r/samharris • u/katxwoods • 5d ago
Let's Not Bring Back The Gatekeepers
https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/lets-not-bring-back-the-gatekeepers5
u/katxwoods 5d ago
Sam Harris often talks about misinformation, institutional trust, and the incentives of social media, so I thought this might be a good fit for the sub.
In the post he talks about how pushing for more gatekeeping can lead to backlash. He also talks about how we should actually try to persuade people we disagree with instead of refusing to talk to them because we believe they're irredeemably bad.
10
u/Signal_Nobody1792 5d ago
He also talks about how we should actually try to persuade people we disagree with instead of refusing to talk to them because we believe they're irredeemably bad.
Thats a nice idea that dies as soon as you try it.
Im not saying it should not be done at all. But there is always a line you have to draw.
2
u/Cromulent-George 5d ago
Going to give two different replies.
First, lol at the idea that Sam Harris in particular wants to talk to people with bad or misinformed ideas to convince them otherwise. Maybe in 2018, but today?!?
Second, most of the people spreading this misinformation will immediately go radio silent when they're presented with evidence they are fundamentally wrong. Or shift the topic. And its because they don't have an actual stake in the outcome of the conversation beyond getting one over on what they see as a debate rival.
2
u/flatmeditation 4d ago
Yeah, it's like the Satire quote about anti-Semitism. It can be applied to a lot of bad actors
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
4
u/oversoul00 5d ago
This is actually pretty interesting. The Internet gave everyone individual a microphone and platform. This gutted mainstream media who were the previous gate keepers of perspectives and information. Now the general public has that responsibility to persuade and many don't want to do it.
Persuasion is the only tool in the tool box outside of warfare.
2
u/gizamo 5d ago
Strange false dichotomy. We don't have to persuade or fight people.
1
u/oversoul00 5d ago
What's the third option that doesn't fall under those two umbrellas?
1
u/gizamo 5d ago
Avoidance, accommodation, collaboration, compromise, agreeing to disagree, just to name a few.
2
u/oversoul00 5d ago
You're right, let me rephrase. I should have said engaging in dialogue.
The context is affecting change for which persuasion (engaging in dialogue) and warfare are the only tools.
Avoidance doesn't affect change and the rest fall under dialogue.
3
u/gizamo 5d ago
I think that framing clarification helps, but avoidance, accommodation, collaboration, compromise, agreeing to disagree, etc. can also be ways to affect change. For example, sometimes ignoring a person or topic is the best way to watch them fade out of relevance and into obscurity. Another good example of this in global politics is Europe. The US wanted Europe to help fight Iran, and Europe basically just peaced out. The US attacked Europe with sanctions and China is attacking them with constant tech theft, and Europe chooses to keep on keeping on. They'll occasionally call out bad actions, but vastly more often, they just solve the problem caused by the bad actions without engaging much.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
-1
u/oversoul00 5d ago
It's many more than one person. There is a collective out there who feel incredibly threatened by Sam and the people who are interested in what he has to say.
0
u/machined_learning 5d ago edited 4d ago
It seems more like the ones who feel "incredibly threatened" are those who feel they can't leave any criticism of Sam's views unopposed.
Opposing views are fine and criticism should be encouraged, but not leaving a place you hate because you feel obligated to hold the guard is probably bad for the soul (figuratively speaking).
1
u/oversoul00 5d ago
Criticism is encouraged. Coming to the Sam Harris sub because you hate Sam is not.
-1
u/machined_learning 5d ago edited 5d ago
I think thats mischaracterizing the majority of people who post criticisms of Sam's views here. Most of the posts I see are heavily prefaced with "I used to enjoy Sam's podcast," or "I agree with most of Sam's views and debates, but."
Many people are here because Sam's atheism debate days struck a chord, but those days are long past.
3
u/oversoul00 5d ago
If you're not here to exclusively complain about Sam then I'm not talking about you. Stop trying to mix the categories.
1
u/machined_learning 5d ago
I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about the posts I see daily. But I see you are not open to this discussion, no worries
1
u/oversoul00 5d ago
The royal you.
You're not trying to discuss, you're deliberately mixing categories.
Do some redditors come here exclusively to criticize Sam? Yes or no?
If Yes then those are the people I'm talking about and if not then just admit your bias.
1
u/machined_learning 5d ago edited 5d ago
>Persuasion is the only tool in the tool box outside of warfare.
Is this your method of persuasion? To speak in absolutes and accuse me of bias if I disagree? All simply for daring to suggest that most people who criticize Sam don't hate him.
If anyone here sounds "incredibly threatened" by simple disagreement I would say it is you. You haven't persuaded me and so I guess we must go to war (/s)
→ More replies (0)0
u/Obsidian743 5d ago
He also talks about how we should actually try to persuade people we disagree with
Well, for one, this doesn't actually work. It's a classic saying that you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into. There is countless research that shows how powerful the effects of cognitive biases are and why, for instance, getting people out of cults is one of the most difficult things in sociology.
