Trust: Difference between revisions
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The erosion of this trust in recent years has resulted in increased [[political]] polarization, the proliferation of [[misinformation]] and [[conspiracy theories]], [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contrarian contrarianism], [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]]. [[Social media]] [[platforms]] have accelerated this process by allowing the [[promotion]] of this information to a global audience, where in the past there would be editors, producers, and fact checkers that would prevent these corrosive ideas from reaching a wide audience. | The erosion of this trust in recent years has resulted in increased [[political]] polarization, the proliferation of [[misinformation]] and [[conspiracy theories]], [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contrarian contrarianism], [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]]. [[Social media]] [[platforms]] have accelerated this process by allowing the [[promotion]] of this information to a global audience, where in the past there would be editors, producers, and fact checkers that would prevent these corrosive ideas from reaching a wide audience. | ||
== Trust in the Process == | |||
If we are not able to agree on basic [[truths]] about [[reality]], then having a discourse based on fundamentally different assumptions is fruitless. This is part of why [[political polarization]] is such an intractable problem in the age of [[social media]] [[information bubbles]]. | |||
In these cases, it is necessary to take a step back and find agreement on the process for determining [[truth]]. What counts as evidence? How does [[logic]] work? How can we tell if we are [[critical thinking|thinking critically]] or being [[contrarian]]? | |||
Belief in [[misinformation]] requires falling for one or more [[propaganda]] techniques or [[logical fallacies]]. By refocusing the conversation on how to identify these mistakes, it is possible for them to [[self-correct]], where focusing on the false beliefs will only elicit contradiction. If we can start by agreeing on what constitutes evidence, [[science]], and [[logic]], then there is a possibility that this foundation can be used to identify beliefs that contradict them. | |||
== Trust in the Goal == | |||
Another way to restore trust in an era of [[polarization]] is to refocus on our shared goals. What are we trying to accomplish with policy? What kind of [[society]] are we trying to create? | |||
So much [[political]] debate revolves around shot-term policy proposals and wedge issues like [[abortion]]. The fact that we differ on policy implies that we have different goals, but is that really the case? Or are both sides trying to realize similar goals with different approaches? | |||
Taking a step back focus on our goals can reveal common ground that can be built on. The [[Quality of life versus quantity of life]] goes into detail about the fundamental goals that [[generate]] our views on many divisive issues. | |||
== Personal Trust == | == Personal Trust == | ||
Personal trust is an essential ingredient to any [[love]] relationship, and relationships of any kind. So don't be a [[lying|liar]]. | Personal trust is an essential ingredient to any [[love]] [[relationship]], and [[relationships]] of any kind. So don't be a [[lying|liar]]. | ||
== Restoring Trust == | == Restoring Trust == | ||
Revision as of 08:52, 21 January 2024
Trust in Institutions
Trust in institutions is a necessary prerequisite to progress in modern society. Since nobody can have true expertise in more than a few of the thousands of technical disciplines that currently exist, it is necessary to have authorities that can be trusted to deliver accurate information and recommend best practices to the people.
The erosion of this trust in recent years has resulted in increased political polarization, the proliferation of misinformation and conspiracy theories, contrarianism, pseudoscience and grift. Social media platforms have accelerated this process by allowing the promotion of this information to a global audience, where in the past there would be editors, producers, and fact checkers that would prevent these corrosive ideas from reaching a wide audience.
Trust in the Process
If we are not able to agree on basic truths about reality, then having a discourse based on fundamentally different assumptions is fruitless. This is part of why political polarization is such an intractable problem in the age of social media information bubbles.
In these cases, it is necessary to take a step back and find agreement on the process for determining truth. What counts as evidence? How does logic work? How can we tell if we are thinking critically or being contrarian?
Belief in misinformation requires falling for one or more propaganda techniques or logical fallacies. By refocusing the conversation on how to identify these mistakes, it is possible for them to self-correct, where focusing on the false beliefs will only elicit contradiction. If we can start by agreeing on what constitutes evidence, science, and logic, then there is a possibility that this foundation can be used to identify beliefs that contradict them.
Trust in the Goal
Another way to restore trust in an era of polarization is to refocus on our shared goals. What are we trying to accomplish with policy? What kind of society are we trying to create?
So much political debate revolves around shot-term policy proposals and wedge issues like abortion. The fact that we differ on policy implies that we have different goals, but is that really the case? Or are both sides trying to realize similar goals with different approaches?
Taking a step back focus on our goals can reveal common ground that can be built on. The Quality of life versus quantity of life goes into detail about the fundamental goals that generate our views on many divisive issues.
Personal Trust
Personal trust is an essential ingredient to any love relationship, and relationships of any kind. So don't be a liar.
Restoring Trust
Videos offering ideas for how to restore trust in our institutions.
These are two interviews of the same person, a shorter one and a longer, more in-depth version.