People take things to heart from people that they don't know, never will know and never will meet in their life. Sometimes, those people have anime profile pictures.
I really enjoy the pacing of your videos so i suggest you combine more topics into one video to make them longer. RUclips will show videos like this to more people if they're 15 minutes or longer.
Thank you! Yes, I'd love to make more in depth videos, but as I edit them myself, they take quite some time to make... But now that more people see the channel, maybe this will be the right thing to do!
@PhilosophicalQuestions I agree with otters comment, but I'll suggest you do a slow transition to longer videos. I was able to watch almost all of them because they were short and straight to the point. Don't do them longer just for the sake of doing them longer. I hope your channel continues to grow. I like your content very much!
I think there's a lot more to say about the disproportionality aspect. You mentioned that receiving disproportional blame might make a wrongdoer less likely to correct their behavior, but intuitively it seems like the opposite should be true - more blame would give stronger incentive not to transgress again. Compare this to a legal case; if we gave the death penalty to illegal parkers, it doesn't seem like people would be inclined to park illegally more than if we gave a proportional punishment. However, I do think there are more complex aspects at play in social media that do cause disproportionality to be ineffective at changing behavior. People who are dogpiled often reject the legitimacy of the wrong or blaming party altogether as an ego-protection mechanism, or withdraw entirely from being a part of the wider community in resentment and retreat to smaller echo chambers where fellow outcasts assure them they are in the right. I moderate a forum and see this happen a lot there; someone with an unnuanced view will wonder in, get torn to shreds overly harshly by the community, and as a defense mechanism will decide that the community is stupid and evil and be driven even more firmly into the views they were ridiculed for. Also, a question: where do you think the separation is between blame and punishment exactly? A lot of the things you used to describe the motives for blame (e.g. behavior modification) and how blame manifests sounded like punishments - for example, you mentioned that when we blame someone we might gossip about them and try to make them feel bad, and in general you seem to connect blame with inflicting some sort of harm on the blame-recipient. Is blame a form of punishment (or vice versa)? Another question: Blame also involves a descriptive judgement alongside a normative one; it identifies who is responsible for a wrong. However, it also seems blame is more than just pure causality. Imagine a case where I crash my car into someone vs. a case where light reflecting off my car blinds them for a moment causing them to crash - in both cases I am causally responsible for the crash, but the amount of blame is clearly different. How do philosophers think about blame assignment?
I mean I read it, I think he asks a lot of good questions. Though the questions asked would be much better answered in a face to face or discussion format rather then comments on a RUclips video.@@horseheadkid
Disclaimer: i am a layman and new to all this but i would try to give my opinion on this regardless because it is a good discussion to have. Feel free to respond to my half formed ideas. Firstly, i believe the reason overly disproportionate blame is not effective at correcting behavior only applies to social media or any platform where there is little tangible punishment that comes from it. In the case of death to illegal parkers, death or imprisonment is very tangible and fixed and thus provides a real incentive not to repeat mistakes. Social media on the other hand, the blame or punishment varies from anywhere from a few unsavory comments to at worst, harassment and cyber bullying. The response to these punishments is not likely to be self -reflection and stop repeating their mistakes but more likely as you said, is to reject the accusations and migrate to echo chamber forums. Secondly, there is a lack of authority in social media. In a judicial system, the jury and judge would act as a figure of authority and deal of punishments. Another parallel is a parent scolding their child for breaking a vase. On social media though, everyone sees themselves as judge, jury and executioner, and thus each becomes a harmless torturer that collectively counts in the millions. It is rightly so that the accused would question the authority (internet mob) in this case because there is none. Thus no self-reflection and they are drawn to echo chambers. Finally, the way the internet mob blames and punish people are also different from judicial processes. The judicial system (mostly) relies on objective truth and investigations. Social media, relies on feelings and emotions. If a post/action offends your world view or opinion, a foul Twitter post is not far behind. The response is then also not objective self-reflection but vindication and retreating to echo chambers as they provide the feeling of validation that they are in the right. As for the distinction between blame and punishment i am less sure because they are usually spoken in the same breath.: “The Jury finds you guilty of etc…” followed by “You are sentenced to etc…” in the context of social media, the line between blame and punishment can be drawn between you seeing the post/action and come to the conclusion that the other person is responsible for some transgression (blame) and then writing a post vilifying them (punishment). It could also be drawn between a post that condemns the action as wrong and naming the person as the perpetrator (blame) and a post that outright attacks the person through slurs or derogatory comments (punishment). Lastly on the issue of blame and causality, it reflects the difference between an ideal judicial system and social media in holding accountability and blame. In an ideal judiciary process, there is context and all the factors/nuances are brought out into the light to figure out if there is any malicious intent. If you crash your car into another with malicious intent then the blame lands squarely on your shoulders and punishment in this case (manslaughter) will be severe. If there is none and you crashed because of factors outside your control then you will be given partial blame and mild punishment. On social media, every single case is taken out of context in order to generate the maximum amount of outrage and engagement. Here, there is no nuance and blame will fall squarely on your shoulders even if it is in reality due to factors outside your control as there is no context to draw from and thus the commenters will dream up countless reasons as to why you are to blame in order to fill in the missing context. *I am not advocating for placing unshakable trust in the judiciary system as it there also exists frauds, corruption and various systemic issues within the system
