Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to.
The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments.
We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought.
I spend a lot of time debating with people who disagree with me politically. It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. So stop trying. Instead, make your point based on common morals, do it with compassion and generosity of spirit, and don't allow the goalposts of the debate to be moved. Throw in like two of couple of your choicest facts and sources, but don't expect them to help. Move on and repeat.
> Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.)
> Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world.
> Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves. This group is about 1% of the population and effectively control the word-thinkers of the world.
I used to really enjoy Adams' blog - he used to be fairly easy to read, conversational, and just controversial enough to be entertaining.
Over the last couple of years though, it seems that he's become obsessed with this whole "master persuader" idea. It made for interesting reading for the first month or so, but it's slowly taken over all of his other content to the point that he now seems afraid to actually express an opinion of his own, instead trying to angle his posts as a "persuasion". He actually seems to be spiralling into madness.
I just checked back and at least he's re-enabled comments now, so maybe there will be some entertaining reading there again (the comments were always the best part).
Reading the blog, it appears this is a subject he's obsessed about his whole life. He wanted to share but held off until the perfect situation presented itself. I'm not sick of it yet, I think it's fascinating. You're right about the comments though, I missed them when they were gone.
Something about this categorization seems ironic to me. Does this mean that Scott Adams sees himself as a "word-thinker", because he is certainly labeling people in coming up with this list.
Even though I have some training, skills in mathematical logic, probabilities and in mathematics in general being very good for spotting bullshit, I still need help. The only thing that actually protects me is this little voice in my head telling me "this guy could be full of bullshit, I'd better check".
But then fact checking is too time consuming, many times I do it, but not often enough. And you can't just wipe clean from your memory whatever you heard. This is the genius behind repetition: if unchallenged, it sticks to your subconscious, whether you want it or not, especially when spoken by people you happen to respect.
So here's the problem, even those of us with a logical, science-oriented mind, that studied the right things in school, even us need help. Do you think that us developers are immune to yellow journalism? Think again. Here's one concrete proof that we can swallow bullshit whole, much like everybody else: https://twitter.com/timbray/status/810157215478755328
The answer is always education and even if you educate a tiny minority, those people can then educate others. And personally I feel like I need that education as well.
I agree with all your reasoning, except I'm unsure what you mean to say with the link.
Are you saying we bought the bullshit when Oracle claimed they wouldn't monetize it? If that's the case, that was never a verifiable statement, or better yet, was never an immutable state either way. I don't think anyone convinced themselves they knew anything from that claim.
That's not the same thing as accepting that someone claims that man landed on the moon. While still hard to verify (really), it still either happened or not. Monetizing Java could change at any time, what was the case yesterday might be changed today, and could be back again tomorrow.
People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of this also applies to myself of course.)
Newton is, I guess, an example of someone very critical in one context and less critical in another (scientific historians rush to correct me).
Still, though, I don't think we can all do enough work on training young people to at least have the tools to think critically. Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility. I think I'd be a much less critical thinker if I had not had that experience.
Critical thinking is a piece of technology that evolved a lot since the Middle Age. I don't think Newton could do much better. If he wasn't at the leading edge on "critical thinking", he was very near it.
And that's something most people choose to ignore, that even "how to think" is something that evolves, and our current standards were created by many people improving on what came before them.
> People know how to think critically in a particular context
I observe that we tend to make an implicit assumption that most statements contain an opinion, perception, and anectotes. It gets harder to think everything in terms of data, e.g. I could ask "What people? Did you perform a study yourself?" for your statement, however, if it aligns with my perception or makes sense even without hard data, I'm not going to do it.
> Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility
> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate.
You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O
What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that doesn't go off the rails) and not? Politics, economics (because it's related to politics?), and religion - no. No rationality to be had there. Anything that have to do with harmful invisible vapors (vaccines, electromagnetics, radiation, environmental toxins) and health - no. Any form of "alternative lifestyle", including digital nomadicism (!) - no. Law - all over the map. Computer programming - all over the map.
In fact, right now, I'm trying to think of something that humans debate rationally, and I'm having a difficult time thinking of one (I'm sure they exist - but I'm only lightly caffeinated so far).
Regardless of my inability to think of topics that we (humans) can debate about rationally, why do some topics "work" for rationality and some not?
Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part.
What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea.
More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility in their minds as someone they may disagree with, but can respect. And it opens the door to the perception that maybe the point of view I represent isn't directly opposed to their tribe. For people I tend to debate repeatedly, I can tell there's a shift over time.
Not to mention the fact that I'm not always right. I learn a lot from people who aren't already inclined to mindlessly Like everything I post. Debating people makes me a better thinker and persuader.
But I think most importantly, I do it for the audience. I suspect that in many of these debates, the lurkers are much less entrenched in their point of view than me or the person I'm debating with. Those are the people I really want to move. And that's a big reason why it's crucial to be civil, sincere, and avoid blowing up on people. Nothing turns off a neutral onlooker like someone being an asshole, even if it's righteous.
That makes a ton of sense. I almost always forget that there is an audience -- and that the audience, because they aren't in participant mode might well be less in their chosen position. Thanks!
[ It still baffles me why people would take on a non-rational position on (say) power generation. It's just engineering and physics. Anyone can look up the math in any library - it doesn't really even change that often! ]
Even the most fundamental comparison between two energy production techniques requires hours or days to calculate all relevant aspects: cost, production cycle, transmission, and storage. It isn't that surprising that anything that requires that much work could be considered as an article of faith.
Most people take the analysis provided to them by their trusted authorities: newspapers, magazines, television, public figures, esteemed friends and family; and form their world view based off of that. "Team" membership and identification also are prominent.
