[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2017-September-08, 07:07, said:

The Coates article is not about Trump, it is about white people. About you, I assume you are white, and me. I fully expect that he would agree with this description if his focus. . He sees Trump as "a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.". Trump is president, so it is natural enough for Coates to say a lot about Trump. He alludes to other presidents, "held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. ". He is surely not just speaking of Trump and he is surely not just speaking of presidents.

I'd say he is talking about the white people as a collective, not about white people.

Quote

The article is long. I have read some of it but I will read some more. I see it as a very, very pessimistic view of where we are. Coates reminds me a bit of my Presbyterian minister who explained to me, when I was 14, that I had to get my parents to come to church more often so that they would not burn in hell. My reaction was, among other things, that I didn't think that I could do anything about that.

Ken, by your (high) standards this reaction seems completely childish to me. It reminds me of my more annoying classmates who, when the topic of Holocaust came up in high school (in Germany) for the second or third time, protested "Why again?? And anyway, what was I supposed to do about it?? I wasn't born yet in 1945!"

There is room for analysis of recent history, and how we got to our present, just to enhance our understanding, and without immediately raising the question of "What am I supposed to do about it?". If you don't care about it, nobody forced you to read it. But your reaction basically says "If this is true, I don't want to know about it." You didn't dispute a single fact about the article.

It is maybe worth reminding you that about 6 months ago, 52 of the most powerful people of the country (most of them white, as you would guess) voted to confirm an obvious racist for his appointment to become Attorney General of the USA (to the jubilant cheers of our then-resident-now-banned forum neo-nazi). And that person has driven most of Trump's policy agenda.

If you don't care how we got there, don't read TNC's article. If you disagree with it, feel free to point out where you disagree. But "What am I to do about it?" - that's just childish.

[kenberg]

Ok. Coates upsets me. That's one thing I can say with certainty. If it's childish, so be it, but he does. I have thought a bit about it and I will offer a reason.
Recall my comment, comparing Coates to my Presbyterian minister. It was 64 years ago that he told me I had to get my parents into church so they would not burn inn hell. I still remember it. What sort of sick person would say such a thing to a 14 year old. So I despise that minister. But I do not despise religious people. I have friends who are quite religious, I neither despise them nor try to change their minds.


So effing what, I hear you say. Here it is. I may despise individuals, I do not despise groups, at least not groups defined by nationality, ethnicity skin color and such.. As near as I can tell, that is a true statement about me. I could go back over some things in my life in support of the statement, but I will just leave it as a statement that I say with confidence. I do not despise groups. Coates? Well, you could ask him. I think he does. You say he is talking about whites as a collective. I agree. Richard says that he is not talking about all white people. Fine, Tonto was a good Indian. If he truly does not despise white people, he needs to work on his presentation.

The guy really sets me off, I had not thought all that much before about why, but now I have and this is the way I see it. .I could be wrong, I could be childish, or, just possibly, I could be right. Winston says I am being defensive, you say I am being childish, Richard is disappointed in me, I'll just say I am being as honest about my reaction to him as I am able to be.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-September-08, 19:47, said:

Ok. Coates upsets me. That's one thing I can say with certainty. If it's childish, so be it, but he does. I have thought a bit about it and I will offer a reason.
Recall my comment, comparing Coates to my Presbyterian minister. It was 64 years ago that he told me I had to get my parents into church so they would not burn inn hell. I still remember it. What sort of sick person would say such a thing to a 14 year old. So I despise that minister. But I do not despise religious people. I have friends who are quite religious, I neither despise them nor try to change their minds.


So effing what, I hear you say. Here it is. I may despise individuals, I do not despise groups, at least not groups defined by nationality, ethnicity skin color and such.. As near as I can tell, that is a true statement about me. I could go back over some things in my life in support of the statement, but I will just leave it as a statement that I say with confidence. I do not despise groups. Coates? Well, you could ask him. I think he does. You say he is talking about whites as a collective. I agree. Richard says that he is not talking about all white people. Fine, Tonto was a good Indian. If he truly does not despise white people, he needs to work on his presentation.

