Politics & Stuff

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

5 minutes ago, Vesper said:

they ARE going down

CPI is consumer price index

You wont find a single person saying they are paying less in groceries now than when the money printing started during covid.Thats a losing argument.

[Vesper 30,101]

Just now, Sir Mikel OBE said:

You wont find a single person saying they are paying less in groceries now than when the money printing started during covid.Thats a losing argument.

that is not what I said

I said it was going down, not that it was at the same rate during the artucually depressed rates for the first year of COVID

and

the inflation did not start to really kick into until April 2021

the rate now is 2.5, two years ago it was 8.3

stimulus money had already started to be injected long (a year plus) before that

https://www.investopedia.com/government-stimulus-efforts-to-fight-the-covid-19-crisis-4799723#toc-stimulus-and-relief-package-1

snip

The first relief package, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020, nicknamed Phase One, was signed into law on March 6, 2020 

The second relief package, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), or Phase Two, was signed into law on March 18, 2020. 

The third—and largest—relief package was signed into law on March 27, 2020. This law, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and nicknamed the CARES Act or Phase Three, appropriated $2.3 trillion

A supplementary stimulus package, nicknamed Phase 3.5, was signed into law on April 24, 2020

Stimulus and Relief Package 4: On Dec. 21, 2020, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, a $900 billion stimulus and relief bill attached to the main omnibus budget bill. Then-President Trump signed the bill on Dec. 27, 2020, but urged Congress to increase the direct stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000.

[Vesper 30,101]

After the Laffer curve: taxing the rich, at last

It’s time finally to jettison the convenient claim that taxing the rich more would only reduce tax revenue.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/after-the-laffer-curve-taxing-the-rich-at-last

The consumption patterns of the 1 per cent contribute disproportionately to greenhouse-gas emissions (Dabarti CGI / shutterstock.com)

 

Fifty years ago, a highly influential economics theorem was born—the ‘Laffer curve’. An apparently simple illustration of how excessive taxation damaged the economy, it served in all policy arenas as an encouragement to reduce taxes, especially on the richest.

The five decades since have however provided many examples of tax cuts at the top damaging society, without improving economic performance. The time has come to retire the Laffer curve.

‘Trickle down’ economics

On September 13th 1974, the Chicago economist Arthur Laffer sketched his famous curve on a restaurant napkin in Washington DC. He claimed that, beyond a certain point, any further increase in tax rates would result in lower tax revenue and falling economic output.

Laffer’s audience consisted of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who were shortly afterwards to be appointed chief of staff and deputy chief of staff respectively by the incoming Republican president, Gerard Ford. They would become much more infamous in the presidential administrations of George Bush Snr and Jnr.

Laffer meantime served in 1981-89 as a member of Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board. He later advised Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and in 2019 Trump awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contributions to economics.

It was however the journalist Jude Wanniski who rendered the curve eponymous and popularised it from 1978. References to the Laffer curve have since been very frequent in the discourse on public finance.

Yet the policies it inspired did not succeed. Reagan’s claim in his 1980 campaign that tax cuts would spur the economy and the benefits ‘trickle down’ was dismissed as ‘voodoo economics’ by his Republican primary opponent George HW Bush. Reagan presided over record federal deficits and financial instability, while income inequality and a slew of social problems spiralled out of control during his two presidential terms.

Zombie idea

The Laffer curve however became one of the zombie ideas of economics: it kept coming back and finding new audiences. In the 1990s, the neoliberal paradigm was sold to the transition countries in central and eastern Europe, with flat-tax regimes part and parcel of it. This resulted in major economic and social dislocation, with autocratic political consequences too.

Since the 1990s, globalisation has brought more worldwide competition. Many interpreted that as meaning high top taxes were no longer an option. Nevertheless, in western Europe even the more neoliberal countries saved themselves from flat income-tax regimes. Some of the high-tax countries—such as Sweden, the Netherlands and France—maintained robust economic performance, linked to high-quality public spending and state capacity to guide public investment. The benefits of retreating from flat taxation in central and eastern Europe have also now been demonstrated.

In recent years, the tide has been turning, with innovation in international tax co-ordination as well. The minimum corporate tax, introduced at the initiative of the United States, will play an important role in protection of the tax base of advanced countries. What was considered impossible for long has become possible today. And, earlier this year, G20 finance ministers declared that they wanted to go further on taxing wealth.

Chronic income inequality

In recent decades, income inequality has become chronic and, in some cases, grotesque. Contrary to neoliberal ideology, this is not a price of growth but a consequence of stagnation which keeps generating further economic weakness. And during the years of disruption resulting from the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the unfolding global economic warfare, inequalities have grown even further.

Today the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which Oxfam calls an ‘inequality explosion’. Since 2020, the five richest billionaires in the European Union have increased their wealth by 76 per cent; the richest 1 per cent have captured nearly half of all new wealth created during this period of crises. The super-rich exercise increasing influence over resource allocation, without sharing the concerns of the majority of society. Fair taxation is not the only tool to fight inequality but it is essential.

Restoring social solidarity in Europe and north America would entail a proper audit of tax systems to expose their anomalies and dysfunctions. Regimes that might have been adequate 30-40 years ago may not perform well in current circumstances. To provide the financial meansto fight poverty, end global hunger and advance the digital, ecological and demographic transitions, we need to think differently about taxation and implement the necessary changes—sooner rather than later.

Taxing the richest

Other instruments, such as competition policy, minimum-wage schemes and regulation of market power, can help brake the growth of inequality, but taxation must play a central role in this paradigm shift. In situations such as that in which the new British government has found itself, the Gordian knot cannot be cut without increasing the tax on the richest.

Inspiration for reform can be gained from such pioneers as the state of Massachusetts, which introduced the Fair Share Amendment in late 2022 to support education and transport. Using funds from the Fair Share tax on incomes of over $1 million, the 2025 budget will provide universal free meals in schools, free community college for all and a free and expanded bus service at regional transit authorities.

An increasingly important argument in favour of fair taxation is climate change. The protection of our climate requires a mobilisation of resources. To tackle social inequality and climate change at the same time, higher taxes at the top end would be fair—not least because the consumption patterns and investment decisions of the 1 per cent are disproportionately responsible for unsustainable emissions of greenhouse gases, biodiversity loss and waste of natural resources.

