nathaniel 0 #1 October 3, 2006 http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/disinfor.htm Quote Given the context of the human management of information, no stage in the epistemic process - from the initial creation of data to the final use of the corresponding information - is thoroughly transparent. This implies that a certain degree of involuntary disinformation (lack of objectivity, completeness and pluralism) can occur in any IMS [information management system] taken into account. ... Whenever information passes from the sender to the receiver it runs the risk of being corrupted or mutilated. One can think of a medieval copier's oversight , or of the limited space given by a TV programme to a particular event. In the case of the Internet, the increasing facility and speed with which mono- or multimedia documents can be created, manipulated, reproduced and spread makes the problem of involuntary diffusion of disinformation more acute. ... Interactive mass media could give rise to self-disinformation, i.e. a new form of personal disinformation which has so far remained largely a potential problem. . This is a second way in which disinformation engendered via WW[bidirectional]-media differs from disinformation engendered via W[unidirectional]-media (see question 2). Today we are subject to a broad range of information, whether we like it or not. We usually absorb, in a passive way, quite extensive blocks of ready-to-consume information: a whole book, a newspaper, a periodical, an entire radio programme, the whole news on TV, a cinema season and so forth. And while the transformation of mass media into interactive media goes some way towards solving this problem, it also gives rise to new risks. Soon we may be able to personalise the information we need or wish to use, filtering and adjusting it to our tastes (information tailoring). And this means that the possibility will arise of listening only to the few sources we have tailored to our preferences, on a limited number of topics, and with a very specific angle of interpretation. But we shall run far greater risks of disinformation within such a comfortable data niche than those people who nowadays read only the newspaper of their own political party. Believing ourselves to be more and better informed, we would be increasingly conditioned by our idiosyncrasies. Would you believe that somebody had already figured this out back in 1995?My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 October 3, 2006 QuoteSoon we may be able to personalise the information we need or wish to use, filtering and adjusting it to our tastes (information tailoring). And this means that the possibility will arise of listening only to the few sources we have tailored to our preferences, on a limited number of topics, and with a very specific angle of interpretation. It seems to me that news has always been about filtering and adjusting information to what the editors think our tastes are. It's why you have The London Times and The Globe. It's why you have The Wall Street Journal, the USA Today, and the National Enquirer. The difference is, we can now use this information to do it ourselves, so that I may create my own Wall Today Enquirer from my sources. Personally, I find it healthier that what we've been doing. You know, to actually go to the source documents instead of merely reading a reporter's take on them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #3 October 3, 2006 Quote Believing ourselves to be more and better informed, we would be increasingly conditioned by our idiosyncrasies. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 October 3, 2006 QuoteQuote Believing ourselves to be more and better informed, we would be increasingly conditioned by our idiosyncrasies. Does this not set up a paradox? See, by considering those people less informed, you are considering yourself "more and better informed," which would mean that YOU are increasingly conditioned to your own idiosyncracies. This is what happens when values are compared. It's like the kids in college who would tell me, "You can't say that's wrong. It's your own values you are basing it on." They never understood that, if they really believed what they were saying, they never would have told me I was wrong for saying or believing what I said or believed. If you believe that those discussed in the article are lesser informed, then you become increasingly conditioned to your own idosyncracies. See what I mean? Edited to add: the article stated, "And this means that the possibility will arise of listening only to the few sources we have tailored to our preferences, on a limited number of topics, and with a very specific angle of interpretation." Well, that is not inherently bad. I prefer to get NFL coverage on yahoo sports. I don't need the in depth analysis from the Sporting News. I really couldn't care less about Terrell Owens's statistics this season. Of course, my preference would change if I got into fantasy football, which would provide me with the desire for in depth statistical analysis. I dont' need or want the stats now. I'm happy just seeing what's going on. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #5 October 3, 2006 QuoteDoes this not set up a paradox? See, by considering those people less informed, you are considering yourself "more and better informed," which would mean that YOU are increasingly conditioned to your own idiosyncracies. This is what happens when values are compared. It's like the kids in college who would tell me, "You can't say that's wrong. It's your own values you are basing it on." They never understood that, if they really believed what they were saying, they never would have told me I was wrong for saying or believing what I said or believed. If you believe that those discussed in the article are lesser informed, then you become increasingly conditioned to your own idosyncracies. See what I mean? and thus the robot exploded while trying to satisfy his programming - leaving the crew of the Enterprise relatively free to explore other worlds where Kirk could seduce various alien hotties ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #6 October 3, 2006 Quote See, by considering those people less informed, you are considering yourself "more and better informed," which would mean that YOU are increasingly conditioned to your own idiosyncrasies. I know this is SC, but it's not a you-me thing. It's that they would be better informed if they ate their vegetables and considered a wider set of sources than the ones that please them most. It's the spotlight phenomenon, and the self-selection bias. What got me thinking about this is Darius' post on one of the Mark Foley threads asking how someone could delude himself into sleeping soundly at night and abusing children by day, and doing so blatantly and not being paranoid about getting caught. They 'lure' themselves into believing things by shutting out opposing thoughts. Since 1995 the internet has gotten big enough not just that no one person can keep track of it all, but that one person can get mired in a single mindset and occupy himself entirely within it due to the sheer volume of content. For better or worse.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 October 3, 2006 I know it's not a you-me thing. It's human nature, thought. Your thread got me thinking about something I had read a few years ago, and I finally found it. It's in .pdf form here on the apa website. It is titled: "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" Here are the introductory sentences: QuotePeople tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. It isn't always necessarily just getting mired in a mindset. This paper suggests (and I find it actually to make sense of things in my daily life) that people are too stupid to realize that they are stupid, which makes them feel smart. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #8 October 3, 2006 Unskilled and Unaware is about a incompetence being a self-reinforcing trait. Foley was an accomplished politician, until recently anyway. He had decades of experience in the FL state senate and the US House. I don't think he could be fairly marked as incompetent at politics. Flawed very definitely, but not incompetent in the sense of Unskilled and Unaware. He certainly had the presence of mind to resign immediately when the scandal broke. Instead of incompetent I've got a hunch that he rationalized his behavior. Not so much that he thought he could be a better pederast than average, but that he found beliefs and reinforcement for his conduct and sought to continue it for his perversion. Anyway I thought there was some room for spin on the internet / belief systems angle.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #9 October 3, 2006 QuoteWould you believe that somebody had already figured this out back in 1995? I wanted to say this last night... Umberto Eco, Bertrand Russel and Socrates beat you to it before the 'internet' knew about it. Try reading up on "Semiotics". Also consider that any revolutionary idea you attribute to the internet from 1995 has probably been considered a few thousand years ago.... I knew my philosophy degree would come in handy some day..."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 October 3, 2006 There is always room for spin. My spin on the ideas espoused in this thread is, "People being people." People tend to search for things they agree with. They tend to look for people who think like them. We are posting on dropzone.com, a place for skydivers. Whuffos think we're nuts. We don't think we're nuts (we KNOW we are nuts). We get a sense of acceptance from being around others who think similarly. It's human. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