The guy really sets me off, I had not thought all that much before about why, but now I have and this is the way I see it. .I could be wrong, I could be childish, or, just possibly, I could be right. Winston says I am being defensive, you say I am being childish, Richard is disappointed in me, I'll just say I am being as honest about my reaction to him as I am able to be.

I applaud your courage to look inside your own motivations. This is a sign of wisdom, IMHO.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2017-September-08, 19:47, said:

Tonto was a good Indian.

Word to the wise:

Making statements like "Tonto was a good Indian" in a thread where you are complaining about getting painted with a broad brush of "white" racism does not help your cause...

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2017-September-09, 04:12, said:

Word to the wise:

Making statements like "Tonto was a good Indian" in a thread where you are complaining about getting painted with a broad brush of "white" racism does not help your cause...

This was sarcasm. When you observed that Coates, in his denunciation of white people, was not speaking of all white people I quoted from Trump "and some, I suppose, are good people". "Tonto was a good Indian" is intended in the same sense. Most everyone who denounces a group allows for the possibility that the denunciation does not apply to all members of the group. In the case of genocide, the plan is to kill everyone, no exceptions. But short of that, a person denouncing a group will usually, as with Trump denouncing Mexicans, allow that the denunciation does not have absolute universal application.

Not a lot of comfort.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-September-08, 21:58, said:

I applaud your courage to look inside your own motivations. This is a sign of wisdom, IMHO.

I may expand a bit. The issue is more important than I am, and I think that my way of thinking is not unique or even unusual.

[kenberg]

I said above that while I might despise an individual, I do not despise a group, at least not a group defined by skin color, ethnicity and such. I will expand a bit.


This is not something that I came to philosophically after careful moral reflection. I was not brought up to hate by groups. My father believed that white people should marry white people and black people should marry black people.That's not hatred. In the 1950s, in my neighborhood, it was also believed that Catholics should marry Catholics, Protestants should marry Protestants, and Jews should marry Jews. The parents of a Jewish friend went through whatever ceremony it is that acknowledges the awfulness of his marriage to a non-Jewish woman. My wife dated a black man for a while and she can tell you some things about how black women felt about that. I don't want her dating anyone now, but I promise that I am indifferent to the color of the skin of anyone she dated in the past.

I don't define by color and I don't define by religion. Trump's economic adviser, Gary Cohn, is Jewish, or so I suppose by the name. I learned recently that Mnuchin is Jewish, I had no idea, nor do I care. My first girlfriend's last name was Stienstra, looking back I suppose she was Jewish. I didn't, and I don't, care. I treated her badly, soon becoming involved with a much more aggressive girl. To the extent I think back at all on this, I am embarrassed by my treatment of her. Religion is irrelevant. I was 14.

Hating by groups is repugnant to me. As I say, this is not a thought out moral position, it is automatic. I make such distinctions. In the 50's I regularly watched the Gillette Friday night fights. I came to think of this as wrong. That was a result of thought, not automatic. As much as I admire the athleticism on display in a good football game (American football), I have come to think of football as something that we should not support in its current form. Again this is thought. But finding group based hatred repugnant? I do not have to think about that.

I regard my reaction to Coates as natural. When a man goes back to something a white maid said in 1807, I would call that an obsession.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-September-09, 06:26, said:

I said above that while I might despise an individual, I do not despise a group, at least not a group defined by skin color, ethnicity and such. I will expand a bit.


This is not something that I came to philosophically after careful moral reflection. I was not brought up to hate by groups. My father believed that white people should marry white people and black people should marry black people.That's not hatred. In the 1950s, in my neighborhood, it was also believed that Catholics should marry Catholics, Protestants should marry Protestants, and Jews should marry Jews. The parents of a Jewish friend went through whatever ceremony it is that acknowledges the awfulness of his marriage to a non-Jewish woman. My wife dated a black man for a while and she can tell you some things about how black women felt about that. I don't want her dating anyone now, but I promise that I am indifferent to the color of the skin of anyone she dated in the past.

