Found 6 comments on HN
pdfernhout · 2018-06-23 · Original thread
Thanks for the reply and the list of professions -- make sense.

Although at least for police, there are some issues of their typical training creating excessive false positives when interrogating suspects -- as discussed in a chapter of this book: "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts -- 2007 -- by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson"

Musk is apparently interested in dealing with information overload of questionable media with his new crowd-sourced "Pravduh" idea -- so we'll see how that effort pans out.

Some more criticism of that is here: "For a consumer-run media to work, mass participation is necessary. This isn’t unfeasible with the internet being so widely available. However, the quality of that participation is also important. If just anyone—troublemaker or pure hearted—can rate the news and influence the opinions of other readers, the problem of fake news is only likely to be exacerbated. Truth is not defined through consensus. There is an abundance of examples of popular opinion being incorrect. And personal biases will certainly decide how people rate what they read. Disagree with the conclusion of an article? Downvote. Didn’t read the whole article but were offended by a particular line? Downvote. Already hate Fox News? Downvote. A culture which decides truth by way of numbers is flawed. Not everyone, and perhaps no-one, is capable of setting aside their political prejudices to make an informed critical decision on a piece of political writing. Perhaps the more polarizing and obvious forms of fake media will be suppressed by Pravda, but at what cost? ... Pravda assumes the role of government in the age of totalitarianism—control over the media. Those who administer the website will have to decide which ratings are worthwhile and which are useless. But who will these regulators be? ..."

It's a tough challenge. And one that will likely be solved by some mix of meshwork, hierarchy, and interfaces (see Manuela De Landa) as I mention here:

Robert Steele, ex-CIA Analyst and champion of "Open Source Intelligence" also has a lot to say on the general issue across what he calls "the seven tribes of intelligence": "This site does NOT advocate political action or any specific policy, but rather seeks to empower the public with sources and methods of what has been called in modern times Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), so that our Collective Intelligence can be applied with structured ethical diligence to produce public wisdom in the public interest. This is the heart of what is called Reflexive Practice–Professional Thinking for a Turbulent World. Since the new book, THE OPEN SOURCE EVERYTHING MANIFESTO: Transparency, Truth, & Trust was published in 2012, we have morphed into being a proponent for Open Source Everything combined with True Cost Economics and Holistic Analytics. The PUBLIC is the political body–this site seeks to serve the public by nurturing public intelligence in the public interest. We intend to help the public to eliminate information asymmetries and data pathologies, and end the rule of secrecy. We support the Collective Intelligence of the public in such as way as to create a direct democracy, collaborative economics, and a prosperous world at peace."

js8 · 2017-08-15 · Original thread
That's true. But humans can't have it both ways. If you obfuscate the language, you are at risk of someone not understanding it and taking it literally. And then a hypocrisy can be revealed.

In one of the previous discussions, I linked to Charta 77. These guys did the same thing - they took the Czechoslovak government for the word that it respects human rights, because it was a signatory of some human rights agreements. They were persecuted.

The same problem you have with tenure. You are saying professors are protected with tenure, but are they really? Unless someone tests the boundaries, then you don't know if it really protects you. So assuming tenure will protect you is, likewise, a dangerous assumption.

Addendum: I would also like to point out this excellent book: That's why Google cannot change its mind even if it wanted to, sadly.

js2 · 2015-07-02 · Original thread
For a more extensive version of this article, see "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)":

This is how they deal with their cognitive dissonance.

x0ner · 2010-12-13 · Original thread
I have found psychology books to be rather interesting in understanding social engineering.

..You get the idea.

dangoldin · 2008-06-27 · Original thread
If you were interested in this, there's a pretty good book that goes into more detail and provides a lot of anecdotes:

Get dozens of book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.