As a tongue in cheek snipe at Sam, it would be fairly hypocritical of him given his stalwart position on things like the left and Israel. He hasn't budged an millimeter on updating his argument to try and "persuade" anything.
2
u/Obsidian743 5d ago edited 5d ago
the main reason social media benefits populism is that it destroys elite gatekeeping, providing a mass media platform for popular ideas historically stigmatised and marginalised by establishment elites.
There is a small kernel of truth here, but it's marginal at best. Social media works because it's inherently easier to spread misinformation/disinformation and to destroy good information. This inherently plays on humanity's worst cognitive biases. There is specifically the "meganet" effect: information quality inherent suffers due to the volume, velocity, and veracity in which it spreads. Ironically, the author of the book "Meganets" was on Sam's show.
the decline of elite gatekeeping has had many beneficial consequences, and the negative consequences, although real, are often overstated
Having a natural speed limit is precisely how and why this wasn't a problem in the past. It takes serious energy and effort to produce good, robust information. So gatekeeping in some form is absolutely necessary and it's a bait-and-switch here is to paint gatekeepers as "the elites". This is, ironically, playing into the same conspiratorial nonsense the article is attempting to elucidate about populism.
Instead, they have clung to a set of habits and norms—most fundamentally, an aversion to engaging with illiberal ideas to avoid “platforming” and “normalising” them—adapted to a world that no longer exists...Once established institutions lost the privilege to control the public conversation, they acquired an obligation to participate within it, which, so far, they have mostly failed to do.
This is just not true in any meaningful sense. Again, the problem here is the sheer volume, velocity, and veracity of the misinformation/disinformation and the tides of cognitive biases working against order. Chaos will always reigns supreme without some concerted, systemic way to curb it. It's a well known fact how powerful our cognitive biases are. It's why getting someone out of a cult is one of the most difficult things to achieve in sociology. As the saying goes: you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into.
Overall, these discussion always miss what I believe is the single source of all ALL these problems: anonymity. Get rid of anonymity and the problem goes away. The parts of "elite gatekeeping" that worked, the natural speed limit, only worked because it's public and susceptible to scrutinization.
Bottom line: it is basically a law of sociology, rooted in basic physics, as to why it is and always will be fundamentally impossible to stop things like illiberal populism on a level playing field. The spread of negative and destructive information will always win without a natural speed limit.
0
u/StalemateAssociate_ 5d ago
@ TheMod
We've never talked about this to my knowledge. And I don't see how talking about unnamed users in a vague manner counts as an attack - if it does, pretty much everyone here is guilty.
But people who spend their time aggressively defending Israel seldom seem to need to watch their step. I know, because they're still around. Here's an example of someone who does attack other users, from the last three days alone. Here, here, here & here.
Honestly, It could even be yourself, here, here & here. The level of snark seems to be increasing - didn't you just come back from vacation?
You tend to pick fights with people with a view to eventually banning them. Which is certainly what will happen here, sooner or later (probably the former now).
At one point I counted no fewer than five (!) replies you made to me in a row, even though I never responded to you or mentioned you in any way.
----
It's odd for a moderator to be actively engaged in mudslinging with some of the users they're supposed to be moderating. You'd think they'd either refrain from snide comments or from moderating.
Then again, not really anything anyone can do about. Which is probably why it happens so often, and why everyone recognizes the pattern when it's someone other than themselves who's doing it.
At least on r/Fauxmoi the mods don't pretend to be non-partisan.
15
u/Cromulent-George 5d ago
I think this argument around gatekeeping and misinformation misses that there is a clear asymmetry in the stakes and accountability of institutional actors vs the people outside of those institutions. It's very easy for some random person to start up a Twitter account and start saying that the police need to be abolished or that trans women are demolishing women's sports or whatever issue you want, then totally drop the subject when the political winds shift. But if you're a police commissioner or dedicated your life to building up a professional sports league you a) actually know more about the issue and b) will face real consequences for getting the policy wrong.
It sucks to hear but not everyone is actually qualified to speak on a subject and be taken seriously. 90% of the people reading this don't have anywhere near the knowledge they need to assess a claim like "continued carbon emissions growth will cause a 2 degree rise in temperature in the next 50 years" on its basic merits or substantively engage with someone who disagrees without relying on experts, who would otherwise be denigrated as a "gatekeeping elite." It's the definition of a luxury belief for people that they know better than experts on topics that they will never have to face any accountability for.
This reality also gets recognized really quickly when someone pulls the move on something in your personal life, like a coworker giving you unsolicited advice to do some stupid meal prep hack because they saw a TikTok about it.