Briefing : Comment se forme l'opinion ?

Contexte : Cette table ronde, dans le cadre de la 34ème journée du Livre politique, explore la complexité de la formation de l'opinion à l'ère des sondages omniprésents, des réseaux sociaux et d'une délibération collective fragmentée.

Elle réunit un sondeur (Bris Teinturier), une ancienne dirigeante d'institut de sondage et du MEDEF (Laurence Parisot), un député socialiste (Jérôme Guedj) et une humoriste et chroniqueuse (Sopia Aram).

Thèmes Principaux :

• La nature de l'opinion publique et sa mesure : Définition, évolution et le rôle des sondages.

• Les mécanismes de formation de l'opinion : Les facteurs historiques et nouveaux qui façonnent les croyances et les points de vue individuels et collectifs.

• L'impact des médias et des réseaux sociaux : La fragmentation de l'information, les bulles informationnelles et la polarisation.

• Le décalage entre les préoccupations réelles des citoyens et le débat public médiatisé.

• La violence et la radicalisation dans le débat public : Le rôle des réseaux sociaux et de certains acteurs politiques.

• Le rôle et la responsabilité des différents acteurs :

• Politiques,

• journalistes,
• sondeurs,
• citoyens.

Idées et Faits Importants :

• L'opinion, un concept insaisissable et mouvant : Bris Teinturier et Laurence Parisot soulignent la difficulté à cerner l'opinion. Parisot cite Alfred Sauvy : « l'opinion c'est le fort intérieur d'une nation ». Elle ajoute que, tout comme le fort intérieur, l'opinion est « extrêmement mouvante ».

• La pluralité des variables déterminant l'opinion : Bris Teinturier insiste sur le fait qu'il n'y a pas une seule cause : « ils sont pluriels il n'y a pas une variable ou deux variables qui façonneraient l’opinion ». Historiquement, le milieu social, l'âge, l'éducation et la politisation (le rôle des partis politiques comme le PCF est mentionné) étaient déterminants.

• L'importance croissante de l'expérience personnelle :

Avec la défiance généralisée envers les institutions, le savoir "expert" et les partis, l'expérience individuelle prend le dessus. Bris Teinturier : « plus je me replie sur mon expérience personnelle donc ça ça joue beaucoup on fait confiance à ses pères on fait confiance à soi-même et dans la formation des opinions il y a ce que j'ai expérimenté moi-même qui aujourd'hui joue beaucoup ».

• La fragmentation des médias : Ce phénomène, marquant des 10-15 dernières années selon Bris Teinturier, a dynamité l'espace de délibération collective. « le temps est loin où des gens de ma génération se retrouvaient le lundi matin... aujourd'hui la fragmentation... des audiences fait que le système de délibération collective a volé en éclat ». Cela conduit à des biais de confirmation accrus.

• La polarisation : Stade ultime de la formation de l'opinion figée, observée notamment aux États-Unis où les campagnes électorales se jouent sur la mobilisation plus que sur le changement d'avis.

En France, ce niveau de polarisation n'est pas encore atteint, et les campagnes électorales ont encore un impact, signe d'une démocratie « vivante » même si le phénomène de polarisation « s’affaiblit un peu ».

• Le rôle ambigu des sondages : Pour un politique comme Jérôme Guedj, les électeurs sont le juge de paix final. Les sondages doivent être maniés « avec précaution ».

Il reconnaît s'appuyer sur eux quand ils confortent son combat (ex. : les retraites) mais dénonce aussi leur utilisation pour des sujets épidermiques ou émotionnels (ex. : port du voile dans l'espace public).

Bris Teinturier nuance en affirmant que les enquêtes d'opinion, si elles sont basées sur un « échantillon représentatif », permettent d'« objectiver ce que sont les perceptions et les attentes des Français » et de mettre fin aux arguments d'autorité sur les « vrais sujets ».

• Les réseaux sociaux, nouveau champ de bataille et de polarisation : Jérôme Guedj les qualifie de « terrain de jeu voir un champ de bataille ». Laurence Parisot les identifie comme la « principale source d'information » aujourd'hui, participant à une multiplicité de sources. Sopia Aram les perçoit comme un espace à ne pas déserter, malgré les attaques, pour proposer un « contrediscours ».

