defaulting to hypocritical defeatism. Security risks will always be a given.
I would say, though, that it would not be feasible given the current state of internet architecture. Internet infrastructure would need to become much more universally distributed and control would need to be relinquished by the current "internet gatekeepers" (i.e. Time Warner, Comcast etc.) as Aaron Swartz called them.
There is also the irony that in the US and elsewhere, the paper system is actively exploited and used as a means to make the electric system more insecure i.e. weakening/backdooring encryption.
With any new system, there will be technical challenges and unknowns that will be sorted out(ish) after trial and error as was the case with the Articles of Confederation which failed but then lead to the current longest lasting constitutional government today.
I would say, though, that it would not be feasible given the current state of internet architecture. Internet infrastructure would need to become much more universally distributed and control would need to be relinquished by the current "internet gatekeepers" (i.e. Time Warner, Comcast etc.) as Aaron Swartz called them.
There is also the irony that in the US and elsewhere, the paper system is actively exploited and used as a means to make the electric system more insecure i.e. weakening/backdooring encryption.
With any new system, there will be technical challenges and unknowns that will be sorted out(ish) after trial and error as was the case with the Articles of Confederation which failed but then lead to the current longest lasting constitutional government today.
Referendums don't really solve anything. Here are some of the questionable ones that have passed:
1.Minarets can no longer be built in Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009 2. Immigration quotas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...
I'm not an european citizen, have a job offer to work in a big tech company in Zurich and will not be able to get a visa even though I've got my Bachelors and Masters degree in Europe. Since the referendum passed, they're now requiring 3 years full-time work experience regardless of which education degree you hold.
1.Minarets can no longer be built in Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009 2. Immigration quotas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...
I'm not an european citizen, have a job offer to work in a big tech company in Zurich and will not be able to get a visa even though I've got my Bachelors and Masters degree in Europe. Since the referendum passed, they're now requiring 3 years full-time work experience regardless of which education degree you hold.
Well, they're voting for their own Swiss issues, not even european (as in "EU european") issues. Political correctness aside, I don't think they're questionable.
Also I think there are very intelligent people working to keep people in the dark. As an example:
"Transport for London is spending £1 Billion on improving cycle infrastructure."
Sounds brilliant. However.
"Transport for London is spending 0.7% of their yearly budget for the next 10 years on a transport that accounts for 5% of the travel in the city."
Or
"Transport for London are spending £1Billion out of £110Billion budget on cycle infrastructure."
All three statements are true. However the first statement is a better soundbite.
"Transport for London is spending £1 Billion on improving cycle infrastructure."
Sounds brilliant. However.
"Transport for London is spending 0.7% of their yearly budget for the next 10 years on a transport that accounts for 5% of the travel in the city."
Or
"Transport for London are spending £1Billion out of £110Billion budget on cycle infrastructure."
All three statements are true. However the first statement is a better soundbite.
By your own comment, the first statement is a better soundbite. That is what they're selling, they're usually not actively trying to "keep people in the dark".
It took very persistent reporter to get it out of them http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/safety-campaigners-...
of their yearly budget for the next 10 years
This is a pet hate of mine: it's very easy to use it to make a number sound 10 times larger, for good or ill.
This is a pet hate of mine: it's very easy to use it to make a number sound 10 times larger, for good or ill.
I guess I see your point, but £1 Billion still sounds like shit ton of money for cycle infrastructure in a city.
Exactly what they are trying to make you think. ;)
The roadworks also negatively impact the other 95% of traffic.
That argument implies you never improve infrastructure because of short-term congestion. Modal share in London shows only 34% of people getting around by private vehicles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share
In New York bike tracks have improved the speed of traffic http://www.fastcoexist.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-...
In New York bike tracks have improved the speed of traffic http://www.fastcoexist.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-...
What size of city?
London, UK, 6 Million inhabitants.
wikipedia says 8.5 million
so basically, a bit over 100 UKP per head, per year.
so basically, a bit over 100 UKP per head, per year.
See that's exactly what they want to achieve.
Yearly transport budget £15,714M (15.7B) Population 8.5M Cycling 5% of travel. Total spend per head per year = £1,848 Of which, spend on cycling = £13 Modal spend should be = £92
Total spend per head over 10 years £130 not £920
Note the social ROI on cycling infra (health benefits and productivity increase) is between 3-35 times the cost of investment.
Yearly transport budget £15,714M (15.7B) Population 8.5M Cycling 5% of travel. Total spend per head per year = £1,848 Of which, spend on cycling = £13 Modal spend should be = £92
Total spend per head over 10 years £130 not £920
Note the social ROI on cycling infra (health benefits and productivity increase) is between 3-35 times the cost of investment.
The smart person goes for the scooter. From an individual standpoint you stand to gain the most from the scooter since your vote is just a drop in a bucket. This is the most rational choice.
Collectively, everyone acting rationally produces unintended results. It's a weird phenomenon logically described here as the tragedy of the commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. Even if you try to do something counter-intuitive, whatever choice you make as an individual is still inconsequential in terms of voting.
For example let's say it's time to vote. I live in california and I'm a democrat, the voting is probably gonna go blue anyway regardless of whether or not I vote. So why not choose the scooter?
Let's say I end up choosing the scooter. Then, when the results come out, I realize not enough democrats voted because they all went for the scooter. Thus the state actually ended up being red.
So I decide to take a hypothetical time machine back into time to change my decision. Now I choose to vote Blue instead of get a free scooter. Well guess what? the outcome is still the same; the rest of california still makes the same decision regardless of whether or not I vote. The difference is, in one scenario I have a scooter, in the other scenario I don't have a scooter... every other factor in both outcomes remains the same. Whatever choice I make from an individual standpoint the Logical choice is ALWAYS the free scooter.
