- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 29,794
- Reaction score
- 20,459
On a broader note, I'd like to take this opportunity to touch on the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, as described by Michael Crichton:
I think that generally, we've all pretty well come to the understanding that media has no inherent credibility. As a broad statement, we've kinda gotten over the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. Years of being subjected to blowhards like Felger, Shaughnessy, and Borges will do that to anyone. If they can make it in big media, then big media is a joke, full stop.
But if this last year has taught me anything, it's that the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect isn't limited to media. It extends to the NFL, to politics, to the American public at large, and as made clear today, to federal court. Remember how incompetent the majority was in today's ruling the next time anyone tries to cite a legal ruling as being valid or reasonable in of itself as an appeal to authority. These clowns in federal court don't necessarily have a rational basis for anything they do; they're equally as capable of intellectual bankruptcy/general stupidity as Roger Goodell.
Now that this fact has been so colorfully demonstrated for us, be sure to remember it. Don't revert back to assuming that there's any rational basis for anything that these people decide in the future. There is no justice or reason to be found in federal court; it's just another venue for incompetent clowns to make the rules as they go.
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
I think that generally, we've all pretty well come to the understanding that media has no inherent credibility. As a broad statement, we've kinda gotten over the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. Years of being subjected to blowhards like Felger, Shaughnessy, and Borges will do that to anyone. If they can make it in big media, then big media is a joke, full stop.
But if this last year has taught me anything, it's that the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect isn't limited to media. It extends to the NFL, to politics, to the American public at large, and as made clear today, to federal court. Remember how incompetent the majority was in today's ruling the next time anyone tries to cite a legal ruling as being valid or reasonable in of itself as an appeal to authority. These clowns in federal court don't necessarily have a rational basis for anything they do; they're equally as capable of intellectual bankruptcy/general stupidity as Roger Goodell.
Now that this fact has been so colorfully demonstrated for us, be sure to remember it. Don't revert back to assuming that there's any rational basis for anything that these people decide in the future. There is no justice or reason to be found in federal court; it's just another venue for incompetent clowns to make the rules as they go.
