Drowning in information: how do you deal with it?

[Faint]

Someone once said that the best place to hide a leaf is in the forest. I think the point of this is a valid one, especially when applied to our culture where one must sift through an avalanche of bullshit in order to find information that is not only valuable but also honest.

Consider the following:

"If for one minute the generation who is about old enough and eligible to vote thinks this is about one person, then we're all very foolish," Amos said. "We need to wake up and realize that just because we think we're in a democracy, there is a little bit of a seduction there. They're not overtly burning books and they're not doing this and that, but they're doing exactly what they want to do, and we're distracted. It's funny — they're not burning books, they're just throwing more information at us, and drowning us in it. You have to be able to think for yourself and not get manipulated."

I agree with her. The current administration, their allies, and the upper class "powers that be" seem to be flooding all media channels with distractions and disinformation in order to hide the things that we the people should be aware of.

It makes sense from a strategic standpoint...in this day of mass communication, government/corporate secrets and news of atrocities that happen on the other side of the world can be transmitted to us in less than a second and quickly relayed to others. So if you're doing wrong and you can't keep it out of the public eye...how do you hide it? By overwhelming the public eye with so much trivial information that they overlook your crimes.

So what I'm wondering is how would you fix the problem?

In my opinion the best solution is education...improving people's ability to think for themselves. This is not a new concept of course, but in the context of the age of information it seems the best solution. I imagine that information will become even more overwhelming in the years to come and will thus blur into a vast sea that (as Tori implied) one could easily drown in...unless one learns how to swim in it.

And how does one swim? In other words, how do you distinguish trivia and bullshit from good information whether on the internet, talking to people, watching TV, etc.?

[Laurentius]

In my opinion the best solution is education...improving people's ability to think for themselves. This is not a new concept of course, but in the context of the age of information it seems the best solution. I imagine that information will become even more overwhelming in the years to come and will thus blur into a vast sea that (as Tori implied) one could easily drown in...unless one learns how to swim in it.


I agree. Education allows for the ability to select relevant information and tell facts from lies.

[kiwimac]

Talk with and make friends of a good reference librarian. They can help you to define filters for yourself which will sift the wheat from the Chaff.

[Krosis]

Stop watching TV..

read iidb.. ;)

-A

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree. Education allows for the ability to select relevant information and tell facts from lies.
Sometimes, it isn't as much being able to weed the truth from the lies, as much as it is being able to deflect the lies. To be able to see a claim and know right off the bat there is something wrong. Typically I do this by looking for qualifications within a statement. Some people will use qualified statements to give what is a small impression, a much larger one. Such as when Bill Frist on NPR once tried to get away with saying the Dems had blocked more judges, through a particular manner, than ever before. It was technically true, but Frist neglected to note that the Republicans blocked a lot more of Clinton nominees outrightly. And the host of NPR called him on it.

The OP is a bit mistaken though. People on the left are just as guilty of these sorts of things. It just seems that those on the right use a lot more hyperbole and emotion in their "arguments".

Being wise doesn't mean knowing all things, just to know what is truth and what isn't. Wisdom is being able to know when you are being lied to... even if the lies that are being told are half-truths.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Read primary sources and ignore television. That's the easiest way, imo.

[psikeyhackr]

But how do you define what education is?

How do you know you aren't being educated to have certain biases so that you are more inclined to regard certain information as true and other information as false.

I might define anyone that doesn't understand accounting as uneducated.

Someone else might say that a communist must be uneducated.

You are almost stuck in a chicken and egg situation.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Read primary sources and ignore television. That's the easiest way, imo.

Primary sources of what? What is the primary source for the total lost on depreciation of automobiles in the US? ROFL

If the important information is totally left out, what do you do?

psik

[Henry-Finland]

What bif people would be taught/would relize (I take the examples from USA, because most of the readers here would not understand if I took them from e.g. the Nordic countries):
- In WWII there was a lot of double standards.
- The Vietnam war was based on a lie.
- The commie hunt in the 1950ties was based on lies.
- Nixon did lie. laos, Cambodia, Watergate.
- Raygun and his contras.
- Bill with his dick. (Not killing anyone though).
- Bush and his gang.

And still people believe that they are running their free country?
Through the Founding Fathers and their deeds perhaps?

I can guarantee you all, hat the people will always be lied to, anywhere on this earth, until they learn to think by themselves.
So, yes: Sell your TV and there is a chance that you can learn something.

