The 10% lie is much more effective than the 100% one. While misinformation deals in lies, disinformation deals in facts. ‘Fact-checking’ therefore, is a favorite pretense of the disinformant
I'm not sure that it belongs here but for what it's worth I will give my simple position on media. I realize this is not exactly what you're writing about but anyway:
--
I don't trust anything the media says. At this point they have said explicitly, both for covid, Ukraine and I believe other situations, that they are not going to tell us anything that would make us question the official narrative.
They have made explicit that their purpose is indoctrination, not information. This has been the case all along, as Noam Chomsky noted in manufacturing consent.
The only information I trust is those coming from certain substack and other independent sources and even then I still read it fairly carefully.
I would hope that any thinking person would take this approach but
Unfortunately many people have the same attitude towards media and officialdom as peasants in the Middle Ages had towards the Catholic Church; belief and unquestioning acceptance, especially towards the medical authorities whom even pre covid they have been terrorized into believing they are totally dependent on, and just as the Catholic Church did then, the forces of power, profit and control use that for their own advantage.
This is a great explanation of the processes and strategies of information operations, but what it also has made me think about is just how well coordinated and prepared the entire COVID related IO campaign was. I find it very very difficult to believe that that was spontaneous, my experience with DoD and government is that they could never be this organized, secretive, or effective. The scale and effectiveness of this IO campaign is staggering.
I can see that this is a brilliant article but it is so dense and obscure that I think the potential audience for it is very minimal. I couldn't even begin to think of sharing it with any of my friends, which is unfortunate because it seems like something with a lot of important ideas to offer.
If I may offer a well meant suggestion, please have a plain english abstract and summary at the beginning
"The social definitions of misinformation and disinformation suffer Wittgenstein Contextual Error. They are disinformation themselves. One should notice that, despite an expansion of such terminology and knowledge, nonetheless people grow more ignorant and gullible each decade. This is exactly how disinformation works.
The 10% lie is much more effective than the 100% one. While misinformation deals in lies, disinformation deals in facts. ‘Fact-checking’ therefore, is a favorite pretense of the disinformant."
If you are using phrases like Wittgenstein Contextual Error you are immediately going over the heads of most people.
I hate to say it but you really want to write a summary that a 12 year old could read if you want any chance of getting through to all the brain dead people who seem to be in our society today.
__
People seem to grow more ignorant and gullible each decade. Words like misinformation and disinformation are introduced, allowing for
"Fact-checking ", a favorite pretense of the disinformant."
What better way to lie to people than to tell them you are correcting mistakes? especially if you are an official body using the process for your own corrupt reasons.
--
My suggestion is to write exactly the articles you want to write but then put together a totally dumbed down one or two paragraphs summary and literally test it on 12-year-olds. I wish I was kidding about that.
I think you have a lot of extremely valuable insights to offer the conversation.
If you could put it in a form that could be more understood by more people, something that people like gato and Steve Kirsch and Igor Chudov could share out on their substacks, I think your thoughts could be quite influential. The audiences for those folks are far more sophisticated so you don't have to do a totally dumbed down summary version, but even so I think it would be good to have a more digestible and comprehensible version and then one could read the full, in-depth, technical version which you have up here
Noticed you presumed knowledge of Wittgenstein. Certainly I could look it up, but perhaps this is simply a technical article not meant for a general audience.
Q: are you interested in being read beyond a small group?
If it has never been said before (and I do not find the material I offer, published anywhere else) I would rather it be said correctly first - before attempting to teach it. That is the first priority for my articles - having it said, and said correctly.
I know that you are not quibbling with a curious person having to look up a word, which is also explained in the successive text, but - posing the familiar, which is what speaking to a 12 year old entails, is not really what I am doing.
I am posing the unfamiliar.
It requires the reader to input effort to comprehend, not merely understand. Like music, music cannot be taught by means of the familiar, it must be comprehended and embraced on its own terms. Merely understanding notes, sharps and flats does not serve to make one a musician. One will never know the joy of an E minor blues ballad on guitar at 2:00 am in the kitchen, just because they know that a quarter note is 1/4th of a whole note, 'like a quarter versus a dollar'. It actually teaches very little. People understand that useless familiar info, and substitute that for actual learning (comprehension).
