You are not introducing data that distinguishes the hypothesis that the cause of saving the world is worthwhile from the hypothesis that it’s but an attire, serving status and rationalization thereof. It’s name-calling, not an argument.
The argument was being made that “so many other people argue the other way around”.
Lots of people arguing something is not a very good reason for thinking it is true. Ideas can become popular because they are good at spreading, not because of their truth value.
In the case of risks, it is pretty obvious how this could happen. Warning people about risks has a positive effect on your reputation.
It is well known to psychologists that humans concoct risks when they are not real for signalling purposes:
“Psychologists have dubbed the phenomenon The Boy Who Cried Wolf Effect, named after Aesop’s fable about a shepherd who fakes wolf attacks. In real life, experts say, these “shepherds,” mostly women, aren’t acting out of boredom. These damsels in distress are very often motivated by an intense desire for attention and may feel unfairly neglected by those close to them, often romantic partners. Others are simply crying out to a world they feel ignores them.”
I do not know to what extent memetic and evolutionary psychology explanations explain the observed effect. My estimate—from what I have seen—is that the extent is probably quite large. So: I think that discussion of the extent to which these beliefs may be being caused by signalling-related biases is quite appropriate.
Under this model, agents exaggerate the risks, and tell others about those risks, which makes them feel good. It also makes the recipients grateful. They then go on to infect others with the DOOM meme.
The infected agents construct elaborate rationales to explain the repeated historical failures of the DOOM predictions to come true. Yes, all those other folk who thought the same thing were wrong—but this time it is different, because …
Your argument is that it’s plausible that the idea is propagating independently of its truth (which is obviously true, when the idea is construed at the level of crude approximation), but it’s not an argument against the idea’s truth, especially if the idea is recreated apart from its fame.
Also, your version of the idea is about fuzzies, while ours is about utility, prompting different kinds of actions. The empty buzz of doomsaying was around for a long time, never crossing over towards serious study.
The idea that the DOOM meme is a plague is indeed an argument against its truth value. DOOM being ancient and persistent argues for its basis in human universals, rather than it being a realistic assessment of historical events. If DOOM was a new phenomenon, that might make it a more interesting object of study—but I don’t see credible evidence supporting that. DOOM is clearly ancient—see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism
As for “fuzzies” vs “utility”—that just seems like an attempt to rubbish my position. Those who think they are going to RAISE THE ALARM and help SAVE THE WORLD remind me of “Total Recall”:
“What’s bullshit, Mr. Quaid? That you’re having a paranoid episode triggered by acute neuro-chemical trauma? Or that you’re really an invincible secret agent from Mars who’s the victim of an interplanetary conspiracy to make him think he’s a lowly construction worker?”
It is not particularly surprising that we see some modern incarnations that embrace the latest instruments of destruction.
Are the DOOM-mongers interested in this? Not AFAICS. All you will hear about from them is the DOOM. After all, what could possibly be more important than THE END OF THE WORLD? You should go and warn your loved-ones about the danger immediately!
People who were shouting that the Sun is shining were actually fools, as certified by scientific research. Still, the message remains valid. Also, the fact that they happen to believe in something that is true doesn’t make them right if they believe it for reasons other than that it’s true.
Your bizarre analogies and obscure cultural references are having the effect of making me lose interest. What has this to do with what I have said?
You are arguing that lots of previously inaccurate DOOM prophecies don’t mean we don’t face DOOM? I don’t think I claimed that it did mean that—merely that is was pertinent evidence on the topic.
That DOOM prophesies are a well-known sociological phenomenon which has a lot to do with signalling, status, self-esteem, etc—and not much to do with the end of the world - illuminates the behaviour of today’s prophets of DOOM, in my view. These days, DOOM is big business. The Lifeboat Foundation has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in the name of this kind of thing. We should understand how DOOM is marketed. Belief in DOOM is not necessarily invigorating and stimulating—it can have some substantial down-sides—for example, helplessness and a failure to engage in long-term planning.
You keep throwing accusations of rationalization, but I wonder what it would look like if the earth really did revolve around the sun?
You mean that the idea that the end of the world is nigh is a classical failed model—much like geocentrism was...?
