6 ms·

I mostly agree, though I'm not sure if Gates and friends are scared of an uprising. With better and fact-based education we can solve a lot. I don't mean train

by cm3 10y ago

I mostly agree, though I'm not sure if Gates and friends are scared of an uprising. With better and fact-based education we can solve a lot. I don't mean training for jobs, I mean education as a means to, say, reduce killing each other or making more efficient use of earth's resources. For instance, the best way to fix the problem of people flocking to extremist leaders is more education on all sides. The unknown is scary enough for many people that it's used for them to be led to believe simplified but factually wrong explanations for issues they face.

phd514 10y ago
The sentiment that education can solve a lot of societal problems is a popular one, especially on HN, but it presumes that people's outlook and worldview are primarily or at least substantially influenced by "facts" and introduction to a sufficient number of such facts will result in the adoption of a better worldview for whatever definition of "better" you prefer. In reality, people are much more influenced by those with whom they associate whether those links be tribal, familial, political, etc. Each of those groups has a narrative for how the world works and facts that challenge that narrative are downplayed or ignored while facts that support that narrative are promoted. There are those whose associations change dramatically as a result of confronting facts that challenged the narrative of their group, often combined with some sort of personal crisis, but they are among the minority. Most of us go through our lives without seriously challenging the basic narrative of our associates and increasing our exposure to facts isn't going to change that.
- cm3 10y ago
  You're have a point, though if we can reduce the amount of people that are clueless about important facts, that will also reduce the pool of new recruits into their ideologies. This is not a cure for vocal minorities spreading dangerous lies, but the more people know and understand the truth, the less there will be who are, for lack of a better word, gullible in certain topics.
  - visarga 10y ago
    I think societal unrest doesn't necessarily come from lack of education, but from the perceived feeling that parts of society are disenfranchised, a feeling of powerlessness, of being against a "corrupt system" that does not have their best interest at heart. It's the lack of social mobility, or perceived lack of social mobility that causes unrest.
    - cm3 10y ago
      I was talking about extremist leaders recruiting people, and your point is true. With better education those who are oppressed are actually more likely to take notice and "rebel". I wrote in a sibling comment that everyone should be better educated, including oppressors, thereby ideally making them realize that it's a short-term game they're playing, for example.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  That's because part of education is learning to think critically, which specifically means learning to overcome those biases you mention. You say "in reality" as if those supporting education are't aware of human nature, but it's precisely because they are aware that they want people to be better educated, it helps overcome the petty tribalism inherent to the uneducated. You're incorrect about what it presumes; valuing facts is something most people need to be taught. That's why there's always a push for education, otherwise you end up with Trumpism.
  - nikcheerla 10y ago
    The "petty tribalism inherent to the uneducated"? As if the salary class – highly-educated left-learning professionals – doesn't have it's own tribal affiliations, it's own status markers, its own inconvenient facts that it excludes for the sake of a higher narrative?
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      Are we now disputing that ignorance is a bad thing, really? Do you think society is better off with more uneducated people? Racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, etc are all symptoms of ignorance; those are petty tribalisms. Ignorance isn't something to defend, but to strive to eliminate.
      - nikcheerla 10y ago
        When did I dispute ignorance is a bad thing? I'm just saying that the first stop in fighting ignorance is looking at yourself? What inconvenient facts do you refuse to accept? Where do you apply standards unevenly? Where are you showing confirmation bias? Telling people from another tribe that they are ignorant has never changed anything.
Hydraulix989 10y ago
Remember, Gates' and Zuckerberg's wealth is the product of society itself -- the reason they are so "wealthy" is because we believe in and partake in a system that reinforces their wealth and high value. The biggest threat to their wealth would be a collapse of the current society -- the status quo -- and so, although they may have SOME material goods (okay, more than most others), the vast majority of the value of what that they have is merely on paper or "stock," whose value is determined entirely socially. Of course, their value could vanish in an instant if society no longer believes in their wealth or the system that proliferated it. Granted, it would take a "total collapse" (and resultant lack of faith in our economic system) for this to happen, but historically, societies don't fail gradually or softly, they implode. A real life example of such a loss of "faith" in a massive quantity of wealth that isn't civilization-scale such as the fall of the Roman Empire (as recent in history as it is) on an individual-scale would be Theranos and the instantaneous deflation of Holmes' net worth from a socially propped-up "cool billion" to zilch. People en masse generally don't take too well to mass corruption. Over history, the average lifespan of a social empire has been 300 years, and the western-dominated global sociopolitical landscape est. 1776 (largely a product of American military superiority and foreign interventionalism) is now getting a little long in the tooth. It's in their best interest to keep giving the masses their opiate.