• La force de la vidéo et le défi de l'IA : Laurence Parisot souligne le rôle transformateur de la vidéo dans la formation de l'opinion (ex. : cause animale).

L'intelligence artificielle est en train de « rebattre les cartes » en proposant des opinions générées. Le défi futur, soulevé par un participant, est la banalisation des « deepfakes » et la perte de la vidéo comme preuve, nécessitant une éducation aux médias et à l'image.

Sopia Aram ajoute que même des images fausses « s’encre quelque part dans notre dans notre esprit... et ça nous conditionne un peu ».

• Le décalage entre les préoccupations (santé, pouvoir d'achat) et le débat public (faits divers, polémiques) :

Jérôme Guedj, s'appuyant sur ses permanences et les sondages, constate un « immense décalage » entre les sujets qui préoccupent le plus (santé, pouvoir d'achat, logement) et ceux qui « accaparent le débat public et qui étaient la conséquence... du système médiatique complété aujourd'hui par celui des réseaux sociaux ».

• La violence dans le débat public et la "fabrique de cibles" : Sopia Aram dénonce une « bulle de violence symbolique mais comment dire déroulant le tapis pour une violence politique » orchestrée par certains acteurs, y compris des députés, qui « nous dessinent des cibles dans le dos ».

Elle lie ce phénomène au procès en islamophobie et met en garde contre un drame à venir.

Jérôme Guedj partage cette inquiétude, parlant d'un moment de « bascule » et d'une « banalisation dans l'opinion du harcèlement à destination de personnes ciblées ».

• L'appel à la responsabilité : Les intervenants appellent à une prise de responsabilité de tous. Laurence Parisot cible particulièrement les médias et « les chaînes d'information » qui devraient se poser des « questions éthiques sur leur mission véritable à l'égard du public ». Bris Teinturier insiste sur l'importance de la « bataille de mots » et de l'utilisation de « mots appropriés » pour contrer les « équivalences fallacieuses » et le « vide de la pensée ». Jérôme Guedj appelle les acteurs politiques à « refaire de la politique », à penser le « temps long » et à « bosser » pour proposer et comprendre.

• Le droit de ne pas avoir d'opinion : Une participante soulève la question de la pression à avoir une opinion sur tout. Bris Teinturier répond que c'est un « devoir... quand on n'a pas la compétence ou qu'on estime qu'on est absolument incompétent sur une question... il faut savoir se taire ».

• La crise de l'espérance et la repolitisation : Un participant suggère que la crise de la confiance pourrait être une crise de l'espérance. La question se pose de savoir qui doit projeter un nouveau monde et si un retour du clivage gauche-droite pourrait aider à « repolitisation du débat » et ramener ceux qui « ne s'intéressent plus du tout au débat » (Laurence Parisot).

Bris Teinturier conclut sur l'enjeu de la démocratie : gérer les conflits « en dehors de la violence » en étant « d'accord sur nos désaccords ».

Conclusion :

La formation de l'opinion est un processus complexe, influencé par des facteurs historiques, personnels, médiatiques et technologiques.

À l'ère numérique, marquée par la fragmentation et la polarisation, le débat public est rendu plus difficile et violent.

Les sondages, bien qu'utiles pour objectiver les préoccupations, doivent être utilisés avec discernement. Une prise de conscience et une responsabilité accrues des acteurs politiques, médiatiques et des citoyens sont nécessaires pour reconstruire un espace de délibération apaisé et contrer la banalisation de la violence et la falsification de la réalité.

L'éducation aux médias et le retour à un usage précis et approprié des mots sont des pistes essentielles pour l'avenir de la démocratie.

L'utilisation du du passé "a boulversé" indique que cette description serait un fait établit. Néanmoins l'idée que la famille soit "déjà bien secouée" depuis la fin de la première guerre mondiale n'est fondée sur aucun argument factuel. On ne sait pas précisément en quoi la famille à changé et en quoi cela représente un problème ("déjà bien secouée" étant un jugement de valeur négatif). Il s'agit donc de l'opinion du journaliste, probablement partagée par le lectorat du magazine Marianne.

for - Linked In Post - reply to - rapid whole system change - neighborhood as the unit of change - Danica Virginia Meredith - to - NYTimes - Opinion - The Neighborhood is the Unit of Change - David Brooks - 2018

for - Deep Humanity - Mortality Salience - Oliver Sacks - Announces his terminal cancer and says farewell - Source: NY Times - Opinion - My Own Life - Oliver Sacks - 2015, Feb 19

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/climate-change-denial-congress

Today while listening to the song I am reminded, through reflection, upon the fact that it takes quite some self-awareness and intellectual humility to prevent the rigorous defense of uneducated opinion, especially in online intellectual communities.

