@hama protector:

"people post outrageous statements they either don't really agree with or only vaguely do, just to see people argue against it"

I've learned to accept this. It's actually good practice dealing with it, for it is the refuge of small minds everywhere.

"OP puffs his/her chest out triumphantly, admonishing the foolish forum dwellers for being intellectually invested in their opinions"

Well, they can fuck off then.

I don't think the disingenuousness here is a huge problem, relative to Facebook-login comments, where it's just an onslaught of raising and repeating the same points regardless of the subject matter.

I guess- I don't (and never have) actively participated in any forums really, despite growing up with the internet. I deleted my Facebook over a year ago, precisely because I was constantly exposed to the horrifying opinions of my acquaintances. It's nice that people have an opportunity to openly express themselves, but I am not one of those "everyone has their own opinions and you just have to respect them" people. If there is evidence that makes my position untenable, I alter my position. People arguing from the other side often make the same claim, but are unable to demonstrate their adherence to any sort of empirical basis. If I make an argument for which I can't demonstrate the validity, or the truth value of its' premises, I expect to be torn to bits (although that is almost never the case- casual politicos usually depend more on cleverly dispensing inductive fallacies than building a solid argument). I crave solid counter-arguments to challenge my beliefs, but I don’t feel like I would get them here if I tried- people who are inclined to agree with me will agree with me, and people inclined to disagree with me will throw out a personal anecdote or a baseless generalization or preconception at best, or a vicious personal attack at worst.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you work a job in which you get no exposure to politics, and your only ongoing research of politics is from mainstream or partisan news sources (as opposed to published, stringently peer-reviewed literature), you're going to be viewing the world through a paradigm I simply can't translate reality through. Some things (global warming, the overwhelming negative effects of income inequality) are just empirically verifiable, and people who argue against them either haven't done the research or aren't taking the problem seriously. The study of politics has experts just like any other field- uninformed, casual opinions are as useless as a homeopaths' opinions on medicine, or an astrologers' opinions on quantum physics.

For instance- a not-so-recent revelation from the social sciences (backed up by a slew of studies with sound methodology) reveals that the more politically savvy someone is, the less likely they are to accept evidence that runs counter to their pre-existing beliefs. I think knowing this fact and demanding a deductive, logical basis for my arguments or opinions is a good way of mitigating this fact, but I harbor no pretensions of being immune to this effect- Indeed, it's statistically likely that I'm more affected by it than most of the posters here.

Also, it didn’t occur to me that you can mute people on the forum. I’ll need to get on that ASAP.

Back in the 1980's you'd have to get a Post Office Box and write a lot of letters to get all the various pamphlets, tracts, and other bits of nonsense to achieve proper "viewpoint shock." Now it's lazier all around. Less effort to encounter cranks, and also less effort on the part of the cranks to reinforce their belief system on their own behalf.

Politics is a social "science" and shouldn't be confused with physics or even medicine, regardless of level of expertise.

Facebook is the breeding ground of today's lackadaisical cranks. I only create an account as needed when I have to test software against their API, then delete.

I don't think social sciences have the same explanatory power, or even validity as natural sciences.
Natural science> Any other man-made system of understanding the universe.
That said, social scientists DO generally understand social phenomenon better than Frank off the street. They are, at the very least, well-versed in their particular area of study. Social sciences are just like natural sciences- each articles' methodology has to be critically assessed, but as a result, actual usable information can be gleaned (as opposed to ideological bickering).

Where is this dreamworld where ideological bickering is not to be found?

In rational discussion between mutually respectful adults? I have had plenty of discussions with people with altering viewpoints IRL, and neither of our arguments come from strict ideological moorings. I often have discussions with people where neither of us have "skin in the game", we just use the discussions to better explore the problem.

Hmm... llama, there exists a spectrum from Krellin to Putin33 upon this forum... but you do not reside on that line. That is the line of ideological zealots. We're gonna need a plane around here, one axis with Krellin and Putin33 at opposite ends (political), and another axis where Krellin and Putin33 are at the *same point* (disposition), where llamajector is at the opposite side. Fuckin' *plane*.