A second aspect is, philosophy of this complexity, can be re-expressed plainly, 1000 times and 1000 different ways, and there will ALWAYS be a feature of the simplified material which is difficult for some readers. They will always think it needs to be simpler. Always.... chasing an illusive goal, which changes the job at hand for the hard philosopher, into being a butterfly chaser instead. Wasting his short days trying to please an impossible customer.
Read (especially about teaching a fish to climb a tree) these articles, if you get a chance.
I understand your points, especially about saying things correctly and posing the unfamiliar John Coltrane is not going to mean anything simplified to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star terms... and I'm don't feel like you clearly got the nature of my request.
I'm not asking you to put things in *Familiar* terms for unsophisticated readers, I'm saying have a short abstract, as they do in scientific papers, in which ideas are put in *Simpler* terms, which is quite a bit different.
Essentially it comes down to a matter of which vocabulary you use in the abstract. Ideas can be as unfamiliar as possible, I'm simply saying make them at least more digestible so that you can reach a wider audience, since I think society would benefit from your ideas having a wider reach.
At that point the hook may have been baited enough to get someone to be willing to try reading the original article and looking up terms like Wittgenstein Contextual Error and even if they don't, you will have sown some seeds in their minds.
____
"Wasting his short days trying to please an impossible customer"
I'm not sure that putting together a 1,000 word abstract of your original piece in simpler terms qualifies.
_____
I've seen that many people are much more invested in fighting off unfamiliar ideas rather than investigating them. I understand that many people treat new ideas like dangerous animals and either run from them or attack them, which in our current social climate means trying to make sure they never get heard.
I get all that and I know that there are a percentage of people who, if given a chance, are capable of learning. All the things I'm asking of you are geared towards those people.
To repeat my main point: I am not asking you to change a word of the original article, I am simply suggesting that a 1,000 word abstract using relatively simpler terms and non-technical language, (or at least defining some of the terms), would be useful and would give your ideas a chance to have a much wider influence. At least bait the hook
My main (but still provisional) takeaway from this article:
One cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for causing harm by acting on the information provided by others if the agent in question did not seek to personally verify that acting on the relevant information will not cause harm. For example, a politician who causes harm by acting on the advice of experts cannot claim that he acted in good faith in trusting the experts; he is personally liable for causing harm because he failed to verify that acting on the relevant information would not cause harm and therefore intentionally acted with indifference to the possibility of harm.
The key theme of the book is that power resides with intel access - security clearance - not formal rank. Bill C should know...!
The book relates the story of two NSA operatives on the ship with the ranks of clerk giving orders to the ship's captain. El capitan dissed his orders. "And the captain's next command was over a desk!" A classic line!
so easy to have lies and missing information survive the 'transfers'.
it has been a long time since i had a loose, intermittent association with very smart researchers tackling the problem of 'fusing' data emanating from many sources and diverse data systems to accumulate decision grade information.
data issues: pedigree, reliability, shelf life, and durability arose. and how complete, w/ gaps identified.
handling: taxonomy/dictionary/word. definitions, message syntax, recording, filing, and presenting.
the idea was to amass data, refine data to information and fuse it into knowledge, which informed by experience and outside input rise to wisdom.
infers ability to assess truth (epistemology) and thinking like God (theological definition of wisdom)
It's been just long enough to begin to wonder what you've been up to and behold two pieces that will take quite a bit of rereading to absorb most of the fine points. Big time thanks!
As a case study framework it reminds me of Nils Meltzer, UN Rapporteur for Torture, explaining how he had been influenced by a propaganda operation so successful he failed to realize he was being brainwashed. "A murderous system is being created before our very eyes"
I'm not sure that it belongs here but for what it's worth I will give my simple position on media. I realize this is not exactly what you're writing about but anyway:
--
I don't trust anything the media says. At this point they have said explicitly, both for covid, Ukraine and I believe other situations, that they are not going to tell us anything that would make us question the official narrative.
They have made explicit that their purpose is indoctrination, not information. This has been the case all along, as Noam Chomsky noted in manufacturing consent.