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." -- Confucius

Something that intellectuals must be aware of. We must be flexible in opinion and not defend that which we actually have no knowledge of.

We can debate for Socratic sakes; to deepen our understanding, but not to persuade... Pitfall is one might come to believe beyond doubts that which one debates for.

Key is to becoming more aware of our debate behavior and stop ourselves when we realize we can't actually prove that which we think.

This is especially critical for someone in position of teacher or great advisor; he who is looken up to. People are easier to take their opinion for granted based on "authority". As an ethical intellectual we must not abuse this, either on purpose or by accident. With great power comes great responsibility.

(2:03) "The average man can't prove of most of the things that he chooses to speak of. And still won't research and find the root of the truth that you seek of."

So true this quote. Dunning-Krueger. Ignorance. Stupidity.

Men should listen to Charlie Munger's advice: "I never allow myself to have [express] an opinion about anything that I don't know the opponent side's argument better than they do."

i love the part where she says that we sometimes automatically think that someone else will be figuring out the details of our lazy ideas. if we have ideas, we must be prepared to test it and fill in the gaps ourselves

What does that even mean? Ok, I can imagine some specific things that are both "distraction" and inherently "digital", but how are those significant compared to specific non-digital distractions, like drugs and whatever type of music not in your particular taste?

Any digital device, according to the text, inherently individualizes learning.

I disagree, and instead blame subjectivity here: Our imposing expectatons of digitalizations being more efficient amplifies the development and use of such efficiency-oriented tools.

If not pretty close to a definition, then what is the purpose of "exactly" here?

Wait, what? Where in previous chapter was that concluded, rather than than just superficially mentioned?

Hartmut Rosa talks about digital communication and digital media, and a problem of those being always available.

That is not digitalization in general, but the subset of never sleeping systems, commonly referred to as "online" systems.

Listening to a lecturer, reading a book or doing homework don't necessarily contribute to learning either. The point is not that digital technologies directly contribute to the content aspect of learning, but that the content aspect of learning is directly dependant on the operative. The operative can evolve, and new ways of relating to the world can develop. The potential of digital technologies lies in providing qualitatively new ways of contextualizing learning matters, thereby creating a learning environment that leans into affinitive learning movements. Most learning environments today lean into the definitive movements. Contexts are created in the users mind when relations between different books are understood intuitively. But this intuition can be described, visualized and co-created with other learners digitally.

Schraube defines two (plural!) learning dimensions: content and reason. Perhaps there it is only one dimension containing those two aspects.

Problem with tools like ChatGPT is not an inherent individualization, but that its lack of transparency hampers the ability for critical reasoning, including social collaborative reflection. Tools that present statements (words put together) without reference to the origins of presumed reasoning for concluding the statement, invites only for taking the statements as-is, not for reflecting and therefore do not stimulate a constructive learning process. But that is a criticism of tools lacking transparency, not of digitalization in general.

Only when asking students to reflect on their own potentials of digitalization does it seem reasonable to conclude about that.

If instead (as suspected here) the students were asked about their *practices", then it seems unfair to extrapolate potentials.

Related: Are the learners even capable of identifying what is potential? That seems to depend on their skills on the involved practices.

Not all technology promotes "hiding behind" - some promotes transparency and collaboration.

Understandable that "Elaine" conflates an issue of peer pressure with a quite different issue of surveillance. But problematic that it is quoted in a context of understanding problems of digitalization, without defusing the obvious hyperbole: The word "surveillance" is commonly associated with control imposed by superior parties external to the (immediate, intended) dialogue (notably governments and multinational corporations). It is notably not commonly associated with kinds of the control the immediate group imposes on you when you expose your uncertainties in a collaborative learning process. Maybe "Elaine" really feels as strongly an oppression as if NSA of Google was puppetmastering her, but more likely she is sloppily describing "peer pressure" - which however does not as strongly give off a smell of being an issue with digitalization. In the context the quote is used to boost digitalization as a villain, which is not helpful.

