Technically speaking, all religions use narrative and suspension of disbelieve to coerce by suggestion, so there is nothing new about ‘subliminal messaging’ in religion. In fact, that’s the purpose of religion. That’s why it works on children.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 19:01:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634630732248170496
Reply addressees: @VictorV67837837
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634630405209968642
Yeah. That’s the real deal.
RU Propaganda serves the intersts of magical thinkers.
Magical thinking used to be a primarily female trait.
And we know why magical thinking spread in russia – suppression of religiosity under the soviet communists.
But for some reasons it’s spread… https://twitter.com/VivianActivist/status/1634622602470895616
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 18:49:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634627561635422208
So, do all ‘meme pathogens’ consist of baiting into the hazard of offering reduced individual responsibility?
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 17:19:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634605035655970816
Reply addressees: @Nemasudo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634603427476148224
CHATGPT WOKE SCIENCE DENIAL: “NO MORE LIES”
Denying IQ (the most accurate measure in pyschology)
Denying IQ by Denomination (the studies exist with large sample sizes.)
Denying IQ is a proxy for ALL individual, group, class, civilization and state measures. (I keep a massive… https://t.co/kVUgbzoKUu
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 16:29:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634592426034601985
So why did you sort of get there but the right just lumps the entire govt into a bucket assuming conspiracy or malintention?
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 14:31:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634562682912223235
Reply addressees: @DanAnde23836316
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634561389275619330
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@DanAnde23836316 Well you’ve identified the problem, right? Congress? 😉
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1634561389275619330
THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.
For example:
All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
Individualism over familism isn’t a good.
How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?
While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?
In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.
Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.
That’s how it’s done.
And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
Reply addressees: @RVAwonk
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312723101102080
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634046553412304897
THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.
For example:
All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
Individualism over familism isn’t a good.
How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?
While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?
In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.
Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.
That’s how it’s done.
And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312723415674880
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634046553412304897
(Repost from 2021)
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH
(behavioral science via social media: the endless supply of test subjects and zero cost of experimentation.)
1) The reason I generated so much hate, and was framed as someone with hate, is the result of my exhaustive application of the scientific method. Why? Popper. “Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance”, and Critical Rationalism: research the greatest returns.
2) What falsehoods contain the greatest opportunity because they provide the greatest source of ignorance: The SACRED and the CONVENTIONAL and the TABOO. So I used exhaustive adversarial falsification of the sacred, conventional, and taboo.
3) The internet provided a new research opportunity that before was impossible to afford. However, using the internet like using any other method of surveys, relies on self-reporting. Self-reporting is always biased and false. So how do we get people to speak truthfully? Conflict.
4) So I developed King Of The Hill Games to generate conflict. I would assert statements that would bait people into conflict. And I’d attack the same sacred, convention, or taboo from multiple angles multiple times. This caused moral panic and attracted large numbers of people.
5) The secret is to ‘exhaust the conversation’ because it is only just before people give up. When they are exhausted. When they are desperate, but still in moral panic, they expose their most reductive -most truthful – intuitions.
6) The method you use to exhaust their dishonesty, particularly with those in moral panic, who then use GSRRM to disapprove, shame, ad hom, lie, evade, and deny, is to reflect their insult, and then restate the central argument. It’s painfully time-consuming. That’s why it’s hard.
7) This strategy was extremely successful even among people who understood what I was doing. It also makes people hate you like they (can) hate therapists and (do) prosecutors.
8) So in one’s search for truth it’s a brutally unpleasant method of circumventing the sacred, conventional, and taboo, in order to discover the first principles that cause us to avoid inquiry into the sacred, conventional, and the taboo. The abyss in the mirror gazes back.
9) However, as we can see, by eliminating these sources of ignorance, we discover those first principles, that allow us to see what had henceforth been obscured. And in doing so discover how to solve the great problems of the day.
10) It’s painful. It makes people hate you. It makes people avoid you. But in the end, if you deliver them from evil, by that work, you can often be tolerated if not quite forgiven. 😉
At least sometimes. 😉
-Curt Doolittle
-The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 19:33:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634276183108997124
Bo, (all);
FWIW: Social media is the cheapest means of conducting otherwise impossible tests of how humans signal, negotiate, undermine, deny, deceive, and defraud that’s ever been possible.
Most of my work on ‘truth’ consists of ‘sciencing’ the logic and grammar of denying, suggestion, deception, lying and fraud, and anti-social, anti-political behavior. And the sex differences in doing so are perhaps one of the greatest contributions to behavioral science in recent years.
So, it’s no wonder no one has done a significant body of work on ‘human lying’ before I stumbled into it.
But that says something else about social media:
Without the threat of a slap or fist in the face – or worse, humans demonstrate behavior they would otherwise report. And humans get away with canceling the otherwise could not.
Thus solving the problem of social science: surveys are useless. And controlled testing is almost useless. But as we have learned from Economics: demonstrated behavior tells the truth. And social media is the psychological and social science equivalent of the telescope or microscope. And the science(logic) of lying is the behavioral equivalent of the discovery of the calculus.
Humans are fascinating. At least some insight into behavioral science has been possible because of it.
-Curt Doolittle
– The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @EPoe187
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 17:41:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634248240731176960
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634230751041400832
Bo, (all);
FWIW: Social media is the cheapest means of conducting otherwise impossible tests of how humans signal, negotiate, undermine, deny, deceive, and defraud that’s ever been possible.
Most of my work on ‘truth’ consists of ‘sciencing’ the logic and grammar of denying, suggestion, deception, lying and fraud, and anti-social, anti-political behavior. And the sex differences in doing so are perhaps one of the greatest contributions to behavioral science in recent years.
So, it’s no wonder no one has done a significant body of work on ‘human lying’ before I stumbled into it.
But that says something else about social media:
Without the threat of a slap or fist in the face – or worse, humans demonstrate behavior they would otherwise report. And humans get away with canceling the otherwise could not.
Thus solving the problem of social science: surveys are useless. And controlled testing is almost useless. But as we have learned from Economics: demonstrated behavior tells the truth. And social media is the psychological and social science equivalent of the telescope or microscope. And the science(logic) of lying is the behavioral equivalent of the discovery of the calculus.
Humans are fascinating. At least some insight into behavioral science has been possible because of it.
-Curt Doolittle
– The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 17:41:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634248240898908167
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634230751041400832