The only information I trust is those coming from certain substack and other independent sources and even then I still read it fairly carefully.
I would hope that any thinking person would take this approach but
Unfortunately many people have the same attitude towards media and officialdom as peasants in the Middle Ages had towards the Catholic Church; belief and unquestioning acceptance, especially towards the medical authorities whom even pre covid they have been terrorized into believing they are totally dependent on, and just as the Catholic Church did then, the forces of power, profit and control use that for their own advantage.
This is a great explanation of the processes and strategies of information operations, but what it also has made me think about is just how well coordinated and prepared the entire COVID related IO campaign was. I find it very very difficult to believe that that was spontaneous, my experience with DoD and government is that they could never be this organized, secretive, or effective. The scale and effectiveness of this IO campaign is staggering.
I can see that this is a brilliant article but it is so dense and obscure that I think the potential audience for it is very minimal. I couldn't even begin to think of sharing it with any of my friends, which is unfortunate because it seems like something with a lot of important ideas to offer.
If I may offer a well meant suggestion, please have a plain english abstract and summary at the beginning
Here is a shot at it...
"The social definitions of misinformation and disinformation suffer Wittgenstein Contextual Error. They are disinformation themselves. One should notice that, despite an expansion of such terminology and knowledge, nonetheless people grow more ignorant and gullible each decade. This is exactly how disinformation works.
The 10% lie is much more effective than the 100% one. While misinformation deals in lies, disinformation deals in facts. ‘Fact-checking’ therefore, is a favorite pretense of the disinformant."
Love you and still-
If you are using phrases like Wittgenstein Contextual Error you are immediately going over the heads of most people.
I hate to say it but you really want to write a summary that a 12 year old could read if you want any chance of getting through to all the brain dead people who seem to be in our society today.
__
People seem to grow more ignorant and gullible each decade. Words like misinformation and disinformation are introduced, allowing for
"Fact-checking ", a favorite pretense of the disinformant."
What better way to lie to people than to tell them you are correcting mistakes? especially if you are an official body using the process for your own corrupt reasons.
--
My suggestion is to write exactly the articles you want to write but then put together a totally dumbed down one or two paragraphs summary and literally test it on 12-year-olds. I wish I was kidding about that.
I think you have a lot of extremely valuable insights to offer the conversation.
If you could put it in a form that could be more understood by more people, something that people like gato and Steve Kirsch and Igor Chudov could share out on their substacks, I think your thoughts could be quite influential. The audiences for those folks are far more sophisticated so you don't have to do a totally dumbed down summary version, but even so I think it would be good to have a more digestible and comprehensible version and then one could read the full, in-depth, technical version which you have up here
Noticed you presumed knowledge of Wittgenstein. Certainly I could look it up, but perhaps this is simply a technical article not meant for a general audience.
Q: are you interested in being read beyond a small group?
If it has never been said before (and I do not find the material I offer, published anywhere else) I would rather it be said correctly first - before attempting to teach it. That is the first priority for my articles - having it said, and said correctly.
I know that you are not quibbling with a curious person having to look up a word, which is also explained in the successive text, but - posing the familiar, which is what speaking to a 12 year old entails, is not really what I am doing.
I am posing the unfamiliar.
It requires the reader to input effort to comprehend, not merely understand. Like music, music cannot be taught by means of the familiar, it must be comprehended and embraced on its own terms. Merely understanding notes, sharps and flats does not serve to make one a musician. One will never know the joy of an E minor blues ballad on guitar at 2:00 am in the kitchen, just because they know that a quarter note is 1/4th of a whole note, 'like a quarter versus a dollar'. It actually teaches very little. People understand that useless familiar info, and substitute that for actual learning (comprehension).
A second aspect is, philosophy of this complexity, can be re-expressed plainly, 1000 times and 1000 different ways, and there will ALWAYS be a feature of the simplified material which is difficult for some readers. They will always think it needs to be simpler. Always.... chasing an illusive goal, which changes the job at hand for the hard philosopher, into being a butterfly chaser instead. Wasting his short days trying to please an impossible customer.
