[Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

[Kim Bruning]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:20:40PM +0200, Lodewijk wrote:
> (as a side-respons: besides being quite rude of making your point this way;

Interesting; it's actually a fairly common depiction, eg. :
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JN5JdlnKd7g/Sp-5xSd6pKI/AAAAAAAAAUI/bXiSz5mhgao/s400/censorship.JPG
http://theresolute.net/files/2010/04/censored_text.jpg

Of course, if you don't like it, you could always filter it. :-)

> it is nonsensical, because in this case it is the broadcaster (you) who
> decides what to leave out, and not the receiver (me).

Ah, you think I'm talking about the image filter here. That's not
entirely true. As I have repeated many times, the category system
required for the filter to work is the actual potential problem. 

That said, even a self controlled filter can be problematic qua bias
(especially if you're not sure entirely how to control it) [1]

>  Showing everything or showing only the parts people want to see have
>  just as much chance for bias.

Strictly speaking, that would be statistically true if you were to block
randomly. If you block non-randomly, then per definition (the statistical
definition even!) you are introducing bias. 

> You could even argue that forcing people to look at pictures and make them
> feel uncomfortable gives them in their specific interpretation a larger bias
> about the topic than you can ever induce by leaving the pictures out for
> that same group.

I would hope that it would be a bias towards the truth. Reality and
truth tend to be uncomfortable to people, they may have to step outside
their comfort zone slightly. It's much more pleasant to believe that
the earth is flat and does not extend outside your little village. 

When I start to feel slightly uncomfortable, I know I'm probably getting
closer to the reality of matters. This is not always entirely pleasant at
first.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning
[1] http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk