I recently watched Neil Degrasse Tyson's examination of Terence Howard's "Treatise" on various ideas. In my opinion, it should be required viewing for everyone. It is a masterclass in critical thinking and why the peer review process is beneficial and necessary. I've been waiting for someone to thoroughly disassemble why "alternative thinkers" like Terence Howard, RFK Jr., etc. are so completely wrong and Neil delivered in a way that only he can. Please check it out on YouTube.
What makes more sense : That Trump was talking about uniting white supremacists and praised neo-nazis and white supremacists in public or that he was talking about taking down statues?
I am so incredibly tired of all of the people who consider themselves enlightened with their kneejerk cynicism and hackneyed claims about how we're all brainwashed and lied to.
It's especially galling to hear people talk about "critical thinking" when they obviously have little understanding of what it means. What Adams did was offer you a narrative of unfalsifiability. He constructed a excuse to deny any and all evidence that you choose not to believe. That's the opposite of critical thinking. That's self-bias confirming thinking. Conspiracy theorist thinking.
When people can't tell you what evidence they would accept as proof that their ideas are false, that's not critical thinking. Critical thinking has to involve the possibility of you being wrong. Which is funny, because all of those instances people cite about the media being fake involve the media either acknowledging mistakes they made or at least honestly confronting doubts about prior reporting that's been called into question.
Tell me, when have you ever seen Fox News or NewsMax or OAN engage in any soul searching and navel gazing over any misinformation that's been allowed to spread over their airwaves? Have they ever admitted getting anything wrong without a settlement from a lawsuit compelling them to do so? People at CNN get disciplined and fired over getting shit wrong. When Fox News fires someone, they never say it has anything to do with inaccuracy or journalistic integrity. They would not say that had anything to do with Lou Dobbs or Tucker Carlson getting fired, and of course Maria Bartiromo still has a job.
People like Adams have no problem getting their "information" from sources online with absolutely zero accountability and zero reputation to defend. They have no problem pointing out financial incentives for things they disagree with in mainstream media, despite the fact that all of these online conspiracy theorists have nothing but financial incentives to lie, embellish, and fabricate the junk they peddle, because nobody will ever hold them accountable for it. The people who consume their media do so only for raw material to feed into their inconsistent and often contradictory narratives about this or that nefarious thing that happened that allegedly disproves the "official" story in the media. They're not going to come back and hold their feet to the fire if things don't add up – as long as it confuses people enough to make them mistrust any potentially legitimate info, their financial interests are served.
I'm sure many have heard the quotes from Hannah Arendt, but they always bear repeating:
--------
"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow."
--------
This is what people like Adams are selling you. A world where everything is possible and nothing is true. The thing about reality is that there's consistency to it, even when you dig into the details. Lies are random and chaotic, and thrive on vagueness and ambiguity. It's not hard to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, any more than it is to tell the difference between a dream and waking life.
Adams should think more carefully about who is actually the victim of brainwashing.
I'm flattered, thank you. I keep inching ever closer to it. I've written enough Substack-length comments like this that I could probably make a retrospective one.
Let's not overlook that a lot of the Ivermectin Gang are desperate to be victims so that they don't have to face the fact that poor life choices have led to their disenfranchisement. They point to women, gays, racial minorities, anyone they can blame for their own failures.
IDK what's up with Scott Adams but when he was talking about having the legal right to rape anyone on his property, he lost me.
Scott Adams has gone far off the deep end since the Trump era started. He used to be an interesting guy, but he’s gone neck deep in conspiracy theories since then.
What's so galling about that part of the infamous "condemnation" of the marchers in Charlottesville is that quote was in reference to the tiki-torch march the night before. The context around the quote makes that clear. I watched video of that march, and it made me sick to my stomach, especially the part where those marchers decided to beat the shit out of the counter-protestors.
So Scott is lying. Shocking, I know.
Also I really don't give a shit if you're note a proclaimed neo-nazi/white supremacist/white nationalist/whateverwhofuckingcares. If you're marching with them, you're one of them.
I did my own research. Remarkably, it turns out almost all this alternative media conspiracy stuff is written by scammers, charlatans, and hacks that prey on the vulnerabilities and anxieties of disempowered people. Was an interesting rabbit hole Mr. Free Thinker, let me tell ya.