In the end to make a better world there needs to be a sort of collective idiocracy, which is kind of what's going on in this thread right now: (You all think you guys are so smart because you didn't go for the scooter).
How about this: free scooter for anyone who votes democrat! That makes more sense (if you're democrat).
Collectively, everyone acting rationally produces unintended results. It's a weird phenomenon logically described here as the tragedy of the commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. Even if you try to do something counter-intuitive, whatever choice you make as an individual is still inconsequential in terms of voting.
For example let's say it's time to vote. I live in california and I'm a democrat, the voting is probably gonna go blue anyway regardless of whether or not I vote. So why not choose the scooter?
Let's say I end up choosing the scooter. Then, when the results come out, I realize not enough democrats voted because they all went for the scooter. Thus the state actually ended up being red.
So I decide to take a hypothetical time machine back into time to change my decision. Now I choose to vote Blue instead of get a free scooter. Well guess what? the outcome is still the same; the rest of california still makes the same decision regardless of whether or not I vote. The difference is, in one scenario I have a scooter, in the other scenario I don't have a scooter... every other factor in both outcomes remains the same. Whatever choice I make from an individual standpoint the Logical choice is ALWAYS the free scooter.
In the end to make a better world there needs to be a sort of collective idiocracy, which is kind of what's going on in this thread right now: (You all think you guys are so smart because you didn't go for the scooter).
How about this: free scooter for anyone who votes democrat! That makes more sense (if you're democrat).
Votes have a small but real value, and this can easily be seen from the fact that corrupt politicians will pay actual money for them. Politicians will pay $10-20 per vote in actual money. That's not huge, but it's not nothing, and it is worth more than a scooter if you do it regularly. http://panglott.blogspot.com/2012/11/votes-are-worth-somethi...
They will pay $10-20 in actual money if and only if they can buy in bulk. Some things are worthless if bought in small quantities.
The way this kind of voter fraud typically works is that there is a permanent local political organization that organizes the vote-buying and hands out the cash. This is of course illegal, and retail vote-buying has to be laundered through local corruption. Political parties are bizarre, organizationally speaking.
A decent modern voting system would probably tilt the balance back towards sanity though.
Knowledge of how politics actually works seems to be one of these areas of intentional ignorance.
A popular alternative comedian in the UK tried to argue (correctly) that voting was pointless under our gerrymandered, first-past-the-post, two party system and was broadly ridiculed by the establishment media.
He didn't really argue that well for it, but he's a comedian, the fact that they couldn't really present a valid counterpoint as professional political pundits was depressing.
Knowledge of how politics actually works seems to be one of these areas of intentional ignorance.
A popular alternative comedian in the UK tried to argue (correctly) that voting was pointless under our gerrymandered, first-past-the-post, two party system and was broadly ridiculed by the establishment media.
He didn't really argue that well for it, but he's a comedian, the fact that they couldn't really present a valid counterpoint as professional political pundits was depressing.
What you are describing is closer to the prisoner's dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
In 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin explored this social dilemma in his article "The Tragedy of the Commons", published in the journal Science.
The "prisoner's dilemma" is a quantitative/mathematically rigorous description of the same concept that came out later in 1992.
I would go with "Tragedy of the commons" over the game theory title since it came out earlier and is a much more readable article for the average layman! Also, "Tragedy of the commons" sounds more appropriate. Here's a link to the original article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
The "prisoner's dilemma" is a quantitative/mathematically rigorous description of the same concept that came out later in 1992.
I would go with "Tragedy of the commons" over the game theory title since it came out earlier and is a much more readable article for the average layman! Also, "Tragedy of the commons" sounds more appropriate. Here's a link to the original article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
The whole class of those problems is discussed well in "Meditations on Moloch"[0].
[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Is it still possible to be an informed citizen? Most laws are the result of work on congressional committees and then voted on according to the party line because even politicians have had to admit that the issues are just too complex to deal with otherwise.
Sounds like a great solution until you think it through and realise it would just skew politics even further in favour of the wealthy, not necessarily the towards the informed. In some small cases of the population it would work - for example I know people at similar income/background levels to me who would choose the scooter and I know I would choose to vote - but over a whole country it would be massively unfair.
> uninformed people form such a large percentage of the voting pool
agreed.
but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed). not to disenfranchise the poor.
agreed.
but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed). not to disenfranchise the poor.
> not to disenfranchise the poor
The poor often vote against their own interests [1]
So even for the poor, it is better to remove these voters from the voting pool.
[1] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/opinion-why-the-poor-vote-against...
The poor often vote against their own interests [1]
So even for the poor, it is better to remove these voters from the voting pool.
[1] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/opinion-why-the-poor-vote-against...
A poor person voting for someone who will make the poor person's economic situation worse isn't necessarily voting against their own interests. Maybe they value other policies (for example abortion, but of course there are lots and lots of policies to consider even if you remove those directly related to the economy or religion) more than how it will effect you financially. If you polled the poorest 20% of Americans saying "would you be willing to pay $20/year if in return abortion will become illegal in the entire country" I don't know how many would say yes, but I'd bet it wouldn't be none.
Another reason I've often heard suggested as helping poor people in the US vote fot politicians who won't help their financial situation is that of the "American Dream", the idea that anyone who works hard can rise up and become wealthy. People could think "sure, I'm only earning $20k now, but I don't want to raise taxes for the millionaires because it could effect me in the future".