Investment policy

The EU has responded to the ecological emergency with robust policies, particularly the European Green Deal announced in 2019. While a backlash against the EU sustainability agenda is looming, progressive policy must keep the Green Deal on track, even if an update and fine-tuning is necessary.

This is first of all an investment policy. Of course, the green transition is also a matter of regulation (such as by lowering daytime speed limits) and requires adaptation of habits and customs (such as by eating less meat), but the main point is investment. New types of infrastructure, new models of housing and new jobs must be created soon, to achieve Europe’s ‘net zero’ objective in 25-30 years.

Supporting the sustainability agenda, key tools have already been launched at the European level, including the Just Transition Fund and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. To support green investment, some even wanted to establish a ‘green bank for Europe’. But eventually it was not needed, since the European Investment Bank rose to the challenge and became a kind of green bank for the continent—this capacity can be boosted further.

Citizens’ initiative

Without however addressing the distributional issues within countries, a just transition cannot be implemented. To ensure the transition to a sustainable economic model is just, taxation will have to play a key role. The EU has no explicit competence on matters of taxation, but its policies have indirectly affected taxation practices and we need to see the paradigm shift here too.

Just transition is simply an imperative. This is why a European citizens’ initative has  been launched to connect the dual struggles against income inequality and climate change. The initiative calls on the European Commission to establish a European tax on great wealth. The goal is to collect one million signatures before October 9th, so the commission will have to propose legislation on the issue.

Five years ago the European Parliament elections gave a boost to climate policy, which became a centrepiece of the EU agenda. Today the risk is that the 2024 swing to the right buries key points of the progressive programme. Campaigns such as that for taxing the richest can help turn the tide. They can amplify the voice of the most vulnerable social groups but also the ‘squeezed middle’.

A just transition is in the interest of the older as well as the newer member states of the EU. Maritime and landlocked countries are in the same boat. The success of the citizens’ initiative is also in the interest of all. Promoting greater fairness and intergenerational solidarity, it can become a unifying policy for the EU.

Edited September 14, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,101]

Draghi report: a social agenda is lacking

The report on European ‘competitiveness’ is good on industrial strategy but poor from a social perspective.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/draghi-report-a-social-agenda-is-lacking

 

This week, the former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi published his long-awaited report on the future of Europe’s ‘competitiveness’. In a grim period for many European industrial workers, assertive action is needed to support Europe’s industrial fabric, invest in it massively and foster an ambitious social agenda—with quality employment at its core—to ensure a fair, green and digital transition.

Draghi’s report includes some convincing and powerful proposals. Unfortunately, it however overlooks important features of the European model, such as social dialogue and collective bargaining.

Industrial strategy

The report is based on a thorough analysis of the European economy in a global perspective. Using an impressive collection of data, Draghi offers a comprehensive approach to industrial strategy, with assessments and proposals covering innovation, skills, trade, competition and energy markets.

Starting the new European policy cycle with a report stressing that the future of industry is the biggest test the European Union faces is very welcome—industriAll Europe, the trade-union federation representing industrial workers, has been arguing this since the start of the energy crisis in 2021. And in challenging such EU sacred cows as competition law, trade policy and the approach to energy markets, Draghi shows the strategic priority of keeping a strong industrial base.

The report analyses ten sectors in depth, highlighting the challenges they face. Addressing traditional industries—such as the extractive, energy-intensive and foundation industries—alongside cutting-edge sectors is a big plus. Trade unions have insisted for years that they are complementary and interrelated: Europe cannot be an industrial power if it focuses only on ‘sexy’ clean technology and neglects basic industries crucial to the latter’s supply chains. And Draghi’s proposal to decouple electricity from gas prices is the kind of bold measure energy-intensive industries, facing high electricity prices, ugently need.

Social agenda

If the report is strong from an industrial-strategy point of view, its Achilles heel is however its failure to recognise the intrinsic link to a genuine EU social agenda. While it affirms that competitiveness must not be predicated on reducing labour costs and must go hand in hand with social inclusion, specific proposals are lacking.

Conversely, social dialogue, collective bargaining and the power of placing social conditionalities on investment and support are barely mentioned in the report’s 400 pages. A social agenda needs more than such interesting proposals as the right to training for all workers.

The report places a skewed focus on productivity. It explains weak growth in the EU by weak productivity growth, claiming that this in turn results in slower income growth and weaker domestic demand.

It correctly insists that, to improve competitiveness, ‘wage repression should not be used to lower relative costs’. Yet low productivity is consequence as well as cause—of corporate greed. The drop in the labour share of income since the early 1980s is not only a possible effect of automation but is the direct result of the massive increase in the profit share during that time.

Those record profits have mostly ended up in shareholders’ pockets. The report neglects the issue of the fair distribution of wealth created. Yet low wages have themselves played a role in depressing domestic demand. And the failure adequately to reinvest company surpluses has suppressed innovation—and so productivity—as well as, indirectly, demand.

Massive investment

Draghi’s call for massive investment to digitalise and decarbonise the economy—aiming for a return to ratios of investment to gross domestic product characteristic of the 1960s and 1970s—is welcome. Ambitious investments are indeed needed to ensure a just transition to a decarbonised economy and fair digitalisation for workers.

Public investment needs however to be matched with social conditionalities, to ensure public money only goes to companies which invest to produce in Europe and provide good unionised jobs for the long term, while respecting collective bargaining and workers’ rights. 

Those industries, moreover, rely on quality public services to ensure safe, educated and healthy societies. The austerity implied in the renewal of (amended) fiscal rules agreed by EU governments is anathema to this vision of investment.

The report claims that regulation is a burden for Europe’s industry. Yet it fails to provide convincing arguments to substantiate this assertion, rehearsing the views of employers to that effect. If Europe performs much better than other regions in the world, including the United States, in terms of living conditions (such as life expectancy at birth), it might though be to a large extent because EU regulations provide greater protection for workers and society.

Simplification and efficiency are always welcome but EU rules are also there to ensure private companies behave within the parameters of the public good. We need strong social and environmental safeguards to ensure that changes in regulations do not come at the expense of core European societal interests.