^ tendmote is at the center of the plane mentioned above.

I am tired of all these fucking snakes on this fucking plane!

Wait- I'm honestly confused. Both of those users appear to be pretty hard-line right wing, which one do you identify as more "leftist" politically? It might be that I can't get past their conversational tone to try to decipher their ideology. That said, most people who consider themselves "liberals" in this country would find themselves comfortable in the center-right of most other countries, so that could be another source of my confusion.

@llama Projector

sorry for the typo last time. Your post, the long one, was a perfect summary of my thoughts. However, just as in case of muting, facebook offers comprehensive solution to filter your "friends". I'm surprised you agree on FB is the breeding ground of cranks, because that's hardly the case in Hungary. We have more commenters on blogs, so I guess it differs from country to country. At the end it doesn't really matter, does it, you are still on the internet.

About social sciences, just for the sake of the argument, I think when it comes to phenomena realted to groups and masses it can actually be a real science. Like describing the shift in Europe's labor market, or the underlying reasons of the diminishing fertility rate. But on an individual level, well, it's hardly a science.

To add to the original topic, I think these trolls have always existed, but before the internet era we were unable to meet them. Since everyone got access to the same platforms, and anyone is able to argue with 'professionals' on the topic, we just eyewitness the surfacing of these trolls.

During the 80s, if we are speaking about that, when you were in a certain environment, from work to university, you usually experienced only those people's views who were around you, hence you've met less trolls, as the society, your micro-environment in particular, tossed them out rather fast. On the contrary, with the internet we became the minority, who are being tossed out I guess. Suddenly 7 billion people can enter those "rooms" where quality discussions were held, and you are unable to do anything about it. (except muting, and creating closed groups)

I don't necessarily think FB is a breeding ground for cranks, I think it is just encourages people to "overshare" under-developed ideas. I think income inequality, and by extension increasing political polarization, create breeding grounds for "cranks". I often find that some of the people that are the most ideologically coherent are those on the far side of either spectrum- hardline libertarians for instance have a fairly coherent ideology - socially and economically (as opposed to social conservatives, who have a constantly contradictory set of beliefs- trying to balance conservative social policies with extremely liberal economic policies). Liberal in the global sense, not in the american context.

Also, I want to make it clear I don't think academia is the end-all be-all of human thought- it's just our best try in organizing that thought in a (fairly) civil way. There are plenty of conventions that need to change in academia (in particular social sciences), and I'm not of the opinion that the social sciences will be around in any recognizable form in half a century- it seems far more likely that computer simulations will increasingly replace more qualitative, subjective analysis.

I'm sure, by time, the ability for these people to share their views will recess. I see an increasing need to "filter out" trolls, and sooner or later I'm sure it will be solved. It's our mistake that we take our time to answer to these people.

about social sciences, I hope you're right because I just applied to economics PhD, and I'm hoping to do computer based simulations in social sciences :)

Yeah, much of the research in psychology right now is based on neuroscience (an actual science). Likewise, political science increasingly makes use of more and more computer models to explain mass political action. When you add to that the fact that computer power doubles every 12-18 months, it won't take long until social simulations are the norm for research. I expect to see a "unified theory of social life" in my lifetime- then again, I expect to live a very long time.

@llama I hope I will be able to provide you that theory. My 'statement of purpose' for my application was about something similar, pointing out I beleive we can model social behaviour based on mathematics. I actually strongly beleive it is possible when we work with masses, instead of individuals. (that's why I always play diplomacy against 6 people at once, not against my neighbours)

Have you read Asimov's Foundation?

I have not- the premise looks interesting (and relevant). Believing that people are explainable by computer models relies on three premises:

A) Human beings ultimately function like the rest of the known universe- that is to say, they are deterministic and observable (cause and effect).

A1- Implied premise) Anything that is deterministic and observable can be modeled on a computer, given sufficient processing power.

B) Computers are becoming exponentially more powerful, and will eventually deduce more efficiently than people.