I don't define by color and I don't define by religion. Trump's economic adviser, Gary Cohn, is Jewish, or so I suppose by the name. I learned recently that Mnuchin is Jewish, I had no idea, nor do I care. My first girlfriend's last name was Stienstra, looking back I suppose she was Jewish. I didn't, and I don't, care. I treated her badly, soon becoming involved with a much more aggressive girl. To the extent I think back at all on this, I am embarrassed by my treatment of her. Religion is irrelevant. I was 14.

Hating by groups is repugnant to me. As I say, this is not a thought out moral position, it is automatic. I make such distinctions. In the 50's I regularly watched the Gillette Friday night fights. I came to think of this as wrong. That was a result of thought, not automatic. As much as I admire the athleticism on display in a good football game (American football), I have come to think of football as something that we should not support in its current form. Again this is thought. But finding group based hatred repugnant? I do not have to think about that.

I regard my reaction to Coates as natural. When a man goes back to something a white maid said in 1807, I would call that an obsession.

I agree with everything you said except the last two sentences. I view looking back as an attempt to learn from history - and if that means quoting something that was said out loud in 1807 but not in 2017 while the actions are the same or similar then as now, then I take that quote as meaningful and the reason for the change worthy of study.

I have noticed you have a similar reaction to Paul Krugman. Maybe you simply dislike people who you see as acting or writing in a smugly superior manner? Maybe it is not the message but the messenger's manner that earns your disdain. If so, is that more about them or you?

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-September-09, 15:31, said:

I agree with everything you said except the last two sentences. I view looking back as an attempt to learn from history - and if that means quoting something that was said out loud in 1807 but not in 2017 while the actions are the same or similar then as now, then I take that quote as meaningful and the reason for the change worthy of study.

I have noticed you have a similar reaction to Paul Krugman. Maybe you simply dislike people who you see as acting or writing in a smugly superior manner? Maybe it is not the message but the messenger's manner that earns your disdain. If so, is that more about them or you?

A list of people that I have said critical things about surely says a lot about me. Donald Trump, Ta-Nehisi Coates and Paul Krugman all make the list. But my thoughts about them are quite different.

I don't doubt that Paul Krugman is a very important economist. No doubt other economists engage him in serious discussion.Yes he seems to have difficulty in seeing how anyone could possibly come to any conclusion at variance with his, but in fact I can handle this. If for some reason I wanted to seriously tackle an economic issue, let's say an issue of sufficient importance to me that i decide to give it three months of serious study coming to the best conclusion that I can, I would have to be crazy to not have him on my reading list. I would not treat him as an all-seeing god, but I would most certainly carefully read what he says.

There is some similarity with TNC. I think a difference would be that it is more difficult to find a focus for TNC. You quoted him with respect to Trump. I suggested, and there was some agreement, that the piece is really about his view of white people. But then there is still the issue of whether we are seeking practical solutions to address racial issues or writing a history of racial issues. But, as an illustration, consider the white maid of 1807. Clearly this woman wanted to see herself as apart from and superior to the slaves. I find this about as surprising as learning that water flows downhill. There is a human desire to feel superior and I think this need is particularly strong among those who are near the bottom. They do not want to be mistaken for someone whose status is even lower. I have no need whatsoever to check the reliability of the quoted remark, because whether or not that particular maid made that particular remark, I think it is a virtual certainty that many maids made essentially that remark. As near as I can tell, just about anyone who works at a fast food place for more than six months becomes an assistant manager. This title is important to them whether or not they ever actually manage anything. I think TNC is trying very hard, too hard, to take something that really could not be otherwise and make out of it more than it is. So while I would feel the need for caution in reading Krugman, I would say that applies at least doubly in reading TNC. If I wanted to lessen racial disparity in education, would I read TNC? I suppose so, but I don't think he would be anywhere near the top of my list. Actually I was involved over several summers in such a program. Many black students were involved, as were black faculty from other schools, and I spent time on campuses of HBCUs. I am pretty sure that nobody, white or black, ever mentioned his name to me or any of his thoughts, and now that I have read some of what he thinks I can't see how any of it would apply in a practical way. I think that's not what he is about and I am uncertain of just what he actually is about.

