Cage with all amenities
Habr actively responds to all initiatives (whatever they may concern) to limit the choice. And that's great. The same Internet (in those times when it was not capitalized yet) was declared as a means of free communication of everyone with everyone and a free search for information in order to develop society. And the keyword in the previous sentence is naturally “free.”
Here is just one question. How free is it from restrictions and in the end is the result of our choice adequate?
The days when the Internet was small, when cataloged lists of sites were popular (at first, very small) were long gone. Then everyone who was looking for information could quickly sort through most of the available resources. Now, searching through all sites is impossible in principle and we are forced to use search services to search for information. In most cases, free. But it is precisely because of its free nature that these services are forced not only to collect detailed information about all their users and trade it - because of the still existing competition, they try to make sure that the user does not just receive exactly the information he wants to receive. The user must be satisfied with the result of their searches. And it is really scary.
No one wants to rummage through the millions of links issued as a result of the request. In most cases, the first 3-5 are viewed. Maximum a couple of pages. Time is money. In order for the user to leave content the search engine collects any information about him, his current desires and needs. Ignoring those things that, according to the search engine, should not interest his client.
')
And then comes the great science of psychology.
One way or another, everyone has certain convictions and naturally everyone is psychologically more pleasant when they agree with him. One consequence of this is the formation of groups with similar interests. It is not necessarily designed legally and having a single VK page. We are invited to the resources of the Network, where those who share our views come together - or ourselves (in the search engine output following the results of our request) find materials confirming our point of view. And of course, those individuals, groups of people, or sites that have a habit of arguing with the opinion that we have formed are unpleasant. It makes you doubt your own rightness, lowers self-esteem, makes you think about your own importance in the eyes of others - not everyone is able to admit to their own mistake.
This is the first psychological effect - confirmation bias . He laid in the man initially. And if in the real world we are forced to communicate with different people and learn to perceive different opinions, then in the modern world we can exclude from our blog anyone who objects, not to meet those who consider themselves - not us! - right. On the Internet, this is easy - we create or find a cozy interest group and lock ourselves in it.
In the famous joke, Napoleon argued - give me the truth, and no one will know that I lost under Waterloo. In our world, the role of the newspaper Truth is played by a search engine. Starting with the issuance of only information that interests us, he brings us together with those who share our interests and thereby complete the formation of our views. After all, we perceive information from the Internet as independent and objective - and it turns out to be very circumcised.
Usually, the effect of neglecting probabilities is illustrated by the fact that many people are afraid of flying airplanes, although significantly more people die in car accidents. But for IT, this effect is interesting enough superimposed on the bias of confirmation . So in fact, there are no statistics that allow to assess the probability of infection (and, therefore, to estimate the amount of real financial damage) for a particular company, depending on its size, location, type of protection, type of activity, etc. As a result, there are two points of view. "We have statistics on how many companies turned to our technical support." "I didn’t have a single virus for ..." And if we are talking about viruses, then following an incident with encrypting your data or reading some article about a new technology, the case of neglecting the probability suddenly turns into a Neophyte Effect or Selective Observation . When “the veil falls from the eyes,” the neophyte begins to notice everywhere and everywhere the confirmations of the new truth. And it is natural not to notice its shortcomings. A typical case is cloud-based antiviruses or the protection of removable media or a behavioral analyzer or ... There are a lot of options.
In the neglected case of confirmation bias, we begin to perceive only the information that “feeds” our already existing judgments, ignoring or rejecting everything that conflicts with them and threatens to destroy our image of the world. A typical case is viruses and vulnerabilities for Linux. No matter how many of them are found and what danger they would pose, there will always be someone who asks to give him at least one virus to watch or someone who says that this is only for those systems where admins have hands.
Fortunately, the next stage (the hobby effect ), although it occurs often, but passes for most. Although not without a trace. At the stage of craze arises fashion. When everyone around us chooses a favorite (person or idea), then the part of the brain that is responsible for the individual is turned off. We fall into a kind of “group thinking”. There are many options. From suicide as a result of the death of a pokemon to the indiscriminate transfer of everything and everything to the clouds despite the need and cost.
A running case of isolation among like-minded people - Intra - group bias and Transfer effect . All whose opinions we listen to confirm our opinion. And we begin to think that all the other people of the world (and maybe aliens) also think. Often, those who join radical associations live with the conviction that outside their group, many people share their beliefs, although there may not be such people at all. If, however, the harsh reality confronts us with dissenters, then the consciousness brought up in the absence of discussion requires the destruction of this troublemaker.
In the 1940s, a terrorist organization of Japanese immigrants existed in Brazil who believed that Japan had won World War II. Those Japanese Brazilians who did not share their beliefs, they were forced to commit seppuku or executed those who did not agree .
There is a historical joke. It is said that in the government of de Gaulle (and he was known to be different in that people of very different views worked with him) was a minister who constantly criticized de Gaulle. When de Gaulle was asked - why don't you remove him? And he answered - he does not allow me to be soaked.