I don't have any data (might have a google around when I have more time if I remember) but I'm pretty sure the US is fairly unique in how many of it's poorer population votes towards the right wing of the political spectrum, thanks largely, I suspect, to religious regions, and possibly the american dream idea. Here in Europe, working class people who vote towards the right are more likely to be doing it either about stuff like immigration into the country, or when far right parties make themselves sound like common sense honest people compared to typical misleading politicians. But generally speaking, you rather expect a strong corrolation between less wealthy going left and more wealthy going right.
Another reason I've often heard suggested as helping poor people in the US vote fot politicians who won't help their financial situation is that of the "American Dream", the idea that anyone who works hard can rise up and become wealthy. People could think "sure, I'm only earning $20k now, but I don't want to raise taxes for the millionaires because it could effect me in the future".
I don't have any data (might have a google around when I have more time if I remember) but I'm pretty sure the US is fairly unique in how many of it's poorer population votes towards the right wing of the political spectrum, thanks largely, I suspect, to religious regions, and possibly the american dream idea. Here in Europe, working class people who vote towards the right are more likely to be doing it either about stuff like immigration into the country, or when far right parties make themselves sound like common sense honest people compared to typical misleading politicians. But generally speaking, you rather expect a strong corrolation between less wealthy going left and more wealthy going right.
I think the implication here is that a person may think something like:
"Well, they may not help the economy, but they will stick to my core issue that is important to me and I will be happy with that."
When I speak to most people on politics they truly believe their candidate is better on almost ALL the issues, not just a core value they agree with. Whatever the underlying lever you believe turns a specific set of people to one political party or another, they have an annoying habit of also buying into the other BS the party will spout.
When I speak to most people on politics they truly believe their candidate is better on almost ALL the issues, not just a core value they agree with. Whatever the underlying lever you believe turns a specific set of people to one political party or another, they have an annoying habit of also buying into the other BS the party will spout.
Oh really[1]?
>Second, there is no evidence that “culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern” among Frank’s working-class white voters. The apparent political significance of social issues has increased substantially over the past 20 years, but more among better-educated white voters than among those without college degrees. In both groups, economic issues continue to be most important.
Do the poor vote against their interests, or do upper-middle-class people in poor areas vote their own interests while suppressing the vote of the poor?
[1] https://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansasqjps06.pdf
>Second, there is no evidence that “culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern” among Frank’s working-class white voters. The apparent political significance of social issues has increased substantially over the past 20 years, but more among better-educated white voters than among those without college degrees. In both groups, economic issues continue to be most important.
Do the poor vote against their interests, or do upper-middle-class people in poor areas vote their own interests while suppressing the vote of the poor?
[1] https://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansasqjps06.pdf
> The poor often vote against their own interests
>> agreed.
>> but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed) not to disenfranchise the poor.
The conversation could enter a loop at this point.
Also, since the same groups that spread the ignorance in the article, are often very active in trying to disenfranchise the poor, either they are incompetent or they know quite well that there's things they want to push through that widespread democractic representation would prevent, even in it's current dysfunctional state.
And they could save all the money they spend convincing poor people to vote against their own interests, and use it to convince lower middle class people to vote against their own interests (at least until they can disenfranchise them too).
>> agreed.
>> but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed) not to disenfranchise the poor.
The conversation could enter a loop at this point.
Also, since the same groups that spread the ignorance in the article, are often very active in trying to disenfranchise the poor, either they are incompetent or they know quite well that there's things they want to push through that widespread democractic representation would prevent, even in it's current dysfunctional state.
And they could save all the money they spend convincing poor people to vote against their own interests, and use it to convince lower middle class people to vote against their own interests (at least until they can disenfranchise them too).
The best solution is to teach people how to think and not what to think.
We need to promote reason, promote awareness of cognitive biases (as a result of our evolutionary past), and rid ourselves of this notion that "standing up for what you believe" (regardless of its validity) is somehow a virtue.
We need to promote reason, promote awareness of cognitive biases (as a result of our evolutionary past), and rid ourselves of this notion that "standing up for what you believe" (regardless of its validity) is somehow a virtue.
Have you lobbied your government? Contacted your representatives? Attended public hearings?
--
Regard collaborative policy making as a form of data processing and you will recognize the triage processes used (by necessity).
Social cognition as applied to intractable complexity. Divide and conquer, just like economic specialization, is a problem solving optimization.
Aka, The Politics of Attention.
Direct democracy doesn't scale, copes poorly with subtleties. Representative democracy works pretty well, considering. But always benefits from more people participating.
--
Regard collaborative policy making as a form of data processing and you will recognize the triage processes used (by necessity).
Social cognition as applied to intractable complexity. Divide and conquer, just like economic specialization, is a problem solving optimization.
Aka, The Politics of Attention.
Direct democracy doesn't scale, copes poorly with subtleties. Representative democracy works pretty well, considering. But always benefits from more people participating.
Wasn't this always the case? (Well, as long as there was democracy)
No, the problem back then was more often that a small group of people were relatively well informed and voting in their own narrow interests, but not in the interests of those who didn't yet have the vote.
Once people rioted etc. to actually win the vote, more subtle approaches had to be found to continue doing whatever was in the interests of the well connected few. Having lots of uninformed voters distracted by fluff is one of those tactics.
Once people rioted etc. to actually win the vote, more subtle approaches had to be found to continue doing whatever was in the interests of the well connected few. Having lots of uninformed voters distracted by fluff is one of those tactics.
