I don’t think what you term ‘falsehoods’ in fiction per se are harmful (more on that shortly). Falsehoods are most harmful when they’re indistinguishable, or hard to distinguish, from the truth—or indeed masquerading as truth. In that sense, social media has the most potential of the things referenced above for damage via insidious falsehoods. Phenomena like self-curation, implied endorsement, groupthink, lack of nuance, social pressure to conform in public (to name a few) all cumulatively add up to an objectively skewed picture of reality, but which most people will accept as being ostensibly real/true. Cf. layers of bias in news media.
I think fiction is net beneficial. We know, upon opening a novel, say, that what’s contained in the pages is the product of the author’s imagination. The world depicted most likely takes its cues from the world we live in, sure, but we know from the outset that that world is not real. Because we understand that framework from the moment we begin, we are able to compartmentalize and to compare/contrast that world and its characters, on the one hand, to/with our world and the people in it. Critical thinking through analogy leads us to learn more about—and understand more deeply—the world we live in, to consider points of view that are different from our own, and to identify parts of ourselves and our worlds we wish to improve and why. It’s hard for me to see how that’s harmful.
we first passively accept a proposition in the course of comprehending it, and only afterward actively disbelieve propositions which are rejected by consideration.
My reading the linked argument back in 2007 made me install a habit of always immediately evaluating the truth value of basically everything everyone tells me (along with a compensatory policy of my feeling free to ask my friends to stop telling me things, using phrases such as, “I am overloaded with information now and would like to rest before you give me any more”).
But I get so absorbed in fiction (mostly video entertainment) that I doubt I am doing any evaluating, so I do worry about the negative effects of fiction consumption on the accuracy of my beliefs.
Another argument against consuming fiction: at least a few luminaries believe that human progress has stagnated since about 1970. An extremely popular and potent form and vehicle for fiction, namely,
television, became a mass phenomenon in the US in the 1950s (and a little later in the rest of the world). The most productive members of society are relatively busy and also (because of their higher status and higher incomes) have relatively good access to enjoyable experiences, making them relatively less receptive to a new form of enjoyable experience. Also, it is plausible that a very productive person will have acquired the knowledge behind his current level of productivity about 10 years ago, on average. The combination of those 2 effects could explain the approximately-13-year delay between the mass adoption of television and the start of the stagnation.
Thank you for the link! Somehow I missed the Eliezer’s post during my research. I’ll add it to my post.
My reading the linked argument back in 2007 made me install a habit of always immediately evaluating the truth value of basically everything everyone tells me
I wholeheartedly agree with your view on social media.
We know, upon opening a novel, say, that what’s contained in the pages is the product of the author’s imagination.
I suspect that the compartmentalization is leaky. Consciously, I know that the depicted snake is not real. Yet I still feel uneasy if I look at the image.
Repeated observed association between some X and a negative emotion—will make them associated in my mind, even if the association is entirely fictional.
For example, because of fiction, most people fear sharks much more than they fear cows, although cows are killing orders of magnitude more people per year. Same with terrorism vs heart disease.
I don’t think what you term ‘falsehoods’ in fiction per se are harmful (more on that shortly). Falsehoods are most harmful when they’re indistinguishable, or hard to distinguish, from the truth—or indeed masquerading as truth. In that sense, social media has the most potential of the things referenced above for damage via insidious falsehoods. Phenomena like self-curation, implied endorsement, groupthink, lack of nuance, social pressure to conform in public (to name a few) all cumulatively add up to an objectively skewed picture of reality, but which most people will accept as being ostensibly real/true. Cf. layers of bias in news media.
I think fiction is net beneficial. We know, upon opening a novel, say, that what’s contained in the pages is the product of the author’s imagination. The world depicted most likely takes its cues from the world we live in, sure, but we know from the outset that that world is not real. Because we understand that framework from the moment we begin, we are able to compartmentalize and to compare/contrast that world and its characters, on the one hand, to/with our world and the people in it. Critical thinking through analogy leads us to learn more about—and understand more deeply—the world we live in, to consider points of view that are different from our own, and to identify parts of ourselves and our worlds we wish to improve and why. It’s hard for me to see how that’s harmful.
That is too simplistic. Consider an argument made by Eliezer for the proposition that
My reading the linked argument back in 2007 made me install a habit of always immediately evaluating the truth value of basically everything everyone tells me (along with a compensatory policy of my feeling free to ask my friends to stop telling me things, using phrases such as, “I am overloaded with information now and would like to rest before you give me any more”).
But I get so absorbed in fiction (mostly video entertainment) that I doubt I am doing any evaluating, so I do worry about the negative effects of fiction consumption on the accuracy of my beliefs.
Another argument against consuming fiction: at least a few luminaries believe that human progress has stagnated since about 1970. An extremely popular and potent form and vehicle for fiction, namely, television, became a mass phenomenon in the US in the 1950s (and a little later in the rest of the world). The most productive members of society are relatively busy and also (because of their higher status and higher incomes) have relatively good access to enjoyable experiences, making them relatively less receptive to a new form of enjoyable experience. Also, it is plausible that a very productive person will have acquired the knowledge behind his current level of productivity about 10 years ago, on average. The combination of those 2 effects could explain the approximately-13-year delay between the mass adoption of television and the start of the stagnation.
Yeah, my computer has hardly improved from 1970′s ones.
Thank you for the link! Somehow I missed the Eliezer’s post during my research. I’ll add it to my post.
I think it’s an excellent habit. Will try it too.
I wholeheartedly agree with your view on social media.
I suspect that the compartmentalization is leaky. Consciously, I know that the depicted snake is not real. Yet I still feel uneasy if I look at the image.
Repeated observed association between some X and a negative emotion—will make them associated in my mind, even if the association is entirely fictional.
For example, because of fiction, most people fear sharks much more than they fear cows, although cows are killing orders of magnitude more people per year. Same with terrorism vs heart disease.
The damage chance per encounter is higher with sharks than cows, surely?