@@ducanhluong918 Thanks for your reply! I would disagree that the tangibility of the punishment is the factor at play (if by tangibility you mean how severe / strong an incentive it is). In many cases, small punishments are issued that are still effective at correcting behavior. To use the parking example again, in real cases of illegal parking the punishment is usually very mild - a fine of a few dollars - but it's rare for someone to respond to a parking ticket by continuing to park illegally out of spite or by ceasing parking altogether. I think it has more to do with the type of punishment. When you are punished by a parking ticket, you can choose to reject its authority and double down on you being in the right, but that doesn't affect your punishment; you still have to pay the fine regardless. On the other hand, when you are punished by severe social ostracization, rejecting the punishment actually *lessens* the punishment. A big part of the punishment is the shame you feel from it, and by rejecting the legitimacy of the punishment you mitigate that shame and lower the overall severity of the punishment. In a milder case this comes with a downside - rejecting the legitimacy of a community's blame may lessen your shame, but it also leads to further ostracization. But online, whether you reject or affirm the community's blame generally doesn't matter; you're usually still made an outcast regardless. I think you raise a good point with regards to authority. I'd agree there. I'd only partially agree with the point about objective investigation; people can and do reject the impartiality and objectivity of a justice system when that system convicts them of wrongdoing. But I do think you're right overall; the hypothetical that comes to mind is someone being punished by a court well-known to be corrupt: they might change behavior to avoid punishment, but they'll only do so begrudgingly, and they'll go back to transgressing as soon as there is no longer a legitimate threat of more punishment. I agree with the rest, I have nothing to add there.
@@ducanhluong918Yeah, another thing i want to add, is that, it seems that in social media, blame and punishment, if not the same, they occure at the same time Before a lawsuit or something similar, the person is blamed by the people that calls police/ by police themselves, and then they get punish by taking them to court. Secondly, the judge's job is to act OBJECTIVELY based on STUDIES. those are two things that in a online accusation, very ussually dont happen, wich makes the situation violent, more than justificated.
It's important to note you start with the assumption (experiment) where people are being hurt on result od someones action. Problem with social media is that very often people assume fake reaction (hurt) od the other side. Therefore, they don't think the experiment applies to them. In other words - you can write anything on social media - that you are happy or hurt, but it doesn't mean it reflects reality. It's like playing a game od which consequences you are bot sure of
You have posted a short video about an incident between Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein under which there is no space to post any comments. This is what I would have posted had there been space: Your video is clearly based on what Popper had to say. I was taught by Peter Geach, who was at that seminar between Popper and Wittgenstein. In the early 1980s I asked him about this exchange and he said "Popper's memory has improved with age", indicating that the incident did not happen the way Popper described, and this was his polite way of saying Popper was lying. It was also out of character for Wittgenstein to behave that way. Ok, so Geach might have been biased, or his memory might have been defective/creative too, but do you not think that reporting this incident without pointing out that there are several different versions of this event, not all of which support Popper's version, was irresponsible of you? Here is what the New York Times had to say: "This was the only time these three great philosophers -- Russell, Wittgenstein, and Popper -- were together. Yet, to this day, no one can agree precisely about what took place. What is clear is that there were vehement exchanges between Popper and Wittgenstein over the fundamental nature of philosophy -- whether there were indeed philosophical problems (Popper) or merely puzzles (Wittgenstein). These exchanges instantly became the stuff of legend. An early version of events had Popper and Wittgenstein battling for supremacy with red-hot pokers. As Popper himself later recollected, 'In a surprisingly short time I received a letter from New Zealand asking if it was true that Wittgenstein and I had come to blows, both armed with pokers.' "Those ten or so minutes on 25 October 1946 still provoke bitter disagreement. Above all, one dispute remains heatedly alive: did Karl Popper later publish an untrue version of what happened? Did he lie? "If he did lie, it was no casual embellishing of the facts. If he lied, it directly concerned two ambitions central to his life: the defeat at a theoretical level of fashionable twentieth-century linguistic philosophy and triumph at a personal level over Wittgenstein, the sorcerer who had dogged his career." Which is a much more balanced report.