Me too. Same same as you except I found it disgusting not interesting. Like a dung filled rabbit hole. It’s been a long time since I took abnormal psychology in college, but don’t some of these “well informed ivermectin-ite newsies” seem to exhibit classic symptoms of schizophrenia like unbridled wide ranging conspiracies?
He's right in the broadest, most charitable reading - of course history and "the news" are "fake" in that they aren't an accurate representation of the actual world as it exists. And those media are particularly bad at recording the actual reason things happen. And this is compounded by an insular media culture that focuses on things the people who work in media (typically high socioeconomic status people who live in large cities like DC, New York, and LA) find valuable and interesting.
BUT! That isn't an argument for solipsism or only trusting gurus who claim to have the truth, it's just the human condition - a representation of reality can't be reality itself. As you said, we just have to do the best we can with the information we have, and avoid placing too much weight on information that may or may not be accurate.
I think you can tell who's doing their best to sort through the messy information landscape from those using motivated reasoning to serve their audience by looking at whether their "unorthodox" thoughts all fall in the same ideological direction. For an honest person, the world is bafflingly strange and complex. For an audience-server, it's alarmingly simple.
Despite the widespread evidence of obstruction, Trump wasn't indicted because of the 1973 decision that sitting presidents could not be indicted, that it wouldn't be fair to have Trump face federal charges because there would be no trial and he wouldn't have the opportunity to clear himself, and that if Mueller were to file a sealed indictment, there was fear it would be leaked and that would impact Trump's ability to govern. None of this is consistent with the narrative of Barr's summation that he was "cleared." When Mueller spoke of the findings, he did such a poor job articulating these points that it was a non-event and not the slam-dunk the Dems had hoped for. (Just read this section in The Divider. It's about 700 pages, but a surprisingly quick read.)
I recently watched Neil Degrasse Tyson's examination of Terence Howard's "Treatise" on various ideas. In my opinion, it should be required viewing for everyone. It is a masterclass in critical thinking and why the peer review process is beneficial and necessary. I've been waiting for someone to thoroughly disassemble why "alternative thinkers" like Terence Howard, RFK Jr., etc. are so completely wrong and Neil delivered in a way that only he can. Please check it out on YouTube.
Channel your inner Dogbert. You've got the smarmy puppet for it already...
It’s a losing battle trying to talk to these nitwits. We just need to vote in force like our lives depend on it…because they do!!!
I don't think Scott Adams is worth the time spent discussing this. He's been off his rocker for a long time.
What makes more sense : That Trump was talking about uniting white supremacists and praised neo-nazis and white supremacists in public or that he was talking about taking down statues?
Have you noticed that Trump's "excuse me, excuse me" is code for "STFU while I lie some more."
I am so incredibly tired of all of the people who consider themselves enlightened with their kneejerk cynicism and hackneyed claims about how we're all brainwashed and lied to.
It's especially galling to hear people talk about "critical thinking" when they obviously have little understanding of what it means. What Adams did was offer you a narrative of unfalsifiability. He constructed a excuse to deny any and all evidence that you choose not to believe. That's the opposite of critical thinking. That's self-bias confirming thinking. Conspiracy theorist thinking.
When people can't tell you what evidence they would accept as proof that their ideas are false, that's not critical thinking. Critical thinking has to involve the possibility of you being wrong. Which is funny, because all of those instances people cite about the media being fake involve the media either acknowledging mistakes they made or at least honestly confronting doubts about prior reporting that's been called into question.
Tell me, when have you ever seen Fox News or NewsMax or OAN engage in any soul searching and navel gazing over any misinformation that's been allowed to spread over their airwaves? Have they ever admitted getting anything wrong without a settlement from a lawsuit compelling them to do so? People at CNN get disciplined and fired over getting shit wrong. When Fox News fires someone, they never say it has anything to do with inaccuracy or journalistic integrity. They would not say that had anything to do with Lou Dobbs or Tucker Carlson getting fired, and of course Maria Bartiromo still has a job.
People like Adams have no problem getting their "information" from sources online with absolutely zero accountability and zero reputation to defend. They have no problem pointing out financial incentives for things they disagree with in mainstream media, despite the fact that all of these online conspiracy theorists have nothing but financial incentives to lie, embellish, and fabricate the junk they peddle, because nobody will ever hold them accountable for it. The people who consume their media do so only for raw material to feed into their inconsistent and often contradictory narratives about this or that nefarious thing that happened that allegedly disproves the "official" story in the media. They're not going to come back and hold their feet to the fire if things don't add up – as long as it confuses people enough to make them mistrust any potentially legitimate info, their financial interests are served.
