They aren't trusted in a vacuum. They're trusted when grounded in sources and their claims can be traced to sources. And more specifically, they're trusted to accurately represent the sources.

▲

andrewflnr 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nope, lots of idiots just take them at face value. You're still describing what rational people do, not what all actual people do.

	▲	handfuloflight 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough.

▲

PebblesRox 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you believe this, people believe everything they read by default and have to apply a critical thinking filter on top of it to not believe the thing.

I know I don't have as much of a filter as I ought to!

https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pmHZDpak4NeRLLLCw/p/TiDGXt3WrQwt...

	▲	andrewflnr 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That checks out with my experience. I don't think it's just reading either. Even deeper than stranger danger, we're inclined to assume other humans communicating with us are part of our tribe, on our side, and not trying to deceive us. Deception, and our defenses against deception, are a secondary phenomenon. It's the same reason that jokes like "the word 'gullible' is written in the ceiling", gesturing to wipe your face at someone with a clean face, etc, all work by default.

▲

sheiyei 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> they're trusted to accurately represent the sources.

Which is still too much trust