Crowd wisdom, moral license and how far you can go to frame someone "wrong"
In the book The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies...
In the book The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, the opening anecdote relates Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members).
Aside from the required elements highlighted by the author of the book, James Surowiecki, the object in question should have several certain qualities as well: non-binary, non-polarized, little or no background knowledge required. That is to ensure the randomness and neutrality so that crowd wisdom can be effective. Surely, guessing the weight of an ox meets all these criteria.
Yet, most of the things that involve public opinion rarely meet all those requirements, especially when regarding morality and politics. Those things are usually complex in nature, heavily polarized and limited in choices. Some of the most prominent examples are Brexit and the 2016 President election in the US. Surely you wouldn't need me to tell you how they turned out.
Recently in Vietnam, there was an incident involved Khoa "pug" - appeared to be some well-known Youtuber that I never heard of. I'm not particularly interested in the details, but apparently he recorded a clip showing some receptionist at a resort mistreated him - a customer. And as expected, people jump right on the bandwagon to bombard that resort on Facebook with 1-star reviews. The ridiculous thing is that most of them have never ever booked that place, yet they went with the flow anyway.
And so this is the case of people giving themselves the "moral license" that gives them the right to trash anything they deem morally or politically incorrect, regardless whether they truly understand the situation or not. Anonimosity gives them a powerful position to attack without getting exposed in return. A sense of moral superiority is a dangerous poison.
And almost every time, the damage exceeds what it should've cost and innocent peple get dragged into to pay for the loss that's not even their own. Nothing new at all.
But beyond that, I wonder what is the true intent of that Youtuber. Did he want publicity? Did he want to be a hero of justice? Or maybe both?
And it leads me to the question: how far can you go to frame someone "wrong"? (or let's put it in another way: is it bad intent to do whatever it takes to prove someone has bad intent?)
Logically speaking, rational people would stop after a certain point, as the possibility of such bad intent is so unrealistically slim. But humans are not rational creature, they are driven by instincts and thus they are biased. They will dig their hole as deep as they wish just to find something that satisfies their own cognitive dissonance.
The case of Khoa "pug" and the case in the Youtube video above aren't much different. While the severity and seriousness are not the same, both of them have the same intent directionally. Both want to expose the weakness, the wrongness of the party involved.
And to frame someone wrong is surprisingly easy. In the world of potitical correctness, almost everything can be taken out of context and set to be offensive or wrong. Look no further, even the most upvoted posts on Spiderum would always have something that sounds "wrong" when taken out of context.
Context is one thing, but you can also frame people just by leading them to answer a series of question. The heat around abortion and feminism is just another example. Those questions don't need to have factually correct answers, they just need to be persuasive, like how Scott Adams pointed out here:
How to Persuade the Other Party - Dilbert Blog
An interesting article in The Atlantic talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language. We almost never do that. That’s why you rarely see people change their …blog.dilbert.com
An interesting article in The Atlantic talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language. We almost never do that. That’s why you rarely see people change their …blog.dilbert.com
Or better, you can find countless videos on Youtube regarding pro-life, pro-choice, whatever. They are really persuasive, visual-wise. Factually correct? Not so.
And so, you can go as far as your skills allow to frame someone "wrong". Coupled with moral license, suddenly it becomes a lethal weapon that could end anyone's life or career in a matter of seconds.
If you're someone whose moral standards are closely matched with the social standards, you will find youself jumping on the bandwagon quite often, sometimes even with the most trivial things. You're gonna have a hard time understanding and accepting others, and you're mostl likely to live your whole life in your own bubble. A social justice warrior - but not really.
Moral of the story: don't ever take the moral license.

English Zone
/english-zone
Bài viết nổi bật khác
- Hot nhất
- Mới nhất

Valex D
Hey there, an interesting topic. This reminds me of an article I read a long time ago which also featured Mr. Surowiecki (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/books-and-arts/2004/05/27/when-the-many-know-best). Anyway, pardon me for a few points, did you mean rational people would stop after a certain point... due to the 'boundary' (not possibility) btw good and bad is slim? Combining that with what you followed up being 'driven by instincts', if so, what's the purpose of dissecting 'rational' and 'irrational'? And I mean, the question you raised about the blogger's intention was pretty intriguing too. Here's another one for you: If not fame we're all looking for, then what is? If possible, I would love to read how you probe into each problem more thoroughly. Another touch of vision could feed me all day. Anw thanks for writing this =))
- Báo cáo

loveless

Thanks for your response, glad you like it and I’m sorry if it’s not quite there yet :))
When I stated that rational people would stop after a certain point, it’s similar to statistical significance when null hypothesis is falsified with 95% confidence, e.g. other explanations are so absurb that’s it’s unreal. For example, Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to hijack the 2016 election but the investigation concluded that there’s no evidence found, so it’s logical to conclude that Trump didn’t collude. The chance may not be 0% but it’s too insignificant to think otherwise. It’s not necessarily about good or bad.
But as I wrote, humans are irrational most of the time, so it’s important to be aware of such irrationality in order to avoid falling into cognitive dissonance. You can help yourself or others if you’re able to see the line between. And when looking at a complicated problem, you can come up with a more accurate explanation or conclusion.
The second part is open for discussion. I myself still haven’t found a good explanation yet, but I believe people tend to seek recognition from others. The fact that I’m writing here is also an evidence of such. But then those Youtubers want more - they want to be on the good side by exposing others’ weakness and wrongness. Contrast is a good way to persuade others.
Such methods can be effective when the issue is heavily polarized or binary, but the consequence is that the majority will act not act based on rationale but rather emotion simply because most don’t have a good enough understanding of the issue. And that’s the danger of the crowd.
And I dislike that way. That’s why even though I’m also seeking recognition, I want to let others decide for themselves. If you had no interest or background, you would haven’t commented, yeah? I don’t need to persuade those who have no interest or background because they won’t matter anyway. And I don’t take side, either. So those who understand are free to agree or even disagree and they still come out with a cool head.
- Báo cáo

Le Quang Nguyen
hehe i like your conclusion: "dont even take the moral license". Strong and easy enough to remember
- Báo cáo