The dividing line is math.

Left vs. Right.
Censorship vs. no Censorship.

Happy to see Elon Musk take over Twitter, or frightened to see Elon Musk take over Twitter?

It all comes down to skill at math. Not even algebra or geometry. Certainly not Trigonometry or Calculus (although calculus helps.)

Arithmetic. But being good enough at Arithmetic to be able to handle fractions.

That's the whole dividing line.

Why?


Because once you are good at fractions, you can understand statistics. You can determine the likelihood of something being true or false. You can digest a certain amount of raw data on your own, and chew it without needing someone to chew it for you.

You can then understand probability at at least a rudimentary level. You know the difference between reliable and unreliable evidence. You can 'fact check" anything you hear yourself, by looking it up on google and seeing what actual evidence does, or does not exist, to support the claim.

People in that position DON'T NEED CENSORSHIP.

They can censor their own data. Read everything, take it all in, and then know what things to throw in the trash bin.

People like that don't want censorship.

But... what if you weren't smart enough to be able to filter the information for yourself? What if statistics were confusing and you couldn't tell what they meant, and it all just looked like gobblely gibberish? Someone quotes to you a number too high to count, and it looks to you like that must mean what they're saying is statistically true?

Well, then you would probably want censorship. You would trust information not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of trusting the person who tells that information to you.

Information that was worthy to be published would have to be true according to "person I trust". You might even go so far as to actually believe that everything they say bad things about is therefore false.

I think people in that situation don't like to be at a disadvantage. Censorship is kind of an attempt to level the playing field. They get tired of getting sandbagged by data that isn't on their "approved" list, and realize it would be easier for us to converse as equals if we all had to go off of the same "approved" list of sources.

They're not wrong about that. But.... we would all be equally blind.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

To be fair, most Americans don't understand basic fractions, or how to use them.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
With all due respect, your analysis is hopelessly naive and simplistic.

First, I agree that an ability to accurately engage in statistical/probabilistic reasoning is necessary for discerning between truth and falsity in many real world cases.

However, even though it is necessary, it is not sufficient. As a simple example, you can do statistical analysis of fake data and come to mathematically correct but factually incorrect conclusions. You need to have some domain knowledge in addition to mathematical reasoning skills.

Second, you are incorrect that statistical/probabilistic reasoning follows directly from Arithmetic. Arithmetic deals with the properties of numbers. Statistics/probabilities deals with the properties of abstract variables such as means, medians, standard deviations, expectation values, etc. This is why statistics is usually not taught in high school or college until AFTER Algebra, which is also an abstraction from numbers. Cognitively, you can't understand the more abstract concept until after you've mastered the more basic concept.

Finally, only about 25% of Americans ever get exposed to any statistics/probability education in high school/college. If you really believe your own statements, you are basically saying that 75% of Americans need censorship

All you really need is the truth, backed by facts.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Information that was worthy to be published would have to be true according to "person I trust". You might even go so far as to actually believe that everything they say bad things about is therefore false. I think people in that situation don't like to be at a disadvantage. Censorship is kind of an attempt to level the playing field. They get tired of getting sandbagged by data that isn't on their "approved" list, and realize it would be easier for us to converse as equals if we all had to go off of the same "approved" list of sources. They're not wrong about that. But.... we would all be equally blind.

lol Talk about the Government / MSM doing your thinking for you .

There is Logic in what your saying but it's the Logic of someone looking to Censor information , I could see this being explained before a Senate panel in Washington .

Perhaps you should go to Washington DC and look for a Job I think you would do well there

a reply to: 1947boomer


I like his line of thought, but you expounded upon it on a higher level of awareness.

If you really believe your own statements, you are basically saying that 75% of Americans need censorship

I don't think that was the message he intended to bring across. More like lazy people are easier to manipulate because they don't think for themselves and therefore an immature mind unwillingly accepts guidance from whatever source it identifies as an authority figure.

Perhaps he can clarify.

a reply to: lordcomac

Too many people can't even apply Occam's Razor.

Deny Ignorance.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There are 3 types of people in this world.

Those that know math and those that don't.



Interesting premise, OP.

I think you're onto something.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


However, even though it is necessary, it is not sufficient. As a simple example, you can do statistical analysis of fake data and come to mathematically correct but factually incorrect conclusions. You need to have some domain knowledge in addition to mathematical reasoning skills.

The problem with "fake data" is that most academic or mainstream data is compiled by a large group of people , who would all have to agree to falsify it.

Second, you are incorrect that statistical/probabilistic reasoning follows directly from Arithmetic. Arithmetic deals with the properties of numbers. Statistics/probabilities deals with the properties of abstract variables such as means, medians, standard deviations, expectation values, etc. This is why statistics is usually not taught in high school or college until AFTER Algebra, which is also an abstraction from numbers. Cognitively, you can't understand the more abstract concept until after you've mastered the more basic concept.

You don't need to understand all of it to understand some of it.

For example, you can understand that winning the lottery jackpot is substantially less likely than being struck by lightning, simply by looking at the odds of each, and comparing them.

moneyminiblog.com...

Most of the terms you are throwing out here only come up when you're doing something really precise, like calculating an insurance rate, or betting professionally on sporting events.

You don't need those things in order to understand that 400,000 Covid deaths isn't really enough to be putting your life on hold over. "Number so big I can't count that high" doesn't necessarily mean a big number in the statistical sense.

Finally, only about 25% of Americans ever get exposed to any statistics/probability education in high school/college. If you really believe your own statements, you are basically saying that 75% of Americans need censorship

I am not. It's a non-sequitur.


If a person doesn't understand statistics, it does not therefore follow that their news should be censored for them.

If they can't tell truth from falsehood for them self, then what does follow is that there is no point in worrying about what information they are confronted with . Might as well just hand them a story book.

Such individuals should refrain from pretending they know something. Truth is not a democracy (by which I mean 100% of humanity can believe something......... and it can still be false.) Parroting an "expert" just fills the air with useless noise. Either that "expert" can prove their points without crowd enforcement, or they are probably wrong.


It's better to simply leave the decision making about real world problems to people who have enough education to tell what news is accurate for themselves, with no need for censorship.

One group doesn't need censorship to make good decisions. The other has nothing to gain by participating in the decision making process in the first place, being too easily fooled. (Are you really making a "decision" if someone else put the words in your mouth?)

Case in point: The odds of a child under 18 in the USA getting killed by a fire arm are about 1 in 39,000

publications.aap.org...

The odds of being struck by lightning are estimated at 1 in a million.

moneyminiblog.com...


This means your child is 26 times more likely to be killed by a fire arm than they are to be struck by lightning.

For someone who can understand numbers, that's a useful statistic, which you can make informed decisions from. But for the math illiterate, statistics like this site is throwing around are more likely to guide you.

giffords.org...

110 are killed per day!?>!?!??!? (Feign shock.....) Oh No!!!! It must be going to happen to my kid!!!!!

Dig all you want. That site isn't going to tell you how many people don't get shot, so you can compare.

Our problem is both that we value Math too highly, and that our education institutions aren't very good at teaching it.

I guess it makes sense that people who've tried and found it difficult will want to hope that the people citing statistics at them will have gone to the trouble of making sure those statistics are meaningful.

Sadly, too many math-capable people use their powers for evil.

My advice is: don't blindly trust. The people you can trust are the ones who put their evidence out there in plain sight where other experts in their field can call them out.

That's why you don't trust "experts". Always trust "evidence", even if you can't understand it. Because if they are putting their evidence out in the open, then somebody will understand it, and would call them out if it were wrong.