h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Along those lines, here's something that has had me perplexed for a good long time. It may have no basis in statistical fact and is just my observation.

When right-wingers repeat something over and over again it can work its way into the mainstream and people will readily believe it as truth. When left-wingers do the same it's often perceived as whining, scare-mongering, or sour grapes. I can't provide you with any instances, but it's something which, from my perspective, happens enough to be more than just coincidence.

I reckon that's just a matter of perception.

How about the way that everyone in Britain today wants to be seen as working class?

Saddam does have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Saddam does have Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam does have Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam does have Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam DOES have Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam DOES have Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam DOES have Weapons of Mass Destruction !

Saddam DOES have Weapons of Mass Destruction ! HONEST !!!



Nope - not working.

Omni: I think you're basically talking about another side of the same coin. When a Democrat issues a criticism, that criticism is torn to shreds because that Democrat is operating alone, and the conservative media is a coordinated pack attack. The liberals offer their own opinions, but the conservatives offer the opinion that was relayed to them.

"He's a flip-flopper"
"Flip-flopped..."
"He flip-flops."
"Another flip-flop..."
etc, ad nauseum

<>

I do accept that, but they should be treated with more caution than they are...

I don't think the americans did too badly out of pearl harbour, their hardest to replace ships were on manover at the time and it gave them the excuse to go to war with Germany (Congress had stopped them doing this previously)

Psychotropic drugs are a moral rather than scientific issue. Even if a drug has no side effects, it still changes the behaviour of the inhibitor (thats its purpose after all) If your belief about what a person is centers on how that person chooses to act then even by giving a drug with no side effects your changing that person into someone else. Is that morally equivelent to killing someone and replacing them with someone you like more? Then again aren't other forms of therapy just another way of doing the same thing, but we're more used to them? I think this could need another thread.

We are both being lied to and also told the complete truth at the same time. With no way to distinguish an absolute truth then the only way to sensibly say that we have been lied to is to say that it was the case when we feel that we've been lied to. Even if the lie is the truth and the evidence that made us feel lied to was fabricated. Of course if you found out that it was fabircated you'd feel lied to again so you were being lied to. I don't think it's possible for someone to lie to you and for you to never discover the lie. If you accept what they say then it is a truth of sorts, your own personal truth if you like, it only becomes a lie once you decide you no longer wish to adopt their position as a personal truth (Generally through finding what you belive to be contradictory evidence)

On a more mundane level no I do not belive that microsofts malware removal tool plans to help me. I think I saw a thread about that around here...gah backlogs such a pain.

Are we being lied to?

I'm amazed that anyone would ever think we are not constantly being lied to. Especially where politics and money are concerned.

I think the healthiest approach is to doubt everything and, with regard to important issues, try to find enough information in order to make one's own educated guess as to what the truth of the matter is.

Trusting what politicians say seems extremely naive to me.

Trusting what one's doctor says largely depends on the quality of the doctor/patient relationship. But if *any* medical opinion recommends something like an operation or taking any long-term medication, it is also up to the individual to do their own research (including getting second or even third medical opinions) not just believe what they are being told.

I think a lot of it depends on how responsible people want to be for themselves and their lives. As pedro said in post 7:

<>

I think if one forfeits personal responsibility and simply chooses to believe what they are told, what they read, etc then they have no real right to later complain they have been lied to. If people opt for the 'comfy factor' and don't want to be bothered to think for themselves then I don't know why they complain later on.

Except people love complaining, don't they? And they also seem to like looking for someone or something else to blame for their situations. No, not while things are 'comfy' but later on, when the sh*t hits the fan. I have no patience for these people myself.


az

Are we being lied to?

Constantly and by almost everyone around us.

I work in the media and you can believe me when I tell you that anytime anyone anywhere makes a public statement it is generally at least half bullsh!t. The higher the authority speaking, the greater the percentage of bullsh!t.

Public relations firms, advertising firms, corporate spokespeople, anyone who has a political agenda -- liars.

We all lie and love being lied to (Q:"Do I look fat in this outfit" A:"You never look fat, my darling") Anyone who has ever wanted to sleep with you or wanted to avoid sleeping with you has probably lied at least a teeny bit ("I've never done that with anyone else" - "that was the best ever" - "I have an early class/early meeting/ headache")

We are all susceptible to manipulation through flattery, appeals to emotion, appeals to fears and prejudices, basic dishonesty and intimidation. The "big lie" technique works well as does constant repetition of a lie or getting across disinformation via suggestion (Liar:"A lot of people say Saddam Hussien might have been involved with 9/11, but we haven't proved it yet." Hapless victim of propaganda: "Hmmm, I bet Hussien was behind 9/11")

The solution? Take everything with a grain of salt (especially if it comes from anyone in authority) and as the SALT treaty negociatiors used to say "trust, but verify."
Try to be as truthful as you can about the important stuff ("I love you" "of course I'll still respect you in the morning" "I didn't do it, your honor") and hold others to a high standard of truth on important things ("If elected I promise to..." "In the course of my duties I observed the accused..." "democracy is on the march" "I'm from the government and I'm here to help")

<>

Spot on...