Political will

Finally, the key question will be how this report translates into action, in the context of rising nationalism and with fiscal consolidation leading to harsh austerity plans in most EU member states. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating.

If the European Commission and national governments continue with cost-cutting plans and labour-market ‘flexibilisation’, Draghi’s report will remain an academic exercise. What is needed is the political will to implement a genuine European industrial strategy, based on investment and on social conditionalities ensuring quality jobs.

[Vesper 30,101]

The Big Lie About Race in America’s Schools

 

https://hep.gse.harvard.edu/9781682539132/the-big-lie-about-race-in-americas-schools/

 

 

A survey of the ways in which misinformation campaigns damage race relations and educational integrity in US public schools and universities and a blueprint for how to counteract such efforts

The Big Lie About Race in America’s Schools delivers a collective response to the challenge of racially charged misinformation, disinformation, and censorship that increasingly permeates and weakens not only US education but also our democracy. In this thought-provoking volume, Royel Johnson and Shaun Harper bring together leading education scholars and educators to confront the weaponized distortions that are currently undermining both public education and racial justice. The experts gathered in this work offer strategies to counter these dangerous trends and uphold truth in education.

In focused, practical chapters, the contributors examine efforts both broad and specific, from restrictive education legislation, to book bans, to twisting terminology like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), that are obscuring truth in public education. They demonstrate how this narrowing of allowable ideas does a disservice to all students and especially to those who are underrepresented in curricula, including students of color and LGBTQ+ students.
 
Ultimately, the book offers clear, actionable insights for educators, policymakers, and advocates who seek solutions that will counter recent trends and transform educational contexts within both K–12 and higher education. Among other actions, this volume advocates strengthening educational alliances through shared leadership, organized collaboration, and parental involvement. It also presents innovative countermeasures to help defend public education.

[Vesper 30,101]

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-09-13-what-might-president-harris-do-israel/

 

I’ve been critical of President Biden for letting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brutalize Gazan civilians, permit the stealing of Palestinian land in the West Bank, and make a fool of Biden by repeatedly changing the terms of what kind of regional deal he might accept. I’ve also been cautiously hopeful that a President Harris, who at least has indicated greater sympathy for Palestinians as human beings and as a people with legitimate aspirations for statehood, might take a tougher line with Israel once she is in office.

I’m also mindful of the fact that during the campaign, with Trump posing as a slavish friend of Israel and Netanyahu in effect trying to elect Trump, Harris can’t signal anything of the kind. And conversations with knowledgeable people who favor a tougher U.S. line with Netanyahu in service of a regional settlement have persuaded me that this will be exceedingly difficult to pull off.

Suppose a Harris administration gave Netanyahu a kind of ultimatum: First, cease the bombing of Gaza and finally consummate the proposed and perennially delayed hostage exchange. Second, get serious about negotiating the regional deal that has supposedly been on the table, in which the anti-Iran powers, notably Saudi Arabia, normalize relations with Israel. This would be in exchange for an end to the assaults on Gaza and some kind of two-state solution, presumably involving some kind of “reconstituted Palestinian Authority,” as an alternative to Hamas.

As leverage, the United States could threaten to stop supplying offensive weapons to Israel. Washington could pause shipments, incrementally, if Israel refused to go along. And if this still didn’t work, the U.S. and other regional powers could negotiate the deal without Israel’s participation, and then demand that Israel accept it as a condition of U.S. aid. Variations on this approach have been discussed in various quarters.

But consider the practical challenges. For starters, there is the practical question of who would administer Gaza. Many people with more knowledge than I consider the premise of a reconstituted Palestinian Authority to be a fantasy. Likewise the idea of Gaza being administered by neighboring Arab states.

Hamas would not go quietly, and neither would Netanyahu. To accept anything remotely like this deal, which would also have to include the end of Israeli settler terrorism in the West Bank, would be the end of the Netanyahu government. That may need to be a tacit U.S. objective, but making it happen is another story.

And as soon as a President Harris tried to get seriously tough with Netanyahu, AIPAC and the rest of the U.S. Israel lobby would go into high gear and paint her as an antisemite and cause Congress to resist. Many moderate American Jews would be alarmed.

So even if Harris’s goals on Israel-Palestine are preferable to Biden’s, there is only so much that she can do. It will take a biblical miracle for the current mess to morph into a regional settlement with the long-sought two-state solution. The beginning of that miracle has to be the exit of Netanyahu.

[Vesper 30,101]

The surprising role of deep thinking in conspiracy theories

https://psyche.co/ideas/the-surprising-role-of-deep-thinking-in-conspiracy-theories

People who endorse and spread outlandish theories aren’t gullible, they’re drawn to the intoxicating lure of discovery

Conspiracy theories are seemingly everywhere. To explain their prevalence, many commentators point to the gullibility of conspiracy theorists. According to this view, believers in conspiracy theories accept evidence without bothering to scrutinise its credibility, making them vulnerable to the misinformation that pervades online ecosystems. But while it’s tempting to take this view, we believe it relies on an unrealistic picture of misinformation and the people who consume it – which is likely undermining attempts to deal with the problem.

Far from passively accepting the truth of conspiracy theories, conspiracy theorists enthusiastically participate in generating, discussing and dissecting them. They also appear genuine in their attempts to get to the bottom of things. They develop sophisticated arguments, go to considerable lengths to find the ‘right’ sources of information, and preach the importance of rigorous and independent research. Conspiracy theorists don’t fall for conspiracy theories. They discover them.

Consider QAnon, the US far-Right conspiracy theory claiming that Democrats are involved in child sex trafficking. The theory involves many implausible claims – for example, that Chelsea Clinton is forced to wear an ankle monitor by an organisation dedicated to prosecuting the trafficking ring. You would be forgiven for thinking that anyone who believes them is not thinking hard enough. But QAnon is not just a theory, but a problem-solving community. Cryptic messages (known as ‘Q drops’) launched by the figurehead ‘Q’ and others in the network spur individuals to ‘do their research’, hunting for clues, connections and explanations. It is not just QAnon that features and promotes puzzle-solving. Conspiracy theories surrounding the John F Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and COVID-19 all draw out amateur investigators who pick apart evidence and discover apparent inconsistencies in the official reports of events. These investigators even establish dedicated social networks to share evidence and engage in highly technical debates over inconsistencies in the official story.

