I partially agree, but I believe there is usually no clear dividing line between “those who know, and use irrational claims strategically” and “the followers who drink the kool-aid”.
First, peer pressure is a thing. Even if you consciously invent a lie, when everyone in your social group keeps repeating it, it will create an enormous emotional pressure on you to rationalize “well, my intention was to invent a lie, but it seems like I accidentally stumbled upon an important piece of truth”. Or more simply, you start believing that the strong version of X is the lie you invented, but some weaker variant of X is actually true.
Second, unless there is a formal conspiracy coordination among the alpha lizardmen, it is possible that leader A will create and spread a lie X without explaining to leader B what happened, and leader B will create and spread a lie Y without explaining to leader A what happened, so at the end both of them are the manipulators and the sheep at the same time.
Very good point. On a similar note: we often don’t consider whether we have empirically tested what we, ourselves, believe to be true. Most often, we have not. I’d wager that we are all ‘useful idiots’ of a sort.
“Or more simply, you start believing that the strong version of X is the lie you invented, but some weaker variant of X is actually true.”
That’s true, but in most cases it is in fact the case that some weaker variant is true, and this explains why you were able to convince people of the lie.
That said, this process is not in general a good way to discover the truth.
I would still expect a shift towards the group beliefs; e.g. if the actual value of some x is 5, and the enemy tribe believes it’s 0, and you strategically convince your tribe that it is 10… you may find yourself slowly updating towards 6, 7, or 8… even if you keep remembering that 10 was a lie.
Anyway, as long as we both agree that this is not a good way to discover truth, the specific details are less important.
Welcome!
I partially agree, but I believe there is usually no clear dividing line between “those who know, and use irrational claims strategically” and “the followers who drink the kool-aid”.
First, peer pressure is a thing. Even if you consciously invent a lie, when everyone in your social group keeps repeating it, it will create an enormous emotional pressure on you to rationalize “well, my intention was to invent a lie, but it seems like I accidentally stumbled upon an important piece of truth”. Or more simply, you start believing that the strong version of X is the lie you invented, but some weaker variant of X is actually true.
Second, unless there is a formal conspiracy coordination among the alpha lizardmen, it is possible that leader A will create and spread a lie X without explaining to leader B what happened, and leader B will create and spread a lie Y without explaining to leader A what happened, so at the end both of them are the manipulators and the sheep at the same time.
Very good point. On a similar note: we often don’t consider whether we have empirically tested what we, ourselves, believe to be true. Most often, we have not. I’d wager that we are all ‘useful idiots’ of a sort.
It’s sheep all the way up!
Sheep all the way up, turtles all the way down, and here we are stuck in the middle!
“Or more simply, you start believing that the strong version of X is the lie you invented, but some weaker variant of X is actually true.”
That’s true, but in most cases it is in fact the case that some weaker variant is true, and this explains why you were able to convince people of the lie.
That said, this process is not in general a good way to discover the truth.
I would still expect a shift towards the group beliefs; e.g. if the actual value of some x is 5, and the enemy tribe believes it’s 0, and you strategically convince your tribe that it is 10… you may find yourself slowly updating towards 6, 7, or 8… even if you keep remembering that 10 was a lie.
Anyway, as long as we both agree that this is not a good way to discover truth, the specific details are less important.
I agree with that, and that is one reason why it is not a good method.