I think "Team" membership is key -- it tells which opinions they are likely to listen to. Any team can rustle up a credentialed opinionator that didn't do the math themselves (or will say anything, just, because) to round arm the rubes with talking points to unleash onto Reddit (or wherever). It would be a quite the dance spectacle, if it didn't make my stomach hurt. And, the worst thing is? My brain is just as broken (for the purpose of thinking rationally) as any of theirs! :-O
I will always remember what my neuroscience professor told me in college: "You know, after having worked in this cutting edge field for almost two decades, with some of the greatest thinkers in the world, I have learned one very important thing. Given all of the mounting research, vast amounts of data, and incredible imaging technologies, at the end of the day people will believe whatever they damn well want to."
> "... at the end of the day people will believe whatever they damn well want to."
I finally learned this and, after long denial about it, now "know" this as a fact about the universe. Or at least humans. That humans operate 1000% out of beliefs and that they didn't come to those beliefs rationally. And that you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.
It's actually been hard for me to come to grips with this emotionally and to integrate it into my day-to-day operational instincts/intuition.
And how. Starting with existence of those as such, and to how to define ones, and who can be rightly considered belonging to either one of them. All the time.
I'll go even further: not only do most people not know how to think critically, but they are explicitly hostile (often extremely) to the idea of thinking or conversing about a controversial topic. Rarely do I ever see someone say "I don't know", and rarely have I observed anyone changing their mind, or conceding that their "opponent" may have some valid information they hadn't considered.
Thank you. I've always been a facts based argument type, and while I'm extremely proud of some of my best work, I never thrived in the places where I did it, and precisely for this reason. I wish I had studied rhetoric much earlier.
As an aside, I read a book on rhetoric (Thank You for Arguing) written by a guy who is extremely passionate about it, to the point where he persuaded me to teach it to my 4yo. It was extremely effective. He picked up negotiation quickly, and has been analyzing (if you ask him, he can tell you whether his argument is ethos, pathos, or logos) and tuning his arguments as he gets older. Now he uses negotiation and reasoning for everything. While I feel like sometimes it works against me (I have to negotiate everything with him), he now knows how to compromise in a negotiation so that arguments don't end in tantrums. And I honestly feel like he'll be better off with that one skill than he ever would with a trust fund or inheritance.
I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue.
I mean, you can argue facts all day long but if someone believes that having a bigger gun makes them right -- what's the point? You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes?
>You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes?
This statement, my friends, is how most persuasion works in the world.
No facts, just statements like:
"You really think...?"
If the person responds with "It's plausible - why not?", then you say:
"I mean, Come On!"
While it may be hard for some to believe, I write this comment with full seriousness and not as a joke. This really is how most persuasion works.
It's been mentioned multiple times on HN, but Influence, by Cialdini, is a great read. Especially the chapter on Social Proof.
I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics.
Hence, his social proof was stronger than my mathematical proof.
I used to get upset about how I was working amongst the top engineers in one of the top companies in the world, and how illogical they seemed. But then I read the book and realized that's the "natural" order of things, and most people will not escape it.
Academia was a nice place where this was less of a problem.
> I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics.
It can be that the PhD's "view of how the system under examination works" indicates that your mathematics doesn't actually apply to the system. At that point, it doesn't matter how error-free your mathematics is.
Is the PhD right about that? They might have higher odds than you, not by virtue of being a PhD, but perhaps by virtue of being more of a domain expert. (Though even that is no guarantee...)
>It can be that the PhD's "view of how the system under examination works" indicates that your mathematics doesn't actually apply to the system. At that point, it doesn't matter how error-free your mathematics is.
If they pointed out that it doesn't apply, sure.
However, this is how it usually happened (meant to put in the original post but forgot):
He looks at his colleague and asks "Have you ever heard of this?" The other person shakes his head. Hence, rejected.
That's why the chapter is called social proof.
No commentary about my mathematics, or how applicable it is.
I'm not talking really complex stuff. We had a model of a physical process (equations) that they had put into their software. The equations were in a reference document we all had access to. Occasionally they would say something like "This cannot be modeled because the equation in our model is not monotonic". At which point I take the equation, compute the derivative (sorry, this example did have calculus), and show that it is monotonic.
Response: "Look, everyone knows such a system is not monotonic!" (note again the socialness of their proof)
I'll give you a reverse example.
(Details varied to simplify the example).
We had a circuit (netlist) whose output (e.g. current) we were interested in. I was tasked with tweaking some of the components such that we hit a target current. I did it, but did not modify any components' capacitance. However, some of the frequency output was impacted, which we normally control by varying the capacitances in the circuit.
Their response: You screwed up - we told you not to change the capacitance!
Me: The capacitances are all the same. They are unchanged. You can verify for yourself.
Them: Impossible. I've been doing this for 15 years, and have never heard of the frequency changing for reasons other than capacitance.
Me: Here are the actual equations for the frequency measurement that you're worried has changed (I know them because I coded them into the system!). Capacitance is not an explicit input, but can creep in indirectly. It's not obvious to me from the equations what role capacitance even plays here (linear, quadratic, exponential, lognormal, etc). Can you point out to me why you're so certain?
Them: Look. The frequency never changes unless you change the capacitance. Everyone who has done this for years knows that (and he was right - everyone did say that). Go redo all this work.
So I redid it with the exact same result (wasn't really hard - I version controlled my work).
Them: Unacceptable. I will not accept this work unless you can explain to me why the frequency is changing when it shouldn't.
Me: It's a complex circuit. I didn't design it. I'm not a circuits guy. I don't know the intricacies.
Them: You're going to have to figure it out.
Me: I'll go to the circuit designer (in another team).
(Walk to his cube - he's out for a week on vacation).
Them: Sorry, we cannot continue this work unless this is resolved.
(Twiddle my thumbs for a week till the designer returns. Then ask him).
Circuit Designer: Of course it can change even if the capacitances don't change. Why are they saying it only changes with capacitance? Based on what?
