Hard News: The fake news problem
440 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 Newer→ Last
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
It seemed to be less advocacy; more acceptance that superstition is alive and well in the third millennium.
Some say that the propensity , if not compulsion, for superstitious behaviour will prevent Homo sapiens from becoming too dominant over other species.
Surely not a bad thing for all. -
andin, in reply to
Some say that the propensity , if not compulsion, for superstitious behaviour will prevent Homo sapiens from becoming too dominant over other species.
Bit late for that dont you think unless you mean cockroaches, rats, crocodiles and snakes.
Apropo of nothing
That didnt take long. If enough people believe it, its fact, is not superstition at work its a form of mental imbalance -
Is some middle class tosser using"sponsored content” to making sweeping generalisations in a sponsored fake news advertorial about the common mans drinking habits fake news?
This sort of article is EXACTLY the sort of mercenary, constant thrumming drumfire of middle class cultural appropriation and casual disempowerment that fuels the cultural resentment of the inhabitants of Trumpistan and enables the claims of equivalence of the fake news of the alt-right.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Evolution always operates. If Homo sapiens bites the dust , then Homo sapiens ssp. rationalis will have a day (or two) in the sun :-)
-
Homo sapiens ssp. rationalis
you misunderstand evolution.
it doesnt follow any living beings intent
theres another word for that, and it may come to pass.
But not in my lifetime. -
Farmer Green, in reply to
My thesis was that superstition will prove to be a brake on the proliferation of H. sapiens ; the Achilles heel, so to speak.
If H. sapiens spp rationalis is more "fit" in a new changed environment , then it will dominate.
Intent doesn't come in to it. -
Superstition has never been or will it ever be a "brake". And the time scales in the sort of differences you speak of are so short, evolution just wouldnt have kicked in.
The "environment" means just that, not some kind of social organisation. -
Certainly, I would get no pleasure from saying "I told you so" in a sixth mass extinction event.
Also given rationality is learned, and unlearned, I'm not sure it works in a survival of the fittest inherited traits kind of way.
-
Yep, “rationality” is definitely far less an inherited trait than culturally transmitted, and both at individual and societal level it’s subject to widespread and marked fluctuations in response to events, hence not genetically transmitted. On the contrary, there is some evidence that long-term traumatic stress, reducing rationality, can be [heritably] (epi)genetically as well as culturally transmitted. Individual and cultural “rationality” is thus in part a product of long-term stability; it can easily be disrupted by temporary instability, and hence cannot itself represent any inherently stable genetic state.
It is, for example, difficult to imagine that the USA would have sunk to its present level of collective irrationality without the 9/11 attack or some event of similar identity-shattering magnitude.
It is even harder to believe that rationality would be the most prevalent human trait in the face of planetary-scale turmoil. -
So the propensity to superstition does not exist?
Or if it does it is not hard- wired into H. sapiens? -
linger, in reply to
Not sure how you get to that conclusion from anything said above.
The propensity for humans to find overly simple solutions to complex problems is hard-wired (driven by economy of effort for likely benefit, which is a recognised environmental selective pressure). Superstition is one possible outcome. And instability and trauma will make people more likely to seek quick solutions, and to believe superstitions.
The thing is, in many cases, the simple solution works in practice … until it meets a problem for which it is catastrophically wrong. -
Farmer Green, in reply to
I made the assumption that rationality and superstition are polar opposites.
http://innovation.cc/book-reviews/morrison.htm -
linger, in reply to
To some extent they are, but the mistake is to see either as a long-term transferrable trait.
-
Sorry that I am "all over the shop". I find an i-pad to be quite cumbersome sometimes.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Well I would be happy to be wrong about that :-)
The question is about which human behaviours are innate. -
mark taslov, in reply to
The question is about which human behaviours are innate.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20151012-feral-the-children-raised-by-wolves
Which human behviours are innate to individuals? society? species? genus? family? order? phylum? kingdom? domain?
How much has society evolved?
-
John Key to resign as New Zealand Prime Minister and National party leader
False news... . . . .I thought he sounded groggy after his mauling at the hands of Kim Hill this morning, she was in fine form, gonna miss her in the mornings.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Well thank fucking Christ ;) For a moment I thought you were pulling my ponytail.
-
andin, in reply to
He gives one weeks notice and is gone from the top? job in govt, jeez how does that work? Hope he doesnt get any accrued holiday pay
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
accrued holiday pay
That was paid in advance wasn’t it?
$50 million “bonus” from Merrill-Lynch. Heh! -
Who will be next to "head for the hills"?
Turnbull methinks. -
Here is a cool piece of “fake news” . Or is it " gospel truth”? I get confused :-)
“There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
-
David Hood, in reply to
It is false, http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/
It is true that Trump won the countryside and Clinton won the cities, but anywhere promulgating stories like that as fact is spreading known falsehoods and should not be trusted as a source.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Based on what Snopes offers , the true ratio of counties wins looks to be Trump : Clinton= 80:20
-
Bruce Ward, in reply to
Based on what Snopes offers , the true ratio of counties wins looks to be Trump : Clinton= 80:20
So what do counties wins indicate?
I suppose it could be (intentionally?) misleading as it takes no account of the fact that counties have widely differing population counts. Perhaps it could become the start of a 'fake news' story.
Other than that, I doubt that it tells anyone anything useful.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.