When democracy wasn't available to everyone because of discrimination, the same discrimination was also in effect in access to education — so those who voted had better education than those who didn't.
Just to clarify, in case this comment will be read by idiots: discrimination is bad. Votings rights are good. Access to education for everyone is good. If you're thinking that I argue for return to "good old times of racism and sexism", you're a moron.
(You would think that people aren't as stupid as to misunderstand such comment. Unfortunately, you would be mistaken).
Just to clarify, in case this comment will be read by idiots: discrimination is bad. Votings rights are good. Access to education for everyone is good. If you're thinking that I argue for return to "good old times of racism and sexism", you're a moron.
(You would think that people aren't as stupid as to misunderstand such comment. Unfortunately, you would be mistaken).
It probably was, but the world was less complex back then (both because of the technological progress of the last two centuries, and because politics has layered tons upon tons of bullshit on every issue imaginable).
[deleted]
Here is some ignorant voters on video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oKosd0xJadE
> The biggest problem we have today is that uninformed people form such a large percentage of the voting pool.
Considering that 90% of voters have basically zero influence on the government, I think we wish that was our biggest problem.
Considering that 90% of voters have basically zero influence on the government, I think we wish that was our biggest problem.
51% of the voters control 100% of government.
Except... not really: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/popular-v...
As often as not, the winner doesn't have 50%+... and, in some circumstances, the "Winner" has fewer popular votes: Bush in 2000 had 47.8 to Gores 48.3 yet Bush got more Electoral Votes
As often as not, the winner doesn't have 50%+... and, in some circumstances, the "Winner" has fewer popular votes: Bush in 2000 had 47.8 to Gores 48.3 yet Bush got more Electoral Votes
I would argue that voters have very little control over the courts, except where judges are elected (such as my state, which is a nightmare). Not to mention that voter influence on bureaucrats is all but nil.
51% of the voters may control 100% of the legislature (excluding staff) and executive (excluding appointees) but most of the government is not directly accountable to the voting populace.
51% of the voters may control 100% of the legislature (excluding staff) and executive (excluding appointees) but most of the government is not directly accountable to the voting populace.
I know it's popular in certain circles to oppose, shame and attack Trump, but when you really think about it, all politicians do this, none of them is using facts in their campaign.
You should read Scott Adams' posts about Trump, http://blog.dilbert.com. He describes him as a Master Persuader, http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128474925371/how-to-spot-a-wiza....
Sure, if you buy into a bunch of NLP pseudoscience.
Or, you could accept the much more straightforward and believable explanation that Trump has unique appeal for racists, xenophobes and those who are extremely frustrated with the conservative establishment. He's the first candidate in a long time to appeal to that bloc; hence his popularity.
Trump isn't even a successful businessman - he'd be wealthier if he'd parked his inheritance in an index fund rather than trying to manage it.
Or, you could accept the much more straightforward and believable explanation that Trump has unique appeal for racists, xenophobes and those who are extremely frustrated with the conservative establishment. He's the first candidate in a long time to appeal to that bloc; hence his popularity.
Trump isn't even a successful businessman - he'd be wealthier if he'd parked his inheritance in an index fund rather than trying to manage it.
Trump doesn't care about his proposals being even remotely feasible. He's simply not interested in keeping the discussion within the realms of what people are likely to agree might work in practice.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
"Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore."
Mexico is never going to pay for the wall. I know it's been standard practice to make Latin American countries pay for US drugs policy, but this is over the top. "Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages" is in particular going to be a Drugs War x2; how do you identify illegal wages? The gunboat diplomacy thing is likely to do huge damage to US-Mexican relations and probably contradicts NAFTA. Starting a trade war works in both directions: Mexico could start kicking out US companies.
"End birthright citizenship": he's put this under "Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States", despite the fact that it directly contradicts the 14th Amendment. This is probably the biggest anti-factual thing in the whole document, as it contradicts itself. It also results in stateless children, and the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who aren't Mexican nationals either.
"End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.": does that apply to tourist visas? Is this the end of the visa waiver programme? Either he's completely serious about ending tourism to America or he's eliding the fact that people will illegally immigrate on tourist visas.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
"Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore."
Mexico is never going to pay for the wall. I know it's been standard practice to make Latin American countries pay for US drugs policy, but this is over the top. "Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages" is in particular going to be a Drugs War x2; how do you identify illegal wages? The gunboat diplomacy thing is likely to do huge damage to US-Mexican relations and probably contradicts NAFTA. Starting a trade war works in both directions: Mexico could start kicking out US companies.
"End birthright citizenship": he's put this under "Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States", despite the fact that it directly contradicts the 14th Amendment. This is probably the biggest anti-factual thing in the whole document, as it contradicts itself. It also results in stateless children, and the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who aren't Mexican nationals either.
"End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.": does that apply to tourist visas? Is this the end of the visa waiver programme? Either he's completely serious about ending tourism to America or he's eliding the fact that people will illegally immigrate on tourist visas.
As if Sanders is putting up proposals that are even remotely feasible.
Given that I've gone to the trouble of citing Trump's website rather than hostile media and explained why his proposal contravenes the 14th Amendment, could you give an example?
(I chose not to go near the "refuse to let any Muslims into the country" proposal, which is even more extraordinarily unworkable, but not on that bit of his website)
(I chose not to go near the "refuse to let any Muslims into the country" proposal, which is even more extraordinarily unworkable, but not on that bit of his website)
>I chose not to go near the "refuse to let any Muslims into the country" proposal, which is even more extraordinarily unworkable.
It worked for Jimmy Carter when he blocked all Iranians from entering the US.