How is the blame disproportional when you send the tweet out to thousands of people. You can't act like the people blaming her are harmless torturers but she wasn't a harmless torturer. Her tweet might not have been that bad but she send it out for thousands potentially millions(if it goes viral like in this case) to see. It just seems like a problem with people not realising the scale of social media.
Год назад
Uhh i think the reaction to that woman's racist tweet was adequate
Poor argument... why should ppl doing one small stab somehow magically have the mindset/intent of someone doing a big stab 🤔 Thats what the weird analogy implies. Why should those things be treated equally 🤔 An appeal to authority is NOT the answer 👎🏾
He's not saying a person doing one small stab is equivalent to a person doing one big stab. He's saying a thousand people each doing a thousand small stabs is equivalent to a thousand people each doing one big stab. And it's not about their "mindset/intent" being the same. It's about the harm they cause being the same.
Год назад
Yeah this whole video stands on appeal to authority
Great channel! Stumbled on fraud in psychology and got hooked. Super high quality.
Thank you, means a lot!
People take things to heart from people that they don't know, never will know and never will meet in their life. Sometimes, those people have anime profile pictures.
This channel has some really good content. No noise. No repeats. Good job!
Great video! Thanks for your hard work creating such valuable content
Hey, nice video. Food for thought. Thanks for taking the time to make it!
Thank you for the kind comment!
So glad I found this channel. Keep up the great work!
Thank you! :)
I really enjoy the pacing of your videos so i suggest you combine more topics into one video to make them longer. RUclips will show videos like this to more people if they're 15 minutes or longer.
Thank you! Yes, I'd love to make more in depth videos, but as I edit them myself, they take quite some time to make... But now that more people see the channel, maybe this will be the right thing to do!
@PhilosophicalQuestions I agree with otters comment, but I'll suggest you do a slow transition to longer videos. I was able to watch almost all of them because they were short and straight to the point. Don't do them longer just for the sake of doing them longer. I hope your channel continues to grow. I like your content very much!
wtf, ive been watching ur videos on autoplay and i thouhjt u would have millions of subscribers, just because of how good this content is
Thank you! But the older content must have been a terrible experience in terms of audio quality :D
I think there's a lot more to say about the disproportionality aspect. You mentioned that receiving disproportional blame might make a wrongdoer less likely to correct their behavior, but intuitively it seems like the opposite should be true - more blame would give stronger incentive not to transgress again. Compare this to a legal case; if we gave the death penalty to illegal parkers, it doesn't seem like people would be inclined to park illegally more than if we gave a proportional punishment.
However, I do think there are more complex aspects at play in social media that do cause disproportionality to be ineffective at changing behavior. People who are dogpiled often reject the legitimacy of the wrong or blaming party altogether as an ego-protection mechanism, or withdraw entirely from being a part of the wider community in resentment and retreat to smaller echo chambers where fellow outcasts assure them they are in the right. I moderate a forum and see this happen a lot there; someone with an unnuanced view will wonder in, get torn to shreds overly harshly by the community, and as a defense mechanism will decide that the community is stupid and evil and be driven even more firmly into the views they were ridiculed for.
Also, a question: where do you think the separation is between blame and punishment exactly? A lot of the things you used to describe the motives for blame (e.g. behavior modification) and how blame manifests sounded like punishments - for example, you mentioned that when we blame someone we might gossip about them and try to make them feel bad, and in general you seem to connect blame with inflicting some sort of harm on the blame-recipient. Is blame a form of punishment (or vice versa)?