Read (especially about teaching a fish to climb a tree) these articles, if you get a chance.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2022/01/06/the-distinction-between-comprehension-and-understanding/
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2016/08/05/the-nine-features-of-great-philosophy/
:-)
TES
I understand your points, especially about saying things correctly and posing the unfamiliar John Coltrane is not going to mean anything simplified to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star terms... and I'm don't feel like you clearly got the nature of my request.
I'm not asking you to put things in *Familiar* terms for unsophisticated readers, I'm saying have a short abstract, as they do in scientific papers, in which ideas are put in *Simpler* terms, which is quite a bit different.
Essentially it comes down to a matter of which vocabulary you use in the abstract. Ideas can be as unfamiliar as possible, I'm simply saying make them at least more digestible so that you can reach a wider audience, since I think society would benefit from your ideas having a wider reach.
At that point the hook may have been baited enough to get someone to be willing to try reading the original article and looking up terms like Wittgenstein Contextual Error and even if they don't, you will have sown some seeds in their minds.
____
"Wasting his short days trying to please an impossible customer"
I'm not sure that putting together a 1,000 word abstract of your original piece in simpler terms qualifies.
_____
I've seen that many people are much more invested in fighting off unfamiliar ideas rather than investigating them. I understand that many people treat new ideas like dangerous animals and either run from them or attack them, which in our current social climate means trying to make sure they never get heard.
I get all that and I know that there are a percentage of people who, if given a chance, are capable of learning. All the things I'm asking of you are geared towards those people.
To repeat my main point: I am not asking you to change a word of the original article, I am simply suggesting that a 1,000 word abstract using relatively simpler terms and non-technical language, (or at least defining some of the terms), would be useful and would give your ideas a chance to have a much wider influence. At least bait the hook
There are two characteristics of a plain English summary
1. Brevity/conciseness (1,000 words is far too long)
1 (corollary) It takes far more words to explain something in familiar terms, than it does to describe it in technically accurate terms.
2. Relation to the familiar.
Because if the familiar is not used, the brevity will not achieve the goal of understanding in a naive audience.
This is a given.
This is what a parable achieves. So you are asking me to deliver the familiar, you just don't realize it.
As commonly used today in medicine
Misinformation=Heresy
In politics when something is called misinformation that means it's true
My main (but still provisional) takeaway from this article:
One cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for causing harm by acting on the information provided by others if the agent in question did not seek to personally verify that acting on the relevant information will not cause harm. For example, a politician who causes harm by acting on the advice of experts cannot claim that he acted in good faith in trusting the experts; he is personally liable for causing harm because he failed to verify that acting on the relevant information would not cause harm and therefore intentionally acted with indifference to the possibility of harm.
From your intel backgroud, TES, you know all about disinformation.
Not as long a career there as many or even most. But, without going into details, ... its sure was jam-packed eventful. ;-)
TES,
Have you read
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/804860.The_Puzzle_Palace
?
If so, how accurate was it?
The key theme of the book is that power resides with intel access - security clearance - not formal rank. Bill C should know...!
The book relates the story of two NSA operatives on the ship with the ranks of clerk giving orders to the ship's captain. El capitan dissed his orders. "And the captain's next command was over a desk!" A classic line!
so easy to have lies and missing information survive the 'transfers'.
it has been a long time since i had a loose, intermittent association with very smart researchers tackling the problem of 'fusing' data emanating from many sources and diverse data systems to accumulate decision grade information.
data issues: pedigree, reliability, shelf life, and durability arose. and how complete, w/ gaps identified.
handling: taxonomy/dictionary/word. definitions, message syntax, recording, filing, and presenting.
the idea was to amass data, refine data to information and fuse it into knowledge, which informed by experience and outside input rise to wisdom.
infers ability to assess truth (epistemology) and thinking like God (theological definition of wisdom)
It's been just long enough to begin to wonder what you've been up to and behold two pieces that will take quite a bit of rereading to absorb most of the fine points. Big time thanks!
As a case study framework it reminds me of Nils Meltzer, UN Rapporteur for Torture, explaining how he had been influenced by a propaganda operation so successful he failed to realize he was being brainwashed. "A murderous system is being created before our very eyes"
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange