As I get older I grow weary of studies like this that make it seem like humans are simple-to-trick creatures & susceptible to fallacies depending on how you present an idea.
The opposite is true: Humans are suspicious & good at reading between the lines when appropriate.
Let's use this example: 1/
The opposite is true: Humans are suspicious & good at reading between the lines when appropriate.
Let's use this example: 1/
Comments
People intuitively understand this. Therefore it's REASONABLE to answer inconsistently to these different scenarios.
I am reminded of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis 3/
The answer depends on what you believe of the will of the terrorists & the competence of the security forces. 4/
Whereas if you expected even less from russian special forces (And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege 2 years later confirmed it), then it was a success 5/
Who's working on the tech? Tesla? Uber? Google? I trust each differently.
Where is it rolled out? California? Texas? I trust each's regulations differently.
The question isn't the technology, it's the implementation. 6/6
I get what you're saying, Mr. K.
But some "tribal" knowledge is based on core truths. May seem silly for a religion to ban pork & shellfish with 21st century food safety regulations, but more reasonable in the 3rd BCE century.
Read my thread :P