The media should act as your/our "watchers", but now we are in the position where we, the people, has to watch the watchers.
And ignore the worst scum.




Henry

[Jimmy Higgins]

But how do you define what education is?

How do you know you aren't being educated to have certain biases so that you are more inclined to regard certain information as true and other information as false.That is my point exactly. It isn't what you know, it's how you think. The critical thinking process is critical. If you can think critically, you may not understand evolution technically, but you should be able to see the BS arguments against it.

[GrandpaMithras]

I deal with it by making generalizations in order to sort the information, and allowing myself enough extraneous information to optimize my generalizations. I avoid the drivel which is presented for public consumption. I read scholarly texts. I examine history and man in general in order to know what makes sense.

This builds up an intuitive suspicion which allows me to discount absurdities and focus on what is important.

Its not flawless, but it is self corrective.

[Eric Starnes]

My first reaction was nihilism.

The second was to cancel my cable.

[B.S. Lewis]

Stop watching TV..

read iidb.. ;)

-A

No, seriously - maybe interactive news media is an answer. IIDB is a truly enjoyable way to stay up on the news.

[RED DAVE]

This is where true skepticism, not nihilism or the peculiar libertarian ambivalence towards the establishment, come in. I take the "you" in the thread title to refer to the second person plural. So, here are RED DAVE'S rules for sorting out bullshit. If you don't like them, make up your own.

1) Mistrust, automatically, anything from any establishment source, especially politicians (Reps and Dems), mainstream media, corporate sources and think tanks. Remember these are the wonderful people who either lied to you about Iraq or swallowed those lies wholesale. There were very few exceptions. Blood is on their hands and they won't admit it.

2) Give up on TV. Even the more liberal sources, such as CNN, are biased, and the manner of presentation, short reports, sound bites, etc., is stultifying and will turn your brain to farina. These people can't even get the weather right. Remember Katrina and global warming. The Daily Show and Colbert are worth watching. Otherwise, stick to South Park and The Simpsons. Old movies are cool. The older the better. Even better: read books.

3) Pacifica news (KPFA, KPFK and WBAI) is the best radio and webcast around. If you must use a mainstream broadcast medium, stick to NPR.

4) In general, academic sources are more reliable than think tank sources. No, you cannot rely on the New York Time, the Washington Post of the LA Times. Use them to wrap fish or line the cat box.

5) In general, the Right is full of shit. Left-wing sources are more reliable than right-wing sources. Liberals are more reliable than conservatives.

6) Noam Chomsky is the Messiah. Rush Limbaugh is the Anti-Christ. Rupert Murdoch is Satan.

7) There are many, many good websites. CounterPunch, Antiwar.com and CommonDreams are good places to start.

Have fun.

RED DAVE

[Henry-Finland]

Wherever yoiu find the TV-channel, in whatever country, that sends some program named something like: "The propaganda we are/have been fed with"...
Then, and only then, it would be worth to watch TV - that program, the rest will be 'shit as usual'.

Do not worry, you will not find such a program, so just sell your TV.
And yes: Read IIDB and there are other good sources as well on the net.

You can begin here, with videos and documentaries.
Watch critically:

http://www.documentary-film.net/

and here:
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video.htm

and:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/



Henry

[StrengthAndHonour]

I find that getting news from multiple sources and countries works best. especially on international news. When one channel tries to put a spin on a story, it becomes glaringly obvious. Works especially well when the sources are in different languages since the "spin" is usually lost during translation.

[Nice Squirrel]

Someone once said that the best place to hide a leaf is in the forest. I think the point of this is a valid one, especially when applied to our culture where one must sift through an avalanche of bullshit in order to find information that is not only valuable but also honest.

If you want to better spot those leaves, it is best to become a dendrologist. (Which is really cool beacause you can spot the trees from a distance and measure their height with your thumb.)

I agree with her. The current administration, their allies, and the upper class "powers that be" seem to be flooding all media channels with distractions and disinformation in order to hide the things that we the people should be aware of. Yes, and that is why I recommend studying history, philosophy and rhetoric in addition to other subjects. One of the best sources is to deconstruct the overall message to get the purpose and motivations. Think of an anti-abortion billboard. Does it make the moral stance that a fish-like embryo is a human being? Or the next Einstein could be in the womb? No. That message is too complicated and doesn't have the emotional appeal as frolicing 9 month-olds with the message "I could smile when I was 3 weeks old!".

