Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Since gullible people tend to believe what they are told, other folks are more tempted to lie to them. So if one chooses to be gullible, one must accept a lot of responsibility for the lies one hears. Case in point: voters are greatly responsible for the lies their leaders tell them. A
I'm new to this blog, and to blogs in general. Forgive any faux pas.
I just found this blog from a 2008 thread about "Sex, Nerds, and Entitlement." That thread and this one are related. In that thread, Michael Vassar talked about the erroneous instructions we are given as children, where relationships are concerned. He seemed to say that we should know better than to believe our parents. I wish I had known about this blog then so I could have asked, "Given that parents are adults, and should know the truth, why would parents deliberately give their children information that is invalid, and counterproductive from an evolutionary standpoint?"
This thread seems to be saying that we should know better than to believe anyone, and that we choose to be gullible. I find this a little problematic and startling. (But then again, I did say I'm new here.)
Am I correct in seeing that both this post and the previous one are making the following points? "I'm a bad person because, as a child, I believed my parents?" "People with Aspergers "choose" to be gullible?" "People should not believe each other." "People who trust other people do so out of laziness." "Liars are doing nothing wrong, and deserve to win if they can get people to believe their lies?"
You should just say "Soviet Union" for that. The fact that the entity no longer exists does not mean the term no longer has a referent! No one talks about "former Pompei".
The important question is "If people took up Robin's suggestion and started blaming the gullible for believing politician's lies, such that believing a lie was a significant status hit, would they become less gullible?".
(By "former Soviet Union", I meant statements made by the USSR during the cold war. I don't know how truthful the countries formerly in the Soviet Union are today.)
"First are “inter-state lies,” deceptions aimed at other countries to gain or retain some advantage over them. … Such state-to-state lies are relatively uncommon..."
But this isn't true. Many countries, including North Korea, China, and the former Soviet Union, lie routinely and blatantly. I don't even believe their intent is to mislead other countries; everyone knows they are lying.
The people who contradict our leaders lies are all politicians. What makes you think they are any more reliable than our leaders?
(And I do mean they are all politicians. They are all trying to affect the results of the political process, they are all engaging in politics, they all have the same incentives about honesty as the politicians in charge.)
I'm confused. I'm not sure what consequence "not believing the lies" would bring. You couldn't have had a stronger calling out than GWB got during the Iraq War. Well, maybe what Obama is getting for his performance is similar. And so what?
But maybe we judged GWB more truthful than Kerry? Maybe Obama got the nod over McCain in the truth department? Or maybe everyone knew that all the Presidents and Presidential candidates lied and the voters just picked the party/candidate that aligned best with their values?
I'm not convinced that mitigations necessarily depend on prediction. It seems to me that a well-implemented program of veracity tracking could mitigate this problem.
"[V]oters are greatly responsible for the lies their leaders tell them." But it is voters *collectively* who bear the responsibility; I, as an individual, proclaim myself guiltless!
By the way, a nation of confirmed skeptics would be very hard to govern.
I'm new to this blog, and to blogs in general. Forgive any faux pas.
I just found this blog from a 2008 thread about "Sex, Nerds, and Entitlement." That thread and this one are related. In that thread, Michael Vassar talked about the erroneous instructions we are given as children, where relationships are concerned. He seemed to say that we should know better than to believe our parents. I wish I had known about this blog then so I could have asked, "Given that parents are adults, and should know the truth, why would parents deliberately give their children information that is invalid, and counterproductive from an evolutionary standpoint?"
This thread seems to be saying that we should know better than to believe anyone, and that we choose to be gullible. I find this a little problematic and startling. (But then again, I did say I'm new here.)
Am I correct in seeing that both this post and the previous one are making the following points? "I'm a bad person because, as a child, I believed my parents?" "People with Aspergers "choose" to be gullible?" "People should not believe each other." "People who trust other people do so out of laziness." "Liars are doing nothing wrong, and deserve to win if they can get people to believe their lies?"
You asked the wrong question. You can distinguish (I hope) lies from the truth.
Your assumption is also baseless (2nd paragraph).
I think this "kind of" speaks to what I was getting at, but only a little.
See bottom comment.
One doesn't chooses to be gullible. And so I don't know what to make of the rest of this post.
Someone enlighten me.
You should just say "Soviet Union" for that. The fact that the entity no longer exists does not mean the term no longer has a referent! No one talks about "former Pompei".
Or, as the Simpsons so eloquently puts it: "It takes two to lie, Marge. One to lie, and one to listen."
The important question is "If people took up Robin's suggestion and started blaming the gullible for believing politician's lies, such that believing a lie was a significant status hit, would they become less gullible?".
My own guess is "Yes, they would".
So if somebody was dishonest with you, you wouldn't think they did anything wrong?
(By "former Soviet Union", I meant statements made by the USSR during the cold war. I don't know how truthful the countries formerly in the Soviet Union are today.)
"First are “inter-state lies,” deceptions aimed at other countries to gain or retain some advantage over them. … Such state-to-state lies are relatively uncommon..."
But this isn't true. Many countries, including North Korea, China, and the former Soviet Union, lie routinely and blatantly. I don't even believe their intent is to mislead other countries; everyone knows they are lying.
The people who contradict our leaders lies are all politicians. What makes you think they are any more reliable than our leaders?
(And I do mean they are all politicians. They are all trying to affect the results of the political process, they are all engaging in politics, they all have the same incentives about honesty as the politicians in charge.)
"Only Prediction Markets can save us!"
The day you can predict the behaviour of mass is the day you will have a prediction market.
It ain't going to happen.
I'm confused. I'm not sure what consequence "not believing the lies" would bring. You couldn't have had a stronger calling out than GWB got during the Iraq War. Well, maybe what Obama is getting for his performance is similar. And so what?
But maybe we judged GWB more truthful than Kerry? Maybe Obama got the nod over McCain in the truth department? Or maybe everyone knew that all the Presidents and Presidential candidates lied and the voters just picked the party/candidate that aligned best with their values?
Aaron:"Only Prediction Markets can save us!"
I'm not convinced that mitigations necessarily depend on prediction. It seems to me that a well-implemented program of veracity tracking could mitigate this problem.
By the way, a nation of confirmed skeptics would be very hard to govern.
That would probably be a feature, rather than a bug.
"[V]oters are greatly responsible for the lies their leaders tell them." But it is voters *collectively* who bear the responsibility; I, as an individual, proclaim myself guiltless!
By the way, a nation of confirmed skeptics would be very hard to govern.