Fun word play, but also deceptive: The haystack of finding relevant source material for covering a problem space is not a digital one. Jokingly framing it as such, exactly in the context of identifying problems with digitalization in learning, is quite problematic.

True that those digital tools intensifying individualization of learning is a serious problem for (expansive) learning. False (or unknown, however. that digital learning in general inherently is seriously problematic in this way. Reason is that only individualizing tools have so far been examined, and therefore only potential for individualization can be concluded.

seems the reasons given are relates to fluency in using the tool, more than the tool being digital.

Examinations so far have been biased: Not generally on digital tools, but highlighting problems by picking extreme tools. Problems exist, but examining the problematic part of a filed and concluding that the field is problematic is tautologic.

Probably the same urge to do it privately first, before risking the exposure of the group, is the same for non-digital collaborative tools like a whiteboard or a blackboard.

The students identify a problem in navigating vast amount of information, but even if they mention "internet" they do not frame that as a problem of digitalization: The framing is on the author.

So this digital tool (computers used for writing) is internalized (possibly as a result of schooling and/or peer pressure or other interactions in a previous part of life) compared to alternatives for the same task (pen and paper), so it is not a comparison between options in principle equal but one being digital and the other not, but instead options in principle equal but the other internalized and the other not.

It is difficult not to read the text as arguing, that digitalization in general inherently is biased towards individualizing the practice of learning. Yes, there is potential for that quality, but no, it is neither general for digital tools nor unique for digital tools.

Why scoping that challenge as being "in the digital space"? Do any of the students examined here (or anyone else) find it particularly confusing or in other ways hard to search "in the digital space" as opposed to outside of it?

Search engines can be confusing to use effectively, especially as a new scholarly student, but I strongly doubt that many will find it harder than effectively using index cards.

True, lack of focus is a "highly problematic phenomenon", and nowadays where most entertainment is digital, distractions are quite often digital. But it is not a problem of digitalization. If it were, then students would have generally been super focused back in the day before the rise of the internet.

This problem seems not tied to digitalization: Responses from a collection of books in a library is also "completely disconnected" from the world outside, due to books being static. ChatGPT being static is not rooted in it being digital but despite that: Generative artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT can easily be designed to be connected, and ChatGPT specifically is deliberately crippled as a security mechanism - i.e. concerns by those producing the service over the lack of control over the conversations possible between the service and its consumer/learner. Arguably, books are inherently disconnected and ChatGPT is designed to mimick a similar disconnected model even though digitalization offers opportunity for letting go of that constraint.

Commonly, sure, but are digital technologies really categorically insignificant for tentacular learning?

Seems that certain set of digital technologies are supportive of tentacular thinking by design, and thus potentially significant if used as per their intended design.

This seems to imply - unsubstantiated! - that intended purpose of technologies is inherently about oppression, whereas unintended secondary uses of technology is where liberation from oppression should be sought.

Esta es una opinión, expresada por un medio periodístico, no un hecho. No sabemos si tienen o no esos requisitos de mejora. Cambiar la redacción.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4jd6s4Q6TY

Each teaching mode (f2f, online, synchronous, asynchronous, etc.) has unique challenges and benefits. Instead of comparing them to figure out "which is better" we should simply figure out how to use each mode in the best possible way to take advantages of the affordances of that mode.

I think with all of the pressures on elementary teachers to fit in so many subjects among other district initiatives throughout the year, why not teach teachers how to properly use GenAI and allow them to assist with teaching subjects/topics they may not feel as knowledgable on?

To me, I can relate this to the effects that regular social media use has on some people, where they develop an addiction or fictional relationship with people online, or live in a fantasy world. And this is one of the scary sides of social media use.

Yes! So often we hear that we are preparing kids to be 21st Century learners and so much of that lends its way to technology so the way I see it, is this is just part of it.

Yes! I have heard of colleagues using AI not to write their paper for them, but simply to revise. I haven't thought deeply about it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with this.

• for: climate crisis - Canada - surprising positive public opinion shift

I feel like confirming is the most important because when you confirm something, it is officially known and true. Also, you know that you did or did not do it well and you know how you should improve.

gathering public opinion from Ottoman Coffeehouses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinions_(TV_series)

A British talk program on Channel 4 from the 1980s-1990s focused on the opinions of public figures.

