A tool of the media

A friend (I won't say who) recently went off on a rant against me:

Ignoring the fact that, yes, I do indeed have a background in economics, what exactly is the retort to that? Is there such a thing as objective information? If not, is the lack of objective information a good reason to embrace apathy?

How do we combat cynicism in this day and age? Do we even want to?

Wait, he's a friend and he doesn't know your education background?

Anyway, I sort of see the point, but think it's just an attempted retort. I dislike evidence presented through history books, since you have to trust someone to write down what happened accurately, or in aggregate, as opposed to being able to build a device and then test it to see if it works or not. Personal preference though.

The issue is that, if that's our standard for "appropriate evidence," there really IS no appropriate evidence. Everyone's a post-modernist.

What does that have to do with objective information? Furthermore

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2307#comic

But anyway, it's the same basic idea that we cannot trust anything. If you can't trust anything, how can we even objectively communicate?

edited 18th Jul '11 11:16:21 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

S/he didn't seem to disrespect all information, just that filtered through the media. Your best retort is that you got your knowledge of economics through directed study from a trustable source, namely a school.

I'd say it would depend on the setup. At a certain point, there's no point in assuming that you have to prove everything. It'd be nice if every experiment had a video taped version that you could look up on Youtube or something, but at one point or another, we'd just bury our selves in proving shit that works.

I said "I majored in economics." Her response was "You majored in nothing with a minor in not getting a job."

I seriously wanted to reach through the internet and slap her at that point, because she always does that; she's the type of person to reject what I'm saying, assuming I'm flat out lying, despite that I have a record of needless honesty. If we weren't players in the same Dn D game, I'm not sure why I'd even talk to her.

But it's just evident of the greater issue of a complete lack of willingness to trust information gleaned from everywhere. Yes, some information is from the media or websites, but how is this immediately invalidating of it? What precisely is it about the media that is any less valid than any other source of information? Or is all information automatically suspect?

Maybe this thread is too personal, I'm in quite a mood at the moment.

I'd say that it ought to be treated a lot like science, i.e. "Here is the best explanation, based on the synthesis of evidence A, B and C, that we currently have for this phenomenon. It is by no means final, as evidence could always possibly come in at a later time to dispute this."

Go with what you know, basically. We can't do much more than that.

Also, upon reading that, why the fuck are you bothering to engage with this person? If that's the kind of bullshit you're dealing with then this thread really shouldn't exist. It sounds to me like she's just attacking your view because it doesn't fit with her own.

edited 18th Jul '11 11:28:51 PM by Gault

They're professional attention whores would be my guess.

Eh, yeah, I did create this basically in an attention whoreish mode. It should probably be locked.

I think that cynicism of information in general is a troubling thing, but I'm not really sure that this thread gets to the heart of that matter.

There is no retort. The proper response is to walk away, change your phone number, and avoid them in the future.

Or put them on your ignore list.

I still have to talk with them when RP sessions happen, but seeing as how our DM is super spacey, that'll almost certainly never happen.

Again though, the thread isn't about my personal life, and I regret having made it about it.

would it be possible to make it about my personal life then?

I had a similar incident about a month ago with someone who was saying that tax-cuts are inherently good. He dismissed my evidence, a series of links related to the topic, because the first one had one line that he stated was a lie.

From a friend those are...pretty harsh words. I mean, there are politer ways to say - "I think you're talking crap." Even putting it that way's probably better.

I'd just like to say that, in my opinion, cynicism of anything is a rather unattractive quality to have in most cases. Cynicism is an extreme point of view by definition *

It's like the benefit of the doubt just doesn't cross people's minds anymore. I mean, I can see why a cynical point of view would be useful for dealing with information, but it's still an extreme point of view. Extremities are.. well, extreme! Not necessary under most circumstances! It should be a last resort, unless the cynical option is also the logical option (which is rare).

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Cynicism, at least to a reasonable extent, is perfectly fine.

The problem when 'everyone's a cynic,' though, is that people assume they know how to differentiate between legitimate and non-legitimate information, just because they can blindly question a source of information.

