South Carolinian uni student. Been lurking here for some time. Once my desire to give an input came to a boil, I decided to go ahead and make an account. Mathematics, CompSci, and various forms of Biology are my intensive studies.
Less intense hobbies include music theory, politics, game theory, and cultural studies. I’m more of a ‘genetics is the seed, culture is the flower’ kind of guy.
The art of manipulation is fascinating to me; sometimes, when one knows their audience, one must make non-rational appeals to their audience to persuade them. This is why I rarely consider any political movement to be ignorant when they make certain non-rational claims; it is the sweet art of manipulation blossoming. Whether or not a certain political movement is using these tactics for a beneficial end-game is up for debate, but I nevertheless stray from calling the heads of political philosophies ‘stupid’. (Note: the followers may be useful idiots)
Very nice forum. I appreciate the culture here, and these dialogues rank with Plato.
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.
Hello all,
South Carolinian uni student. Been lurking here for some time. Once my desire to give an input came to a boil, I decided to go ahead and make an account. Mathematics, CompSci, and various forms of Biology are my intensive studies.
Less intense hobbies include music theory, politics, game theory, and cultural studies. I’m more of a ‘genetics is the seed, culture is the flower’ kind of guy.
The art of manipulation is fascinating to me; sometimes, when one knows their audience, one must make non-rational appeals to their audience to persuade them. This is why I rarely consider any political movement to be ignorant when they make certain non-rational claims; it is the sweet art of manipulation blossoming. Whether or not a certain political movement is using these tactics for a beneficial end-game is up for debate, but I nevertheless stray from calling the heads of political philosophies ‘stupid’. (Note: the followers may be useful idiots)
Very nice forum. I appreciate the culture here, and these dialogues rank with Plato.
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.