This presents a paradox. Conspiracy theorists appear earnestly committed to finding the truth, yet they are drawn to theories that often involve false and implausible claims. We believe that the psychology of insight – especially the rewarding feelings associated with discovery and revelation – can resolve this paradox, helping to illuminate the surprising role that deep thinking plays in proliferating conspiracies.

To get a sense of what we mean by insight, take a moment to inspect the image above. At first, it probably looks like a haphazard collection of black patches. Now look again (possibly after glancing at the undistorted version below) and the solution becomes clear: a frog was lurking beneath the surface. When resolving images like these, people don’t just see the frog. They discover it. This discovery delivers a pleasing sense of insight, the so-called ‘aha’ experience.

 

The search for insight guides much of human behaviour. People seek out activities that provide this rewarding feedback – in puzzles, games, humour and even scientific research. The act of discovery and the sense of insight it provides strengthens and solidifies people’s beliefs. For example, searching and finding evidence – instead of being given it – makes people more confident that they understand a topic. People also rate statements as more accurate when they include a jumbled word – eg, ‘ithlium is the lightest of all metals’ – which they must unscramble themselves.

That ‘aha’ feeling gave rise to a deeper acceptance of the idea

Anecdotal evidence backs this up. Consider a recent first-hand observation from the Flat Earth International Conference:

At several points during the conference, a speaker would lay out a set of facts or observations that seemed strange or inexplicable and then, with a flourish, would bring everything together, often by appealing to a shadowy cabal at NASA. Such moments were met by audible gasps in the audience as people experienced an ‘aha moment’.

The link between conspiracy theories and insight is also evident in the role that memes play in proliferating conspiracies. Take the example of Melissa Rein Lively – a former QAnon supporter who rose to fame after a video of her destroying a face mask stand at a Target store during the COVID-19 pandemic went viral (anti-vaccine beliefs are a key part of the QAnon worldview). She has cited a particular meme as being pivotal to her journey into QAnon: it features a photograph of Polish Jews being put on a train in 1939, edited so that they wore face masks. Lively – the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors – grasped the implied link between mask mandates and authoritarian injustices, causing her to experience a rewarding sense of insight. Just like participants who are required to unscramble sentences, for her that ‘aha’ feeling gave rise to a deeper acceptance of the idea. As she put it: ‘Everything I was learning and everything I have ever been afraid of connected in a way that convinced me that at least some semblance of what I was reading was true.’

We propose that the hunger for insight and discovery is present in all humans and that engagement with conspiracy theories satisfies that hunger. This helps to explain the attractiveness of conspiracist communities, such as QAnon. These communities offer participation in a collective act of discovery, wherein users aid each other in discovering clues and decoding cryptic messages to generate their own insights. Contrary to the view that conspiracy theorists don’t think hard enough, many conspiracies are popular precisely because they require hard thinking.

This explanation also illuminates a potentially important cause of conspiracy theories – when people feel excluded from the kind of collective discovery that conspiracy theory communities offer. Take the example of anti-vaccine sentiments amongst new mothers. Mothers often feel that their maternal instincts and first-person experience are devalued by medical professionals. Such interactions deny them the chance to experience insight through participating in problem-solving about their children’s health. This ‘epistemic exclusion’ can lead the insight-hungry to seek out alternative views of medicine, often involving conspiratorial elements (centring around cover-ups by ‘big pharma’, for example). Consistent with this, people who reject mainstream medicine in favour of such alternatives often emphasise that they are only exercising their right to engage in their own truth-seeking activities.

Designing effective insight-based interventions relies on getting to know your audience

If we’re right about the role of insight in conspiratorial thinking, governments could apply the psychology of insight to design interventions that better combat conspiracy theories. Up until now a standard approach has been to focus on countering misinformation (through factchecking or providing information that contradicts it). But this treats those who consume misinformation as passive victims, rather than active and enthusiastic participants. It ignores the drive for discovery at the heart of much engagement with misinformation. A better approach is to take the drive for discovery seriously, which will require countering misinformation with the same spirit of intellectual playfulness that draws people to it. For example, interventions could work with engaging questions and puzzles instead of factual statements.

An important step in designing effective insight-based interventions of this kind is simple: know your audience. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ‘vaccine zombie’ metaphor resonated among the anti-vaccine community because it tapped into the way they thought of vaccine users. Designing a more accurate, but equally attractive, metaphor requires a firm understanding of the beliefs and attitudes of those who believe in conspiracies. Gaining such knowledge relies on getting to know your audience. A relevant distinction is between perspective-taking and perspective-getting – don’t just try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes (perspective-taking); genuinely enquire about how they see the world (perspective-getting). That knowledge can then be employed to connect with communities that believe in conspiracies.

Another way is to represent people’s lived experience. People gain a sense of insight when recognising a link with their personal experiences. The meme that Lively encountered about face masks resonated with her so strongly because she was the daughter of Holocaust survivors – she uncovered a surprising link with her own perspective. This suggests that effective interventions should connect with people’s experiences.

One approach to delivering insight-based interventions could be via developments in AI, which hold the promise of countering conspiracy thinking via personalised interactions. For example, in a recent study, interactions with ChatGPT-4 Turbo substantially and durably shifted the beliefs of even the staunchest of believers in conspiracies ranging from the causes of COVID-19 to the Moon landings to the death of Princess Diana. Analysing these conversations showed that the model didn’t simply present counterevidence but questioned and reasoned with users. Although users were not explicitly asked to report insight experiences, we would venture that such experiences were a crucial mechanism underlying their shift in beliefs.

The mind-changing potential of these systems is bound to continue to grow. They already have more ‘patience’ than any human for gaining our idiosyncratic perspective through dialogue. As they can ingest more information about us, they will be able to simulate our positions more effectively. That will allow them to challenge us at the just-right level – eventually coming up with new, resonating metaphors and pointed questions. We are hopeful that such personal(ised) AI assistants will help to prevent and counter harmful beliefs at scale (but they will need to be implemented carefully, given the risk of misuse).

