Which headlines and narratives are mostly clickbait?

post by Pontor · 2020-10-25T01:19:29.361Z · LW · GW · No comments

This is a question post.

Contents

  Answers
    5 Stuart Anderson
None
No comments

Or: What do superforecasters tend to think of the topics that get tweets and airtime these days? The following questions get put into my attention (consensually and otherwise) and I am genuinely uncertain about the answers.
 

Sorry, that was a lot to drop all at once, but the cacophony is the point. I know headlines are headlines, clickbait is clickbait, but I frequently hear smart people (including rationalists) giving ample conversational time to any of the above topics. I suspect that with a moderate amount of effort, a smart person could identify and ignore whichever of these topics are pure distraction. What I want to know is if such efforts have already been done systematically and semi-credibly (for example, a collection of rigorous blog posts by a superforecaster). Ultimately, I'm hoping I can get some sense of how to weigh e.g. the resurgence of fascism vs. The Great Awokening vs. silent attacks by foreign states--without having to do tons of my own research. (I already skimmed Metaculus and I remain unsatisfied.)

Answers

answer by Stuart Anderson · 2020-10-25T09:41:32.552Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

-

↑ comment by greylag · 2020-10-25T19:17:47.461Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think the easiest strategy is to look at those people and groups that are defamed and censored. If you know that establishment gatekeeping doesn't want you looking a particular way then there's bound to be something worth looking at there

 

That... doesn’t feel super-valuable. For a start, sampling the political opinions of people who regard “the establishment“ as the outgroup is going to disagree very strongly with such ideas as ”We live safe and comfortable lives in a world of great privilege and things are only getting better by the day”. 

Other shunned things: alternative medicine? (Vitamin D supplementation is an obvious outlier here, may be very valuable, and is at least cheap and safe).

Replies from: stuart-anderson
↑ comment by Pontor · 2020-10-27T20:49:25.290Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think you're kind of missing the point of the question. Even if I avoid media, other people don't, so I get exposed to some of these topics anyway. Even if they're 95% noise, I think it might be worth asking the right people which 95% it is.

All of the topics you raised are distractions from living. That is your answer.


I'm curious if the most epistemically conscientious agree with you, and if so, whether they've made the case in explicit detail. Would you happen to be a superforecaster?
 

You don't even have to ask anyone else about that, just objectively look at your own life 20 years ago compared to today. Not how worried or hysterical you might feel, or how you feel about ideology or people you'll never meet, but your day to day life and your prospects for the future.

I'd say about half of the bullet points in the original post pass that test: 

The questions about migrations and WFH have implications for lifestyle decisions and investments. The WFH and awokening questions affect what kind of advice I might offer to a graduating high schooler. The misinformation and IRA questions affect how I think about the looting and Biden questions.

We'd all like that but I don't think it is truly possible. 

This is the genre I am looking for. [LW · GW]

Replies from: stuart-anderson

No comments

Comments sorted by top scores.