Why is the article related to information security? Just because we have no right to personal preferences, choosing what will then affect our security and (more importantly) the security of those who have entrusted us with the choice.
Here is just one question. How free is it from restrictions and in the end is the result of our choice adequate?
The days when the Internet was small, when cataloged lists of sites were popular (at first, very small) were long gone. Then everyone who was looking for information could quickly sort through most of the available resources. Now, searching through all sites is impossible in principle and we are forced to use search services to search for information. In most cases, free. But it is precisely because of its free nature that these services are forced not only to collect detailed information about all their users and trade it - because of the still existing competition, they try to make sure that the user does not just receive exactly the information he wants to receive. The user must be satisfied with the result of their searches. And it is really scary.
No one wants to rummage through the millions of links issued as a result of the request. In most cases, the first 3-5 are viewed. Maximum a couple of pages. Time is money. In order for the user to leave content the search engine collects any information about him, his current desires and needs. Ignoring those things that, according to the search engine, should not interest his client.
')
And then comes the great science of psychology.
One way or another, everyone has certain convictions and naturally everyone is psychologically more pleasant when they agree with him. One consequence of this is the formation of groups with similar interests. It is not necessarily designed legally and having a single VK page. We are invited to the resources of the Network, where those who share our views come together - or ourselves (in the search engine output following the results of our request) find materials confirming our point of view. And of course, those individuals, groups of people, or sites that have a habit of arguing with the opinion that we have formed are unpleasant. It makes you doubt your own rightness, lowers self-esteem, makes you think about your own importance in the eyes of others - not everyone is able to admit to their own mistake.
This is the first psychological effect - confirmation bias . He laid in the man initially. And if in the real world we are forced to communicate with different people and learn to perceive different opinions, then in the modern world we can exclude from our blog anyone who objects, not to meet those who consider themselves - not us! - right. On the Internet, this is easy - we create or find a cozy interest group and lock ourselves in it.
In the famous joke, Napoleon argued - give me the truth, and no one will know that I lost under Waterloo. In our world, the role of the newspaper Truth is played by a search engine. Starting with the issuance of only information that interests us, he brings us together with those who share our interests and thereby complete the formation of our views. After all, we perceive information from the Internet as independent and objective - and it turns out to be very circumcised.
Usually, the effect of neglecting probabilities is illustrated by the fact that many people are afraid of flying airplanes, although significantly more people die in car accidents. But for IT, this effect is interesting enough superimposed on the bias of confirmation . So in fact, there are no statistics that allow to assess the probability of infection (and, therefore, to estimate the amount of real financial damage) for a particular company, depending on its size, location, type of protection, type of activity, etc. As a result, there are two points of view. "We have statistics on how many companies turned to our technical support." "I didn’t have a single virus for ..." And if we are talking about viruses, then following an incident with encrypting your data or reading some article about a new technology, the case of neglecting the probability suddenly turns into a Neophyte Effect or Selective Observation . When “the veil falls from the eyes,” the neophyte begins to notice everywhere and everywhere the confirmations of the new truth. And it is natural not to notice its shortcomings. A typical case is cloud-based antiviruses or the protection of removable media or a behavioral analyzer or ... There are a lot of options.
In the neglected case of confirmation bias, we begin to perceive only the information that “feeds” our already existing judgments, ignoring or rejecting everything that conflicts with them and threatens to destroy our image of the world. A typical case is viruses and vulnerabilities for Linux. No matter how many of them are found and what danger they would pose, there will always be someone who asks to give him at least one virus to watch or someone who says that this is only for those systems where admins have hands.
Fortunately, the next stage (the hobby effect ), although it occurs often, but passes for most. Although not without a trace. At the stage of craze arises fashion. When everyone around us chooses a favorite (person or idea), then the part of the brain that is responsible for the individual is turned off. We fall into a kind of “group thinking”. There are many options. From suicide as a result of the death of a pokemon to the indiscriminate transfer of everything and everything to the clouds despite the need and cost.
A running case of isolation among like-minded people - Intra - group bias and Transfer effect . All whose opinions we listen to confirm our opinion. And we begin to think that all the other people of the world (and maybe aliens) also think. Often, those who join radical associations live with the conviction that outside their group, many people share their beliefs, although there may not be such people at all. If, however, the harsh reality confronts us with dissenters, then the consciousness brought up in the absence of discussion requires the destruction of this troublemaker.
In the 1940s, a terrorist organization of Japanese immigrants existed in Brazil who believed that Japan had won World War II. Those Japanese Brazilians who did not share their beliefs, they were forced to commit seppuku or executed those who did not agree .
There is a historical joke. It is said that in the government of de Gaulle (and he was known to be different in that people of very different views worked with him) was a minister who constantly criticized de Gaulle. When de Gaulle was asked - why don't you remove him? And he answered - he does not allow me to be soaked.
Why is the article related to information security? Just because we have no right to personal preferences, choosing what will then affect our security and (more importantly) the security of those who have entrusted us with the choice.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/265851/
All Articles