Conspiracy believers are not unintelligent and gullible. They are driven by their hunger for insight. Whether via AI or other media, recognising and respecting this hunger is the way towards more effective interventions.

[NikkiCFC 8,289]

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

Some Putin loving scummy leftie will be their new leader we expect.

It's impossible to be leftie and like Putin. That doesn't make any sense. 

[cosmicway 1,333]

11 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

It's impossible to be leftie and like Putin. That doesn't make any sense. 

It makes and there are various types of left in the world.
Putin is against America quid erat demonstratum.
Not the biggest-ultra fans however. The ultras are the right wingers and PAOK Salonika.
Kasselakis took a Harris position on the matter and it was not liked by the priests.

Edited September 14, 2024 by cosmicway

[Vesper 30,101]

1 hour ago, NikkiCFC said:

It's impossible to be leftie and like Putin. That doesn't make any sense. 

[robsblubot 3,595]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

The surprising role of deep thinking in conspiracy theories

https://psyche.co/ideas/the-surprising-role-of-deep-thinking-in-conspiracy-theories

People who endorse and spread outlandish theories aren’t gullible, they’re drawn to the intoxicating lure of discovery

Conspiracy theories are seemingly everywhere. To explain their prevalence, many commentators point to the gullibility of conspiracy theorists. According to this view, believers in conspiracy theories accept evidence without bothering to scrutinise its credibility, making them vulnerable to the misinformation that pervades online ecosystems. But while it’s tempting to take this view, we believe it relies on an unrealistic picture of misinformation and the people who consume it – which is likely undermining attempts to deal with the problem.

Far from passively accepting the truth of conspiracy theories, conspiracy theorists enthusiastically participate in generating, discussing and dissecting them. They also appear genuine in their attempts to get to the bottom of things. They develop sophisticated arguments, go to considerable lengths to find the ‘right’ sources of information, and preach the importance of rigorous and independent research. Conspiracy theorists don’t fall for conspiracy theories. They discover them.

Consider QAnon, the US far-Right conspiracy theory claiming that Democrats are involved in child sex trafficking. The theory involves many implausible claims – for example, that Chelsea Clinton is forced to wear an ankle monitor by an organisation dedicated to prosecuting the trafficking ring. You would be forgiven for thinking that anyone who believes them is not thinking hard enough. But QAnon is not just a theory, but a problem-solving community. Cryptic messages (known as ‘Q drops’) launched by the figurehead ‘Q’ and others in the network spur individuals to ‘do their research’, hunting for clues, connections and explanations. It is not just QAnon that features and promotes puzzle-solving. Conspiracy theories surrounding the John F Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and COVID-19 all draw out amateur investigators who pick apart evidence and discover apparent inconsistencies in the official reports of events. These investigators even establish dedicated social networks to share evidence and engage in highly technical debates over inconsistencies in the official story.

This presents a paradox. Conspiracy theorists appear earnestly committed to finding the truth, yet they are drawn to theories that often involve false and implausible claims. We believe that the psychology of insight – especially the rewarding feelings associated with discovery and revelation – can resolve this paradox, helping to illuminate the surprising role that deep thinking plays in proliferating conspiracies.

To get a sense of what we mean by insight, take a moment to inspect the image above. At first, it probably looks like a haphazard collection of black patches. Now look again (possibly after glancing at the undistorted version below) and the solution becomes clear: a frog was lurking beneath the surface. When resolving images like these, people don’t just see the frog. They discover it. This discovery delivers a pleasing sense of insight, the so-called ‘aha’ experience.

 

The search for insight guides much of human behaviour. People seek out activities that provide this rewarding feedback – in puzzles, games, humour and even scientific research. The act of discovery and the sense of insight it provides strengthens and solidifies people’s beliefs. For example, searching and finding evidence – instead of being given it – makes people more confident that they understand a topic. People also rate statements as more accurate when they include a jumbled word – eg, ‘ithlium is the lightest of all metals’ – which they must unscramble themselves.

That ‘aha’ feeling gave rise to a deeper acceptance of the idea

Anecdotal evidence backs this up. Consider a recent first-hand observation from the Flat Earth International Conference:

At several points during the conference, a speaker would lay out a set of facts or observations that seemed strange or inexplicable and then, with a flourish, would bring everything together, often by appealing to a shadowy cabal at NASA. Such moments were met by audible gasps in the audience as people experienced an ‘aha moment’.

The link between conspiracy theories and insight is also evident in the role that memes play in proliferating conspiracies. Take the example of Melissa Rein Lively – a former QAnon supporter who rose to fame after a video of her destroying a face mask stand at a Target store during the COVID-19 pandemic went viral (anti-vaccine beliefs are a key part of the QAnon worldview). She has cited a particular meme as being pivotal to her journey into QAnon: it features a photograph of Polish Jews being put on a train in 1939, edited so that they wore face masks. Lively – the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors – grasped the implied link between mask mandates and authoritarian injustices, causing her to experience a rewarding sense of insight. Just like participants who are required to unscramble sentences, for her that ‘aha’ feeling gave rise to a deeper acceptance of the idea. As she put it: ‘Everything I was learning and everything I have ever been afraid of connected in a way that convinced me that at least some semblance of what I was reading was true.’

We propose that the hunger for insight and discovery is present in all humans and that engagement with conspiracy theories satisfies that hunger. This helps to explain the attractiveness of conspiracist communities, such as QAnon. These communities offer participation in a collective act of discovery, wherein users aid each other in discovering clues and decoding cryptic messages to generate their own insights. Contrary to the view that conspiracy theorists don’t think hard enough, many conspiracies are popular precisely because they require hard thinking.

This explanation also illuminates a potentially important cause of conspiracy theories – when people feel excluded from the kind of collective discovery that conspiracy theory communities offer. Take the example of anti-vaccine sentiments amongst new mothers. Mothers often feel that their maternal instincts and first-person experience are devalued by medical professionals. Such interactions deny them the chance to experience insight through participating in problem-solving about their children’s health. This ‘epistemic exclusion’ can lead the insight-hungry to seek out alternative views of medicine, often involving conspiratorial elements (centring around cover-ups by ‘big pharma’, for example). Consistent with this, people who reject mainstream medicine in favour of such alternatives often emphasise that they are only exercising their right to engage in their own truth-seeking activities.