A potential precursor to TED talks?

Un punto muy interesante porque además de poder cambiar nuestros hábitos de lectura, el hecho de visualizar los comentarios y las ideas de otras personas, nos permite reflexionar sobre otros puntos de vista e incluso puede impactar nuestra opinión.

Eine YouGov-Umfrage in 7 europäischen Ländern zeigt, dass eine große Mehrheit wegen der globalen Erhitzung besorgt ist und eingreifende Maßnahmen der Regierungen dagegen begrüßt, dass aber zur Zeit nur Minderheiten Veränderungen wie dem Verbot von Verbrennern zustimmen, die deutliche Folgen für ihre Alltagsleben hätten. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/02/many-europeans-want-climate-action-but-less-so-if-it-changes-their-lifestyle-shows-poll

This is a very strong line from Rodriguez's autobiography. It encapsulates the autobiography's central conflict: Rodriguez's Mexican-American identity and his desire to assimilate into American culture and achieve wealth and status. It also exemplifies the memoir's broader theme of the complexity of identity and how individuals negotiate the conflicting cultural and social expectations placed on them.

This was a particularly strong line in Baca's memoir. He's referring to the book "450 Years of Chicano History in Pictures," which he stole from the hospital's reference library. The book included images of Chicano history and culture, which helped Baca understand and accept his Chicano identity. This realization instilled in him a sense of pride and belonging that he hadn't experienced before.

Esto es buenísimo para la innovación de nuevos inventos que pueden beneficiar la humanidad por medio de la imaginación del ser humano pero creo se debe ser limitado debido a la gran imaginación que contiene el ser humano pero dicha imaginación se puede crear ideas buenas, malas y desechables.

Es conocido por el papel político que tuvo en el desarrollo de la bomba atómica y por su idea Memex, por el cual podemos considerarlo el padre del concepto "hipertexto". El Memex fue un proyecto que no se llegó a llevar a cabo; pero más adelante en 1989, fue precursor de la World Wide Web. La verdad el creo una gran herramienta para elaborar conceptos de hipertexto y que hoy en día (aunque se considere cosa del pasado) se siga usando.

Me parece una gran herramienta para encontrar documento en formato PDF Y HTML con información en el ámbito académico y que se pueda interactuar con otros grupos sobre el contenido de esos documentos. La verdad puede ser una buena herramienta para el sector académico pero creo que esta muy limitado por el simple echo de usar un leguaje de programación limitado.

Qué bueno sería que se realizaran campañas abiertas a este tipo de manifestaciones, pues en ocasiones se pensaría en esto como algo subversivo.

Es muy interesante poder remitirnos a lo subrayado y así recordar lo que se ha analizado

Which means that as far as patient privacy is concerned, GoodRX has no integrity and its reputation is deservedly destroyed.

This is a "lawyer" response.

It will not keep GoodRX from being sued. It will not reduce the liability. But saying this, is an absolute indication that this is a classic non-apology and failure to take responsibility.

Recall, specifically, that a Facebook user discovered that their medication information was in Facebook because GoodRX had put it there.

To classify this as no-wrongdoing is intellectually dishonest. Especially when GoodRX itself previously categorized this mistake as "not living up to our own standards". Note that this link is to a blog post that GoodRX has since taken down. Not a good look to declare now that you did nothing wrong, when you previously admitted that you had done something wrong, and then you took down that blog post. The url for that blog post now forwards to GoodRX privacy policies (i.e. the privacy policies that they failed to honor, which is what got them in hot water with the FTC)

Again, quoting from that now-deleted blog post: "For this we are truly sorry, and we will do better. "

So this letter on the privacy problems is a redaction of the previous position which was "Yeah we were sharing data with Facebook.. we should not have been.. we will stop doing that, and we are sorry".

GoodRX could have chosen to notify all of its users of this problem at that time, but chose not do so, putting it in violation of the FTC breach notification rule.

So no matter how you cut it, this is an example of wrong-doing, GoodRX did mess up, and they have never taken full responsibility for their mistakes. Indeed what little responsibility they have taken, this article largely unwinds.

