To see how this is clearly wrong, consider these two extreme cases: 2/
A serious reasoning error that is particularly common among educated people is to argue that if a study hasn't been done on a particular question we have 'no data', and therefore no basis on which to form beliefs or act.
This is incorrect and dangerous. 1/
To see how this is clearly wrong, consider these two extreme cases: 2/
But we can estimate the likelihood just fine! To start with we can just check the base rate of all vaccine trials.
What fraction of all vaccine trials in history have had +ve results? 3/
b. Imagine now that the vaccine trial results have come back positive. But by chance all the vaccines were given in a blue room.
So, will the vaccine still work if given in a red room? I guess we have 'no data'.
4/
That is plainly ridiculous — we understand the causal mechanism and it doesn't involve room colour, so in fact we can give a near definitive answer to that question. 5/
The error does most damage when we need to move fast in an uncertain environment. 7/
What complete bollocks! 8/
But even if they didn't, we could look at the base rate among all vaccines — what fraction of all vaccines offer protection for ~6 months after the first dose? 9/
Furthermore, we know how vaccines work, and people who are experts in immune reactions probably have a trained intuition on how likely one is to get immunity after a first exposure to an antigen. 10/
If they think one shot will work with 70% probability or 30% probability, that's a big update either way. 11/
But that's normal and fine, and they can go in an expected value calculation nonetheless. 12/
They call giving one dose 'risky' but if we were already planning to give one dose we could equally say two doses is wildly risky — because you only vaccinate half as many people!) 13/
No two cases are exactly the same, and we always have to reason from nearby analogies — which means we always have relevant information we can use to guide a decision. 14/
More from For later read
The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
"propaganda is often not used for indoctrination, but rather to signal the government\u2019s strength in being able to afford significant resources and impose on its citizens...not meant to 'brainwash', but rather to forewarn the society about how strong it is" https://t.co/mFAurhEHeO pic.twitter.com/WXKKJaPqWQ
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 18, 2020
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Authoritarians do not use propaganda for brainwashing, "but to demonstrate their strength in social control...propaganda may need to be dull and unpersuasive, to make sure citizens know it is propaganda when they see it and hence get the implicit message" https://t.co/PqRpxjaIPL pic.twitter.com/1y67d2RCjB
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 19, 2020
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
I shared this on my FB page and asked, can ya really blame him?
I was half kidding. I also assumed someone would think of what I did pretty quickly and waiting for the comment to mention what I assumed was obvious.
The timing. I was sure someone else had thought of it.
But no one did. 20+ comments in people discussed the morality or bad sense or libertarian perspectives. Someone even said I’m thinking about doing that. No one said what I thought was obvious. Have you thought of it? Is it obvious to you?
Here’s a clue...recognize it?
How about this?
The author discusses it with Mike Wallace in 1958
I was half kidding. I also assumed someone would think of what I did pretty quickly and waiting for the comment to mention what I assumed was obvious.
The timing. I was sure someone else had thought of it.
Columbia professor: I do heroin regularly for 'work-life balance' https://t.co/6aq9cnGfPG pic.twitter.com/3OmmaHKORx
— New York Post (@nypost) February 19, 2021
But no one did. 20+ comments in people discussed the morality or bad sense or libertarian perspectives. Someone even said I’m thinking about doing that. No one said what I thought was obvious. Have you thought of it? Is it obvious to you?
Here’s a clue...recognize it?
How about this?
The author discusses it with Mike Wallace in 1958
