Posted by tallman at 10:04pm Jul 25 '05So today, I've read or seen several opinions. Currently on my TV is a documentary called "Rampage Killers" (i.e. Columbine, etc...) I just read some of the thread below "The coming race war?" I read something this morning about the upcoming environmental "catastrophe" that will occur (this particular catastrophe started with an exaggerated peak-oil event, but quickly devolved into expectations of war, possibly nuclear).
The past 4 years of political events are perhaps even worse. We've got members of the Bush administration mentioning mushroomm cloud smoking guns, and we've got Democratic Senators and Amnesty International referring to Gitmo as "Gulags." I wrote in detail about that a little while ago on the politics board. What's really important about these issues generally gets lost in the hyperbole.
Watch any news channel, and what you'll see is something that doesn't even begin to represent the world we live in. Oh I'm not saying the news is false or anything like that, just that it only reflects a very small and special portion of reality. Anecdotal stories with immediate visual impact get magnified, while stories that can't easily be visualized or viscerally comprehended are ignored. Biased, shoddy, sensationalistic, and selective reporting is the norm. The political talk show, where two extreme polarized opponents yell at each other and offer very little in the way of actual evidence don't help either.
The goal of all this seems to be to get us worked up so that we'll simply keep watching, but there are other things that happen as a result. In terms of what we should be worrying about, we're completely screwed up. We talk endlessly about terrorism, but such attacks really are rare, at least, when compared to other risks like heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes.
I don't normally pimp my blog, but I recently wrote a post about risk perception. In it, I asked:
Again, in politics, we see this manifest in many ways. I've already talked about several, but what they all boil down to is polarization. It's pretty obvious that it's a problem, but any discussion about the subject quickly turns to hyperbole. Red state and blue state? Personally, when I look at the map, I see mostly purple, as it should be.
I've done a lot of debating here, often taking a less than popular point of view (I tend to be a contrarian, and am comofortable on the defense). One thing that I've found is that as a debate heats up, the arguments become polarized. I sometimes find myself defending someone or something that I normally wouldn't. This is, in part, because a polarizing debate forces you to dispute everything your opponent argues. To concede one point irrevocably weakens your position, or so it seems. Of course, the fact that I'm a contrarian, somewhat competitive, and stubborn also plays a part this. Emotions sometimes flare, attitudes clash, and you're often left feeling dirty after such a debate.
Now, that isn't necessarily bad. My whole point here is usually to force people to look at an issue from a different angle. If a lurker reads a debate and comes out of it confused, challenged or wanting to know more, I consider that a win.
Of course, the media isn't wholly to blame here (and I don't think there's a way to force a "fix" without creating worse problems in the process). I'm a firm believer that these things are what we make of them. While I sometimes come down with a hard line here on these boards, in reality I'm much more moderate.
But I seem to be seeing a general antipathy towards moderation or pragmatism. Everywhere I look, I see exaggeration and hyperbole, and I'm getting pretty sick of it. But it's not like I'm always able to keep a lid on my own tendency to inflate things, so I'm wondering if anyone else does the same sort of thing?
Does all this hyperbole have a numbing effect? Have we become desensitized?
I don't know. Maybe I'm being overly concerned in this post, exaggerating my feelings to make a point. But I do think we've got a problem here, and it feels like most people don't care and actively oppose or just ignore any effort to compromise or moderate a debate...
~[private]
The past 4 years of political events are perhaps even worse. We've got members of the Bush administration mentioning mushroomm cloud smoking guns, and we've got Democratic Senators and Amnesty International referring to Gitmo as "Gulags." I wrote in detail about that a little while ago on the politics board. What's really important about these issues generally gets lost in the hyperbole.
Watch any news channel, and what you'll see is something that doesn't even begin to represent the world we live in. Oh I'm not saying the news is false or anything like that, just that it only reflects a very small and special portion of reality. Anecdotal stories with immediate visual impact get magnified, while stories that can't easily be visualized or viscerally comprehended are ignored. Biased, shoddy, sensationalistic, and selective reporting is the norm. The political talk show, where two extreme polarized opponents yell at each other and offer very little in the way of actual evidence don't help either.
The goal of all this seems to be to get us worked up so that we'll simply keep watching, but there are other things that happen as a result. In terms of what we should be worrying about, we're completely screwed up. We talk endlessly about terrorism, but such attacks really are rare, at least, when compared to other risks like heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes.
I don't normally pimp my blog, but I recently wrote a post about risk perception. In it, I asked:
Here's a question: Which animal poses the greater risk to the average person, a deer or a shark?In that same post, I quote Bruce Schneier, who believes that the media severely skews our risk perception. "Our experience is distilled for us, and itâ≢s a skewed sample that plays havoc with our perceptions."
Most people's initial reaction (mine included) to that question is to answer that the shark is the more dangerous animal. Statistically speaking, the average American is much more likely to be killed by deer (due to collisions with vehicles) than by a shark attack. Truly accurate statistics for deer collisions don't exist, but estimates place the number of accidents in the hundreds of thousands. Millions of dollars worth of damage are caused by deer accidents, as are thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths, every year.
Shark attacks, on the other hand, are much less frequent. Each year, approximately 50 to 100 shark attacks are reported. "World-wide, over the past decade, there have been an average of 8 shark attack fatalities per year."
Again, in politics, we see this manifest in many ways. I've already talked about several, but what they all boil down to is polarization. It's pretty obvious that it's a problem, but any discussion about the subject quickly turns to hyperbole. Red state and blue state? Personally, when I look at the map, I see mostly purple, as it should be.
I've done a lot of debating here, often taking a less than popular point of view (I tend to be a contrarian, and am comofortable on the defense). One thing that I've found is that as a debate heats up, the arguments become polarized. I sometimes find myself defending someone or something that I normally wouldn't. This is, in part, because a polarizing debate forces you to dispute everything your opponent argues. To concede one point irrevocably weakens your position, or so it seems. Of course, the fact that I'm a contrarian, somewhat competitive, and stubborn also plays a part this. Emotions sometimes flare, attitudes clash, and you're often left feeling dirty after such a debate.
Now, that isn't necessarily bad. My whole point here is usually to force people to look at an issue from a different angle. If a lurker reads a debate and comes out of it confused, challenged or wanting to know more, I consider that a win.
Of course, the media isn't wholly to blame here (and I don't think there's a way to force a "fix" without creating worse problems in the process). I'm a firm believer that these things are what we make of them. While I sometimes come down with a hard line here on these boards, in reality I'm much more moderate.
But I seem to be seeing a general antipathy towards moderation or pragmatism. Everywhere I look, I see exaggeration and hyperbole, and I'm getting pretty sick of it. But it's not like I'm always able to keep a lid on my own tendency to inflate things, so I'm wondering if anyone else does the same sort of thing?
Does all this hyperbole have a numbing effect? Have we become desensitized?
I don't know. Maybe I'm being overly concerned in this post, exaggerating my feelings to make a point. But I do think we've got a problem here, and it feels like most people don't care and actively oppose or just ignore any effort to compromise or moderate a debate...
~[private]
Antipathy Towards Moderation - tallman