Conclusion: Eventually, computers will be powerful enough to model (and therefore predict) human actions, both on the individual and group level.

Disbelief in this argument depends on you disagreeing with either premise, and each premise is easily defensible based on currently available data.

What is your undergraduate certificate in? Also, what country do you hail from/where are you looking to study?

Premise A is flawed when evaluating the individual as the individual often acts counter to his best interests. We call it an emotional response. When presented with two identical situations, different people with unique personalities react differently. But modeling group dynamics is something we can already do to some degree of success.

No, this argument does not assume "rational action". This argument assumes that actions are a combination of a persons' experiences and a persons' genetics (pretty much the consensus in neuroscience right now). Unless you can prove to me that human beings are not deterministic (that is to say, they can make choices based on unobservable, supernatural phenomena, or possess "free will"), premise A is sound.

"Free will" in the sense that at any given time, a person can make multiple decisions. Neuroscience tells us that a person knows what decision they are going to make before they consciously make it, and that there is no biological mechanism that could produce "free will". Keep in mind that "free will" is essentially a theological concept.

Computer engineer (BSc) and Business IT (MSc). I wrote my thesis on the computer based modeling of the Hungarian macroeconomics, where I basically created a few hundred charts and made forecast for each and every of them, algorithmically. So I beleive I kinda have the background to start with, and I have an interest in economics since I was a child, and when I read Asimov's Foundation I just felt, I can do this.

I got both my degrees in Hungary (I will get my MSc next month) at the university of technology. And I'm applying to the States, east-coast. We'll see ... I honestly don't think I will be accepted, but I really hope I'm wrong about that :)

About your premises, it was never really a question for me that it's possible. In my view a simple argument between couples, a revolution, a biological evolution is all the same pattern, a bubble which not necessarily pops, but the dynamics of their inflation is the very same. And I'm sure it applies to humanity as well.

I need prove no such thing, just introduce the possibility of random firings of neurons. You need to prove the positive, that they *are* deterministic and don't have the potential to react in a non-deterministic manner by having a stroke or some other unobservable force acts upon them.

But, I will grant that if we can create a thinking machine (real A.I.) then we could predict a humans reaction by mapping their neural.pathways onto the A.I. But even putting a machine with a human 24/7 from conception couldn't take into account genetic personality dispositions.

Neurons are not "randomly fired". Strokes follow determinism, how could they not? How could a stroke be "random"? What, in nature, besides quantum effects (which don't have any observable effects on the macro-scale), is "random"?

Just to follow the stroke example, if strokes were "random", we would expect to see an even distribution across age and gender groups. As it is, strokes are far more common in people with heart conditions, poor circulation, etc.

I'm not sure you have to model every moment of a person's behavior, rather the direction of it. For example, it doesn't matter whether you can predict where will hi stand on the subway, as long as you can predict he will actually take the subway.

You can model (I think) and individual as a flow of decisions, (a group of decision if you like) and if you can do that, then we are back to square one, group behaviour modeling.

I could argue with whether we can predict an individuals reactions/decision, but I'm pretty sure humanity as a mass, is more likely a freight train, and no matter what we do, we cannot stop it heading to the very same direction with the very same speed.

"But even putting a machine with a human 24/7 from conception couldn't take into account genetic personality dispositions. "
Of course they can. Personality is resultant from the brain, and from hormone interactions in your body. If you can make a predictive model of the brain, then that includes "personality", or "morality", or "ethics".

@Rokakoma I think we could predict where a person would stand before getting on the subway (with a sufficiently powerful model). A person chooses where to stand based on calculations they base off their experiences, and genetic predispositions. For instance, a heterosexual male might be more likely to stand closer to a pretty women, and he might choose a particular side so he can get a better look at her posterior while waiting for the train. His choice of how close to stand to the woman or the train embarkation line would also depend on his thought process. In essence- there's nowhere that that person could stand except for exactly where he stands given the situation, because he couldn't have made alternate choices using the exact same brain and having endured the exact same experiences. There are events, as @Draugnar alluded to, that we think of as "random", but in actuality they are just difficult to predict with our current tool-set.