Another question: Blame also involves a descriptive judgement alongside a normative one; it identifies who is responsible for a wrong. However, it also seems blame is more than just pure causality. Imagine a case where I crash my car into someone vs. a case where light reflecting off my car blinds them for a moment causing them to crash - in both cases I am causally responsible for the crash, but the amount of blame is clearly different. How do philosophers think about blame assignment?
that's a big wall of text no one reading comments on youtube will bother with
I mean I read it, I think he asks a lot of good questions. Though the questions asked would be much better answered in a face to face or discussion format rather then comments on a RUclips video.@@horseheadkid
Disclaimer: i am a layman and new to all this but i would try to give my opinion on this regardless because it is a good discussion to have. Feel free to respond to my half formed ideas.
Firstly, i believe the reason overly disproportionate blame is not effective at correcting behavior only applies to social media or any platform where there is little tangible punishment that comes from it. In the case of death to illegal parkers, death or imprisonment is very tangible and fixed and thus provides a real incentive not to repeat mistakes. Social media on the other hand, the blame or punishment varies from anywhere from a few unsavory comments to at worst, harassment and cyber bullying. The response to these punishments is not likely to be self -reflection and stop repeating their mistakes but more likely as you said, is to reject the accusations and migrate to echo chamber forums.
Secondly, there is a lack of authority in social media. In a judicial system, the jury and judge would act as a figure of authority and deal of punishments. Another parallel is a parent scolding their child for breaking a vase. On social media though, everyone sees themselves as judge, jury and executioner, and thus each becomes a harmless torturer that collectively counts in the millions. It is rightly so that the accused would question the authority (internet mob) in this case because there is none. Thus no self-reflection and they are drawn to echo chambers.
Finally, the way the internet mob blames and punish people are also different from judicial processes. The judicial system (mostly) relies on objective truth and investigations. Social media, relies on feelings and emotions. If a post/action offends your world view or opinion, a foul Twitter post is not far behind. The response is then also not objective self-reflection but vindication and retreating to echo chambers as they provide the feeling of validation that they are in the right.
As for the distinction between blame and punishment i am less sure because they are usually spoken in the same breath.: “The Jury finds you guilty of etc…” followed by “You are sentenced to etc…” in the context of social media, the line between blame and punishment can be drawn between you seeing the post/action and come to the conclusion that the other person is responsible for some transgression (blame) and then writing a post vilifying them (punishment). It could also be drawn between a post that condemns the action as wrong and naming the person as the perpetrator (blame) and a post that outright attacks the person through slurs or derogatory comments (punishment).
Lastly on the issue of blame and causality, it reflects the difference between an ideal judicial system and social media in holding accountability and blame. In an ideal judiciary process, there is context and all the factors/nuances are brought out into the light to figure out if there is any malicious intent. If you crash your car into another with malicious intent then the blame lands squarely on your shoulders and punishment in this case (manslaughter) will be severe. If there is none and you crashed because of factors outside your control then you will be given partial blame and mild punishment. On social media, every single case is taken out of context in order to generate the maximum amount of outrage and engagement. Here, there is no nuance and blame will fall squarely on your shoulders even if it is in reality due to factors outside your control as there is no context to draw from and thus the commenters will dream up countless reasons as to why you are to blame in order to fill in the missing context.
*I am not advocating for placing unshakable trust in the judiciary system as it there also exists frauds, corruption and various systemic issues within the system
@@ducanhluong918 Thanks for your reply!
I would disagree that the tangibility of the punishment is the factor at play (if by tangibility you mean how severe / strong an incentive it is). In many cases, small punishments are issued that are still effective at correcting behavior. To use the parking example again, in real cases of illegal parking the punishment is usually very mild - a fine of a few dollars - but it's rare for someone to respond to a parking ticket by continuing to park illegally out of spite or by ceasing parking altogether. I think it has more to do with the type of punishment. When you are punished by a parking ticket, you can choose to reject its authority and double down on you being in the right, but that doesn't affect your punishment; you still have to pay the fine regardless. On the other hand, when you are punished by severe social ostracization, rejecting the punishment actually *lessens* the punishment. A big part of the punishment is the shame you feel from it, and by rejecting the legitimacy of the punishment you mitigate that shame and lower the overall severity of the punishment. In a milder case this comes with a downside - rejecting the legitimacy of a community's blame may lessen your shame, but it also leads to further ostracization. But online, whether you reject or affirm the community's blame generally doesn't matter; you're usually still made an outcast regardless.