Me: Based on (making the quotes symbol with hands) "everyone knows". (Yes, I really did respond that way - the absurdity was getting to me by then).
Designer: Let me talk to them.
Overall, 2 weeks wasted because "everyone knows". I think in the whole team, I was the only one who questioned the tribal wisdom. Whenever someone joined the team, they were taught this incorrect tribal wisdom. I was in the (un)fortunate position to have done some work that just happened to go against the tribal wisdom. I had to defend myself, and that forced me to question the wisdom (once I determined I had done all the steps correctly).
But they did not have to explain why they believed what they did. I had to explain why I did not believe what they did. They were the ones making an assertion about the relationship between capacitance and frequency. However, it was my job to disprove it - not their job to prove it. Essentially, I was put in a position to prove a negative, because they already had their proof (social proof). My proof was very clear: I had a clear counterexample to their theory, but it didn't hold up to their proof. They were not willing to examine my counterexample.
The guy grilling me who wasted 2 weeks wasn't just anyone. He was one of the most senior engineers in the company. Very sharp guy who deserved his post. Not an idiot.
People pull the "everyone knows" and "it's obvious" card all the time. It usually happens for two reasons 1) they don't actually understand the argument or subject matter enough to explain what's going on or 2) they don't want to spend the time arguing on something they are certain is true
It's called proof by contradiction. I thought it was self evident that Kim Jong-un wouldn't listen to reason once he had nukes, but perhaps you know better.
First: In case you felt that way, I did not write this to criticize you. I'm not saying you're wrong or you're trying to manipulate people. I'm highlighting the persuasion tactic you used.
>I thought it was self evident that Kim Jong-un wouldn't listen to reason once he had nukes, but perhaps you know better.
Thing is, I don't know better! Tell me how you know better.
And "self-evident" is really code for "everyone knows..."
If I said "Sure, I think he can listen to reason just like all the other nuclear leaders", what is your response?
Well, I can really only go on by what I read in the press. All that killing he's doing to squash dissent. Doesn't sounds like spends much time listening to any rational argument beyond he who can kill people makes the rules.
And, to be fair, that argument seems to work for a lot of people (looking at you, Putin, Assad, etc).
For sure, there are hard-nosed people out there. I agree with you that arguing with these folks is a waste of time. But they are vastly outnumbered. A functional society requires those hardliners to be marginalized and the oppression they advocate to be rejected. For that to happen, there needs to be some baseline solidarity amongst diverse people who mostly simply want safety, opportunity, and justice. It's not a stable equilibrium. It takes constant work to shore up that consensus and good faith, and avoid the collapse into centralized or distributed authoritarianism.
I agree. Many parts of the world work that way, quite explicitly. I'm pretty sure it's the human default. And yet, we have liberal democracies that are at least somewhat functional. I'm interested in how best to work within that scope. I've got a lot less to say about how you achieve progress in a society ruled by warlords, even though that's very timely issue in many places.
> We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought.
Your comment was perfect as a lead up to this story about this Table of Knowledge group in Iowa:
I bet there are a large number of these informal groups around the country. Listening to how they reason and what their units of reasoning are, which are not necessarily facts, is elucidating.
That's a great article, thanks for posting. I find it deeply saddening that so many people ask "How could people vote for Trump, what are they thinking!", but have less than zero interest (aka hostility) in any answers, and there are many, to that question.
Problem is, the truth is pretty hard to determine based on the usual suspects (studies, facts etc):
"I worry that most smart people have not learned that a list of dozens of studies, several meta-analyses, hundreds of experts, and expert surveys showing almost all academics support your thesis – can still be bullshit." -- http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s...
Yikes. what we really need is to discuss the practicality of citing studies performed by third-parties, and of trying to "prove" truth individually rather than collect evidence over time, as a community.
> do it with compassion and generosity of spirit
This is just good-faith, and it needn't be "compassion and generosity" which can easily be abused.
It is entirely possible to have a factual debate about facts and logical conclusions. It is, of course, impossible to make factual debate about opinions, moral principles and preferences, and politics is a mix of both kinds, heavily skewed to non-factual side, unfortunately.
Still, I think there's demand for factual discussion even in politics. That's why "fact checking" became a thing and why "fake news" became a popular pejorative. Unfortunately - and probably inevitably, given the stakes - "fact checking" was taken over by opportunists and turned into partisan mudsligning, and "fake news" has been turned into a club for bashing political opponents. But the demand is still there. It's just that MSM media structures may be by now so corrupt that they are institutionally unable to satisfy it.
So we need a course called: bullshitting people who want to be bullshitted?
I'd worry a lot about the personal/existential implications. Gramsci says that the demagogue is the first one bitten by the snake of his own demagoguery.
Yeah but being a demagogue is a lot of fun. It feels like you're telling me the wealthy are suffering, or the role reversal in Hegel's master slave relationship.
> The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments.
I'd like to see the principle of calling bullshit taught in high schools.
What a cynical view - and coming from me, that's pretty bad.
Things can improve, and in fact, they have improved quite a bit over the last several centuries.
The appeal to authority of the ancient Greeks is sometimes a good one I guess, but not always. For instance, the Greeks "knew" a lot of things that they were flat wrong about.
acjohnson55, your observation is spot on. There is one suggestion that I have for 'rational' people: Band together, discriminate against the 'irrational' people in your lives and help out each other. That is one way to preserve your sanity. Often I have found that 'Rational' people also tend be be non-discriminatory and very accommodating on the non-rational people to a point where it hurts their interests. Contact me if interested.
I really like this idea, though struggle to understand the effectiveness.
My guess is that the type of person who falls victim to 'bullshit' theory or messages is not the kind of person who is willing to dedicate time to an online course about learning to be more critical in thought. 'Bullshit' thinking has been largely successful because its an effortless pathway to establishing an opinion on something (queue System 1/System 2 thinking).
