Why society seems to be getting worse

[marshwiggle]

This is from a facinating article in Science:

Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the "signal" a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to "creep" when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done.

[youllneverwalkalone]

Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Out of curiosity - would you post this on social media under your real name?

[nebo113]

For a carpenter, every problem needs a hammer.

[marshwiggle]

Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Out of curiosity - would you post this on social media under your real name?

I don't post on social media, (unless you count this.) I don't post on Facebook, i don't have any accounts on Twitter, Instagram, or anything else, and my YouTube channel I only use for my own course-related videos. I think "likes" are terribly detrimental to social discourse as people replace a desire to understand the truth with a desire for social approval.

I wouldn't have any problem pointing this out to anyone in person (which I assume would be the idea of "under my real name") since it's a scientific result. I'm a centrist; I find the people at both ends of the political spectrum to be increasingly irrational as they get more extreme.

I don't know if that answers the question.

[dismalist]

This is from a facinating article in Science:

Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the "signal" a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to "creep" when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done.

Did all participants react this way or just some and how are they different? Couldn't figure out from the article, which is good.

[writingprof]

Excellent article, and its lessons apply broadly.  No, we are not one election away from the destruction of the America we have loved.  No, "x" isn't racist.

I find this to be related to Safetyism, which responds to the elimination of a great many threats to our physical well-being by treating any remaining threats as totally unacceptable.  Hence my mother's near-certainty, despite reams of evidence to the contrary, that my children are going to be kidnapped from the playground.  Hence the ravings of the Branch Covidians, many of whom are on these fora.

[marshwiggle]

Excellent article, and its lessons apply broadly.  No, we are not one election away from the destruction of the America we have loved.  No, "x" isn't racist.

I find this to be related to Safetyism, which responds to the elimination of a great many threats to our physical well-being by treating any remaining threats as totally unacceptable.  Hence my mother's near-certainty, despite reams of evidence to the contrary, that my children are going to be kidnapped from the playground.  Hence the ravings of the Branch Covidians, many of whom are on these fora.

And, to be fair, of the people who view being told to wear a mask during a pandemic as one step away from being loaded into trains and being shipped off to camps.

[writingprof]

Excellent article, and its lessons apply broadly.  No, we are not one election away from the destruction of the America we have loved.  No, "x" isn't racist.

I find this to be related to Safetyism, which responds to the elimination of a great many threats to our physical well-being by treating any remaining threats as totally unacceptable.  Hence my mother's near-certainty, despite reams of evidence to the contrary, that my children are going to be kidnapped from the playground.  Hence the ravings of the Branch Covidians, many of whom are on these fora.

And, to be fair, of the people who view being told to wear a mask during a pandemic as one step away from being loaded into trains and being shipped off to camps.

It's true.

[mahagonny]

Excellent article, and its lessons apply broadly.  No, we are not one election away from the destruction of the America we have loved.  No, "x" isn't racist.

I find this to be related to Safetyism, which responds to the elimination of a great many threats to our physical well-being by treating any remaining threats as totally unacceptable.  Hence my mother's near-certainty, despite reams of evidence to the contrary, that my children are going to be kidnapped from the playground.  Hence the ravings of the Branch Covidians, many of whom are on these fora.

Can't find the video just now - -- Coleman Hughes talks about the belief that racism can and must be eliminated entirely, as though (1) it actually would possible to do that and (2) it's necessary. He says people equate it with something like smallpox, where it would be important to eradicate it because even a trace of it can be regenerated to a deadly epidemic. Whereas he thinks of racism as more like an allergen. It's potentially dangerous so it should be fought  and prevented in those areas where it is most concentrated, but it can't be eliminated from the face of the earth entirely and it is a mistake to try.

Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Out of curiosity - would you post this on social media under your real name?

