Slashdot Mirror
Virus Scares and False Authority Syndrome
Fifth of Five writes: "Ran across this article on the IS-IT-TRUE.org site regarding False Authority Syndrome and the spread of virus misinformation by the media, users and Folks Who Probably Ought To Know Better. If you've ever watched the TV news and gritted your teeth over what is being presented as 'fact' this may shine some light on just how it got to be like this."
but if the media voluntarily (or involuntarily) f's up the news, whats to say they dont do it on a regular basis to more 'mainstream' news items, either to push a certain agenda, or to appease their friends in the gov't.
Not tryint to flamebait, but it was a pretty well known fact that in the clinton WH press corp, if you asked the pres a tough or 'offtopic' question, guess what, unless you were from one of the big 6, your pass got pulled and good luck getting a interview again.... basically what it boils down to is you can never tell when the press is full of it. hell, they cant even get traffic reports right (accident at main and elm with injuries....right after i just drove by and all i saw was some homeless dude...).... sorry, im ranting now
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
...has been defined as the art of thrusting oneself into one unintelligible situation after another and subsequently passing oneself off as an expert.
True - the trick is figuring out how to make the media cover the really important stories of our time (DCMA, censorship, etc) in a way that'll benefit us instead of hinder us. If they make $$ covering the really important stuff, cool. Yeah - its a dream , but hey you gotta dream! :)
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Secondly, the fact that they thought they were taking a part in a different experiment is the perfect veil to administer this experiment without their knowledge or suspicion, or without them trying to think around the experiment, thereby skewing their reaction.
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
...that [insert certification here] doesn't qualify you to deal with every computer problem ever imaginable? *sarcasm off*
m puter-science.
Little wonder the suits are cashing in on such naivte in order to move product.
Seriously, it's little wonder that this is being codified into a syndrome since it seems that Joe Q. Public has it into his head that just because someone knows how to stick a card into a PCI slot, they must be a certifiable computer genius. I know as the most up-to-speed user in my small company, I get a daily barrage of questions about every computer related topic imaginable. While I have no hesitation in letting my coworkers know that I haven't a clue as to what it is they are talking about (which they read off reuters this morning and can never keep the details of straight), they still persist in thinking that the most computer saavy person in the room must be a network-sysadmin-31337-haxor-d00d-MCSE-Ph.d-in-co
False Authority Syndrome is hardly limited to computer technology and the Air Force. How many times have we seen some celebrity interviewed in the media or give testimony to congress on some topic that has nothing to do with their area of expertise. Why would anyone think that some actress knows anything about agribusiness because they played a farmer in a movie? Yet, the media eats such "celebrity experts" up. I know most of the sensible congressmen surely know that the celebrity "expert" congressional testimony is just a way to get free publicity for their committee, but why do so many people play along with that?
Scientists giving "expert opinions" outside their field of speciality is anouther common occurance (Carl Sagan comes to mind) in the media; perhaps because it is easier to know a handful of photogenic and cooperative scientists than to make a large number of contacts in different fields of research.
It seems to happen alot on slashdot, too.
Perhaps we should put useful biographical information in our sigs instead of cute sayings so that when someone with a degree in cognitive sciences is arguing with an aerospace engineer over spacecraft problems or adaptive behavior, we know which one to listen to at the time. I guess, perhaps that is what the User Info is for; but it doesn't seem to be used for that very often. Of course, if we get overly focused on "meatspace" identities, that might dampen otherwise productive discussions. Maybe different karma for different topics? Anyone have any ideas on how to minimize False Authority Syndrome on slashdot w/o introducing unneeded complexity or dampening useful dialog? Does it need worrying about?
You know what scares me the most. If the TV news crews can't get the fact straight concerning a simple Virus how can we trust them with other information?
Remember that the subjects of the experiment weren't lead to any actual wrong act. I've always heard this referred to as if it indicated exactly the same thing as it would when someone was really being tortured to death.
Whatever criteria the subjects actually used, the compliant ones came to the correct conclusion that it was okay to keep pressing the buttons. The disobedient ones either came to the incorrect conclusion that they would commit some crime, or the correct conclusion that this is what was truly expected of them from the experimenters. Too little is known to draw any valid conclusions from this, especially since it was obviously a psychological experiment to the subjects themselves (it just wasn't clear which experiment it was).