Conversely, the people who would be willing to read this sort of content are likely the people who are already reasonable skeptical about what they take as face value.
I think everyone, engaged and skeptical or otherwise can miss falsehoods if it aligns with their values/beliefs already. Taking something like this should, in theory, give you tools to make sure that even if you really want to believe what you are reading/hearing because it aligns with your world view (or worse, comes from a source you respect and trust) then you can still determine how honest or accurate it is.
The latest SGU (Skeptics Guide to the Universe) podcast touched on your point, and how everyone is susceptible to false hoods particularly when those opinions make up a persons identity. Someone who identifies as 'liberal' or 'conservative' is more likely to fight facts that go against their beliefs. One possible solution presented, was to always attempt to self identify as a skeptic who is okay changing opinions as new facts come in. It is not an easy thing to do because 1) it's a lot of work and 2) you're outside of most of the big popular groups.
I see what you're saying, but since I really strongly think my being skeptical guards me from missing falsehoods regardless, I'm not going to take this.
Like Climate Science? I have never seen so much bullshit and bullshit artists in one place except for DC, which is all bullshit all the time. Academia is the same, almost 100% bullshit these days--not much real science going on outside of medical research, physics, math, stuff you can't readily fake or make up as you desire. The software business runs on unbelievable amounts of bullshit and bullshit's brother, hype.
I know exactly how and why it happens, too. It's human nature to want to be liked and be successful. It is human nature to go with the flow when funding is at stake. It is human nature to want to be accepted by one's peers and to impress one's superiors. Also, it is extremely hard to innovate these days when so many people are out there doing the exact same things as you are.
Unfortunately, all that behavior has taken humanity down some dark paths before.
No, we were not talking about climate science. Actually, we were talking about people like you who miss falsehoods and believe fashionable political propaganda instead of peer reviewed settled science, because it aligns with their prejudices and world views. So thanks for illustrating the point so unwittingly.
>My guess is that the type of person who falls victim to 'bullshit' theory or messages is not the kind of person who is willing to dedicate time to an online course about learning to be more critical in thought
Obviously it's not about them. There are still millions that understand the problem and are willing to think more critically -- but don't have all the skills, expertise etc to distinguish bullshit in its myriad forms.
Some statistics bullshit in the media for example is obvious, but other is so well hidden, it takes deeper knowledge of math and statistics, or abstract reasoning etc to recognize it.
>Conversely, the people who would be willing to read this sort of content are likely the people who are already reasonable skeptical about what they take as face value.
Reasonable skeptical people are getting duped every day in all kinds of subtle ways. Having the skills to recognize those, would be nice.
Is it going to solve the problem of bullshit? Probably not.
Is it going to help the situation, by providing some accessible resources that will help some people? I'd say so. There'll be more people with a better understanding of bullshit.
What more can you really expect from an initiative?
I agree that the demographic coverage is not even remotely 100%. Would it be fair to generalize your 'target audience critique' as "this can not possibly be of help to the unwashed masses"?
Here's my take on the general demographic critique. (This equally and critically applies to 'encryption & privacy' efforts that we geeks keep circling back to here and elsewhere.)
First a categorical definition from uncle Marx so that attendant HN Marxists do not accuse me of 'petite bourgoise' biases :)
I agree with Marx: The lumpen proletariat, as you note, are "not the kind of [people] who [are] willing to dedicate time to an online course." Equally, as we famously know, they remain unmoved by the fact that their idle chatter and exchanges of pixelated naughty bits are recorded and reviewed by "public servants" in service of the establishment class.
Thus, per this view, it is (as you point out) a /waste/ of effort to either try to equip them with cognitive tools, or, "user friendly" privacy tools.
One of my little pet theories is that the 1% -- the ratios are rough/symbolic -- require the psychological assent of the 10%. And, in my view, the 1% are critically depdendent on them for the operation and maintenance of the establishment order.
This 10% is courted, conditioned, and then integrated into the establishment order. Sometimes they are identified in school, taken under the wing of a mentor who gently shape their thoughts into a form suitable for fitting into the available slots. Others effectively auto-integrate by identifying with the 'attractive' propaganda of the establishment order. All end up as useful servants of the establishment.
Most of us are not familiar with mechanics and psychology of power.
To affect change in society, whether in 1000BC, or 2017 AD, the participation of the 10% is of absolute critical importance. The lumpen proletariat are moved to action only under the duress of severe hunger. Anything else, they don't budge.
All our efforts towards the betterment of our society should focus attention on the 10%.
Educate the young potential, and recovering older, members of 10%, and, provide them secure communication (which most certainly must not sacrifice technical rigour at the alter of the false god of "[general] usability").
There are different ranks of bullshit. But it regularly pops up even in fields populated almost exclusively with smart and critical people (e.g. academia).
May I suggest that maybe you are not attuned to nth-order bullshit? It's relatively harmless, but it's out there.
In a way, seeing through all the bullshit is a feat of almost superhuman strength, even more so without falling prey to cynicism or nihilism.
> 'Bullshit' thinking has been largely successful because its an effortless pathway to establishing an opinion on something (queue System 1/System 2 thinking).
And if anything does go wrong you can blame the original bullshitter so you don't have to take responsibility when it turns out you were wrong.
This is a good point. It's like half of the course needs to be about how to talk about bullshit in a way that makes more people want to get aboard the anti-bullshit train.
The whole book is essential reading. Sagan mostly picks easy targets (supernatural claims), but the process is enlightening. For example he lays out the general uselessness of witness testimony and memory, which has extremely broad implications.
My wife took a Critical Thinking course at college. Changed her life, and as a result, my life and our kids'. Blows me away that only 90 people per year at that institution took that course. Meanwhile, back in the public school system, we have examiners mistaking their own opinions as fact. [1]
Really? My college experience was very different. All the professors talked about how essential "critical thinking" was.