Agreed.
You can post something like this with your real name on it, or be named as the researchers are. But when you get in trouble is when you extrapolate to the obvious places, like supposing that maybe, just maybe, white on black racism, systemic racism, etc. have not been causing the calamitous harm that some are maintaining or even not present to the degree claimed. This is when you would be called racist or at the very least, racist-enabling. So the logical place to discuss what this research means is here.. Of course someone like Hughes would just sit there quietly at the microphone and explain why we've been getting it all wrong. Or Larry Elder would yell it out with a big 500 watt smile. He's got a new T-shirt that says "Uncle Tom."

[youllneverwalkalone]

Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Out of curiosity - would you post this on social media under your real name?

I don't post on social media, (unless you count this.) I don't post on Facebook, i don't have any accounts on Twitter, Instagram, or anything else, and my YouTube channel I only use for my own course-related videos. I think "likes" are terribly detrimental to social discourse as people replace a desire to understand the truth with a desire for social approval.

I wouldn't have any problem pointing this out to anyone in person (which I assume would be the idea of "under my real name") since it's a scientific result. I'm a centrist; I find the people at both ends of the political spectrum to be increasingly irrational as they get more extreme.

I don't know if that answers the question.

Sure it does, and I identify with everything you wrote except for the social media presence. My social media feed (Twitter and LinkedIn) is full of left leaning, "woke" types, so I would have to think long and hard before posting something. Like mahagonny points out, the problems start when people think about the real life consequences of the phenomenon described in the paper.

Talking about it with with anyone in person is a very different story since 1) people are much more muanced in f2f conversation and 2) there is no exposure and no mob ready to call you out.

[Stockmann]

I don't have any objections to the article per se, but it can't be extrapolated to everything - people being biased to think that things aren't improving isn't the same as proof that things are in fact improving or even not getting worse (kind of like how being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you). Objectively, young Americans find it harder to afford housing, college and health insurance because their costs have risen faster than young people's incomes and in that sense young Americans are generally poorer than the boomers were at their age, for example. In other parts of the world, "society" has become worse in important respects - for example, contemporary Venezuelans are objectively poorer than their parents and grandparents were at their age, and also face a greater risk of being victims of violent crime. Of course, measuring racism is much harder than measuring income, housing costs or the murder rate and, yes, perception is problematic for the kind of reasons that relate to biases such as those the article is about.

[marshwiggle]

I don't have any objections to the article per se, but it can't be extrapolated to everything - people being biased to think that things aren't improving isn't the same as proof that things are in fact improving or even not getting worse (kind of like how being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you). Objectively, young Americans find it harder to afford housing, college and health insurance because their costs have risen faster than young people's incomes and in that sense young Americans are generally poorer than the boomers were at their age, for example. In other parts of the world, "society" has become worse in important respects - for example, contemporary Venezuelans are objectively poorer than their parents and grandparents were at their age, and also face a greater risk of being victims of violent crime. Of course, measuring racism is much harder than measuring income, housing costs or the murder rate and, yes, perception is problematic for the kind of reasons that relate to biases such as those the article is about.

But that's part of the point. If you can't develop some sort of objective metrics, then you have no rational way of discussing whether something is "better" or "worse". Steven Pinker addressed this in "The Better Angels of our Nature".

[mahagonny]

I don't have any objections to the article per se, but it can't be extrapolated to everything - people being biased to think that things aren't improving isn't the same as proof that things are in fact improving or even not getting worse (kind of like how being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you). Objectively, young Americans find it harder to afford housing, college and health insurance because their costs have risen faster than young people's incomes and in that sense young Americans are generally poorer than the boomers were at their age, for example. In other parts of the world, "society" has become worse in important respects - for example, contemporary Venezuelans are objectively poorer than their parents and grandparents were at their age, and also face a greater risk of being victims of violent crime. Of course, measuring racism is much harder than measuring income, housing costs or the murder rate and, yes, perception is problematic for the kind of reasons that relate to biases such as those the article is about.

But that's part of the point. If you can't develop some sort of objective metrics, then you have no rational way of discussing whether something is "better" or "worse". Steven Pinker addressed this in "The Better Angels of our Nature".

It's a darn good thing racism is so hard to measure. We need to get this economy moving forward, starting with my income. More research needed. Ka-ching!