GoodRX does a valuable and critical service for patients. I will continue to recommend it to patients. But I will state, clearly, that GoodRX will sell patient data in unethical ways, and that this is the decision that patients need to make as the decide whether to have discounted medications or privacy.

GoodRX current position is that patients must choose one or the other. Privacy or affordable medication. Not both.

-ft

It is very hard to believe in commitments made in documents when the document itself sends a notice to regulators that these are "not promises".

While I understand that this is boilerplate language for a public company, it reduces trust to say "If we change our mind and our policies, we reserve the right to keep this page up as it is".

This is a strong indication that this document exists as a message to investors and regulators primarily and not as letter to the patient community that make up GoodRX customers.

It is more reasonable to say:

"We have worked hard to monetize this trust, without totally panicking our customers" which is a more accurate statement.

This is important because it means that GoodRX does not need to try and make money selling patient data. It has a business model, and violated patient privacy in search of another business model.

The author of this editorial claims that there is moral value in using the emissions made by a human body over the course of its lifetime in determining if one should be given life. Making a departure from natural selection, and from sexual attraction and ignoring maternal instinct and cultural familial practices and norms. He proposes that the act of being alive can be measured in its impact upon others who will share the future climate them and since the impact is not 0 then there must be an upper limit of "too many". Immorally, he does not include a measure of "too few" and does not make any mention of the problems society has with exponential population decline. Such as Japan currently selling more adult than infant diapers as their population collapses because of too few children. In fact there is no mention of generational replacement or reproduction rate. Just a simplistic measure of a human impact upon the environment with the entirety of positive impact deleted, omitted, ignored completely. There is in fact no moral high ground in maintaining or promoting the idea that human life has no positive value to the earth. Failing to see ones own value or the value of human life as a whole, rejecting the desire to help human kind survive and prosper and reducing human beings to objects with emissions and no positive output potential is morally reprehensible and not a scientifically sound conclusion, given the observable facts. Among them, that every human being alive on the planet today, standing shoulder to shoulder, would not fill the area of los angeles, and setting aside one acre of our best land for every human being on earth would require an area no arger than texas. There is no scientific basis for concluding there are too many people or that the future humans would benefit from lower population. it is a common error, in the media today, where the impact on climate is evaluated out of the context of all other scilences where positive impacts and negative impacts of human life are observable. Such as biological sciences or earth sciences. it is true, that if we lived on a gas giant, where the only element of the planetary ecosystem was the climate, then such an evaluation of our "carbon footprint" would be meaningful. but since we have a planet with oceans dryland and predators and dangerous conditions, it is morrally reprehensible to suggest our population not maximize its potential to survive to see the future so many are trying to protect by literally throwing their babies out with the bathwater. It is impossible to contribute to the well-being of human life in editorial if you do not have a love of human life. My heart goes out to anyone who takes this article seriously. You do not have to limit your fertility to help humankind survive.

opinion: too much metaprogramming magic

I'm not so sure it's "too much" though... Any framework or large software project is going to feel that way to a newcomer looking at the code, due to the number of layers of abstractions, etc. that eventually were added/needed by the maintainers to make it maintainable, decoupled, etc.

"no referencing no linking thoughts" this part is very interesting

Jones, B., Wardman, L., & Tinkler, L. (2021, September 3). Coronavirus vaccine hesitancy in younger adults—Office for National Statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/articles/coronavirusvaccinehesitancyinyoungeradults/june2021

Milberg, G. (2021, December 21). Florida pulls pro-vaccination television ads, replacing with spots that don’t mention vaccines. WPLG. https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/12/21/florida-pulls-pro-vaccination-television-ads-replacing-with-spots-that-dont-mention-vaccines/

Social interactions with other students is undoubtedly a good thing. Online learning has its place as well.