Trump is in a class by himself. He and I would agree on that statement. We would disagree on what class that is.

Anyway, who we like and who we do not like, and why we do or do not like them, definitely says something about ourselves. That also could not be otherwise. .

Side note, fwiw.
I just watched Sloane Stevens in her win over Madison Keys. But I still will link to a column about Keys.
https://theundefeate...s-madison-keys/
Sometimes the young lead the way. It was terrific to see the support and affection that they offered each other.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-September-09, 17:20, said:

A list of people that I have said critical things about surely says a lot about me. Donald Trump, Ta-Nehisi Coates and Paul Krugman all make the list. But my thoughts about them are quite different.

I don't doubt that Paul Krugman is a very important economist. No doubt other economists engage him in serious discussion.Yes he seems to have difficulty in seeing how anyone could possibly come to any conclusion at variance with his, but in fact I can handle this. If for some reason I wanted to seriously tackle an economic issue, let's say an issue of sufficient importance to me that i decide to give it three months of serious study coming to the best conclusion that I can, I would have to be crazy to not have him on my reading list. I would not treat him as an all-seeing god, but I would most certainly carefully read what he says.

There is some similarity with TNC. I think a difference would be that it is more difficult to find a focus for TNC. You quoted him with respect to Trump. I suggested, and there was some agreement, that the piece is really about his view of white people. But then there is still the issue of whether we are seeking practical solutions to address racial issues or writing a history of racial issues. But, as an illustration, consider the white maid of 1807. Clearly this woman wanted to see herself as apart from and superior to the slaves. I find this about as surprising as learning that water flows downhill. There is a human desire to feel superior and I think this need is particularly strong among those who are near the bottom. They do not want to be mistaken for someone whose status is even lower. I have no need whatsoever to check the reliability of the quoted remark, because whether or not that particular maid made that particular remark, I think it is a virtual certainty that many maids made essentially that remark. As near as I can tell, just about anyone who works at a fast food place for more than six months becomes an assistant manager. This title is important to them whether or not they ever actually manage anything. I think TNC is trying very hard, too hard, to take something that really could not be otherwise and make out of it more than it is. So while I would feel the need for caution in reading Krugman, I would say that applies at least doubly in reading TNC. If I wanted to lessen racial disparity in education, would I read TNC? I suppose so, but I don't think he would be anywhere near the top of my list. Actually I was involved over several summers in such a program. Many black students were involved, as were black faculty from other schools, and I spent time on campuses of HBCUs. I am pretty sure that nobody, white or black, ever mentioned his name or any of his thoughts, and now that I have read some of what he thinks I can't see how any of it would apply in a practical way. I think that's not what he is about and I am uncertain of just what he actually is about.

Trump is in a class by himself. He and I would agree on that statement. We would disagree on what class that is.

Anyway, who we like and who we do not like, and why we do or do not like them, definitely says something about ourselves. That also could not be otherwise. .

Just to be clear, I posted the Trump quote from the article because I was pressed for time and because this is a thread about Trump. I never meant to imply that the article was about Trump - he, in fact, is a result of the findings of the author, not a cause.

[barmar]

When you're dealing with the small number of people you interact with in your personal life, it's easy to judge each person on their own merits. But that isn't really feasible when doing sociology research, or making broad public policy. We need to put people into categories, or everything becomes way too complicated. Of course, we have to understand that catgegories are generalizations, they don't precisely define all their members.

And even in personal anecdotes, it's really hard to avoid painting groups with a broad brush. Ken gives a number of examples of how he's not racist, and I believe him when he says he doesn't hate by groups. But he still wrote "she can tell you some things about how black women felt about that", implying that people's reactions to hise wife's episode of interracial dating depend on their ethnicity and gender.

