21 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. Back in November, I wrote about the different types of problematic information I saw circulate during the US election. Since then, I’ve been trying to refine a typology (and thank you to Global Voices for helping me to develop my definitions even further). I would argue there are seven distinct types of problematic content that sit within our information ecosystem. They sit on a scale, one that loosely measures the intent to deceive.
  2. Sep 2017
    1. Computers that are “awake”

      Saying that computers are "awake," creates a relationship between deception and consciousness. When computers are turned on, one may personify them to be "awake," but they are not actually conscious; they are deceptively "waking up." This mirrors how the author sees human beings and technology, as one in the same.

  3. Apr 2017
    1. a trick of mediation. Indeed, the Monkey is a term of (anti)mediation

      Kathryn's post on the next page kind of builds on this, but this parable shows the Monkey's use of signifyin(g) as a means to manipulate the Lion by turning his confidence (the product of his strength) to his own limitations, and with it, defeat.

  4. Mar 2017
    1. The therapist-client relationship, I'd suggest, even at its prickliest, is simply not going to produce the stress and pain that can occur when contending narratives meet.

      I'm reading this article very much from the perspective of a former B2B telemarketer, which is the extreme opposite end of the therapist-client relationship. 1) People (especially gatekeepers) hate telemarketers, and 2) people hate spending money, especially when someone else is trying to get them to do it. So much of our strategy was about sidestepping, trying to reframe the situation so it's now outside of their steadfast narratives and making it seem like we're building understanding and mutually helping each other out. Though it's pure deception--my product was terrible and those jackasses with the pocketbook could burn for all I cared.

      I almost want to call up my asshole former boss, a former stockbroker from New Jersey who was all about the hard sell, and chat him up about this.

  5. Dec 2016
    1. when you say, "I create my reality," what you are saying is that you are creating an interpretation of what you can experience. If you can only experience this much of life, and it is all your interpretation, then you see your range of perception is very limited. But your Knowledge, which you carry within yourself, is capable of opening your perception completely. Without so much incessant thinking, wondering, asking, pondering, manipulating, planning and scheming, and so forth, the greater part of your mind, your Knowledge, can begin to show you things. It is not difficult to have direct experience. You simply must not be doing anything else.
  6. Nov 2013
    1. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception.

      Critical distinction regarding the process of "selection"; from his central thesis.

    2. He is then just as irrational in sorrow as he is in happiness: he cries aloud and will not be consoled. How differently the stoical man who learns from experience and governs himself by concepts is affected by the same misfortunes! This man, who at other times seeks nothing but sincerity, truth, freedom from deception, and protection against ensnaring surprise attacks, now executes a masterpiece of deception: he executes his masterpiece of deception in misfortune, as the other type of man executes his in times of happiness.

      a man can control his happiness or sorrow by deceiving himself in different ways

    3. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception.

      We think we dislike deception, but we really hate the consequences of that choice. It has not yet gained the moral distinction.

    4. And besides, what about these linguistic conventions themselves? Are they perhaps products of knowledge, that is, of the sense of truth? Are designations congruent with things? I

      I wanted to highlight "Is language the adequate expression of all realities?"

      Without language, what exists?

      If deception is only deception because of a negative result, is deception without a negative result still deception?

    5. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception.

      Men don't dislike the act of deception, but rather the consequences of deception.

    6. The pride connected with knowing and sensing lies like a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men, thus deceiving them concerning the value of existence. For this pride contains within itself the most flattering estimation of the value of knowing. Deception is the most general effect of such pride, but even its most particular effects contain within themselves something of the same deceitful character.

      Is ignorance better than knowledge?

  7. Oct 2013
    1. But there are some things concerning this point that very naturally deceive the unskilful; for division, though it is of great consequence in pleadings, diminishes the appearance of strength; what is rough is imagined more bulky than what is polished; and objects when scattered are thought more numerous than when they are ranged in order.
    1. Since a given action can be done from many motives, the former must try to disparage it by selecting the worse motive of two, the latter to put the better construction on it.

      This whole section just seemed super deceptive to me.

    1. We can now see that a writer must disguise his art and give the impression of speaking naturally and not artificially. Naturalness is persuasive, artificiality is the contrary; for our hearers are prejudiced and think we have some design against them, as if we were mixing their wines for them.

      It is an interesting contradiction that naturalness is persuasive and artificiality contrary, but the rhetorician must use artificiality to create the naturalness that will persuade.

    1. it helps a speaker to convince us, if we believe that he has certain qualities himself, namely, goodness, or goodwill towards us,

      The audience does not seem to care if the speaker really has good will toward them, only if they seem to. This seems deceptive to me, but of course productive for the rhetorician.

  8. Sep 2013
    1. enthymeme

      An argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated (from the dictionary... because I wasn't sure what it meant).

    2. The argumentative modes of persuasion are the essence of the art of rhetoric: appeals to the emotions warp the judgement.

      Does that mean that rhetoric warps the judgement? Is that how rhetoric succeeds?

    1. Indeed, who can fail to abhor, yes to contemn, those teachers, in the first place, who devote themselves to disputation,(2) since they pretend to search for truth, but straightway at the beginning of their professions attempt to deceive us with lies?(3) For I think it is manifest to all that foreknowledge of future events is not vouchsafed to our human nature, but that we are so far removed from this prescience(4) that Homer, who has been conceded the highest reputation for wisdom, has pictured even the gods as at times debating among themselves about the future(5) --not that he knew their minds but that he desired to show us that for mankind this power lies in the realms of the impossible.

      I think this is saying that teachers who debate or discuss are regarded with disgust because while they act like they are searching for truth the are really deceiving because no one can predict the future.

      Homer's texts were used as educational material at the time and was considered a reliable source of information. The gods could not predict the future and there was the Fates.

    2. since they pretend to search for truth, but straightway at the beginning of their professions attempt to deceive us with lies

      Seems to state the same ideas as Plato. Truth vs. rhetoric/appearance/deception

    1. He who persuaded (as constrainer) did wrong; while she who was persuaded (as one constrained by means of the discourse) is wrongly blamed.

      It's an interesting point that he makes here. He essentially absolves anyone tricked by rhetoric from any blame and puts it entirely onto the rhetorician. Doesn't this seem like too broad a generalization? For example, is every person who takes Wikipedia information as fact absolved from blame? Some may not understand it's nature, so they may not carry blame. But what about those who understand that it could be bologna and choose to believe it anyway?

    2. By means of words, inspired incantations serve as bringers-on of pleasure and takers-off of pain. For the incantation's power, communicating with the soul's opinion, enchants and persuades and changes it, by trickery. Two distinct methods of trickery and magic are to be found: errors of soul, and deceptions of opinion. Those who have persuaded and do persuade anyone about anything are shapers of lying discourse.