I'd like a more precise definition of "misinformation" before judging this proposal.
There is nothing bad in strengthening people's skills in the scientific method, educating them about cognitive biases and teaching them how do be aware about the sources and context of statements.
What worries me about the proposed method is that it does not work without any kind of objective sense of truth: Which statements you present as "truth" and which as "falsehood" is completely arbitrary - it just depends on the kind of weakened strawman argument you present. This makes it more a political propaganda tool that can be used to present your side's narrative as the absolute truth. And that feels sinister and downright authoritarian.
(Even if you're a True Patriot for whatever side you're on and believe manipulating people like this is just and moral for the cause: Keep in mind that the other side could use the exact same inoculation strategy against you)
I think we should acknowledge that currently the world is in a deep epistemic crisis: We're back in a cold war situation where there are (at least) two deeply incompatible explanations of the world's power structures, each one seen as the "obvious truth" by billions of people. The differences have become so irreconcilable that we've already arrived at a point of open war between the two sides.
I think this situation should give you pause when thinking about absolute (political) truths.
The “Truth” is a perturbation of existential reality. And the “truth” is a figment of mind. And “integrity” is the consistency between the two. Notice that “truth” does not need to be identical to Truth, only an approximation that does not contradict.
Information is the removal of uncertainty, or the resolve of potential (as distributed among probabilities.) Notice potential and probability are different aspects of the same thing. Potential being an existential phenomena and probability as a mathematical construct.
Science is solely concerned with aligning the mental model of truth with existential Truth. Anything otherwise is the same cult worship as any branch of speculation (even constructive). Science is a guide, it is not the solution for practical understanding (that would be deductive and inductive reasoning.)
Misinformation, ignorance, and confusion are the DEFAULT STATE OF MIND (in a universe governed by entropy, that’s “potential distribution”, not “number of states”, as states are a measured resolve not the possibility of resolve.)
Can people be inoculated against misinformation? Only through self doubt, and doubt of anything that cannot be reliably measured as a resolve.
Undeceive the self! We are all ignorant, confused, and uncertain first, even the wise!
Most people who spread misinformation deliberately tend to have low confidence, seek social validation, and have highly forced extroversion. These people don’t care about the accuracy or validity of the information they channel because their only goal is some form of social dominance and their low confidence continuously accounts for their reinforced cognitive conservatism. Furthermore these people tend to honestly believe the misinformation they push so long as it contributes towards their social goals (gullible yet forceful).
If, somehow, these people could be altered with different non-social goals it would cure a substantial portion of the problem.
Just make it illegal to vote for Republicans and the "misinformation" AKA "information that makes people vote against Democrats" crisis is solved forever!
I'd like a more precise definition of "misinformation" before judging this proposal.
There is nothing bad in strengthening people's skills in the scientific method, educating them about cognitive biases and teaching them how do be aware about the sources and context of statements.
What worries me about the proposed method is that it does not work without any kind of objective sense of truth: Which statements you present as "truth" and which as "falsehood" is completely arbitrary - it just depends on the kind of weakened strawman argument you present. This makes it more a political propaganda tool that can be used to present your side's narrative as the absolute truth. And that feels sinister and downright authoritarian.
(Even if you're a True Patriot for whatever side you're on and believe manipulating people like this is just and moral for the cause: Keep in mind that the other side could use the exact same inoculation strategy against you)
I think we should acknowledge that currently the world is in a deep epistemic crisis: We're back in a cold war situation where there are (at least) two deeply incompatible explanations of the world's power structures, each one seen as the "obvious truth" by billions of people. The differences have become so irreconcilable that we've already arrived at a point of open war between the two sides.
I think this situation should give you pause when thinking about absolute (political) truths.
Insightful. One may even say this is “wise.”
To deconstruct…
The “Truth” is a perturbation of existential reality. And the “truth” is a figment of mind. And “integrity” is the consistency between the two. Notice that “truth” does not need to be identical to Truth, only an approximation that does not contradict.
Information is the removal of uncertainty, or the resolve of potential (as distributed among probabilities.) Notice potential and probability are different aspects of the same thing. Potential being an existential phenomena and probability as a mathematical construct.
Science is solely concerned with aligning the mental model of truth with existential Truth. Anything otherwise is the same cult worship as any branch of speculation (even constructive). Science is a guide, it is not the solution for practical understanding (that would be deductive and inductive reasoning.)
Misinformation, ignorance, and confusion are the DEFAULT STATE OF MIND (in a universe governed by entropy, that’s “potential distribution”, not “number of states”, as states are a measured resolve not the possibility of resolve.)
Can people be inoculated against misinformation? Only through self doubt, and doubt of anything that cannot be reliably measured as a resolve.
Undeceive the self! We are all ignorant, confused, and uncertain first, even the wise!
Most people who spread misinformation deliberately tend to have low confidence, seek social validation, and have highly forced extroversion. These people don’t care about the accuracy or validity of the information they channel because their only goal is some form of social dominance and their low confidence continuously accounts for their reinforced cognitive conservatism. Furthermore these people tend to honestly believe the misinformation they push so long as it contributes towards their social goals (gullible yet forceful).
If, somehow, these people could be altered with different non-social goals it would cure a substantial portion of the problem.
Just make it illegal to vote for Republicans and the "misinformation" AKA "information that makes people vote against Democrats" crisis is solved forever!
/s