False Prophets: The Hype of Prophecy

 Aka Forecast delusion, the phenomenon of False prophets" is a current issue. From TV personalities to bench experts, we are in the era of experts with crystal balls conjuring up forecasts. I have been grappling with this question of authenticity, methodology, and, more importantly, the rationality of such predictions.

Philip Tetlock, a Canadian-American political psychologist, has examined the accuracy of various forecasts and reported a staggering underwhelming performance. Most of these media darlings only marginally outperform random predictions. This annoying reality is more pronounced amongst the "prophets of doom and disintegration".

According to John Kenneth Galbraith, there are two types of forecasters: those who don't know and those who don't know they don't know.

In the book "The Art of Thinking Clearly", Rolf Dobelli mentions two questions we should ask to distinguish predictions that are noteworthy from a multitude of worthless ones.

First is what is the incentive behind the forecasts? Is there any accountability anywhere in case of off-the-mark predictions? Are we dealing with a relentless machine that makes money based on the number of prophecies it presents? Is a job or status at risk if the forecasts turn out to be failures?

The second solution is the retrospective investigation. What has been the success rate of each expert?

After all, some success rate can be a sign of a more reliable and scientific methodology. 

Pedram

12/18/25

Book Review: Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now

 Do you feel you have been shafted by high-tech social media companies? The book is written by computer scientist Jaron Lanier. He is one of the founding fathers of virtual reality and a Silicon Valley resident. So, these words and his viewpoint are more thought-provoking. 

In the preface, he uses the example of cats as a species with a behavioral pattern we should aspire to in our online lives. Cats behave independently in an untameable fashion, which makes training techniques futile. This is what we should consider when facing the chaos of the Internet, specifically social media.

First of all, this is not a self-help "Key to Maximum Productivity" type of book. While it is snappy, the book tackles a complex matter that requires multidimensional analysis. In terms of the flow, it is well-written and provides some inside knowledge from a reference figure who has lived in Silicon Valley. Actually, Lanier is himself among the founding fathers of the technology.

Briefly, ten arguments are mentioned in this book against the use of social media:

1- Being against your free will:

Through ads, social media platforms attack our privacy and ultimately undermine our free will. 

This argument is closely tied to the second argument, as the compromised personal information is used to modify users' behaviors. These two arguments are fundamental critiques. I found them valid and definitely concerning. However, despite all these hazards, could a dignified approach harness the capabilities of these platforms? The free public platforms have some inherent flaws that expose users to data piracy. The compromised or exploited data has been used for several ominous plots: from elections to marketing purposes. If this trend grows at this pace, the cybersecurity and political manipulation will definitely outweigh all positive social aspects of these platforms. 

2- Being a behavior-modifying tool: 

Herein, Lanier uses the acronym BUMMER for the first time. BUMMER stands for "Behaviors of Users Modified, and Made into an Empire for Rent”. As a constant customer, I found this point very valid. In most extreme stance, Lanier says: 

"the core of the BUMMER machine is not a technology, exactly, but a style of business plan that spews out perverse incentives and corrupts people."

3- Making you into an asshole (Unhealthy relationships): 

There are dangerous behavioral changes such as aggression, arrogance, a fetish for axaggeration which is a cover for inner insecurity. Top social media influencers have reportedly confessed that being too nice to others is a disadvantage in this fierce "competeitive fishbowl" business model. Also, the book describes some herd behaviors that switch from solitary/pack behaviors to group behaviors. The pack setting makes social media users predisposed to thinking and acting in a areactionary fashion; more focused on peers or enemies. Rather, an unaddicted educated mind may opt to act more proactively with more awareness of his/her surrounding environment. 

4- Truth sidelined: 

What if one day you find out that the bulk of the likes, reviews, reposts, and comments (and all other sorts of interactions) are fake interactions from fake followers? This is well well-documented that the platforms are fertile soil for such fugazi entities and ghost cyber ninjas, appearing in times of need (political campaigns, election seasons, hot debates, etc) and disappearing when they are not needed, just to reappear with a handy justification to fool the followers/audience. In my limited personal experience, I have stumbled upon a lot of these accounts, and my wishful thinking gradually tailed off, and I was consigned to the grim machinery behind the social media. Actually, we all came to believe that we share these online ecosystems with gazillions of android entities. The ecosystem is polluted, and the truth is subdued. 

5- Context-less:

Limited time, limited space, and a rush to interact jeopardize several interactions on social media. To make matters worse, interspersed ads add to the fuzziness and make the platforms susceptible to a miscarriage of the simple messages. And when they somehow manage to conduce a message, it is dissociated from its context. 

Here, I have a critique. True, this shortage of time and characters are not helpful. However, for the most part the problem lies in the users' approach and how they want to use the tool. The logic is there, but not satisfying. This argument is rather subjective and does not hold a strong sinew.

6- Being against empathy: 

Seeing other people's views in an abridged version compromises our perception and feeling of a matter or situation. These brief encounters devoid of context are just deluding us about participating in a communal discourse. Hence, we are left with some dubious pretexts as to why fellow citizens did what they did. 