And to this I asked:
- Is there even a definition of "critical thinking"?
- (As a psychology major) Is there evidence that this is a sound objective concept (rather than something everyone thinks only they have)?
- Is there any objective measure of critical thinking? If not, how can you have any objective reason to believe your courses increases critical thinking?
And to this they said various forms of "I don't know." I guess they had never really thought about it critically.
I think you are making the same point. There was just one course, with just one professor, on critical thinking at this college, and then there are 1000 where the professor assumes that you know, indeed that they know, what critical thinking is. In fact most don't. My alma mater didn't have a critical thinking course.
Wow, thank you for sharing this. It's one of the more entertaining essays I've read, especially since I've recently come into contact with some of the literary critics and deconstructionists he's writing about.
I suspect this course is teaching you how to do this type of deconstruction rather than to provide examples that are entertaining or controversial. Teach a person to fish, etc.
Have a look at case studies. Opinions, anecdotal evidence, no sources. There is not even basic fact checking on their sources (they just took a number from Fox News and ran with it).
And I am not sure what to expect from a statistical course build around TED Talks, blog posts and NY Times articles. With chapters named like "The natural ecology of bullshit"...
> (they just took a number from Fox News and ran with it).
I don't know what you think that case study was about, but it isn't about whether the number was true or not. It is about whether that number represents something that is in line with the point of the article.
> And I am not sure what to expect from a statistical course build around TED Talks, blog posts and NY Times articles.
I wouldn't either, but it isn't a statistical course and it isn't build around TED Talks.
It is not about learning what they are saying in a TED Talk, but about dissecting the TED Talk and understanding why you shouldn't just accept the content of it.
This seems like a similar idea to Julian Baggini's "Edge of Reason"[1]. In the book he investigates how we've become very bad at using reason (in the philosophical sense of the word) to examine things around us. I'm about 1/2 way through and I've been finding it very interesting indeed.
I'm sorry to be this negative, but people simply don't care. They don't care because thinking critically and trying to grasp subtle nuances and balance complex opinions about the world will not directly improve their lives. Convenient truths and easy emotions feel more comfortable and as if they have a direct "return on investment". Most people prefer simple truths, certainty and connection to/identification with a group over uncertainty, doubt and existential loneliness. (Or at least that's what I see, as somebody who is somewhat on the autistic spectrum and doesn't easily connect with a lot of this group-think.)
It's laudable to fight this, just very prone to disillusion.
It's not necessarily that they don't care, it's that not everything that matters to one person matters to the other.
The things which do matter to them however they care deeply about. And so it's much more accurate IMO to talk about misaligned perspectives rather than whether people don't care about the truth.
Bullshit is a numbers game, just like spam. Spam doesn't particularly try not to look like spam or avoid spam filters because the target audience isn't employing decent countermeasures.
Maybe marketing can be elevated to the same standard as phishing, where effort is put into deceiving our filters?
If so, this would be a very useful course for a marketeer to attend ;)
Yep, its one of the best essays I read during my undergrad, and in the era of Trump's never ending bullshit generation it has never been a more relevant a topic for study. 16 page PDF of the original article:
I agree with the spirit of what this is trying to promote, but its target audience likely considers themselves to be "critical thinkers" already and feel its everybody else who needs this kind of course.
That said, why does it have to be set up like a college course? Not only did looking at the site bring back memories of freshman year crit analysis courses, the way in which their proposed structure is laid out is completely out of sync with the way in which people absorb information today.
Fake news is shared widely because it's easy and doesn't require much mental exertion of the sharer/reader. The people most likely to share this kind of provocative "viral" content do not even have a working common-sense bullshit meter. Yet the well-meaning people behind the course think they're ready move from 200 word blog posts with a black-and-white view of the world to college-level reading?
I'd suggest looking at the UX/UI of an app like Google Primer (bite sized lessons on digital marketing) and see if that model can be applied here. Probably not Primer is designed to provide on-the-go info while this is designed as an actual college course.
This looks fairly similar to the psychology course, "Everything is Fucked" [1]. EiF has a stellar syllabus, while this one seems a bit lighter (maybe it's for fewer credits). Seems like a pretty useful course, in any event.
I'm definitely curious about Susan Fiske's article, about how social networks encourage unmoderated academic "trash talk" [2]. Andy Gelman has a pretty negative critique of the article here [3].
This is exactly what public education systems should be teaching. I'd almost say that next to basic literacy and mathematics, this is the most valuable subject to teach. It lays the groundwork for so much else.
Can we stop with the claims about a post-truth era?
It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths.
It's that we have just realized that interpretation is not the same as truth and have now been made aware that there are other interpretations of the facts than our own.
We don't live in a post-truth world, we live in a world were the truth is confused with difference of opinion.
>It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths.
"post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of political arguments for many people. See Karl Rove's quote about the "reality-based" community (which may or may not be apocryphal) versus the American empire which simply creates whatever reality it likes.
>"post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of political arguments for many people.
It mostly means:
"Some people can't accept Trump got elected, so when e.g. criticism of him being sexist/rapist etc because of some comments back in the day is discarded, they call it a post-truth world. At the same time, it's not post-truth when the same people discard allegations of rape for Bill Clinton and his wife helping with cover up".
Or, as I'd put it:, both party voters could not give a rats arse about the truth, but the Democratic party has a better stronghold on academics, columnists, intellectuals and "hi-bro" journalists, etc., the sort of people who would just single out the others' disregard of the truth as "post-truth".
Well said. I would add that journalistic ethics have reached a new low. Astoundingly new low. On the other hand, I was not alive in the 1890s during the era of "yellow journalism" where everyone with a printing press was turning out nothing but bullshit on an hourly basis and hawking it to unsuspecting rubes.
Turns out there is good money in just making up crap and printing it.