I'm sure many have heard the quotes from Hannah Arendt, but they always bear repeating:
--------
"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow."
--------
This is what people like Adams are selling you. A world where everything is possible and nothing is true. The thing about reality is that there's consistency to it, even when you dig into the details. Lies are random and chaotic, and thrive on vagueness and ambiguity. It's not hard to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, any more than it is to tell the difference between a dream and waking life.
Adams should think more carefully about who is actually the victim of brainwashing.
If you have a Substack (or other outlet), I would like to read it.
I'm flattered, thank you. I keep inching ever closer to it. I've written enough Substack-length comments like this that I could probably make a retrospective one.
Scott Adams has a show?
that was my thought! obviously nothing to waste your time on. He sure went down the rabbit hole, then just kept going.
Let's not overlook that a lot of the Ivermectin Gang are desperate to be victims so that they don't have to face the fact that poor life choices have led to their disenfranchisement. They point to women, gays, racial minorities, anyone they can blame for their own failures.
IDK what's up with Scott Adams but when he was talking about having the legal right to rape anyone on his property, he lost me.
Scott Adams has gone far off the deep end since the Trump era started. He used to be an interesting guy, but he’s gone neck deep in conspiracy theories since then.
What's so galling about that part of the infamous "condemnation" of the marchers in Charlottesville is that quote was in reference to the tiki-torch march the night before. The context around the quote makes that clear. I watched video of that march, and it made me sick to my stomach, especially the part where those marchers decided to beat the shit out of the counter-protestors.
So Scott is lying. Shocking, I know.
Also I really don't give a shit if you're note a proclaimed neo-nazi/white supremacist/white nationalist/whateverwhofuckingcares. If you're marching with them, you're one of them.
Full stop.
They say we’re in a low trust society but these people have rock solid trust, it’s just in just the most deranged lunatics you’ve ever heard of.
Good grief. Scott was being serious🥴 I wonder what color the sky is in his world.
I did my own research. Remarkably, it turns out almost all this alternative media conspiracy stuff is written by scammers, charlatans, and hacks that prey on the vulnerabilities and anxieties of disempowered people. Was an interesting rabbit hole Mr. Free Thinker, let me tell ya.
Me too. Same same as you except I found it disgusting not interesting. Like a dung filled rabbit hole. It’s been a long time since I took abnormal psychology in college, but don’t some of these “well informed ivermectin-ite newsies” seem to exhibit classic symptoms of schizophrenia like unbridled wide ranging conspiracies?
He's right in the broadest, most charitable reading - of course history and "the news" are "fake" in that they aren't an accurate representation of the actual world as it exists. And those media are particularly bad at recording the actual reason things happen. And this is compounded by an insular media culture that focuses on things the people who work in media (typically high socioeconomic status people who live in large cities like DC, New York, and LA) find valuable and interesting.
BUT! That isn't an argument for solipsism or only trusting gurus who claim to have the truth, it's just the human condition - a representation of reality can't be reality itself. As you said, we just have to do the best we can with the information we have, and avoid placing too much weight on information that may or may not be accurate.
I think you can tell who's doing their best to sort through the messy information landscape from those using motivated reasoning to serve their audience by looking at whether their "unorthodox" thoughts all fall in the same ideological direction. For an honest person, the world is bafflingly strange and complex. For an audience-server, it's alarmingly simple.
Excellent take.
This is the key. If all their knowledge supports their ideology, it’s not news. It’s manipulation.
Despite the widespread evidence of obstruction, Trump wasn't indicted because of the 1973 decision that sitting presidents could not be indicted, that it wouldn't be fair to have Trump face federal charges because there would be no trial and he wouldn't have the opportunity to clear himself, and that if Mueller were to file a sealed indictment, there was fear it would be leaked and that would impact Trump's ability to govern. None of this is consistent with the narrative of Barr's summation that he was "cleared." When Mueller spoke of the findings, he did such a poor job articulating these points that it was a non-event and not the slam-dunk the Dems had hoped for. (Just read this section in The Divider. It's about 700 pages, but a surprisingly quick read.)
Also, are we calling you Ian now?
We are not.