I’m thinking about this facebook
hullaballoo and how just a certain amount of information can, in theory,
influence important matters.
Now the logician in me knows all
about the fallacy ad populum or “if a million people jump off a bridge, are
you?” Consider:
1We
can now hear the voices of a million people, easily. It’s called the internet.
2.Size
matters. From your quarter-pounder down to the number of Russian bots on Facebook and Twitter posting this and that to get you thinking one way or
another.
Buyer beware you might say. Don’t
believe anything you see on Facebook or Twitter you might say.
That is an option certainly but
psychologist know about something called internal bias or “birds of a feather
flock together” and so do the designers of the bots and their messaging and they know how to sneak “what you want to hear” in front of you.
And you my friend are as
susceptible to internal bias as everyone else.
It gets worse.
But what will we do when technology
can truly mask the giver of the information or simulate the authenticity of the
giver of the information?
Here is what I mean:
Let us say your trusted news source is the NY times. What are you going to do
when the bots simulate the NY times with the accuracy of a counterfeiter of
money or art?
What if the trusted telly you watch
can be counterfeited?
Don’t poopoo this idea. Technology
will certainly allow for this. Certainly. Without a doubt.
So why did I lead off with the
Sneakers query?
The plot of Sneakers revolves
around a program (a box in the movie) that is capable of breaking the encryption of
nearly every computer system.
Currently we are substituting encryption
for biased messaging (based on data collected about you) and the amount of
messaging. When you hear information that already agrees with your worldview,
even if that information is factually incorrect (in the age of alternative
facts) you act and behave a certain way. And vote a certain way.
Two scenes from the movie are
important and prescient:
While playing with my infant son this morning, with Savannah
Guthrie interviewing the widow of Eric Garner in the background, she intimated
the law enforcement sentiment that “when you resist arrest, bad things happen.”
The video footage of Eric Garner being arrested is out
there.
Now it is known that the Officerused a choke hold on Eric Garner to subdue
him.
Here is one thing that bothers me to an existential degree about this. When you choke
a person you initiate the fight or flight response.
As an exercise, have someone (you trust) get behind you and,
and in the same fashion as the Officer in the video, cut off your air flow for, let us say 5-8 seconds.
Notice what happens. Your fight or flight
response will kick in NO MATTER WHAT. Your instinct to survive and breathe will
overcome any other behaviors.
The question is: how can one not resist arrest when the arresting
action initiates the fight or flight survival instinct?
This creates a tragic Catch 22.
Isn’t there a better way to subdue a suspect?
Please don’t take this as minimizing the all-around
humanity failure of this incident.
No one should be dead for allegedly selling
illegal cigarettes.
No one should think that law enforcement arrest/subdue
techniques or full body cameras are an answer to prejudice, racism, and bias, they are not.
No one
should think that there aren’t different rules for different people, there are.
Everyone should think that bad things happen when you choke
someone.