Designing effective insight-based interventions relies on getting to know your audience

If we’re right about the role of insight in conspiratorial thinking, governments could apply the psychology of insight to design interventions that better combat conspiracy theories. Up until now a standard approach has been to focus on countering misinformation (through factchecking or providing information that contradicts it). But this treats those who consume misinformation as passive victims, rather than active and enthusiastic participants. It ignores the drive for discovery at the heart of much engagement with misinformation. A better approach is to take the drive for discovery seriously, which will require countering misinformation with the same spirit of intellectual playfulness that draws people to it. For example, interventions could work with engaging questions and puzzles instead of factual statements.

An important step in designing effective insight-based interventions of this kind is simple: know your audience. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ‘vaccine zombie’ metaphor resonated among the anti-vaccine community because it tapped into the way they thought of vaccine users. Designing a more accurate, but equally attractive, metaphor requires a firm understanding of the beliefs and attitudes of those who believe in conspiracies. Gaining such knowledge relies on getting to know your audience. A relevant distinction is between perspective-taking and perspective-getting – don’t just try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes (perspective-taking); genuinely enquire about how they see the world (perspective-getting). That knowledge can then be employed to connect with communities that believe in conspiracies.

Another way is to represent people’s lived experience. People gain a sense of insight when recognising a link with their personal experiences. The meme that Lively encountered about face masks resonated with her so strongly because she was the daughter of Holocaust survivors – she uncovered a surprising link with her own perspective. This suggests that effective interventions should connect with people’s experiences.

One approach to delivering insight-based interventions could be via developments in AI, which hold the promise of countering conspiracy thinking via personalised interactions. For example, in a recent study, interactions with ChatGPT-4 Turbo substantially and durably shifted the beliefs of even the staunchest of believers in conspiracies ranging from the causes of COVID-19 to the Moon landings to the death of Princess Diana. Analysing these conversations showed that the model didn’t simply present counterevidence but questioned and reasoned with users. Although users were not explicitly asked to report insight experiences, we would venture that such experiences were a crucial mechanism underlying their shift in beliefs.

The mind-changing potential of these systems is bound to continue to grow. They already have more ‘patience’ than any human for gaining our idiosyncratic perspective through dialogue. As they can ingest more information about us, they will be able to simulate our positions more effectively. That will allow them to challenge us at the just-right level – eventually coming up with new, resonating metaphors and pointed questions. We are hopeful that such personal(ised) AI assistants will help to prevent and counter harmful beliefs at scale (but they will need to be implemented carefully, given the risk of misuse).

Conspiracy believers are not unintelligent and gullible. They are driven by their hunger for insight. Whether via AI or other media, recognising and respecting this hunger is the way towards more effective interventions.

I’m not sure this is the root cause; the hunger has always been there. it’s missing the “what’s different now” question. Which is what is addressed in the Yuval interview I posted earlier: fiction is cheaper (to produce) and the algos treat all info the same. So, junk becomes abundant by sheer volume.

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

18 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

I’m not sure this is the root cause; the hunger has always been there. it’s missing the “what’s different now” question. Which is what is addressed in the Yuval interview I posted earlier: fiction is cheaper (to produce) and the algos treat all info the same. So, junk becomes abundant by sheer volume.

Yup and Social media is pivotal in spreading shite far and wide. In the UK for the first time there are more people getting their 'news' from billionaire owners of Social media than 'respected ' traditional news sources of TV/radio/newspapers

[cosmicway 1,333]

20 hours ago, Vesper said:

The surprising role of deep thinking in conspiracy theories

https://psyche.co/ideas/the-surprising-role-of-deep-thinking-in-conspiracy-theories

People who endorse and spread outlandish theories aren’t gullible, they’re drawn to the intoxicating lure of discovery

Conspiracy theories are seemingly everywhere. To explain their prevalence, many commentators point to the gullibility of conspiracy theorists. According to this view, believers in conspiracy theories accept evidence without bothering to scrutinise its credibility, making them vulnerable to the misinformation that pervades online ecosystems. But while it’s tempting to take this view, we believe it relies on an unrealistic picture of misinformation and the people who consume it – which is likely undermining attempts to deal with the problem.

Far from passively accepting the truth of conspiracy theories, conspiracy theorists enthusiastically participate in generating, discussing and dissecting them. They also appear genuine in their attempts to get to the bottom of things. They develop sophisticated arguments, go to considerable lengths to find the ‘right’ sources of information, and preach the importance of rigorous and independent research. Conspiracy theorists don’t fall for conspiracy theories. They discover them.

Consider QAnon, the US far-Right conspiracy theory claiming that Democrats are involved in child sex trafficking. The theory involves many implausible claims – for example, that Chelsea Clinton is forced to wear an ankle monitor by an organisation dedicated to prosecuting the trafficking ring. You would be forgiven for thinking that anyone who believes them is not thinking hard enough. But QAnon is not just a theory, but a problem-solving community. Cryptic messages (known as ‘Q drops’) launched by the figurehead ‘Q’ and others in the network spur individuals to ‘do their research’, hunting for clues, connections and explanations. It is not just QAnon that features and promotes puzzle-solving. Conspiracy theories surrounding the John F Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and COVID-19 all draw out amateur investigators who pick apart evidence and discover apparent inconsistencies in the official reports of events. These investigators even establish dedicated social networks to share evidence and engage in highly technical debates over inconsistencies in the official story.

This presents a paradox. Conspiracy theorists appear earnestly committed to finding the truth, yet they are drawn to theories that often involve false and implausible claims. We believe that the psychology of insight – especially the rewarding feelings associated with discovery and revelation – can resolve this paradox, helping to illuminate the surprising role that deep thinking plays in proliferating conspiracies.

To get a sense of what we mean by insight, take a moment to inspect the image above. At first, it probably looks like a haphazard collection of black patches. Now look again (possibly after glancing at the undistorted version below) and the solution becomes clear: a frog was lurking beneath the surface. When resolving images like these, people don’t just see the frog. They discover it. This discovery delivers a pleasing sense of insight, the so-called ‘aha’ experience.