At any rate, this experiment was torture of its subjects as much as it would be if they were really giving the shocks. "Psychological experiments" like these are crimes, pure and simple, not to mention scientifically invalid smartass cracks about human nature.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
It's picked up pretty quickly, indeed. I'd say the bullshit articles are much more quickly posted to the front page than legitimate ones.
A long time ago I heard a statement to the effect of "Don't believe everything that you read." I apply that to every bit of television, radio and print media I consume. It bothers me that we, as a society, seem to think we are the most educated people ever to live on this planet, yet we allow ourselves to be suckered by rumor, speculation and guessing.
Be a skeptic. Demand proof and accountability from your information sources.
My sigs always suck.
The Cluetrain manifesto was talking about individual to individual communication. Talking to the press is centralized to begin with, since the press itself is centralized. The great thing about communication with peers is that it goes both ways and it's always possible to straighten things out if there's misscomunication (which there will be).
With the press that's not possible -- not in any meaningful way, anyway. So sure, have your engineers talk to their engineers, but don't go blabbing to the press because then it's too likely to get out of control.
I never reply until I've researched the hoax and/or truth and proven to myself, at least two different ways.
The best way to ruin my credibility is to send out ONE wrong email.
I sign everything I send, including my phone number. If I'm not willing to have my full contact information forwarded to someone else along with my conclusions, it needs more research.
When I don't know the answer, I tell them so. And I recommend they just ignore it.
When I find it's a hoax, I ask them NOT to forward this conclusion until they've done the same research, and are willing to append their own conclusions. The propagation method of all hoaxes is thoughtless, research-free forwarded email.
If it turns out to be true, I make a point of including links to whatever authority I can find.
If it turns out to be false, I include links to at least two web sites that debunk the hoax/myth.
Finally, I almost always recommend that they take a minute to browse the Kumite Virus Hoaxes and Myths web site (seems to be down at the moment but it's a good review of quite a few common hoaxes).
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
(Strange grouping you've got there -- my comments below relate more towards the first three.)
They may know how to, but how often do they bother? CNN, ABC and NBC have all been nailed for various "issues" in their stories, if memory serves; for instance, there was CNN's story claiming that members of US Army SOGs used chemical weapons to kill American defectors in 'Nam, IIRC. The reporters involved were fired.
NBC Dateline got nailed for not only misreporting a story (the CNN SOG bit apparently hinged on selective use and interpretation of interviews), but for basically making one up: they deliberately uncapped the gas tanks of certain GM vehicles for a collision test, in order to help them burst dramatically into flame. Not too many people drive around with their gas tanks open. My memory's telling me that there was also a minor pyrotechnic device involved...
And it might have been ABC's _Prime Time Live_ that got sued (successfully) by _Food Lion_ regarding their investigative practices.
Newspapers aren't untainted; ISTR that the SJ Mercury eventually retracted the CIA-Contra-Cocaine Conspiracy story.
If they're busy finding their own dodgy bits of news to present for the sake of ratings / circulation, then how much time are they spending checking their own?
I wouldn't often associate the news programs with integrity, when it comes to more dramatic stories. When they report that yet another bomb went off in the Middle East or that Bush meets Putin in Genoa or that the DJIA dropped a bit, that's quite possibly correct -- but when they veer off to "beware! beware!" stories, well... beware.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Does the False Authority Syndrome include accepting Slashdot stories as fact too?
Virus' need hosts
Saying "Code Red" was a computer virus is FUD
it's an IIS virus
saying sircam is a computer virus is FUD it's an Outlook virus
saying Melissa is a computer virus is FUD it's an Outlook virus
(notice a vendor commonality?)
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"The media is always accurate, except when they're talking about things I know."
It's always a source of amazement to me how many people are capable of maintaining this perspective towards the media. I always try to think back to every single teeth-grinding, knee-gripping instance of media inaccuracy in a tech story whenever I'm exposed to a story on a subject on a topic which is unfamiliar to me.
Does this ever happen where you work or go to school? I can count on one hand the number of times I have gathered around co-workers (only on one side, wouldn't want to block the camera) while they pointed at a screen. Yet this image has become almost universal in the media's coverage of computers and science!
The Boston Globe did a feature on a place I used to work. They tore the place up, taking pictures and disrupting everything.. and then people read the story thinking they just took candid pictures while everyone was working!