Or consider the woman who was thrown out of a Barbara Bush rally for yelling out that her son was killed in the war. The respose of BB was akin to "She cannot understand the pain of the people who lost loved ones in 9-11." Like hell she doesn't she lost her loved one... But BB sets up her followers to a them vs us scenario akin to many cults and organizations. (This also happens on the left.)

So what I'm wondering is how would you fix the problem?
More independent news outlets.

In my opinion the best solution is education...improving people's ability to think for themselves. This is not a new concept of course, but in the context of the age of information it seems the best solution. I imagine that information will become even more overwhelming in the years to come and will thus blur into a vast sea that (as Tori implied) one could easily drown in...unless one learns how to swim in it.This is true but the best is critical thinking... what is really being said. Does that fish-like organism that has a heart-beat really look like that 9-year old? And do we care that other organisms like chickens have heart-beats... "but the frolicking babies. Those fish-like organism have beating hearts!"

And how does one swim? In other words, how do you distinguish trivia and bullshit from good information whether on the internet, talking to people, watching TV, etc.?I look at the source and the motivation behind it. When the head of the CIA said we don't tourture people, my eyebrow raised to why he kept qualifying with the word people? Does the CIA tourture puppies? Or is he using the old addage: "That group are not really people they are animals... therefore it is okay."?

[Gracchus]

Read the history of other countries. Watch the tyranny, corruption, oppression, war, bigotry, and exploitation. Then read the history of your own country and see the same things, clean of delusions like "patriotism".

Realize that there is a higher percentage of liars, thieves, murderers and scoundrels in government than in prisons.

Recognize that those media attacking government are probably telling the truth, (although their motives may be suspect) while those media supporting government are probably lying.

:wave:

[nixon]

RED DAVE, I was with you until point #5 where you went off the BS end. Liberal / left wing sources are no better and have every bit of the agenda as right wing. In fact given that both extremes feel that they need to control you is evidence that they are closer together that the far apart picture that they both try to foster upon us.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Primary sources of what? What is the primary source for the total lost on depreciation of automobiles in the US? ROFL

If the important information is totally left out, what do you do?

psik


Read the statistics collected by the government and independent agencies, and draw your own conclusions. Read stories by people who were there, and draw your own conclusions. Avoid the "opinion and editorial" sections of newspapers. Avoiding these segments on television means watching the Cartoon Network instead.

Better?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Read the history of other countries. Watch the tyranny, corruption, oppression, war, bigotry, and exploitation. Then read the history of your own country and see the same things, clean of delusions like "patriotism".

Realize that there is a higher percentage of liars, thieves, murderers and scoundrels in government than in prisons.

Recognize that those media attacking government are probably telling the truth, (although their motives may be suspect) while those media supporting government are probably lying.

:wave:

Nice, I've always wanted to feel like I live in Soviet-era Ukraine.

[B.S. Lewis]

Central Scrutinizer,

Joe's Garage is a great song. ;)

[psikeyhackr]

Of course we can always suggest books to each other that contain lots of relevant information to help each other recognize bullsh!t in the future.

http://www.amazon.com/screwing-average-man-David-Hapgood/dp/B0006W84KK

Of course you will have to judge whether or not it is a bullsh!t suggestion that should be filtered out. :D :D :D

psik

[gargoyle]

No, seriously - maybe interactive news media is an answer. IIDB is a truly enjoyable way to stay up on the news.

I agree with this - one of the things that i missed the most during the week we were being punished for not being nice was the links to interesting "different" view news video and articles from around the world.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Echoing RED DAVE, assume you are being either lied to or manipulated. Always by any media.

It works.

I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating. Way back in 1990 (prior to the "Iron Curtain" falling) I met some Russian exchange students in a bar in NYC and we started talking about Pravda and censorship and a "free press" and all and one guy said something that has always stayed with me: "In Russia we all know our newspapers lie to us so we must seek harder to discover the truth. In America, you all think they tell the truth, which makes it all the easier to lie."

[Henry-Finland]

Echoing RED DAVE, assume you are being either lied to or manipulated. Always by any media.

It works.

I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating. Way back in 1990 (prior to the "Iron Curtain" falling) I met some Russian exchange students in a bar in NYC and we started talking about Pravda and censorship and a "free press" and all and one guy said something that has always stayed with me: "In Russia we all know our newspapers lie to us so we must seek harder to discover the truth. In America, you all think they tell the truth, which makes it all the easier to lie."
That is very true even today.