It worked for Jimmy Carter when he blocked all Iranians from entering the US.
Are you serious? Islam is not a nationality.
I never said it was, and have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
Banning visas originating in a particular country as part of sanctions v. banning travel/immigration based on someone's religion? Because they're complete separate things. To the point where even implying they're comparable would make me think you're a troll if it weren't such a widespread thing to say.
For for starters, I don't think he actually said "ban all Muslims." He was talking about temporarily halting anyone from the Middle East until better screening could be put in place.
At any rate, it was pretty clear to me that the actual implementation would be people from north Africa, the Middle East, Iran, ect. When Sanders says that he wants to "make college more affordable," I doubt that the actual bill he would present to Congress would be one sheet of paper saying "make college more affordable."
Finally, if you are incapable of having a discussion without attacking people, find another forum. I hear Twitter is good for vitriolic people.
At any rate, it was pretty clear to me that the actual implementation would be people from north Africa, the Middle East, Iran, ect. When Sanders says that he wants to "make college more affordable," I doubt that the actual bill he would present to Congress would be one sheet of paper saying "make college more affordable."
Finally, if you are incapable of having a discussion without attacking people, find another forum. I hear Twitter is good for vitriolic people.
Firstly, he certainly did say 'all Muslims' - it's easy to check since it was surely reported and repeated in his campaign television Ad. It doesn't look good for you when you try to distort this.
Secondly - there is no such clarity around this being a ban on people from specific countries. If he wanted to clarify this, he could have done, but he has not.
He has specifically mentioned the UK as place where there are radical Muslim terrorists (which is true). Would they be freely allowed into the US?
How about non-Muslim people from North Africa and the Middle East?
It may be temporarily reasonable to put a list of countries on a 'no visa' list, but that is not what he said at all.
Given that people across the world have not understood this as what he meant, he could easily have clarified himself but he has chosen not to.
Since he knows how he was understood, either he did mean what he said, or he is intentionally inflaming the situation.
Either way this is disqualifying behavior for a presidential candidate.
Secondly - there is no such clarity around this being a ban on people from specific countries. If he wanted to clarify this, he could have done, but he has not.
He has specifically mentioned the UK as place where there are radical Muslim terrorists (which is true). Would they be freely allowed into the US?
How about non-Muslim people from North Africa and the Middle East?
It may be temporarily reasonable to put a list of countries on a 'no visa' list, but that is not what he said at all.
Given that people across the world have not understood this as what he meant, he could easily have clarified himself but he has chosen not to.
Since he knows how he was understood, either he did mean what he said, or he is intentionally inflaming the situation.
Either way this is disqualifying behavior for a presidential candidate.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...
You're editing it into a more reasonable-sounding version. Whereas there are plenty of people who think he means it literally and might vote for that.
Plenty of us would say that Trump's "ban all Muslims" is itself attacking people! So we're kind of in the land of ad hominem to start off with. We could discuss Trump's attack ads, and measure them for vitriol?
You're editing it into a more reasonable-sounding version. Whereas there are plenty of people who think he means it literally and might vote for that.
Plenty of us would say that Trump's "ban all Muslims" is itself attacking people! So we're kind of in the land of ad hominem to start off with. We could discuss Trump's attack ads, and measure them for vitriol?
Exactly. If he meant "all majority-Muslim countries", that's over a billion people including US "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
And what of Muslim Americans?
And what of Muslim Americans?
I think the idea of banning a religion is idiotic (obviously?), but comparing banning Muslims entering the country to Carter banning Iranian visas is on the same level as saying "Well it snowed today, so much for global warming hue hue"
[deleted]
Not defending Trump's policies or their feasability, but I have a
question about this:
> [Abolishing jus soli] [...] results in stateless children, and
> the problem of trying to deport people from the US to Mexico who
> aren't Mexican nationals either.
It's more of a practical problem: if you're trying to deport someone forcibly, they still need to go through immigration in the country they're being deported to, and you need to establish somehow which country to deport them to without their cooperation. This has caused problems for some European deportations. I believe at the moment Mexico accepts US deportees, but they don't have to make it easy for the US to dump a load of people at the border saying "these guys look Mexican, you can have them back".
Anyway, it contravenes the 14th Amendment.
(The EU has article 8 instead, which means that in practice you have to deport a whole family or not at all).
Anyway, it contravenes the 14th Amendment.
(The EU has article 8 instead, which means that in practice you have to deport a whole family or not at all).
He appeals to the part of the population that doesn't have a problem agreeing that massive illegal immigration, and especially muslims, put the country in trouble, that China is an enemy, that ISIS must be just banished, etc.
In my opinion it's just a matter of priorities, and how the voter thinks the social and financial crisis should be tackled. How is someone like Hillary cleaner than Trump for example?
In my opinion it's just a matter of priorities, and how the voter thinks the social and financial crisis should be tackled. How is someone like Hillary cleaner than Trump for example?
Illegal immigration from Mexico has turned negative since the Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession. There is basically no "massive illegal immigration" of Muslims at all.
You must think of trump supporters as in the same state as 1984 O'Brian. They choose their reality willfully.
> They choose their reality willfully.
Doesn't everybody?
Doesn't everybody?
Yeah. I would have used more sympathy for the article if he had used left and right wing examples. As it is, it just comes across as politically motivated (or at least slanted).
From the article:
"Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion."
So i'm not sure if you're serious, or being ironic...
Either way, that articles have to be "even handed" or present "both sides of the story" is a technique often used by spreaders of ignorance or partisans to deny rational points or treatments of information.
"Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion."