Is it possible to live a week without manipulating someone? (I mean for a normal person not an advertising exec or something) Whats the distinction between a lie and a manipulation? (In moral terms)

I believe all lies are manipulation (subtle or gross) but all manipulation is not necessarily a lie.

*You look lovely in that suit* when an untrue statement is intended to smooth the waters as it were so it's a manipulation. I suppose a lie told to manipulate in a positive way could be entirely excusable if no other form of persuasion can be imagined. Does that mean there are *good* lies?

I think it's what the Brits call being 'tactful', zoomer.



az

I was asking the difference on a moral level rather than the empirical difference. I'm more interested to see if we think we have anyone who could go a week without manipulating someone.

If one takes an absolutist position on the word 'manipulate', than everything is a matter of degree, but the word manipulate does than lose some meaning, since everything comes down to how much is happening, rather than whether it is happening.

A more practical (though possibly more subjective) approach is to consider 'manipulate' to be effectively '[unduly] manipulate', whether through excessive pressure, dishonesty, or some other means, usually with an intention of putting someone in an abnormal state of mind favourable to the manipulator, and that that implies some intent on the part of the maniuplator that is either not in the general interest of the manipulated, or at least where the interests of the manipulator take priority.

If someone I was deeply in love with asked me what they looked like in a particular outfit, I'd try to be essentially honest, though diplomatic.
I suspect I'd be more likely to deliberately distort the truth if I thought the person was upset over some other issue and that being positive might help get them back to a happier state of mind.

I'd find it difficult to think of helping someone to get back to behave as they normally do as manipulative, even if the means used were actually quite devious. Equally, simple means that were used to get people to think unlike themsleves would quite possibly count as manipulation to me.

That does lead to the question of whether I have an accurate and reasonably objective idea of what someone *should* think like. If I do not, it's perfectly possible for me to be considered manipulative by others even if I do not consider myself to be manipulative.

However, from a *moral* point of view, taking an absolutist view where *everything* is maniuplation, and trying to objectively measure the maniuplativeness of some action on a hypothetical scale of 0 to 1 doesn't seem much different to trying to objectively measure the relative benefits to various parties resulting from the change of one party's mental state and trying to estimate how accurate the accuracy of various party's mental models of each other's mind states have been in order to work out if maniuplation is happening or not.

Whether we set a threshold for manipulation above which it is assumed to be morally wrong, or a threshold for confidence about whether immoral mainpulation is happening, the end result can be similar.

Morally speaking, I think it's certainly possible to go a week without *immorally* manipulating someone.

Blair in Yesterday's Independent "I will not take election victory as a vindication for the war"

The actual question makes me feel uneasy as it seems to pre-empt the obvious answer and feels like it implies a very clear power structure of them and us and that events should just be experienced and sufffered not acted upon. How about what should we do to counteract what we consider to be false or some such ? All i mean is that this kind of question to my mind is going to get some very measured informed responses that will do exactly nothing to change anything, just perpetuate the system that it criticises.

Look im not saying that there's a lot of disinformation, but chrissakes, that aint new, we all disinformate ( i got that word from my friend George ) but surely a better, more productive activity is to do something to counter it instead of whinging about it ?

Does anyone feel the same as me on this or am i just in the minority of 1 on this ?

Having been fortunate enough to have spent several years working as a news analyst for various Canadian government agencies, and having had the further advantage of knowing friends who worked in the Pentagon as strategic planners back in 2001, I can answer in the affirmative... yes, you are being lied to.

The machinations of power in this world are very different in actuality from how most of us suppose them to be. Most of what passes for politics is a sideshow aimed at moderating popular dissent.

You can tell that this veil of misinformation is actually directed disinformation, because the so-called official stories generally have holes in them big enough to drive a truck through, and yet not a single so-called journalist can be found who will risk his career by even questioning, let alone denouncing, a popular story.

<

I have noticed that...

Actually, we were watching an episode of Babylon 5 (season 4) last night - "The Illusion of Truth", and it made me realise anew that scepticism is a very good idea when it comes to the news.

I take antidepressants, & they help me tremendously. I have clinical depression. I do agree that they can be given to people who don't really need them, though. They are over-prescribed.

Tammy

Of course we are being lied to. Scientific studies have shown that technology is fueled by conflict and war, and war is fueled by lies, if there were no lies there would be wars and no advancement. The human race would be stuck in the dark ages. So inevitably we must lie and be lied to for our own good and the advancement of the human race.

Or are we being lied to?