As an example from another sphere, consider tax policy. Currently, tax rates are set based on marital status and broad income ranges. It seems like it would obviously be better if we just said "Everyone pays as much as they can afford." But if you think the current tax laws are complicated, imagine having to determine how much you personally can afford. It would effectively require everyone to have a detailed budget and manage their income and expenses like a public corporation that has to report to shareholders.

[Al_U_Card]

 barmar, on 2017-September-09, 23:39, said:

When you're dealing with the small number of people you interact with in your personal life, it's easy to judge each person on their own merits. But that isn't really feasible when doing sociology research, or making broad public policy. We need to put people into categories, or everything becomes way too complicated. Of course, we have to understand that catgegories are generalizations, they don't precisely define all their members.

And even in personal anecdotes, it's really hard to avoid painting groups with a broad brush. Ken gives a number of examples of how he's not racist, and I believe him when he says he doesn't hate by groups. But he still wrote "she can tell you some things about how black women felt about that", implying that people's reactions to hise wife's episode of interracial dating depend on their ethnicity and gender.

As an example from another sphere, consider tax policy. Currently, tax rates are set based on marital status and broad income ranges. It seems like it would obviously be better if we just said "Everyone pays as much as they can afford." But if you think the current tax laws are complicated, imagine having to determine how much you personally can afford. It would effectively require everyone to have a detailed budget and manage their income and expenses like a public corporation that has to report to shareholders.

Or, no tax "law", just pay $0 if income is < $X and X% on a scale that "covers" the expenditures. The IRS then does spot checks to verify that everyone is paying the appropriate amount. Lot of tax lawyers and accountants would not likely support this approach

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2017-September-09, 23:39, said:

When you're dealing with the small number of people you interact with in your personal life, it's easy to judge each person on their own merits. But that isn't really feasible when doing sociology research, or making broad public policy. We need to put people into categories, or everything becomes way too complicated. Of course, we have to understand that catgegories are generalizations, they don't precisely define all their members.

And even in personal anecdotes, it's really hard to avoid painting groups with a broad brush. Ken gives a number of examples of how he's not racist, and I believe him when he says he doesn't hate by groups. But he still wrote "she can tell you some things about how black women felt about that", implying that people's reactions to hise wife's episode of interracial dating depend on their ethnicity and gender.

As an example from another sphere, consider tax policy. Currently, tax rates are set based on marital status and broad income ranges. It seems like it would obviously be better if we just said "Everyone pays as much as they can afford." But if you think the current tax laws are complicated, imagine having to determine how much you personally can afford. It would effectively require everyone to have a detailed budget and manage their income and expenses like a public corporation that has to report to shareholders.

I am focusing mostly on your first paragraph. I sort of agree, except that I think placing people into categories does not really make things simpler. Even when the intention is good or neutral, and often it isn't, it clearly can add to the natural human tendency to root for "our team". Despite my misgivings about football I usually watch and enjoy the superbowl. But I can't tell you who won, or even who played, last February. Some years back I moved and am now closer to Baltimore than to Washington. So everyone I now meet is a Ravens fan instead of a Redskins fan. The players play for money. Of course they do and why shouldn't they, but why should I identify with them in any way? I don't, but it (redundantly) makes me a bit of an oddball. This identifying with sports teams has gone on forever, I was a St. Paul Saints baseball fan growing up With sports teams, silly but mostly harmless. I am far from sure that this constant emphasis on race, ethnicity, gender, and so on is harmless.

I do think in terms of personal experience. I recognize this is not definitive, but I think the professional sociology approach has traps of its own. I have mentioned more than once, ok maybe way more than once, my frequent skepticism of statistics. It's not that I distrust statisticians or that I think the mathematics behind it is wrong. Rather I think often it often lumps things together in a way that they shouldn't be lumped. Or, perhaps saying the same in a different phrasing, it ignores very important features. And, without a doubt, some of these studies are either designed to support a view or (mis-) interpreted to support a view.