[duretti]

A third second to Red Dave.

Try to figure out why news providers lie, and ajust your expectations accordingly. (Hint: money and power are much bigger motivators than writers bias).

Read this (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html) and if you aren't convinced this (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html)

These guys are good, especially if you live in the UK Media Lens (http://www.medialens.org/index.php)

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating. Way back in 1990 (prior to the "Iron Curtain" falling) I met some Russian exchange students in a bar in NYC and we started talking about Pravda and censorship and a "free press" and all and one guy said something that has always stayed with me: "In Russia we all know our newspapers lie to us so we must seek harder to discover the truth. In America, you all think they tell the truth, which makes it all the easier to lie."I don't think that really applies to the US. In the US, there is a very strong confirmation bias tendency that is made by people. People will read what they want to read and allow that to confirm their original bias. They don't want to learn, they want to feel that they were right in the beginning.

[DietCoke]

So what I'm wondering is how would you fix the problem?

...
And how does one swim? In other words, how do you distinguish trivia and bullshit from good information whether on the internet, talking to people, watching TV, etc.?

Walter Conkite used to provide a pretty good filter for Americans. I recognize the problems with saying that, but I still think it's sorta true. Now that Cronkite is gone, our only hope is education. I think logic should be a required subject in public schools.

You've identified the fundamental problem with the creation/evolution debate, in my opinon. In the majority of pro-creationist arguments I have seen, the primary tactic is to lay on as much scientific sounding BS as possible, thereby drowning the opponent. As soon as the pro-evolution debater finishes chasing down all the wild geese, another steaming pile of BS is heaped on. And so on. (Oops. mixed metaphor)

For me, I just stop listening. At a certain point, the Bush administration forfeited any claim to credibility, and I just stopped listening. Now I focus my attention on getting someone else in office.

[psikeyhackr]

Walter Conkite used to provide a pretty good filter for Americans. I recognize the problems with saying that, but I still think it's sorta true. Now that Cronkite is gone, our only hope is education. I think logic should be a required subject in public schools.

The media has lots more channels to fill than it did back in the 60's. They want to make advertising revenue off all of those channels. Filling up air time with controversies, even if they are based on bullsh!t, is more important than logic.

At least from their perspective.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

There is of course the other strategy of being bombarded with BS but the important information never gets mentioned.

When I was at IBM they introduced the System 38. The color glossy brochure said it had vertical and horizontal microcode. The funny thing about that was I couldn't get a comprehensible explanation of what microcode was from people that had been with the company for more than 10 years. But I never heard the term benchmark or saw it on any documentation. So I had no idea how much more powerful the System 38 was than the System 34, assuming that it was. :D

Never ran across the term von Neumann machine either.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

And since you really do need to be drowned in information about the best explanation of the workings of a von Neumann machine is in chapter 10 of The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill. The funny thing is they never use that terminology.

It is like there is a barrier between electronics and computer science and electronics books don't use the term. VERY WEIRD! :devil3:

psik

[emphryio]

A variation of Koy, RedDave and duretti.

Figure out what the bias of a source is, find a few sources with different biases and compare their coverage of any given issues.

The most generalized/rudimentary way to do this is to compare sources who have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake behind them versus some totally free and broke leftist internet source. When you do this you usually find that the big money source simply left out a bunch of things and if you had only gone to them there would simply be no way you'd really be able to have an informed opinion. (Unless you're Jimmy Higgins who can figure it out anyway because he's so smart.)

Since big money omitted half the story most times, they almost always are less convincing than leftists sites with hardly any money behind them such as commondreams.org, buzzflash.com, or counterpunch.com.

[psikeyhackr]

Figure out what the bias of a source is, find a few sources with different biases and compare their coverage of any given issues.

Doesn't this assume that the observer is totally objective and without bias.

It seems to me that people often regard sources as objective when they agree with the biases of the observer.

psik

[emphryio]

Figure out what the bias of a source is, find a few sources with different biases and compare their coverage of any given issues.

Doesn't this assume that the observer is totally objective and without bias.
No, not remotely. You don't have to be objective (in fact no one can be) in order to figure out a bias.

It seems to me that people often regard sources as objective when they agree with the biases of the observer.

psik
They shouldn't. They should recognize that everyone is biased including themselves.