Word of the year: post-truth

[Bootstrap]

http://time.com/4572592/oxford-word-of- ... ost-truth/

The Oxford English Dictionary chooses a word of the year every year. Here is this year's winner:

post-truth: relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

[temporal1]

TIME magazine wrote something of interest?! wow.
Their chosen word represents how (voters and others) would describe TIME, the NYT, and the rest.

These are the results to be expected when more than half the population is alienated and ignored.
Loss of respect and credibility.

i hope the media will soon begin to consider, "it's not 'them,' it's us."
that would be a positive first step upward.
(yes. that is asking a lot.)

[Wayne in Maine]

I'm guessing that the editors of the Oxford Dictionary are opponents of Brexit and Trump.

[temporal1]

I'm guessing that the editors of the Oxford Dictionary are opponents of Brexit and Trump.

is it a guess when stated openly, leaving no room for doubt?
for me, this was one unusual aspect of this election, the honesty, and confidence, of the bias.
even non-political folks could read it, no trickery of wording.

[Bootstrap]

I'm guessing that the editors of the Oxford Dictionary are opponents of Brexit and Trump.

is it a guess when stated openly, leaving no room for doubt?
for me, this was one unusual aspect of this election, the honesty, and confidence, of the bias.
even non-political folks could read it, no trickery of wording.

I think it's a guess until someone points to an "objective fact". So far, it's an appeal to "emotion and personal belief".

The definition strongly implies that we used to believe in something called "objective fact" that could be observed and proven by people who might not start with the same opinion or feelings, who might not feel like they belong to the "same tribe".

Temp seems to feel that this is particularly true of mainstream media. Isn't it even more true of blogs and pundits and people expressing their opinions on the Internet? As Ken Burns says, "these days, a vivid lie goes around the world three times before anyone has time to look up the facts". And it doesn't matter how many times a lie is disproven, some people will continue to believe it if it's a lie that belongs to their tribe.

The problem is not that "they" are biased. We are all biased, every one of us. If we don't have ways of getting beyond our own personal bias, holding ourselves accountable to objective fact, then we're stuck in appeals to emotion and personal belief.

[temporal1]

i don't disagree with much of what you're saying, with one decided exception:
there is a major difference between individuals' personal opinions versus paid professionals, elected politicians, paid lobbyists, etc. that's the rub.

as there is a difference when everyone's tax dollars are misused for biased agenda.
that amounts to "adding insult to injury."

[Dan Z]

Interesting...

I think the word is a salient choice...and appropriate.

Off the top of my head, there seem to be a number of related things feeding the post-truth context that seems so rampant today:

• 1) The rise of post-modernism, which casts doubt on the existence of objective truth in the first place.
  
  2) The related devaluation of critical thinking, and the type of education that gives people tools for critical thought.
  
  3) The overwhelming volume of information being dumped upon us all, flooding our ability to effectively sort out objective truth from more subjective pseudo-facts.
  
  4) Confirmation Bias: Our human tendency to (often erroneously) interpret/understand events in a way that confirmed their presuppositions and core beliefs.
  
  5) The echo-chamber effect: The fact that we tend to get our information from voices that affirm our belief system, and tune out opposing points of view.
  
  6) Our human tenancy to be intellectually lazy. "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking" - Sir Joshua Reynolds
  
  7) Valuing social relationships over and above objective truth.

[temporal1]

Interesting...

I think the word is a salient choice...and appropriate.

Off the top of my head, there seem to be a number of related things feeding the post-truth context that seems so rampant today:

• 1) The rise of post-modernism, which casts doubt on the existence of objective truth in the first place.
  
  2) The related devaluation of critical thinking, and the type of education that gives people tools for critical thought.
  
  3) The overwhelming volume of information being dumped upon us all, flooding our ability to effectively sort out objective truth from more subjective pseudo-facts.
  
  4) Confirmation Bias: Our human tendency to (often erroneously) interpret/understand events in a way that confirmed their presuppositions and core beliefs.
  
  5) The echo-chamber effect: The fact that we tend to get our information from voices that affirm our belief system, and tune out opposing points of view.
  
  6) Our human tenancy to be intellectually lazy. "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking" - Sir Joshua Reynolds
  
  7) Valuing social relationships over and above objective truth.

much to think over.
if you would add a word about how money/profits are often chosen over reason+facts, another troubling point for consideration.

[Josh]

Fake news is a real problem, but it's not just a conservative or a liberal problem.

There is no consensus on truth anymore, so it is impossible for conservatives and liberals to share media outlets.

For example, if Ted Cruz says "liberals want boys in the girls' locker rooms in schools in Cleveland", liberals denounce that as untrue because "transgender girls are not boys".

I think this is a big problem that will get worse.

Some news outlets seem to be choosing to engage in real journalism and try to present facts. I would put New York Times and Breitbart in this category.

Others are completely partisan and aren't interested in presenting anything that doesn't benefit their side. I would put Huffington Post and WorldNetDaily in this category.

Ultimately I think we would be better off if we quit pretending there is such a thing as unbiased truth when we can't even agree on what a boy or a girl is.

[Wayne in Maine]

I like the word "Drama-Queenery" myself. I only just discovered it, but I'm looking forward to using it: "Alright, enough of this drama queenery let's just solve the problem and get on with the job."

Brilliant and useful...I'll start test driving it out here in MN immediately (although, in my head, it probably plays best with a rather thick Boston accent).