Not everything should be interpreted as "Is this good for group X or is this bad for group X". I would prefer it if most things were not interpreted that way.

I will offer a specific example. I don't need a statistical study to see that the gap between the education available at schools in more wealthy districts and schools in the poorer districts is greatly. almost infinitely, larger than when I was a child. I favor doing something about that. I certainly expect that the poorer districts are also disproportionately minority, but I have no difficulty favoring doing something about the disparity without once mentioning race or ethnicity. I think it is very possible that arguing in favor of financial help for schools in areas where incomes are low, based on the obvious fact that when incomes are low it is difficult for the people to support good schools, would be a far more effective argument than any race based argument.

[Winstonm]

I think this nails our collective casual racism: John Grisham, A Time To Kill:

Quote

Jake Tyler Brigance: We're going to lose this case, Carl Lee. There are no more points of law to argue here. I want to cope a plea, maybe Buckley will cop us a second degree murder and we can get you just life in prison.

Carl Lee Hailey: Jake, I can't do no life in prison. You got to get me off. Now if it was you on trial...

Jake Tyler Brigance: It's not me, we're not the same, Carl Lee. The jury has to identify with the defendant. They see you, they see a yardworker; they see me, they see an attorney. I live in town, you live in the hill.

Carl Lee Hailey: Well, you are white and I'm black. See Jake, you think just like them, that's why I picked you; you are one of them , don't you see?. Oh, you think you ain't because you eat in Claude's and you are out there trying to get me off on TV talking about black and white, but the fact is you are just like all the rest of them. When you look at me, you don't see a man, you see a black man.

Jake Tyler Brigance: Carl Lee, I'm your friend.

Carl Lee Hailey: We ain't no friends, Jake. We are on different sides of the line, I ain't never seen you in my part of town. I bet you don't even know where I live. Our daughters, Jake; they ain't never gonna play together.

Jake Tyler Brigance: What are you talking about?

Carl Lee Hailey: America is a war and you are on the other side. How's a black man ever going to get a fair trial with the enemy on the bench and in the jury box?. My life in white hands? You Jake, that's how. You are my secret weapon because you are one of the bad guys. You don't mean to be but you are. It's how you was raised. Nigger, negro, black, African-american, no matter how you see me, you see me different, you see me like that jury sees me, you are them. Now throw out your points of law Jake. If you was on that jury, what would it take to convince you to set me free? That's how you save my ass. That's how you save us both.

Until we can look at each other and see nothing but fellow human beings exactly the same as us but who might have a slightly different appearance, we can never claim racism dead. Myself, I believe this possible. Maybe I'm a dreamer, too.

[Winstonm]

This, from WaPo, is both interesting and at the same time disturbing:

Quote

Yet there’s no question Facebook has a big influence on our worldview, whether we realize it or not. Sixty-six percent of U.S. Facebook users admit that they get news from the site, a number that in the end amounts to 44 percent of the general U.S. population. And people are more likely to believe news shared by their friends.

I think it critical for us to find a way to reduce or even negate the influence of false news stories spread by social media sites.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2017-September-11, 10:40, said:

I think it critical for us to find a way to reduce or even negate the influence of false news stories spread by social media sites.

Some schools now have classes on how to distinguish fake news.

[cherdano]

 barmar, on 2017-September-11, 14:04, said:

Some schools now have classes on how to distinguish fake news.

I think the problem is much much larger than "fake news".

Facebook is not in the business of informing you accurately about the world. They are in the business of making you feel good so that you check in again.

There are studies showing that having a larger percentage of women on a corporate board improves that corporation's performance. Are there also studies showing it had no benefit at all, or even a negative effect? I don't know - that's not a study my Facebook friends would share. But that doesn't make a report about the former studies fake news.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2017-September-11, 14:04, said:

Some schools now have classes on how to distinguish fake news.

This could be very interesting. I would love to be a fly on the wall, or wherever it is that flies make their observations from.

I will mention a few things from my childhood of varying degrees of plausibility.