So i'm not sure if you're serious, or being ironic...
Either way, that articles have to be "even handed" or present "both sides of the story" is a technique often used by spreaders of ignorance or partisans to deny rational points or treatments of information.
False Balance. You see it on news reports all the time.
Here we have a scientist talking about the latest meta-study, well reviewed, on the safety profile of a certain type of vaccine. And now we need to balance that out with a crackpot who thinks vaccines are a form of government mind control.
Here we have a scientist talking about the latest meta-study, well reviewed, on the safety profile of a certain type of vaccine. And now we need to balance that out with a crackpot who thinks vaccines are a form of government mind control.
Conversely, pointing this out (as you and another commenter did) is a convenient (but falacious) way of justifiying one-sided views/articles.
The problem is that there often are multiple views, even if they're inequal in terms of logic. You could use this argument that two sides leads to bad things as an excuse to simply never take any other view into account. This too is bias.
Well, here's the thing. People can spread ignorance, I agree. However, if someone gives a list of examples and 2/3 or them could be described as "right wing" you begin to wonder as to his motivations.
However, if you think that the spread of ignorance is purely a right-wing phenomonon and that left-wing politicians are scrupulously truthful in all they do, then I don't know what to say to you.
However, if you think that the spread of ignorance is purely a right-wing phenomonon and that left-wing politicians are scrupulously truthful in all they do, then I don't know what to say to you.
2/3 or them could be described as "right wing"
purely a right-wing phenomonon
In your opinion then, what should we say to someone that thinks 2/3 is equal to 100%?
purely a right-wing phenomonon
In your opinion then, what should we say to someone that thinks 2/3 is equal to 100%?
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic or what. He deliberately calls out false equivalences:
"“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”"
"“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”"
One of the problems is that facts are usually presented in the most boring ways, think lectures. Facts, should be spread the same way. Using propaganda, using sex, using means as creative as those who decide to spread false information.
Next time you watch a speech by Donald Trump, don't look at him, look at the faces of the people behind him. He is winning them emotionally, not factually.
Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.
Next time you watch a speech by Donald Trump, don't look at him, look at the faces of the people behind him. He is winning them emotionally, not factually.
Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.
That's why I think Gravity, Interstellar and The Martian are the best things that happened for space popularization since 1987 (Star Trek: The Next Generation). They cleared out tons of misconceptions people have about space, while introducing very little of their own (Gravity being the biggest offender) - and they did it in a way that captured the interest of general population. I like the trend of making realistic science fiction, and I hope it continues.
> Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.
There's a risk with going too far with that though. A scientist who makes their writing too creative can do more harm than good to the domain, and to public perception of science. The risk increases exponentially if the work is being managed by a creative director - they'll likely take liberties with accuracy in order to make the work more general-population-friendly. Science is a hard thing to explain right. Yes, quite a lot of even the most advanced concepts can be presented simply, but it's a very delicate and precise work, if you want the simplification to be right, and not misleading.
--
As for space education, Kerbal Space Program is absolutely the best thing ever. It's hard to even count the number of people 12 y.o. and less who are proficient in basic orbital mechanics, math included, thanks to this game. Seeing kids talking about Δv budgets and orbital transfers really warms my heart. The game's realism, combined with fun setting and identifiable characters, makes it a perfect vehicle for teaching physics intuition that is hard to acquire even for professionals. And the best thing? It even teaches hard math the right way!
You don't have to know or learn any math to play KSP and have fun. You can literally eyeball your Mun mission. But as you play you quickly discover the benefits of learning a bit of theory. It makes your rockets more efficient. It makes your maneuvers better. It helps you understand why your ship seems to go away from your space station when you accelerate towards it. Soon, your game turns from this[0] to this[1] (via mods, and yes, all those numbers and plots mean something to you).
[0] - http://i.imgur.com/72XNY9q.jpg
[1] - http://i.imgur.com/AcpcCqS.png
> Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.
There's a risk with going too far with that though. A scientist who makes their writing too creative can do more harm than good to the domain, and to public perception of science. The risk increases exponentially if the work is being managed by a creative director - they'll likely take liberties with accuracy in order to make the work more general-population-friendly. Science is a hard thing to explain right. Yes, quite a lot of even the most advanced concepts can be presented simply, but it's a very delicate and precise work, if you want the simplification to be right, and not misleading.
--
As for space education, Kerbal Space Program is absolutely the best thing ever. It's hard to even count the number of people 12 y.o. and less who are proficient in basic orbital mechanics, math included, thanks to this game. Seeing kids talking about Δv budgets and orbital transfers really warms my heart. The game's realism, combined with fun setting and identifiable characters, makes it a perfect vehicle for teaching physics intuition that is hard to acquire even for professionals. And the best thing? It even teaches hard math the right way!
You don't have to know or learn any math to play KSP and have fun. You can literally eyeball your Mun mission. But as you play you quickly discover the benefits of learning a bit of theory. It makes your rockets more efficient. It makes your maneuvers better. It helps you understand why your ship seems to go away from your space station when you accelerate towards it. Soon, your game turns from this[0] to this[1] (via mods, and yes, all those numbers and plots mean something to you).
[0] - http://i.imgur.com/72XNY9q.jpg
[1] - http://i.imgur.com/AcpcCqS.png
As many people have said: Good stories are true, not factual.
True. Not factual.
A lot of us in the sciences forget that the distinction exist. Or worse, want to pretend it doesn't.
True. Not factual.
A lot of us in the sciences forget that the distinction exist. Or worse, want to pretend it doesn't.
As Farley Mowat, the Canadian novelist, said: "I never let the facts get in the way of the truth!"