I think you raise a good point with regards to authority. I'd agree there. I'd only partially agree with the point about objective investigation; people can and do reject the impartiality and objectivity of a justice system when that system convicts them of wrongdoing. But I do think you're right overall; the hypothetical that comes to mind is someone being punished by a court well-known to be corrupt: they might change behavior to avoid punishment, but they'll only do so begrudgingly, and they'll go back to transgressing as soon as there is no longer a legitimate threat of more punishment.
I agree with the rest, I have nothing to add there.
@@ducanhluong918Yeah, another thing i want to add, is that, it seems that in social media, blame and punishment, if not the same, they occure at the same time
Before a lawsuit or something similar, the person is blamed by the people that calls police/ by police themselves, and then they get punish by taking them to court. Secondly, the judge's job is to act OBJECTIVELY based on STUDIES. those are two things that in a online accusation, very ussually dont happen, wich makes the situation violent, more than justificated.
The video quality is outstanding!
Good points that I hadn't considered before.
excellent work . am so glad i clicked on this one.
Literally only commenting to improve this video's algorithm performance.
It's important to note you start with the assumption (experiment) where people are being hurt on result od someones action. Problem with social media is that very often people assume fake reaction (hurt) od the other side. Therefore, they don't think the experiment applies to them. In other words - you can write anything on social media - that you are happy or hurt, but it doesn't mean it reflects reality. It's like playing a game od which consequences you are bot sure of
BTW. Great channel. Viel Spass!
Absolutely crucial information in our time. Completely ghosted by the algo.
I love your little owl character :)))
You have posted a short video about an incident between Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein under which there is no space to post any comments. This is what I would have posted had there been space:
Your video is clearly based on what Popper had to say. I was taught by Peter Geach, who was at that seminar between Popper and Wittgenstein. In the early 1980s I asked him about this exchange and he said "Popper's memory has improved with age", indicating that the incident did not happen the way Popper described, and this was his polite way of saying Popper was lying. It was also out of character for Wittgenstein to behave that way. Ok, so Geach might have been biased, or his memory might have been defective/creative too, but do you not think that reporting this incident without pointing out that there are several different versions of this event, not all of which support Popper's version, was irresponsible of you?
Here is what the New York Times had to say:
"This was the only time these three great philosophers -- Russell, Wittgenstein, and Popper -- were together. Yet, to this day, no one can agree precisely about what took place. What is clear is that there were vehement exchanges between Popper and Wittgenstein over the fundamental nature of philosophy -- whether there were indeed philosophical problems (Popper) or merely puzzles (Wittgenstein). These exchanges instantly became the stuff of legend. An early version of events had Popper and Wittgenstein battling for supremacy with red-hot pokers. As Popper himself later recollected, 'In a surprisingly short time I received a letter from New Zealand asking if it was true that Wittgenstein and I had come to blows, both armed with pokers.'
"Those ten or so minutes on 25 October 1946 still provoke bitter disagreement. Above all, one dispute remains heatedly alive: did Karl Popper later publish an untrue version of what happened? Did he lie?
"If he did lie, it was no casual embellishing of the facts. If he lied, it directly concerned two ambitions central to his life: the defeat at a theoretical level of fashionable twentieth-century linguistic philosophy and triumph at a personal level over Wittgenstein, the sorcerer who had dogged his career."
Which is a much more balanced report.
How is the blame disproportional when you send the tweet out to thousands of people. You can't act like the people blaming her are harmless torturers but she wasn't a harmless torturer. Her tweet might not have been that bad but she send it out for thousands potentially millions(if it goes viral like in this case) to see. It just seems like a problem with people not realising the scale of social media.
Uhh i think the reaction to that woman's racist tweet was adequate
Stem tog alles boosheid met agendas agter die soort dinge, alles emosionele invloed
Poor argument... why should ppl doing one small stab somehow magically have the mindset/intent of someone doing a big stab 🤔 Thats what the weird analogy implies. Why should those things be treated equally 🤔 An appeal to authority is NOT the answer 👎🏾
He's not saying a person doing one small stab is equivalent to a person doing one big stab. He's saying a thousand people each doing a thousand small stabs is equivalent to a thousand people each doing one big stab.
And it's not about their "mindset/intent" being the same. It's about the harm they cause being the same.
Yeah this whole video stands on appeal to authority
How so?