1. The John Birch Society. The JBS claimed that "the government" was putting fluoride in our water. This was true. They also claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to do something, I am not sure what, to us.
I knew nobody who believed this.

2. Joe McCarthy (a story I love to tell since it makes me look good, or maybe so). In 1952 Adlai Stevenson was running against Dwight Eisenhower for president. I was 13 and I was interested. I read some about each of them and decided Adlai was my guy. I liked Ike, everyone liked Ike, but I would have voted for Stevenson. I got home from Boy Scouts one evening, my parents were watching tv. It was the first I had even heard of Joe McCarthy. There he was, explaining that in the 1930s Stevenson had belonged to some organizations that were now "on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations". Or words to that extent. Now I think it was in fact true that Stevenson had belonged to at least one r two fo the organizations and perhaps they were on a list. A lot of organizations and a lot of people were on some list in 1952. Of course Stevenson was not a Communist. Or anything remotely like a Communist. I rejected McCarthy's claims as hogwash. Good for me? Sure, but I can't say that I could have defended my position in a debate.
McCarthy had a far larger following than did The John Birch Society.

3. Bridey Murphy I never bought into this "past life" story but many did. I did write a paper in my high school psychology class about parapsychology. My conclusion was that the evidence for it was weak, noting in particular that the experiments of Rhine at Duke university had not been repeated elsewhere.(I had some guidance on this.) I did not dismiss it entirely. Same with others. A friend in graduate school, on his Ph.D. orals, was asked to explain the parapsychology experiments at Duke in terms of quantum mechanics. He was unable to do so. I did, and do, believe in quantum mechanics. But not in parapsychology.

4. When I was 15 or so, I and my classmates were given an interesting assignment. We were to choose a topic in the news, and then we were to read reports about it in three different magazines. I do not remember the topic I chose, but I am pretty sure the magazines I chose were Time, Newsweek and US News and Word Report. It was a revelation. The descriptions were quite different. Not contradictory as I recall, but definitely different.

I was a mentally active but unsophisticated adolescent. I have mentioned before that when my high school psychology teacher suggested that I write a term paper on Freud I asked "Who's Freud?". I had vast areas of total ignorance. Still do, for that matter. And while I was interested in politics, I was far more interested in cars.

All in all, I think that they have their work cut out for them if they are going to address fake news. The road to success with me would have been to encourage thought and skepticism. Requiring me to believe that story A is fake because the teacher says so and story B is real because the teacher says so would not have gone over well with me. Handing me the reasons and having me memorize them would have made it worse. I really enjoyed the assignment where we read three different news magazines and I would have happily read others had I known of their existence.

It is an important task. I wish them well.

[barmar]

 cherdano, on 2017-September-11, 15:14, said:

I think the problem is much much larger than "fake news".

Facebook is not in the business of informing you accurately about the world. They are in the business of making you feel good so that you check in again.

There are studies showing that having a larger percentage of women on a corporate board improves that corporation's performance. Are there also studies showing it had no benefit at all, or even a negative effect? I don't know - that's not a study my Facebook friends would share. But that doesn't make a report about the former studies fake news.

Ths is hardly unique to Facebook. Legitimate news organizations generally only report on studies with surprising results or results that suggest people need to do something.

That's why it seems like scientists can't make up their minds on things like which foods are good for you. Imagine a series of studies like this:

Study 1: Wine is good for you
Study 2: Wine is good for you
Study 3: Wine is good for you
Study 4: Wine is bad for you
Study 5: Wine is bad for you
Study 6: Wine is good for you

The only ones that get into the news (or even academic journals) are 1, 4, and 6 -- the studies that simply confirm a previous study aren't newsworthy.

This also has repercussions in the research itself. Researchers aren't eager to work on repeating a previous experiement's results, since it doesn't get published much, and publications are the life blood of academic researchers.

[jjbrr]

It also relates to people's lack of understanding about statistics and research in general. As always, there is an xkcd for that, even though I know one of you hates xkcd (was it cherdano or gwnn?)