I remain unconvinced that journalism has reached a new low, rather than our ability to detect its shoddiness has reached a new high.
The only two things I could identify as uniquely a problem today that weren't problems in the past are A: the money is coming out of journalism faster than it can adapt to it and B: the incredibly immediate pressures to be first and get the most clicks. The latter being a thing that has always been present to some degree, since journalists have always made money by attracting eyeballs in one form or another, but the immediacy of the pressure today I'd say is a quantitative change that becomes a qualitative change by sheer size.
But I'm still unconvinced this is a new low, rather than one that we're detecting. Journalism has some nasty stuff in its history. It certainly hasn't reached a new low if you step outside of the United States. The press still hasn't quite reached Pravda lows, but I will conceded it is currently engaged in a full burn towards it.
In Britain at least, popular use of the term "post-truth politics" predates Trump's run for power and was widely applied to campaigns run by the left as well. It's really less about whether specific allegations are true and far more about a rhetorical style in which a campaign proactively makes a high volume of brazenly false claims with the apparent purpose of forcing the opposition into rebutting them rather than the more traditional forms of political lies (denying uncomfortable truths, making promises not intended to be kept, stating hypotheses as facts). But yeah, which side tells the most lies has never been particularly high on voters' list of priority, not least because it's very rare for a campaign to be predominantly honest.
It's never been. Perception have always been reality and politicians have always used that to get things their way. Thats why they study rhetorics not science.
There is no objective transcendence between facts and politics decisions.
You can believe that climate change is created by humans and still decide not to do anything about it because you also believe that technology will solve most of those problem, or that there are bigger problems (astroid hitting earth for instance) etc.
This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them.
We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.
Or don't care. Some people in the US are so far under water, they are desperate for change; such that they'd back Trump whatever.
Sexual allegations? Who cares if he can actually tries to bring back my job...
Note, I say this without any implication of whether the allegations are true. My point is, people might not care either way. A sexual predator that fixes things is better than an someone virtuous that does nothing.
What I have noticed recently is a rather shameless admission by many in politics that not only have they been lying but ultimately that "truth" doesn't matter.
In politics truth doesn't matter as such and never have. Politics is about getting it your way not about being right. It's about interest and choices.
The idea that politics is or should somehow be based on facts is misguided. We have science for facts what we choose to do with those facts is were politics come in.
> The idea that politics is or should somehow be based on facts is misguided.
> We have science for facts what we choose to do with those facts is were politics come in.
The second sentence explicitly contradicts the first one. By your second one you are saying that politics is based on the facts that science provides. Or rather, should be.
The fact that you are right about the possibility of taking other interpretations as non truth, does not mean that no opinions are simply misguided and not based on truth. In addition, there have been many articles that are simply made up, which has nothing to do with difference of opinion.
Sure but that does not mean that people don't care about the truth.
There have always been made up stories and lies and propaganda and conspiracy theories it's nothing new it's just become much more obvious now and thus actually allowed us to live in a more truth based world rather than the previous ignorant believe that there are only one way to look at things.
I think it's more simple than this. People have been trained over decades not to believe or trust politicians (e.g. Obama's "I will close down Guantanamo Bay"). So now they just don't bother any more.
Before the media/Democrats can credibly criticise "fake news", they first need to regain the people's trust.
Are you implying that Obama didn't make a good faith effort to do what he promised and wasn't repeatedly thwarted by a leery Congress? Because that's not what happened.
Did people not have history lessons in school? Politics is full of shit since the dawn of time. Politics is war by other means; lies and half-truths are the primary arsenal in this conflict.
When iPhone was in 3rd or 4th iteration, people talked of post PC era, but at work or at home, you certainly have PC where most "work" is still done.
When Obama was elected they said Post-racial america, and we now know how much it is not.
So, now some butt-hurt people from election came up with Post-Truth, even though people were constantly conned into stuff that is untrue, like WMDs or you can keep your doctor.
After much thought, I forward the motion for Post-Post-Prepending Era.
> Advertisers wink conspiratorially and invite us to join them in seeing through all the bullshit, then take advantage of our lowered guard to bombard us with second-order bullshit
The idiots of the world fight ferociously to spread their "100 percent correct" views, while the smart (HackerNews) remain relatively silent in fear against the masses of idiots flooding all mediums. Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West had the courage to scream loudly back, speaking smarts to stupid. Better marketing for good ideas! Bravo!
Marketing opinion. This page: http://callingbullshit.org/case_studies.html should be made homepage content, for it is their most compelling and clear value statement and takes little space. It took me too long to find naturally, and I didn't feel fulfilled on the bullshit pitch till I did. If you don't want to move it, perhaps call them examples instead of case studies, if you want to reach a general audience.
Serendipity. These professors made a course/website "bullshit" the title. Which I think's funny because I just uploaded a youtube video in a tophat/leopard print about how smart people should be more aggressive spreading their ideas.
For better or for worse, the term bullshit has no exact synonym in the English language; we use the term because it precisely describes the phenomena we are studying.
Interestingly enough, the claim about bullshit lacking an exact synonym is false. Not only does bull by itself mean precisely the same thing, but in fact its use predates the compound formation by three centuries. The use of shit in bullshit is an intensifier, as in shitstorm or shitfit, though presumably the rather evocative image of bovine excrement was also a factor.
From the Google dictionary:
bull (3)
bo͝ol/
noun informal
noun: bull
stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
"much of what he says is sheer bull"
Origin
early 17th century: of unknown origin.
bull·shit
ˈbo͝olˌSHit/
vulgar slang
noun
noun: bullshit
1. stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
Origin
early 20th century: from bull (3) + shit.
This is a really good effort! In analytics and data science world where I work, it's difficult to train our junior people to think through all the reasons their conclusions might be misleading. The cases are likely to be very helpful to get the thinking process started.
