on lies and misinformation

[sushi]

lies and misinformation is a norm in the information age

i wish to discuss the truthfulness of information and the difficulty of discerning between facts and fiction

what are facts and what is fiction?
how to seperate facts from fiction, either from another person's mouth or reports , news, financial news etc,. How to tell if someone is talking BS?

i think the criterion of truth is related and descripitive of anything that happens or can happen on this earth, as this is the purpose of information.


anything else, possibilities and predictions, can be classified as pesudofacts or lies.
also i wont go on speculating about what another person thinks or his character, as this is an area that can be filled with lies.

 

[ZenRaiden]

When it comes to politics its default lies.
When it comes to science with good sources its probably true.
When it comes to medicine its only true for decade or two before turn over.
When it comes to math its more or less true mostly until better concept come around.
When it comes to social stuff its mostly what people make of it. Ergo religion and tradition.
When it comes to technology it either works it does not.
When it comes to news its mostly crap.
When it comes to schools its mostly outdated.
When it comes to food labels its mostly crap.
When it comes to statistics its 90 percent bullshit.
When it comes to interpretations its mostly dilettantes doing that for us.

 

[dr froyd]

i was thinking about this the other day after watching this wall street journal video/report on something fairly boring: how china now pivots away from buying US corn to buying brazilian corn, due to the change in the geopolitical climate or whatever. They are doing this to "wean itself off its reliance on US corn production".

Spoiler

it's a very informative video, with stats and graphs, and an interview with some sort of expert. Obviously this is a very reputable source, and it's economy news – which should be reliable and not politicized.

except the entire thing is disinformation; china has always bought more grain from brazil than from US, and the reason for the slight increase this year is due to bad crops in US (i follow this type of data due to work). While the basic facts about grain production are true in this video, they omit certain things and add certain things to convey a message the journalists invented. Why did they do that? Because that message fits the current prevailing narrative, and it makes for a nice little spooky story (look how the BRICS countries are ganging up on US!).

i've had a few experiences at this point where i have first-hand knowledge of an event and then see how it is portrayed in the media. It is always grossly distorted and packaged into something that fits some sort of narrative. What you read in the news is usually merely a confirmation of prevailing biases and conensuses of a certain demographic. Almost invariably it is supposed to tap into one of your basic emotions like fear.

my general rule is that everything you get from the media is BS until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. The only info you can trust is "atomic facts" – stuff like "there was a volcano eruption in place x". Any sort of interpretation or commentary on events should be treated as narrative spinning.

i mostly only read news to look at what kind of narratives are floating around. If there is information I actually need (like what china plans to do with their grain imports), i go to sources that are specialized in that, sources that have certain skin in the game in terms of the reliability of their information. For example in this case, USDA provides analyses and statistics on grain trade; it's just raw numbers. Journalists, of course, have zero skin in the game. They can write whatever nonsense they like, they will not lose their job (as long as they stick to politically correct disinformation).

 

[Hourglass]

The source of credibility of information can come from an individual or an institution.

It can be verified but even if verified still leaves you to engage “critical thinking” to get closer to what may or may not be the “truth”.

Lies and untruths are not the same.

Data and facts are not the same.

Sometimes I ignore popular media altogether because it is just noise. This is not to say unpopular media is then correct because that is not always true.

But, to avoid consuming wasteful or unhelpful content, hyperselectivity is needed unless you surround yourself in such a way to receive less “noise”.

People and institutions are making money off media consumption and clickbait is prevalent. That is a large part of the driving force because many people think this is the only way to “add value” to society.

The bar each individual sets for quality before consumption of content is variable.

There are tradeoffs between freedom of speech and selectively qualified information.

It all depends on who or what you trust, what your biases are, and whether you can distinguish between bias, reasoning, “objectivity”, “subjectivity”, etc

 

[birdsnestfern]

Just about everything is made up, its a story and its trying to sell you something.
Just don't take anything too seriously, thats all. Same with your own story. Its just a story you tell yourself.
However, you can simply appreciate every moment, good or bad and it will lighten it all up.
Appreciate it and be lighter in heart. Share what you can.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Could be a lie? Could be a truth? Who knows. : _)

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[sushi]

thanks for the input, the problem with language is that is full of room to make lies and distortions.

it is especially common with financial and investing information, where 60% is prediction. You can predict anything without taking responsibilty for your claim.

shit, people's mouths lie all the time about their experiences. It makes criminal investigators such a hard job.