7- Hinders happiness:

This argument is again subjective but stronger than #6. On social platforms, people are ranked based on their statistics revolving around popularity and size of their social circles. This triggers a ceaseless appeal to posession of social contacts no number of "friends/followers" can satisfyingly put an end to this craving. Also, a more serious side effect is that it reduces concepts such as friendship or human interaction to numbers and records. 

8- Undermining economic dignity:

Reliance on the "Gig economy" does not provide stability. A minority of entrepreneurs become extremely wealthy in the mould of the 19th century's "Gilded Age". However, overall risk has been radiated out to ordinary people (customers).  

9- Negative and even nefarious when it comes to politics:

Up to a certain point, social media had a positive impact (for example, online activism against abject poverty). However, after the financial power of the social media companies skyrocketed, it began to negatively impact political decision-making. There are plenty of examples in recent history: the Myanmar Rohingya crisis deterioration which coincided with Facebook's arrival and inundation by waves of unadulterated misinformation. Another example: India and fake posts (on Facebook's WhatsApp) on child abductions, destabilized parts of India (unfounded rumors).

A more recent example is post-Assad Syria, where cyber activities on platforms in the middle of an information void. 

Thedore, the UN reports social media as a massively deadly weapon sue to "shitposts"

10- Corrosive effect on spirituality: 

For BUMMER citizens, virality is equivalent to truth. To trust these platforms, you should give your cognitive power over to that system. You need to trust the wisdom of BUMMER and its algorithms. As mentioned in argument #4, the social media platforms have not defined "seeking truth" as their goal.  

Falling Foul of Twitterati

The award-winning novelist Jonathan Franzen has kicked up a Twitter storm, after complaining on BBC Radio 4's Today program about the impact of social networking on writers' lives.

In an interview with Today presenter James Naughtie, Franzen said the literary world is now so obsessed with Twitter that agents refuse even to look at manuscripts by writers who don't tweet.

"What I find particularly alarming from the point of view of American fiction is that [social media] is a coercive development, agents will now tell young writers: 'I won't even look at your manuscript if you don't have 250 followers on Twitter'," said Franzen. "I see people who ought to be spending their time developing their craft, and people who used to be able to make a living as freelance writers, I see them making nothing and coerced into this constant self-promotion."

It's not the first time the author has hit out at modern techno-fuelled culture's effect on literature. In a Guardian article last month, Franzen asked:

What happens to the people who became writers because yakking and tweeting and bragging felt to them like intolerably shallow forms of social engagement? What happens to the people who want to communicate in depth, individual to individual, in the quiet and permanence of the printed word, and who were shaped by their love of writers who wrote when publication still assured some kind of quality control and literary reputations were more than a matter of self-promotional decibel levels?

Franzen's latest attempt to put the case for struggling writers was met with disbelief and derision on Twitter.

Francesca Main, editorial director at Picador – publisher of the Booker prize shortlisted novels Burial Rites, by Hannah Kent, and Harvest, by Jim Crace – tweeted: "Franzen says it's alarming that agents turn away writers for having too few Twitter followers. It's alarming J-Franz believes this nonsense."

She added later: "Most of the authors on Twitter have a book out far more frequently than those who spend loads of time grouching about it."

The Sunday Times columnist and novelist India Knight tweeted: "Lighten up, Franzo."

Franzen's latest book, The Kraus Project, is a study of the works of Viennese satirist Karl Kraus, a relentless critic of dehumanising technology and the popular media's twisting of reality.

Franzen said: "It [technology-driven culture] gnaws away particularly at my soul because I'm a fiction writer. For something like literature it's maybe not such a great model. You see this in any number of ways – very directly you see the demolition of the independent book business and the brick and mortar book business by Amazon. But also this crowd-sourcing model, everything shared, communal, it doesn't really work, not to pay freelance writers; and most important, the whole definition of literature is that people go off by themselves, develop a distinctive voice. It's not a communal enterprise."

by Liz Bury

pic: Jonathan Franzen speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme

@Guardian

Facebook raises new funding at $50B valuation

Facebook is now worth $50 billion,according to a report in The New York Times that says the company has raised $500 million in new funding from Goldman Sachs and Russian firm Digital Sky Technologies.

Goldman invested $450 million, while DST (which has already invested about $500 million into Facebook) provided the remaining $50 million. Goldman also plans to create a “special purpose vehicle” to pool its clients and invest another $1.5 billion in Facebook without triggering the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 500-shareholder threshold, The Times says. (Companies that break the threshold are required to disclose more information publicly.)

Facebook’s valuation has been climbing steadily on the secondary markets where shares are sold. (The SEC is now investigating those markets.) Early Facebook investor Accel Partners recently sold off some of its shares at a $34 billion valuation.

Facebook is expected to have its initial public offering as soon as 2012, although the company hasn’t said anything specific on the matter. It reportedly brought in $2 billion in revenue in 2010, and chief Mark Zuckerberg has said that the company is barely profitable, because it’s not focused on profits yet.

Last month, the second-hottest social networking company, Twitter, raised $200 million at a $3.7 billion valuation.

by : Anthony Ha

@VentureBeat