 

The search for insight guides much of human behaviour. People seek out activities that provide this rewarding feedback – in puzzles, games, humour and even scientific research. The act of discovery and the sense of insight it provides strengthens and solidifies people’s beliefs. For example, searching and finding evidence – instead of being given it – makes people more confident that they understand a topic. People also rate statements as more accurate when they include a jumbled word – eg, ‘ithlium is the lightest of all metals’ – which they must unscramble themselves.

That ‘aha’ feeling gave rise to a deeper acceptance of the idea

Anecdotal evidence backs this up. Consider a recent first-hand observation from the Flat Earth International Conference:

At several points during the conference, a speaker would lay out a set of facts or observations that seemed strange or inexplicable and then, with a flourish, would bring everything together, often by appealing to a shadowy cabal at NASA. Such moments were met by audible gasps in the audience as people experienced an ‘aha moment’.

The link between conspiracy theories and insight is also evident in the role that memes play in proliferating conspiracies. Take the example of Melissa Rein Lively – a former QAnon supporter who rose to fame after a video of her destroying a face mask stand at a Target store during the COVID-19 pandemic went viral (anti-vaccine beliefs are a key part of the QAnon worldview). She has cited a particular meme as being pivotal to her journey into QAnon: it features a photograph of Polish Jews being put on a train in 1939, edited so that they wore face masks. Lively – the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors – grasped the implied link between mask mandates and authoritarian injustices, causing her to experience a rewarding sense of insight. Just like participants who are required to unscramble sentences, for her that ‘aha’ feeling gave rise to a deeper acceptance of the idea. As she put it: ‘Everything I was learning and everything I have ever been afraid of connected in a way that convinced me that at least some semblance of what I was reading was true.’

We propose that the hunger for insight and discovery is present in all humans and that engagement with conspiracy theories satisfies that hunger. This helps to explain the attractiveness of conspiracist communities, such as QAnon. These communities offer participation in a collective act of discovery, wherein users aid each other in discovering clues and decoding cryptic messages to generate their own insights. Contrary to the view that conspiracy theorists don’t think hard enough, many conspiracies are popular precisely because they require hard thinking.

This explanation also illuminates a potentially important cause of conspiracy theories – when people feel excluded from the kind of collective discovery that conspiracy theory communities offer. Take the example of anti-vaccine sentiments amongst new mothers. Mothers often feel that their maternal instincts and first-person experience are devalued by medical professionals. Such interactions deny them the chance to experience insight through participating in problem-solving about their children’s health. This ‘epistemic exclusion’ can lead the insight-hungry to seek out alternative views of medicine, often involving conspiratorial elements (centring around cover-ups by ‘big pharma’, for example). Consistent with this, people who reject mainstream medicine in favour of such alternatives often emphasise that they are only exercising their right to engage in their own truth-seeking activities.

Designing effective insight-based interventions relies on getting to know your audience

If we’re right about the role of insight in conspiratorial thinking, governments could apply the psychology of insight to design interventions that better combat conspiracy theories. Up until now a standard approach has been to focus on countering misinformation (through factchecking or providing information that contradicts it). But this treats those who consume misinformation as passive victims, rather than active and enthusiastic participants. It ignores the drive for discovery at the heart of much engagement with misinformation. A better approach is to take the drive for discovery seriously, which will require countering misinformation with the same spirit of intellectual playfulness that draws people to it. For example, interventions could work with engaging questions and puzzles instead of factual statements.

An important step in designing effective insight-based interventions of this kind is simple: know your audience. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ‘vaccine zombie’ metaphor resonated among the anti-vaccine community because it tapped into the way they thought of vaccine users. Designing a more accurate, but equally attractive, metaphor requires a firm understanding of the beliefs and attitudes of those who believe in conspiracies. Gaining such knowledge relies on getting to know your audience. A relevant distinction is between perspective-taking and perspective-getting – don’t just try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes (perspective-taking); genuinely enquire about how they see the world (perspective-getting). That knowledge can then be employed to connect with communities that believe in conspiracies.

Another way is to represent people’s lived experience. People gain a sense of insight when recognising a link with their personal experiences. The meme that Lively encountered about face masks resonated with her so strongly because she was the daughter of Holocaust survivors – she uncovered a surprising link with her own perspective. This suggests that effective interventions should connect with people’s experiences.

One approach to delivering insight-based interventions could be via developments in AI, which hold the promise of countering conspiracy thinking via personalised interactions. For example, in a recent study, interactions with ChatGPT-4 Turbo substantially and durably shifted the beliefs of even the staunchest of believers in conspiracies ranging from the causes of COVID-19 to the Moon landings to the death of Princess Diana. Analysing these conversations showed that the model didn’t simply present counterevidence but questioned and reasoned with users. Although users were not explicitly asked to report insight experiences, we would venture that such experiences were a crucial mechanism underlying their shift in beliefs.

The mind-changing potential of these systems is bound to continue to grow. They already have more ‘patience’ than any human for gaining our idiosyncratic perspective through dialogue. As they can ingest more information about us, they will be able to simulate our positions more effectively. That will allow them to challenge us at the just-right level – eventually coming up with new, resonating metaphors and pointed questions. We are hopeful that such personal(ised) AI assistants will help to prevent and counter harmful beliefs at scale (but they will need to be implemented carefully, given the risk of misuse).

Conspiracy believers are not unintelligent and gullible. They are driven by their hunger for insight. Whether via AI or other media, recognising and respecting this hunger is the way towards more effective interventions.

Remember the time Chelsea were disqualified from the champions league to Juve-Shakhtar Donetsk ?
It was the 2012-13 champions league and Shakhtar knocked uss out on h2h away goal difference.
The last day it was Shakhtar at home to Juve and Chelsea at home to Danish amateurs Nordsjaelland.

My prediction was Shakhtar were going to let Juve go through.
If Shakhtar had won then that would leave Juve to the third place, Shakhtar first and Chelsea second.
If draw then Juve finish first, Shakhtar second, Chelsea third.
So my prediction was away or draw for Shakhtar v. Juve.