My biggest concern about data science is that a lot of people who lack basic skills at doing science are racing into the field. My other concern is that this happened because an article said that there would be a huge demand for data scientists in the future, a matter I am also skeptical of. Repeat after me: Correlation is not causation.
Actually I find that commoditization of computing power and dirt cheap storage combined with the rise of digital as an advertising and sales medium are primarily responsible for the rise in demand. Some of the demand comes from beyond the tech sector in companies like mine which are in the traditional consumer goods busines.
There's a lot of depth of analytics required when you're spending a billion dollar marketing budget that goes well beyond correlation causation basics.
It isn't about identifying bullshit so much as coming up with a subjective preference set to carry out and seek out that leads to a better world regardless of the circumstances.
yes, it is implicit in my comment that this perspective can be intellectually dismantled if you prefer, but the original point of course is that indulging this urge gets less than nothing done for my idea and makes no progress at all on yours while still consuming your time.
Looking at the name I thought this was going to be some kind of wiki-encyclopedia of bullshit, where people could submit reasons why any given thing is bullshit.
Am a little disappointed actually, that would be a handy reference. Though naturally such a thing would almost immediately devolve into arguments about the degree to which anything is bullshit, but that could still be valuable.
The criticism of this course in principle is ironic to me. A lot of people are saying "This course is pointless, the people who would take this course don't need it." Which seems to imply... that they wouldn't take the course. Which would, by their own logic, imply they probably need it.
We all have blind spots, we just have different blind spots.
Ok, so it's not "this course" in the "you can go here to take this course" sense, but in the "there may be a course held somewhere some day" sense? Because I was interested but baffled when I tried to find the course or info about where to take part on that site.
Week 3. The natural ecology of bullshit. Where do we find bullshit? Why news media provide bullshit. TED talks and the marketplace for upscale bullshit. Why social media provide ideal conditions for the growth and spread of bullshit.
This "bullshit" meme is getting tired. It seems like a cutesy way to say something like "not rigorous" or "deceptive". Which a good introductory course in logic (informal and formal) will help in spotting.
I think this is an effort towards the people that don't need such effort. The people really needing this course will never willingly read - or understand - such educated content.
> In this course we aim to teach you how to think critically about the data and models that constitute evidence in the social and natural sciences
I call bullshit on the existence of "social sciences". Even the best attempts at controlled, reproducible experiments were laughable, so at most we can call them "social studies".
> So, the aim of this course is to help students navigate the bullshit-rich modern environment by identifying bullshit, seeing through it, and combatting it with effective analysis and argument.
read the manifesto : http://trumptweets.io/manifesto
we are just getting started.. those are just test samples. working on better content though.. try it out though.
..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone."
Scott Adams, talking about Scott Adams in the third person, while pretending not to be Scott Adams:
- [0] plannedchaos -21 points 4 months ago
If an idiot and a genius disagree, the idiot generally thinks the genius is wrong. He also has a lot of idiot reasons to back his idiot belief. That's how the idiot mind is wired.
It's fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can't rule out the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand what he's saying.
Controversial threads have way more escape energy than others, and this subthread has definitely left topical orbit. We've detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13382789 and marked it off-topic.
He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated.
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/814133681711263744
Later in the thread, when presented with any scientific explanation of climate change, he reverts to repeating "how can I trust it?", all the while accusing climate scientists of having a financial incentive to push climate change, not providing proof himself.
I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say, and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change.
I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose to not join the unthinking hordes who insist we must do something now, and no we will not think while we are doing this. Dissension is explicitly not allowed.
Oh, is that not exaaaaaaaaaaaactly what the message is? Of course not, but there is some truth there. There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. I believe it is not an intellectually honest conversation, and I'm old enough to remember other situations where dissent was not allowed and it turned out not so good.
Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.
If you get diagnosed with cancer, would you go to med school and wait until you graduate and can fully understand the diagnosis and how the prescribed treatment was arrived at by your doctor before you follow it, or would you follow the treatment as closely as possible as soon as possible?
Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. But as far as anyone can tell no one has a more accurate picture. "This theory may be imperfect [not even 'is imperfect'; we just don't know] so we should disregard it completely" is a Nirvana fallacy.
What do you mean? Does anyone believe that a given scientific theory explains exactly and totally a phenomenon? If they do, that's their problem. Science doesn't claim to have perfect answers.
Until we find Laplace's demon, the best we can say is "theory A is better supported by evidence than theory B". If we have nothing better than A, is there any reason not to treat it as true?
> Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.
Fair point. Could you find a link where he "deliberately causes outrage" to the opposite camp that "take themselves also too seriously" completely denying the same science theory. I am genuinely curious, because up until recently I also had similar opinion about him (a humorist author approach). Now, I kind of doubt this.
Much of what he has written in the last maybe 3 or 4 weeks I find....distasteful? I absolutely love a good troll, I think he used to be that, but in my opinion he has changed into something less appealing.
I still read him though because I think he continues to raise interesting points (if not always valid) and observations, but I (as someone mostly on "his side" of the political spectrum) often find what he writes a bit repulsive.
Also, don't forget that Trump is a reality TV show host, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.
Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist!
I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is speculative, but they pass it off as established fact. I look forward to stopping thinking this way when the scientific community admits to this.
I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide for themselves whether all is well in this situation.
You failed to prove she was "not allowed to speak" by posting a link to a video of her literally SPEAKING in front of Congress.
Did somebody interrupt her, and that's the best proof you can come up with of your assertion "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."
Being highly criticized by your peers is not the same as not being allowed to speak.
Do you have any better examples of scientists who were not allowed to speak -- perhaps a scientist who hasn't actually testified in front of Congress on live national television, written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, boasts of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments?
Characterizing her as "not allowed to speak" or somehow oppressed and silenced by mainstream scientists is totally off base, since she herself has said: "I flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat out don’t care at this point."