Nerd, G. M.-K. H. (2021, December 22). Of Course Unvaccinated People Should Get Medical Care. Medium. https://gidmk.medium.com/of-course-unvaccinated-people-should-get-medical-care-34b26ae7eaa4

Empleo wikipedia cuando necesito realizar una consulta rápida

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘this really is now a disinformation account. I retweeted posts earlier in the pandemic as part of a balanced spread of opinion. But this will be the last one...’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 29 March 2022, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1478485258395951108

Prof. Christina Pagel 🇺🇦. (2021, December 7). This is what it feels like again https://xkcd.com/2278/ https://t.co/q6XyUTYiPe [Tweet]. @chrischirp. https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1468184343399084034

How Fauci fooled America | Opinion. (2021, November 1). Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/how-fauci-fooled-america-opinion-1643839

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, January 20). @OmicronData @timcolbourn I think there might be a difference here between what you are putting forward and what @timcolbourn is arguing any rational individual should be for analysing the expected costs and benefits of a course of action, and I assume we all agree on that. 1/2 [Tweet]. @i. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1484080972459134976

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @amymaxmen: Link to the meeting: Https://t.co/3UH1R8fblN’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 22 March 2022, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1486268859741052930

Another unanchored thought I've had on these matters is coming around to viewing namespace collision as a feature, not a bug. If a programming system is designed to allow you to link against a given module and more or less ignore any and every transitive dependency that this will bring in—because the programming environment makes it excessively easy to do so—then that's a pretty strong reason to consider whether or not that approach to information hiding is actually an anti-feature.

On the other hand, if during your work on a program you have to reconcile the names used within the system (i.e., such that no two module names collide), then it subtly encourages you to make sure you are able to account for every module that your program depends on.

People reflexively assume that this would make it cumbersome (or even intractable) to work on a program any larger than a toy, but empiraclly we can observe that a single, shared namespace can, by and large, scale way better than these protests would lead us to believe. It's not out of the question that a project might reach, say, 100kloc with very little friction arising as a consequence of this sort of forced reckoning. (And it's worth considering of the friction that it does impose: is it any worse than the costs we've observed over the last ~10 years from the systems that set out to solve this problem?)

seems reasonable

The Spread of the Omicron Variant and Vaccine Effectiveness—January 11, 2022. (2022, January 11). Leger. https://leger360.com/surveys/legers-north-american-tracker-january-11-2022/

Vega-Oliveros, D. A., Grande, H. L. C., Iannelli, F., & Vazquez, F. (2021). Bi-layer voter model: Modeling intolerant/tolerant positions and bots in opinion dynamics. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 230(14–15), 2875–2886. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00151-8

Virology Down Under. (n.d.). Virology Down Under. Retrieved 3 January 2022, from https://virologydownunder.com/

Kan, U., Feng, M., & Porter, M. A. (2021). An Adaptive Bounded-Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics on Networks. ArXiv:2112.05856 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.05856

underscores are better than dashes for representing spaces

Students are also going through trauma. That will go under the mental health issues. The three deaths of students. We are still in a pandemic. Not to mention Tabor walking on campus and scolding us and telling us what we are doing wrong that could also be traumatic or very entertaining. Not only should we do the pass fail thing. But we should have better security. We should have better police. We should also have therapy sessions that deal with traumatic things that have been happening to us. Not only would just make us better students. This would make a better safe campus. And a lot of things have been going on in this fall semester. You know I’m still working on myself. It should not only be pass fail it should be we should work on campus as a whole.

Employees were ‘free’ to negotiate a work contract to their liking within the context of accepting the ‘prerogatives’ of managers to organised and remunerate their efforts as they saw fit (Fox, 1974).

The big difference between the paranoiac's conspiracy theories and the real ones is that in the fake ones the conspirators are "in it together" and form a like-minded group. In reality, the billionaires would be very happy to through each other under the bus if they could.

So it's not so much that there are real conspiracies as there are a known set of methods and tools - known to everyone, everywhere - that allow this gross power imbalance to be created. These methods and tools are known to all but can only be used by the rich because they are themselves very costly.

Tappin, B. M. (2021). Exposure to Arguments and Evidence Changes Partisan Attitudes Even in the Face of Countervailing Leader Cues. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/247bs

SuzeeB🙂. (2021, September 14). Dear vaccinated, We did not take your freedom. The government did. We are not holding your freedoms to ransom. The government is. If we are a danger to you, then your vaccine doesn’t work. If it does, then you should already be free. The government has lied to you. [Tweet]. @NatalieSuB. https://twitter.com/NatalieSuB/status/1437835320628809733

good example of: not just assuming people are dissatisfied / will want to change

more trouble than it's worth

• creating more complexity than it cured

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @MDaware: The problem is the leaders, the media figures, the physicians who know better but would rather get in on the grift https://t.c…’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 3 September 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1432711694569050119