You are not introducing data that distinguishes the hypothesis that the cause of saving the world is worthwhile from the hypothesis that it’s but an attire, serving status and rationalization thereof. It’s name-calling, not an argument.
The argument was being made that “so many other people argue the other way around”.
Lots of people arguing something is not a very good reason for thinking it is true. Ideas can become popular because they are good at spreading, not because of their truth value.
In the case of risks, it is pretty obvious how this could happen. Warning people about risks has a positive effect on your reputation.
It is well known to psychologists that humans concoct risks when they are not real for signalling purposes:
“Psychologists have dubbed the phenomenon The Boy Who Cried Wolf Effect, named after Aesop’s fable about a shepherd who fakes wolf attacks. In real life, experts say, these “shepherds,” mostly women, aren’t acting out of boredom. These damsels in distress are very often motivated by an intense desire for attention and may feel unfairly neglected by those close to them, often romantic partners. Others are simply crying out to a world they feel ignores them.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200408/crying-wolf-fabricated-crimes
I do not know to what extent memetic and evolutionary psychology explanations explain the observed effect. My estimate—from what I have seen—is that the extent is probably quite large. So: I think that discussion of the extent to which these beliefs may be being caused by signalling-related biases is quite appropriate.
Under this model, agents exaggerate the risks, and tell others about those risks, which makes them feel good. It also makes the recipients grateful. They then go on to infect others with the DOOM meme.
The infected agents construct elaborate rationales to explain the repeated historical failures of the DOOM predictions to come true. Yes, all those other folk who thought the same thing were wrong—but this time it is different, because …
Your argument is that it’s plausible that the idea is propagating independently of its truth (which is obviously true, when the idea is construed at the level of crude approximation), but it’s not an argument against the idea’s truth, especially if the idea is recreated apart from its fame.
Also, your version of the idea is about fuzzies, while ours is about utility, prompting different kinds of actions. The empty buzz of doomsaying was around for a long time, never crossing over towards serious study.
The idea that the DOOM meme is a plague is indeed an argument against its truth value. DOOM being ancient and persistent argues for its basis in human universals, rather than it being a realistic assessment of historical events. If DOOM was a new phenomenon, that might make it a more interesting object of study—but I don’t see credible evidence supporting that. DOOM is clearly ancient—see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism
As for “fuzzies” vs “utility”—that just seems like an attempt to rubbish my position. Those who think they are going to RAISE THE ALARM and help SAVE THE WORLD remind me of “Total Recall”:
“What’s bullshit, Mr. Quaid? That you’re having a paranoid episode triggered by acute neuro-chemical trauma? Or that you’re really an invincible secret agent from Mars who’s the victim of an interplanetary conspiracy to make him think he’s a lowly construction worker?”
Pirsig: The world’s greatest fool may say the Sun is shining, but that doesn’t make it dark out. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence.
I am not sure my message is getting through. Apocalyptic cults have a long history—and they have been studied by scientists. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult
It is not particularly surprising that we see some modern incarnations that embrace the latest instruments of destruction.
Are the DOOM-mongers interested in this? Not AFAICS. All you will hear about from them is the DOOM. After all, what could possibly be more important than THE END OF THE WORLD? You should go and warn your loved-ones about the danger immediately!
People who were shouting that the Sun is shining were actually fools, as certified by scientific research. Still, the message remains valid. Also, the fact that they happen to believe in something that is true doesn’t make them right if they believe it for reasons other than that it’s true.
Your bizarre analogies and obscure cultural references are having the effect of making me lose interest. What has this to do with what I have said?
You are arguing that lots of previously inaccurate DOOM prophecies don’t mean we don’t face DOOM? I don’t think I claimed that it did mean that—merely that is was pertinent evidence on the topic.
That DOOM prophesies are a well-known sociological phenomenon which has a lot to do with signalling, status, self-esteem, etc—and not much to do with the end of the world - illuminates the behaviour of today’s prophets of DOOM, in my view. These days, DOOM is big business. The Lifeboat Foundation has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in the name of this kind of thing. We should understand how DOOM is marketed. Belief in DOOM is not necessarily invigorating and stimulating—it can have some substantial down-sides—for example, helplessness and a failure to engage in long-term planning.
I expand on this theme in the following video:
“Tim Tyler: Doom!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH31AcOmSjs