Also relevant: Lee McIntyre's book on willful ignorance in the Internet age. With so many facts readily at hand, the flip side of agnotology is an audience who decides to stay ignorant in the face of contrary facts.
http://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Int...
Also relevant: Lee McIntyre's book on willful ignorance in the Internet age. With so many facts readily at hand, the flip side of agnotology is an audience who decides to stay ignorant in the face of contrary facts.
http://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Int...
I'd like to think of it as general population operating under a different definition of the word "truth".
No, it's deeper than that.
For instance: the fact is that 32,727 people died from terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014.
The truth is that this is number is insignificant. Over 55 million people died in 2014.
The truth is also that we fear what we feel is random more than what we feel is the result of our actions. We are disproportionately afraid of black swan events. This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp.
Facts are just facts. Truth is the interpretation of facts.
For instance: the fact is that 32,727 people died from terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014.
The truth is that this is number is insignificant. Over 55 million people died in 2014.
The truth is also that we fear what we feel is random more than what we feel is the result of our actions. We are disproportionately afraid of black swan events. This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp.
Facts are just facts. Truth is the interpretation of facts.
A little off-topic perhaps:
> This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp.
Is it effective? What are the criteria by which one could judge?
I lived half my life in England while the IRA was active, I have a friend who was in a building in London when the IRA threatened to blow it up (it wasn't an empty threat, the device was in place and armed). Neither of us lose any sleep over it.
My children have friends and acquaintances who were shot at Utøya (we live not far away). None of them are letting the event stop them being politically active.
But if I read English language newspapers like the Daily Mail now I am bombarded with 'terrorism' related 'news' and the newspaper tries very hard to give the impression that everyone is really worried.
I'm not convinced that people are that worried.
> This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp.
Is it effective? What are the criteria by which one could judge?
I lived half my life in England while the IRA was active, I have a friend who was in a building in London when the IRA threatened to blow it up (it wasn't an empty threat, the device was in place and armed). Neither of us lose any sleep over it.
My children have friends and acquaintances who were shot at Utøya (we live not far away). None of them are letting the event stop them being politically active.
But if I read English language newspapers like the Daily Mail now I am bombarded with 'terrorism' related 'news' and the newspaper tries very hard to give the impression that everyone is really worried.
I'm not convinced that people are that worried.
People are not that worried in terms of actual expectations. I doubt many people in the West are seriously afraid of getting blown up or shot on their way to work. I remember being terribly worried after the Towers fell; the fear lasted maybe a week or three. You learn to ignore it if you want to function properly in the society.
But, the fear is very well alive and visible when it comes to more abstract issues, like policy decisions. Should we invade the Middle East or not? Should we kick out Muslims or not? Should we hate immigrants or not? Should we let the government surveil us more or not? The general population's answer to all of that seems to be a resounding "yes". And the attacks that happen every now and then make things harder for those who disagree.
But, the fear is very well alive and visible when it comes to more abstract issues, like policy decisions. Should we invade the Middle East or not? Should we kick out Muslims or not? Should we hate immigrants or not? Should we let the government surveil us more or not? The general population's answer to all of that seems to be a resounding "yes". And the attacks that happen every now and then make things harder for those who disagree.
Is it effective? What are the criteria by which one could judge?
I lived half my life in England while the IRA was active, I have a friend who was in a building in London when the IRA threatened to blow it up (it wasn't an empty threat, the device was in place and armed). Neither of us lose any sleep over it.
Did the IRA achieve the restoration of the 32-county republic declared in 1916 and ratified in 1919? No. But they did get a devolved administration, with power-sharing guarantees to prevent the domination of one community by the other and with their political wing holding nearly a third of the seats in its legislature and nearly a third of the positions in its executive.
Did the IRA achieve the restoration of the 32-county republic declared in 1916 and ratified in 1919? No. But they did get a devolved administration, with power-sharing guarantees to prevent the domination of one community by the other and with their political wing holding nearly a third of the seats in its legislature and nearly a third of the positions in its executive.
It is effective. I know of people that have changed their travel plans to avoid France, and apparently they weren't alone:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338173/Terror-attac...
Terror attacks in Paris means visitor numbers across Europe tumble and France has already lost £1.4bn in tourism revenue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338173/Terror-attac...
Terror attacks in Paris means visitor numbers across Europe tumble and France has already lost £1.4bn in tourism revenue
Yeap. Tunisia was hit even harder, with y/y growth dropping from around 10% to -90% in the months after the attacks.
Is it effective? What are the criteria by which one could judge?
Take a look at the number of European tourists visiting Tunisia and Egypt.
Take a look at the number of European tourists visiting Tunisia and Egypt.
I see your point and I agree. I understood your wrongly. Thanks for the clarification.
So another example would be relative effects in medical and nutritional studies. That the red meat was correlated with 3-fold increase of cancer in some tests is absolutely meaningless. What matters is the absolute size, because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about.
So another example would be relative effects in medical and nutritional studies. That the red meat was correlated with 3-fold increase of cancer in some tests is absolutely meaningless. What matters is the absolute size, because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about.
>because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about.
you must be kidding - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probabili...
The risk of getting only colorectal cancer is almost 5% and dying from that cancer - 2%.
The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc..
I'd say your post is a perfect example of spreading of ignorance even when the Google is just one click away.
To the comment below: it seems you again ignored the chance to google for the info, in particular for the link between prostate cancer and red meat/obesity/etc. The same goes for breast cancer too. Even when specifically pointed out to easy available source of clear info, you still continue to spread ignorance.
you must be kidding - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probabili...