So why do people trust the dissenting scientists? What leads them to that option over simply going with the majority? I've never understood that, but the cynic in me thinks they're simply looking for someone that they already agree with.
> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are invited to congressional hearings, publish books and papers, and keep a personal blog where they can discuss anything, and nobody can tell them to GTFO because they're tenured professors, but they may ultimately decide to resign, because working in an environment where everyone else think you're being crazy is just too stressful.
Yeah, I can sympathize with the last part, but I must tell it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
I don't mean to excuse the opinions he has on women, which I agree are deplorable, but I want to ask: what is wrong with being an activist for men's rights?
To me, there is nothing inherently wrong about people advocating for issues and causes that affect men specifically.
However what I see online is a large, vocal portion of those who claim to be MRAs are more about aggressive and toxic misogyny than anything else. See Scott Adams and sibling comment for more info.
Because of this I don't associate the terms mens' rights with any productive discussion.
There are more nuanced takes on male issues I have seen, such as /r/menslib on reddit. As far as I know they also distance themselves from the term MRA.
The term "red pill" is also common on 4chan's "politically incorrect" /pol/ board where taking the red pill is usually used to mean embracing conservative political thought and other related ideologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
> I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.
It would be possible if there was a general perception that men were generally and historically, in the context in which one is an activist, oppressed based on their sex, such that being an activist for greater rights for men was consistent with pro-equality interest rather than anti-women interests.
However, there are very few societies on the world where that view is dominant or even a wide minority view, either internally or for external observers, so it's very hard to be a "men's rights activist" without the general perception being that one is acting out an anti-woman worldview.
What you're saying here seems to be backing up what Scott Adams is saying. I'm not saying you're an irrational person, but your arguments against him seem to be completely irrational, based on word associations rather than arguments. He says men often avoid arguing with women over gender equality issues for the same reasons they avoid arguing with children or the mentally handicapped, because they see the process of argument as counterproductive, and he specifically says that he's not equating the groups in any way, only the reasons for avoiding arguments with the different groups.
If you were thinking in terms of word associations and analogies, this disclaimer wouldn't matter because it's the association of words that's important, not the argument itself. And here you're ignoring the argument and focusing on word associations which he explains clearly are not his point. I see people making this kind of argument all the time, and it makes using analogies in any way other than emotional association usually pointless because someone will always find a way to focus on their emotional response to the words rather than the arguments. Doesn't this perfectly illustrate his point?
It seems like he was manipulating people into having this kind of negative reaction to prove his point that people don't focus on arguments.
> who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped
Literally, or he just used a metaphor?
I can say "black people are like bowling balls, they are both black".
You could respond "oh my god! black people are people, not objects! How dare you!"
But this would not be a reasonable response - The implication of the metaphor was not that black people share the property of being an object. That would be a purposeful mis-interpretation.
Granted, the use of metaphor can sometimes be suspect, precisely because of the ambiguity of implication, but that's all it is - ambiguous in meaning/intent.
You could argue that sock-puppeting defeats/is an antidote to Argumentum ad populum, and is as such a valid tactic.
In this case also, it would be seen as arrogant to tell someone they aren't smart enough to understand your argument, but not so with a third party, i.e. maybe it's appropriate for playing devils advocate informally.
That said, he was also antagonizing if using "idiot", rather than being more polite himself. If he spoke through his own handle, he might have cared more about civility.
I won't defend those actions. I just got a chuckle about this comment since it's an ad hominem -- not rational, but rather designed to appeal to emotion ("I'm mad about him doing that") or identify ("I'm an advocate for women").
Meanwhile, the rest of this thread devolves to pedantry about definitions and analogies.
You need to want to know what is true first, to care enough to take the trouble of knowing how to detect bullshit. I think the reason why bullshit is flourishing is because those that actually give a damn are the minority. The majority is composed of the useful idiots and those that manipulate them. Of course reality is never black and white, and it is much more nuanced than I've stated here, but I think that's the general gist of things
A big problem is that for most people, truth has no direct or measurable value in lives. Information is mostly used as social objects - something to talk about and share with other people. It doesn't matter whether e.g. that GMO-causes-cancer paper is solid or a hoax, what matters is that as the story circulates, you can play the relative status game with your friends by showing who's more into GMO-causes-cancer belief.
In the areas where "getting things right" has a direct impact on someone's life, people turn out to be surprisingly good at catering for their own interests (though not perfect, and the whole advertising industry is based around the desire to screw people in this area).
This is a course on being intelligent, it seems. If you are able to teach people how to be intelligent without making them actually intelligent (= to know a lot of things) then it is magic.
Isn't "to know a lot of things" just being wise? Being intelligent, to me, is more about being able to process information, arrive at conclusions - or, in simple words: to think well.
You could be wise without being intelligent (someone who learned a lot by rote learning, but doesn't understand much of it), or vice versa, although the latter is somewhat questionable - an intelligent person will likely use the intelligence to know more and more things. :)
Edit: heck, even D&D had separate wisdom and intelligence stats. :)
The trollometer Plumpfmeter 2.1 can actively be turned into a bullshit detector by using a post anaphylactic reaction using the original designed http://la.buvette.org/tech/reseau/prumpleffer-2.html based on deep machine learning with the latest green powder AI.
Don't get trolled or bullshited again, buy Plumfmeter the only and original protection that really works.*
* Will make you famous, less gullible and totally smart without effort or learning
Recommended by our best customers: Trump.inc, NSA, EU parliament, EvilCorp.gmbh.
The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments.
We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought.
I spend a lot of time debating with people who disagree with me politically. It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. So stop trying. Instead, make your point based on common morals, do it with compassion and generosity of spirit, and don't allow the goalposts of the debate to be moved. Throw in like two of couple of your choicest facts and sources, but don't expect them to help. Move on and repeat.