Listened to this guy for years until I became aware of what a total faggot he is. All his bullshit with his owl demon Solas was the tipping point for me. I also noticed that he was getting some facts wrong in stories I was well informed about, and I realized there is absolutely no reason to listen to this fucking sperg.
I guess he got arrested in Louisiana, so I don’t think he assaulted his parents.
It sounds like u/BlisteringCold took that to the conclusion of “he’s not reliable,” though. It would only be Gell-Mann Amnesia if he’d failed to make that connection.
Are you sure? The original formulation of the term sounds like he’s talking about the trustworthiness of a specific source, given how he likens it to an individual continuously lying and uses “the newspaper” rather than “a newspaper.”
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
It’s not necessarily bad to apply the principle everywhere, but strictly speaking, that’s not the phenomenon it refers to.
It's conditional upon a person knowing anything. They have to be familiar with some sort of field in order to see when the journos get something wrong.
Most people are so damn retarded that they have expertise nowhere.
We instinctively seek out the simplest and most confirming answer to all things presented to us, so that way our brain can say "case closed" and not have to expend effort on it. Its how stereotypes are formed, its how memes work, etc.
So unless you are actively forcing yourself to question everything presented to you, especially things you agree with, you will end up falling for the trap again.
He's particularly bad when it comes to anything international, but he's more accurate than a lot of sources when it comes to domestic issues, so you could do worse.
Listened to this guy for years until I became aware of what a total faggot he is. All his bullshit with his owl demon Solas was the tipping point for me. I also noticed that he was getting some facts wrong in stories I was well informed about, and I realized there is absolutely no reason to listen to this fucking sperg. I guess he got arrested in Louisiana, so I don’t think he assaulted his parents.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect strikes again.
It sounds like u/BlisteringCold took that to the conclusion of “he’s not reliable,” though. It would only be Gell-Mann Amnesia if he’d failed to make that connection.
It's the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect if he doesn't apply the concept to EVERY person on Youtube, TV, radio, newspapers, everything.
Are you sure? The original formulation of the term sounds like he’s talking about the trustworthiness of a specific source, given how he likens it to an individual continuously lying and uses “the newspaper” rather than “a newspaper.”
It’s not necessarily bad to apply the principle everywhere, but strictly speaking, that’s not the phenomenon it refers to.
I still don’t understand how a person can learn about it and then still trust any mainstream news source.
It's conditional upon a person knowing anything. They have to be familiar with some sort of field in order to see when the journos get something wrong.
Most people are so damn retarded that they have expertise nowhere.
Because the human brain is a complex, lazy organ.
We instinctively seek out the simplest and most confirming answer to all things presented to us, so that way our brain can say "case closed" and not have to expend effort on it. Its how stereotypes are formed, its how memes work, etc.
So unless you are actively forcing yourself to question everything presented to you, especially things you agree with, you will end up falling for the trap again.
He's particularly bad when it comes to anything international, but he's more accurate than a lot of sources when it comes to domestic issues, so you could do worse.
Valid point. He's a fairly private guy so something tells me we might not ever learn the 100% truth on this.
Guys, remember that story where Amazon's new "AI" was just a bunch of Pajeets randomly trying to answer questions? No reason, just asking.