The risk of getting only colorectal cancer is almost 5% and dying from that cancer - 2%.
The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc..
I'd say your post is a perfect example of spreading of ignorance even when the Google is just one click away.
To the comment below: it seems you again ignored the chance to google for the info, in particular for the link between prostate cancer and red meat/obesity/etc. The same goes for breast cancer too. Even when specifically pointed out to easy available source of clear info, you still continue to spread ignorance.
I didn't imply I was using actual numbers. I was trying to clarify an issue. But since you ask.
The last study that made people panic about meat[0][1] estimated an increase of 18% of the chance you'll get colorectal cancer. Using your data, it means the rate of getting that cancer rises from 5% to 5.9% and the risk of dying from it rises from 2% to 2.36%. That is not a significant increase.
> The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc..
Well, it's important to qualify precisely. The list you provided shows that the dominant part of the 40%/20% stat is prostate (15%/2.7%) and breast cancer (12%/3%), followed by lung cancer (7%/6%). That's about 1/2 of your the risk of developing and dying from cancer accounted for in stuff not directly related to food and beverages. The rest is spread among other cancer types (turns out there's quite a lot of them) with most of them having rates below 3%/1%, so still, even 2-fold increase in risk of getting a particular type of cancer doesn't mean much.
[0] - http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/26/451950828/pro...
[1] - http://mashable.com/2015/10/31/processed-meat-cancer-risk/
The last study that made people panic about meat[0][1] estimated an increase of 18% of the chance you'll get colorectal cancer. Using your data, it means the rate of getting that cancer rises from 5% to 5.9% and the risk of dying from it rises from 2% to 2.36%. That is not a significant increase.
> The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc..
Well, it's important to qualify precisely. The list you provided shows that the dominant part of the 40%/20% stat is prostate (15%/2.7%) and breast cancer (12%/3%), followed by lung cancer (7%/6%). That's about 1/2 of your the risk of developing and dying from cancer accounted for in stuff not directly related to food and beverages. The rest is spread among other cancer types (turns out there's quite a lot of them) with most of them having rates below 3%/1%, so still, even 2-fold increase in risk of getting a particular type of cancer doesn't mean much.
[0] - http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/26/451950828/pro...
[1] - http://mashable.com/2015/10/31/processed-meat-cancer-risk/
What is the trend in terrorist attacks? How old are terrorism victims compared to the average of the 55million?
Your version of the truth is as facty as the version you are refuting.
Your version of the truth is as facty as the version you are refuting.
This is a really good example of truth vs. facts. I wish this was a top-level comment.
And the fact is that the human brain uses utility-weighted sampling, which causes us to systematically over-consider "black swan events" that proceed to never happen.
The film 'Big Fish' is a great example of this.
Is there a name for the effect, or at least percieved effect, that people are becoming less "teachable" because we're so used to just googling stuff that we sometimes percieve ourselves as a fount of knowledge because we mistakenly attribute all the answers to ourselves and not the little gadget in our pocket?
I don't think the Flynn effect is applicable.
I don't think the Flynn effect is applicable.
I would love to know if any research is being done on this. On a comedic note, Bill Burr refers to it as the "www.IAmRight.com effect", where people develop absurd opinions and then just Google sources to support their opinions (rather than the other way around, where they would begin with sources and form a logical opinion from there).
This remind me of something I learned in high school while doing my math homework. An assignment becomes much easier when you first look at the answer in the back. When you know what to aim for, it's easier to weave the right path from the data to results. You aren't learning much in the process, but technically, you've done the job.
Even better, when you're doing particularly 'wordy' calculations with many many greek letters where one line goes over two actual lines one the paper, you can start from both ends and just drop a little here and add a little there until you have woven them together (if you cannot get it done properly). Chances are good that whoever corrects it won't notice..
Perhaps relevant: Predicting Successful Memes using Network and Community Structure. http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6199
Given the position these people take, it's easy to assume that you can solve this by taking away the right of certain people to vote.
The problem is that this concentrates the power in the hands of a few, who can be manipulated by more traditional means.
The problem is that this concentrates the power in the hands of a few, who can be manipulated by more traditional means.
I would say that the ignorance comes from unverified 3rd party sources. But isn't that where actual knowledge comes from? In the end we all put faith on other experts and choose to believe what they tell us is true. To this day I cannot for the life of me prove that we went to the moon or that global warming is real without citing sources created by other "experts."
So really I can't blame ignorant people. I only believe in global warming over the other opposing claims made by corporate sponsored studies only because one conclusion seems more likely then the other. I cannot definitively say that I believe in global warming because the logic categorically says it is true. There rarely exists any logic that tells me a=c because b=a and b=c, if you catch my drift.
I've only found such logic to exist for atheism. Yet a good number of people in this world are still ignorant in that regard.
So really I can't blame ignorant people. I only believe in global warming over the other opposing claims made by corporate sponsored studies only because one conclusion seems more likely then the other. I cannot definitively say that I believe in global warming because the logic categorically says it is true. There rarely exists any logic that tells me a=c because b=a and b=c, if you catch my drift.
I've only found such logic to exist for atheism. Yet a good number of people in this world are still ignorant in that regard.
So a agnotologist is basically a evil troll ?
I propose a new word: "agnotroll"
"He is a well know agnotroll, you should just ignore his agitprop."
I propose a new word: "agnotroll"
"He is a well know agnotroll, you should just ignore his agitprop."
[deleted]
The best solution I've heard so far: on the age of 18, you will be given the following choice: a free scooter, or voting rights.