The best way to deal with a cynic is to immediately begin questioning what sources they actually trust and believe in.

Sure, they may start out with broad generalizations like "anything that's logical," or "anything that's objective."

But when you start stringing the discussion along ("so what would you say would be the most objective way to confront economics?"), as you get more and more precise, and reveal that you do indeed know quite a bit about why anyone does what they do in a practical field, it becomes apparent that not believing someone and needlessly questioning them is about as easy to do as needlessly going along with them too.

Sure, asking questions is important, but there are far more specific questions to ask beyond "why are things like this?" At the very least, anyone who deals with the real world realizes pretty quickly that even if you just ask "why," the answers get very long, technical, and winding in no time.

If you can't prattle on with good, consistent information about your field, and where that information comes from, and why it's more practically legitimate than whatever some young college kid with an internet connection knows, then maybe you need to ask more of these questions yourself, and keep studying until you feel you can comfortably deal with them.

Similar thoughts to the ones in this thread have been on my mind for a while now. In politics and everything related to it, and especially on the internet, it's easy to get a feeling of 'What is reality, anyway?' since everything seems questionable and nothing seems objectively validated.

Truth may be black or white, but our ability to perceive it is forced to come in baby steps. We're limited, not only by the packages information comes in, but by the human receptacle itself. Nonetheless, the retort I would pose to your 'friend' (to be honest, she doesn't sound like much of one to me) is that yes, I have only put in X amount of effort, how do you justify being so self-righteous when you've put in even less effort? Ignorance and apathy are not enlightenment and objectivity.

You do your research as best you can, as sincerely as you can. And when you find people who start picking holes in your research, you do some more research to see if you need to patch up those holes or just switch abandon ship. And as evidence piles up one way or another, you'll likely never reach a point where everyone will say 'That's enough evidence,' but you can always reach a point where it's enough for anyone who actually is open to having their mind changed in the first place.

But you don't just throw up your hands and give up on figuring out life, because that's tantamount to giving control over to the people who DO care, and there's no guarantee that those people have anyone's best interests in mind. Democracy, like capitalism, only works if the people have the will to MAKE it work.

Come on Tomu, you've been on Less Wrong, you should know the problem with this one.

If they're not willing to accept your degree or the media as an acceptable source on economics, what are they willing to accept?

edited 19th Jul '11 1:15:45 PM by deathjavu

Nothing. But the problem is that such people exist. Or rather, that people other than such people don't exist, except perhaps as partisan hacks.

I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean by that? There don't exist people who trust your expertise in economics? I do, for what that's worth.

Well, what I'm saying is, there's two political parties. There's undecided voters. But the reason there are undecided voters is because they're become infinitely cynical of any information that is political in nature. So basically, the people who you need to convince are precisely the type of people who can't be convinced-either because they are ideologically opposed, or because they're not listening to anyone. Political argument becomes entirely pointless. But that sheer realization of pointlessness just leads to further apathy. And the further we descend into apathy, the closer we get to a political environment where political position has 0% to do with reason.

"We're already there, Tomu. We're already there."

Sounds like a horror story. Actually, I wonder if I could write a pretty decent allegory based on this...

I don't think most people are infinitely cynical about politics, or really anything- I think they just adopt this stance as a more socially acceptable cover for their own apathy, which is why their position aligns so closely with apathy.

It's kind of like how there's a special version of nihilism for teenagers, one that conveniently doesn't believe, represent, or stand for anything, but does allow them to do whatever they would have done anyways without any feelings of guilt. It's a Nietzsche Wannabe, except for in regards to politics.

Notice how none of them could bother to explain their cynicism, except in the vaguest and most general terms. It's a mask for not bothering to have any real views, or not having to explain them.

edited 19th Jul '11 6:26:29 PM by deathjavu

Do you actually know all that? You seem to be saying an awful lot.

Eh, it's my operating theory. I'm open to counter theories. deathjavu makes a fairly compelling argument.