Hmm, being a physicist i even know how that superheated water thing works, you can heat water a little above the boiling point without it becoming steam. Only when you disturb it it will boil. Until then it's in an instable equilibrium state. The effect is even used in Bubble chambers: the disturbance by a charged particle is enough to result in a track of bubbles, thus making the particle visible (but be sure to get the timing of that photo right, or you could as well take a photo of your teapot). In chemistry we even learned to put something with an irregular surface in a testing tube before heating it, because it doesn't need a microwave for the effect, nor water. Any liquid being heated 'carefully' enough (and in a container with smooth enough surfaces e.g. glass) will do.
So i wouldn't have discounted that superheated water story anyway. But that also means, before accepting or discounting such a story one should think if one has expertise on the subject. By dismissing it all as a hoax you became the false authority. It's rather better to say "Well i don't know about that, i have to know more before making a statement", maybe followed by "but i don't believe in it". It's ok to have an opinion about the credibility of a statement, but it should be marked thus.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
No way man, you're speaking from false authority! :)
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
*The News* is not necessarily about informing you of anything important. *The News* is about selling your eyeballs to advertisers. *The News* has therefore got to grab your attention and get your eyeballs in front of the advertising. You can always print a 'correction' on page 3, or just nevermind that 'facts' got 'distorted' in the 'reporting'.
It seems to me that this could be used to focus attention on the DMCA and other important, but non-sexy issues. We just have to come up with new wording that grabs attention.. Hm .. I dunno, can you relate the DMCA's limits on reproduction to sex?
air and light and time and space
You really ought to read the ClueTrain Manifesto. One of the core arguments is that this sort of centralized communication from within companies is ignored by your customers.
Think about it. What gives you the warm and fuzzies? Would you rather an engineer at XYZ Co. tell you that they're having problems with the Linux drivers for their latest video card, or read the press release stating "the platform is currently unsupported."
Your friendly neigborhood devil's advocate...
BRENT ROCKWOOD, EST'd 1975
I've found this to be a common trait, in the number of times I've been interviewed since, that reporters, where they have a gap, don't call back for a correction, but just invent things. I think this goes some way to explain an ultracrepidarian, IMHO they don't really care enough to get it right.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The fact that the "teachers" in this experiment thought they were truly inflicting pain
That was exactly what I was calling into question. They hesitated and protested because they thought they might have been causing damage. The fact was that they weren't causing damage, and you can't say with certainty that they believed, in the balance of things, that they were causing damage.
They had many reasons to believe they weren't causing damage. First of all, it's a psychological experiment run by a reputable university. You expect all manner of wierdness, you don't expect maiming and killing; normal standards of recognizing an emergency would be suspended. Secondly, the torture scenario makes no sense at all. If the experimenter wanted to torture the subject, he could simply press the button himself, he didn't need help, and he was certainly in a better position to judge whether the subject was in danger. Evil is not sufficient to explain the situation, it would take a very bizarre, unheard-of form of insanity (have you ever heard of anything remotely like a maniac who hired someone and stood by them and tricked them into activating a device which tortures or kills their victim?); even a practical joke is a thousand times more likely. In the board-operator's mind, we're really looking at a dilemma: it sounds like the person's being hurt, but nothing else about the situation allows the possibility that the person is really being hurt (the readings on the intensity scale are subject to many interpretations; it only sounds ominous because it is presented as such).
However, the root reason to doubt that they believed they were causing damage is that there was no damage. Deception is hard. People take in hundreds of subtle indicators when evaluating the honesty of a claim, and they were taking direction from a person who knew exactly what was going on. The above reasons are just two more particularly obvious flaws of a poorly planned deception, there would unavoidably be many more, when trying to create such a ridiculous perception in the mind of the subjects.
Those who quit didn't do so because they were certain that they would cause serious damage to someone, and decided they didn't want to contribute to it. Instead, they knew something very weird was going on, knew that they were being deceived in one way or another, and didn't want to play along any more.
Note: damage. A little non-damaging pain is not a big deal. We put up with it when we get a needle or when we exercise or for a hundred other routine things. If your doctor told you to hold your child's arm while he inserted the needle, you'd do it, and not worry because it was a little pain for a good reason. If these people could be offended at the idea of causing mere pain in a consenting individual, they would have left as soon as their role was revealed, and the decision to ever press the button would be the big .
This is simply not science. It's a political statement at best, psychological torture at worst.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.