There was then that character who confronted me.
A commie - "original gate 21".
Said ok, Juve go through but it will be Chelsea who lose to Nordjaelland, put your money there !
I was aghast at this, blocked the man straight away (perma block).
Chelsea beat the Danes 6 to 1 of course and Juve won 1-0.

So this shows you there are conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorists.
Those with detective thinking and the idiots.

Edited September 15, 2024 by cosmicway

[cosmicway 1,333]

On 14/09/2024 at 15:57, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Because thanks to inflation Americans cant afford to go to the Marriott Marquis 😂

I knew a woman who found a peacock in the street.
It had strayed away from the national garden.
She cooked it.

[Vesper 30,101]

Taliban begins enforcing new draconian laws, and Afghan women despair

Afghan religious police wield new power to enforce a ban on women raising their voices in public and looking at men other than their husbands or relatives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/15/taliban-afghanistan-laws-women-rights/

 

Afghan women wearing burqas walk past jewelry shops at a market in Kandahar in August. (Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images)

 

As the Taliban begins enforcing new draconian laws, Afghan women say that whatever hopes they once harbored for an easing of the severe restrictions on them have largely vanished.

The new religious code issued late last month bans women from raising their voices, reciting the Quran in public and looking at men other than their husbands or relatives. It requires women to cover the lower half of their faces in addition to donning a head covering they were already expected to wear, among other rules.

Women’s lives were heavily regulated by the Taliban-run government before the latest rules were promulgated, and some of the new laws codify restrictions that were already imposed on women in practice. But Afghan women, speaking in phone interviews over the past week, pointed to mounting signs of a crackdown in urban areas, where rules had been less rigorously enforced.

The Taliban’s morality police, which is an extension of the regime’s most conservative elements, appears to have been handed an unprecedented amount of power in the capital, Kabul, and elsewhere, women said. While the morality police’s white robes were a rare sight in Kabul, they have become omnipresent since late August, several women said.

Officers are roaming bus stops and shopping centers searching for dress-code violations or any women who might laugh or raise their voices. On Fridays, the Muslim holy day, religious police officers disperse women in some parts of Kabul and accuse them of preventing male shop owners from making it to the mosque in time for prayers. Women are an increasingly rare sight on Afghan television broadcasts.

While girls were banned from going to school above sixth grade and women barred from universities soon after the Taliban took power three years ago, some still attended English classes as recently as a few weeks ago. But after the Taliban’s morality police issued warnings to male teachers, according to students, many families now refuse to let their daughters participate. Other women have decided to stay home out of fear.

“Three weeks ago, I was still hopeful that the Taliban may change and remove the restrictions on girls’ education,” said Meena, a Kabul resident in her 20s who runs secret classes for teenage girls. “But once they published their vice and virtue law, I lost all hope,” she said. The women interviewed for this story spoke on the condition that they remain anonymous or that only their first names be published due to fear of drawing unwanted scrutiny from the Taliban regime.

Afghan girls attend a class at a primary school in Kandahar, Afghanistan, on Sept. 8. (Qudratullah Razwan/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

Another women’s rights activist who also lives in Kabul said she had been banned from studying when the Taliban held power in the 1990s. Now, she sees history repeating itself. “The entire country has turned into a graveyard for women’s dreams,” said the 48-year-old woman. She added that initial signs that Taliban rule would be less extreme the second time around have not borne out.

When the Taliban seized power in August 2021, the new government quickly imposed far-ranging restrictions on women. But afterward, many of these changes — particularly the bans on education — were portrayed by Taliban officials as temporary. Those officials were often unable to specify what these rules required, leaving some room for interpretation that translated into regional variation in how the rules were followed. There remained a large difference, for example, between urban Kabul and the conservative rural south of the country.

But now, some women said, hopes are waning that urban influences could moderate the Taliban.

“There are two groups within the Taliban,” said Sajia, 24, a female former university student. “One group seemed to be moderate and eager to bend the rules. But now, with the restrictions approved as law, it seems that they have failed and there is no hope left.”

Others gave up hoping long ago that the Taliban leadership could be made more tolerant. “When it comes to cruelty and restrictions, they are all on the same page,” said a 20-year-old female Kabul resident, who was admitted by Kabul University’s archaeology department just when the Taliban banned women from studying.

The Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which oversees the morality police, could not be reached for comment. Two former senior officials with the ministry said the position of spokesman is vacant.

In a video statement to RTA, a Taliban-run broadcaster, Justice Ministry spokesman Barakatullah Rasouli said the new regulations emphasize “respect for human dignity of individuals” and advise officials to preach “gently.” The Taliban maintains that women’s lives have improved under its three-year rule and frequently argues that restrictions on women are for their protection.

Afghan women’s rights activists counter that the Quran does not ban women from getting educated and imposes far fewer rules about proper dress than the ones mandated by the Taliban.

Many of the Taliban’s beliefs are partly rooted in centuries-old Pashtun culture, which remains entrenched in many rural areas of Afghanistan. In these areas, it is not only men who share the Taliban’s views. In Kabul, some women particularly fear female members of the morality police, who are often recruited from conservative suburbs. “They behave even more aggressively than the male officers do,” said a 20-year-old female Kabul resident.

Many women in Kabul say they doubt the Taliban’s religious justifications for the rules, and there is widespread speculation that the regime is adding restrictions on women’s rights so it can later bargain them away in negotiations with international agencies and foreign capitals. The Taliban has been seeking international recognition for its government — so far, no country has done so — and trying to gain access to Afghan Central Bank reserves that remain frozen. Afghan leaders hope such a breakthrough would give a boost to the economy, helping to ease unemployment and hunger.

Some Afghan women blame the outside world for their vanishing freedoms. “The silence of the world over the last three years will go down as a dark chapter in history,” said Meena, echoing a widespread sentiment in the country that global attention has moved on from Afghanistan.

Many of the women she speaks to say they have unsuccessfully applied for scholarships abroad, she said, and are running out of options.

“The Taliban will keep using religion as a weapon against women,” she said. “To them, seeing the hair of a girl is a sin, but starving your country is not.”