
Carl Bergstrom on data manipulation, fake news,& using science as a lie detector - xingyzt
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/aug/01/carl-bergstrom-people-are-using-data-to-bullshit
======
joshgel
I find that in office politics, once data is presented, it becomes the
'facts'. (Or at least the narrative that gets promulgated forward.) It's
incredibly challenging to change the 'facts'/narrative. Often because of the
challenge in demonstrating the others' data are false or show a misleading
picture.

I think this is somewhat like convincing people that believed the early
studies on hydroxychloroquine. A narrative was built and despite multiple
studies and RCTs, it continues in many circles. If the initial data showed a
different picture, I have a hard time imagining the on-going challenge of
fighting this disinformation battle. (it would have been another).

~~~
Camillo
> It's incredibly challenging to change the 'facts'/narrative.

It's incredibly easy if you control the narrative factories. For example,
consider the sudden switch from "masks don't work unless they're N95, you need
an MD to put one on correctly, and if you buy them you're an egotistical
asshole who's putting our medical workers in danger" to "even plain cloth
masks are useful, everyone must wear one at all times, and if you didn't buy
one you're an egotistical asshole who's putting everyone in danger" earlier
this year. Took less than a week.

I was pro-mask since before the narrative switch, but it would be completely
irresponsible to sit back and say "oh well, good on them for correcting
themselves, that's how science works after all". That was a real "we've always
been at war with Eastasia" moment: a naked exercise of power, which could be
used just as easily to switch from a true narrative to a false one, or from
one lie to another.

~~~
joshgel
Yet there are people not wearing masks because they believe they don’t work,
refuting your point.

As it’s still going on, I’d say it took more than a week.

~~~
mellow2020
You're shifting goalposts from official recommendations to those being trusted
or followed.

------
LargoLasskhyfv
My personal motto in dealing with this is:

 _Stressen, Meutern, Flegeln!_ as a juxtaposition of _Messen, Steuern, Regeln_
which is German for [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentation_and_control_en...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentation_and_control_engineering)

The battle for hearts and minds [2]
[https://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/battle-hearts-and-
min...](https://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/battle-hearts-and-minds) is
nothing new, now fought by cybernetic means. [3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics)

Considering this, as a precaution to not having ones strings pulled by
mechanisms of media, regardless of state- or non-state actors in the [4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy)
I implented a mental default-deny for pull requests in the spirit of [5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed)

 _Stressen_ as in stress back if someone/thing is stressing you.

By _Meutern_ as in mutiny.

And lastly by _Flegeln_ as in being a Yahoo, Redneck, Hick, Hool, Honk, Punk
etc. about it.

(Edit: Vanishing fast into the off, yelling _Geronimo Banzai_!)

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
That is my facility for managing systems of oppression.

------
perl4ever
That's why they call it "data" and not "information".

------
nkingsy
He seems not to expect change in the "populist" element in the current media
landscape. The only policy opinions/spitballs I read in the interview were
banning political advertising on social media and public support for
independent journalism, and he didn't give the impression that he thought
either would go very far.

It seems like paradigm shifts happen more often than we think. They always
surprise me, at least (BLM, same sex marriage, legalized pot in the US).
Reading between the lines, I think he's saying that barring a paradigm shift,
this new kind of "anti-democratic populism" is going to be around for a while.

------
raphlinus
Carl Bergstrom is one of my favorite Twitter follows, especially on topics
that are pushed by seemingly legit sources (including peer-reviewed
publications) but contain serious flaws in reasoning. The course sounds
amazing, and I'm sure the book is good as well.

------
pmdulaney
"If some guy rolls in with a fancy algorithm telling you someone is a criminal
using facial features, you need to be able to say that is nuts."

OK, maybe. But I think that it is just as often political correctness as
science that allows one to dismiss such assertions out of hand. As much, as a
gentile, I would like to be able to dismiss "The Jews really are smarter than
the rest of us" out of hand, some unpopular assertions may in fact be true.
And I think truth has to come before other considerations. (Though it may be
best not to make such assertions at all if there's not a good reason to.)

Overall, though, I really liked what Bergstrom had to say. What he had to say
about mockery being unproductive was some practical wisdom.

~~~
a1369209993
It's not that they are, in fact, not a criminal. That's probably true, since
unless you're using a deeply fucked up juridiction's definition of criminal,
most people aren't criminals, but that's not the point. What's nuts is
treating the claims of a algorithm you don't understand as _evidence_ that
someone is a criminal, rather than as unsubstantiated hearsay the way you
would if a human made such a claim.

~~~
pmdulaney
If Bergstrom's point is that one shouldn't believe claims just because someone
asserts them, then yes, that's true.

But I would say that the set of assertions for which one is justified in
rejecting them out of hand is perhaps smaller than he is suggesting.

For example, there was fake news recently in which the Gates Foundation was
said to be inserting subcutaneous chips into folks who had received vaccines.
It turned out to be untrue, but not obviously so. The technology exists and if
not abused it could be an inexpensive and effective form of record keeping.

~~~
a1369209993
> rejecting them out of hand

I may have missed it, but I don't see TFA actually arguing for that at all.

> one shouldn't believe claims just because someone [or something] asserts
> them

Seems to be the overall point.

If some guy rolls in with a paranoid schizophrenic telling you someone is a
criminal using facial features, you need to be able to say that is nuts.

------
Shoop
@dang: Could we get a title change?

Maybe "Carl Bergstrom on data manipulation, fake news, and the importance of
using science as a lie detector"

~~~
xingyzt
Subtitle is 20 characters too long. I truncated it a bit.

------
etangent
This has always been the case, not sure why this is news.

~~~
sabertoothed
Their lecture series was pretty good:
[https://www.callingbullshit.org/videos.html](https://www.callingbullshit.org/videos.html)

