![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_arcane_archivistI noticed this almost 15 years ago, and also reported here on the open thread.
There are two alternatives made up, with details so unclear as two make the differences between the two versions very volatile, so much that people fall into one of the two categories almost randomly. It is some sort of narrative illusion, if it's based on a real case at some point is not even relevant. As the adage goes, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
The narrative is made up by spin artists as you said, but the details are crafted so that it polarizes the option based on perception defect. What is crucial to the narrative as to have very few cues, that are hammered continuously.
The most clear examples are the optical illusions that polarizes two options, and make the other side think that: how can they see that version because it's obviously this version.
Best examples are, spinning ballerina, some people randomly see it spinning from left to right, others in the other way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_dancer
or this dress that some people see as blue and black, and some as gold and white:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2015/feb/27/science-thedress-colour-illusion-the-dress-blue-black-gold-white
How do they know which is which when creating the narrative? They don't! So before internet the work was mostly derivative.
But with internet, things got simpler since some platforms had like and dislike, the data collectors, knew the kind of narratives that split people in half likes and half dislikes.
It dawned on me that this kind of work is derivative of Giordano Bruno's work on eros De vinculis in genere, likes and dislikes, "amore" (love) and "odio" (hate),. The work is explained well by Ioan Petru Culianu in his book Eros and Magic in the Renaissance.
Since February 24, 2016 when facebook added different reactions they, the spin doctors, could tune the narratives into even more nuances...
Then they could use emojis to deduct emotional reaction. Now they can even scrap comments with AI to see this kind of narratives.
I asked the AI if they could generate this kind of narrative:
There are two alternatives made up, with details so unclear as two make the differences between the two versions very volatile, so much that people fall into one of the two categories almost randomly. It is some sort of narrative illusion, if it's based on a real case at some point is not even relevant. As the adage goes, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
The narrative is made up by spin artists as you said, but the details are crafted so that it polarizes the option based on perception defect. What is crucial to the narrative as to have very few cues, that are hammered continuously.
The most clear examples are the optical illusions that polarizes two options, and make the other side think that: how can they see that version because it's obviously this version.
Best examples are, spinning ballerina, some people randomly see it spinning from left to right, others in the other way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_dancer
The illusion derives from the lack of visual cues for depth. For instance, as the dancer's arms move from viewer's left to right, it is possible to view her arms passing between her body and the viewer (that is, in the foreground of the picture, in which case she would be circling counterclockwise on her right foot) and it is also possible to view her arms as passing behind the dancer's body (that is, in the background of the picture, in which case she is seen circling clockwise on her left foot).
or this dress that some people see as blue and black, and some as gold and white:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2015/feb/27/science-thedress-colour-illusion-the-dress-blue-black-gold-white
The internet is now made up by people firmly in two camps: the white and gold, and the blue and black – with each thinking the other is completely wrong.
But Ron Chrisley, director of the Centre for Research in Cognitive Science at the University of Sussex, believes that the problem mainly lies in the fact that everyone has forgotten we are dealing with an illusion.
How do they know which is which when creating the narrative? They don't! So before internet the work was mostly derivative.
But with internet, things got simpler since some platforms had like and dislike, the data collectors, knew the kind of narratives that split people in half likes and half dislikes.
It dawned on me that this kind of work is derivative of Giordano Bruno's work on eros De vinculis in genere, likes and dislikes, "amore" (love) and "odio" (hate),. The work is explained well by Ioan Petru Culianu in his book Eros and Magic in the Renaissance.
Since February 24, 2016 when facebook added different reactions they, the spin doctors, could tune the narratives into even more nuances...
Then they could use emojis to deduct emotional reaction. Now they can even scrap comments with AI to see this kind of narratives.
I asked the AI if they could generate this kind of narrative:
He entered the cabin and saw the chair tipped over, a rope swinging from the beam. On the floor lay a knife and a broken stool.
One said: he cut himself down after the stool broke.
Another said: he was hanged, and someone staged a rescue too late.
The body was gone.