by cm3 10y ago

phd514 10y ago

The sentiment that education can solve a lot of societal problems is a popular one, especially on HN, but it presumes that people's outlook and worldview are primarily or at least substantially influenced by "facts" and introduction to a sufficient number of such facts will result in the adoption of a better worldview for whatever definition of "better" you prefer. In reality, people are much more influenced by those with whom they associate whether those links be tribal, familial, political, etc. Each of those groups has a narrative for how the world works and facts that challenge that narrative are downplayed or ignored while facts that support that narrative are promoted. There are those whose associations change dramatically as a result of confronting facts that challenged the narrative of their group, often combined with some sort of personal crisis, but they are among the minority. Most of us go through our lives without seriously challenging the basic narrative of our associates and increasing our exposure to facts isn't going to change that.

cm3 10y ago
You're have a point, though if we can reduce the amount of people that are clueless about important facts, that will also reduce the pool of new recruits into their ideologies. This is not a cure for vocal minorities spreading dangerous lies, but the more people know and understand the truth, the less there will be who are, for lack of a better word, gullible in certain topics.
- visarga 10y ago
  I think societal unrest doesn't necessarily come from lack of education, but from the perceived feeling that parts of society are disenfranchised, a feeling of powerlessness, of being against a "corrupt system" that does not have their best interest at heart. It's the lack of social mobility, or perceived lack of social mobility that causes unrest.
  - cm3 10y ago
    I was talking about extremist leaders recruiting people, and your point is true. With better education those who are oppressed are actually more likely to take notice and "rebel". I wrote in a sibling comment that everyone should be better educated, including oppressors, thereby ideally making them realize that it's a short-term game they're playing, for example.
gnaritas 10y ago
That's because part of education is learning to think critically, which specifically means learning to overcome those biases you mention. You say "in reality" as if those supporting education are't aware of human nature, but it's precisely because they are aware that they want people to be better educated, it helps overcome the petty tribalism inherent to the uneducated. You're incorrect about what it presumes; valuing facts is something most people need to be taught. That's why there's always a push for education, otherwise you end up with Trumpism.
- nikcheerla 10y ago
  The "petty tribalism inherent to the uneducated"? As if the salary class – highly-educated left-learning professionals – doesn't have it's own tribal affiliations, it's own status markers, its own inconvenient facts that it excludes for the sake of a higher narrative?
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Are we now disputing that ignorance is a bad thing, really? Do you think society is better off with more uneducated people? Racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, etc are all symptoms of ignorance; those are petty tribalisms. Ignorance isn't something to defend, but to strive to eliminate.
    - nikcheerla 10y ago
      When did I dispute ignorance is a bad thing? I'm just saying that the first stop in fighting ignorance is looking at yourself? What inconvenient facts do you refuse to accept? Where do you apply standards unevenly? Where are you showing confirmation bias? Telling people from another tribe that they are ignorant has never changed anything.

Hydraulix989 10y ago

Remember, Gates' and Zuckerberg's wealth is the product of society itself -- the reason they are so "wealthy" is because we believe in and partake in a system that reinforces their wealth and high value. The biggest threat to their wealth would be a collapse of the current society -- the status quo -- and so, although they may have SOME material goods (okay, more than most others), the vast majority of the value of what that they have is merely on paper or "stock," whose value is determined entirely socially. Of course, their value could vanish in an instant if society no longer believes in their wealth or the system that proliferated it. Granted, it would take a "total collapse" (and resultant lack of faith in our economic system) for this to happen, but historically, societies don't fail gradually or softly, they implode. A real life example of such a loss of "faith" in a massive quantity of wealth that isn't civilization-scale such as the fall of the Roman Empire (as recent in history as it is) on an individual-scale would be Theranos and the instantaneous deflation of Holmes' net worth from a socially propped-up "cool billion" to zilch. People en masse generally don't take too well to mass corruption. Over history, the average lifespan of a social empire has been 300 years, and the western-dominated global sociopolitical landscape est. 1776 (largely a product of American military superiority and foreign interventionalism) is now getting a little long in the tooth. It's in their best interest to keep giving the masses their opiate.