3 ms·

> "And that is a good thing. If they can be influenced in a bad way quickly, then they can be influenced in a good way, or away from bad way, quickly as well."

> "And that is a good thing. If they can be influenced in a bad way quickly, then they can be influenced in a good way, or away from bad way, quickly as well." People are massively influenced by the information they consume. We tend to live in filter bubbles (we're discussing within one right now). Breaking people out of those filter bubbles is not straightforward, as you're asking them to trade the certainty of the world they know with the uncertainty of the world they don't. It takes a certain amount of curiosity to want to do that, and that's something that has to come from within, you can't bring it about directly.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Are you waiting to bet that current President can be "educated" to change his views because he has intellectual curiosity? He is representative democracy in action, isn't he? Are you willing to say that you support the President, because he is result of representative democracy? >It takes a certain amount of curiosity to want to do that, and that's something that has to come from within, you can't bring it about directly. Is that "something within" a requirement for our elected representatives? If not, aren't they just as equally susceptible to the same bubble think?
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  What I'm suggesting is that if big business and mass media can can effectively control the population, it doesn't matter if they have to control 500 or 500,000,000. I'm not suggesting we wait for elected representatives to get better, a more direct form of democracy would be preferable, but there needs to be a shift in the way we engage with information and debate before that will make a positive difference. In other words, the priority should be sorting out the news media first.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    >there needs to be a shift in the way we engage with information and debate before that will make a positive difference. What do you think is going on while, as you suggest, entire population of the country updates its capability to deal with information presented? Are we not being influenced? Is that an achievable goal? Why in a highly educated, highly liberal, highly resourceful society like USA we still lack this capability? Is it because at the end of the day we are emotional beings, not rational? >What I'm suggesting is that if big business and mass media can can effectively control the population, it doesn't matter if they have to control 500 or 500,000,000. They would try to control as many as they could for their benefit. Do you think we should make it easy for them by asking them to influence 500 or should we band together and use our numbers as a deterrent to mass influence? "If they can effectively control...", but you are assuming it to be foregone conclusion. I think the battle is still raging on and more people we have on our side that they must influence the better, instead of just 500. >In other words, the priority should be sorting out the news media first. Will it ever be completed sorted out to be fair all the time, to all the parties? I believe we have created this current phenomenal prosperity, not by assuming people doing right thing all the time, but despite there being bad elements. Hence, I appreciate what we have much more. Anytime I hear, "and, over here all of us do the right thing.", I bet against that solution being successful. If there is one thing that I agree with bible is that humanity is fallen. We must work with that assumption as we design or evaluate solutions.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "Is that an achievable goal? Why in a highly educated, highly liberal, highly resourceful society like USA we still lack this capability? Is it because at the end of the day we are emotional beings, not rational?" Let me put it another way. If we started using direct democracy tomorrow, which areas of policy do you feel informed enough to make policy decisions on? The economy? Foreign policy? Education? Healthcare? The military? Any others?

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

Are you waiting to bet that current President can be "educated" to change his views because he has intellectual curiosity? He is representative democracy in action, isn't he? Are you willing to say that you support the President, because he is result of representative democracy? >It takes a certain amount of curiosity to want to do that, and that's something that has to come from within, you can't bring it about directly. Is that "something within" a requirement for our elected representatives? If not, aren't they just as equally susceptible to the same bubble think?

ZenoArrow 9y ago
What I'm suggesting is that if big business and mass media can can effectively control the population, it doesn't matter if they have to control 500 or 500,000,000. I'm not suggesting we wait for elected representatives to get better, a more direct form of democracy would be preferable, but there needs to be a shift in the way we engage with information and debate before that will make a positive difference. In other words, the priority should be sorting out the news media first.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >there needs to be a shift in the way we engage with information and debate before that will make a positive difference. What do you think is going on while, as you suggest, entire population of the country updates its capability to deal with information presented? Are we not being influenced? Is that an achievable goal? Why in a highly educated, highly liberal, highly resourceful society like USA we still lack this capability? Is it because at the end of the day we are emotional beings, not rational? >What I'm suggesting is that if big business and mass media can can effectively control the population, it doesn't matter if they have to control 500 or 500,000,000. They would try to control as many as they could for their benefit. Do you think we should make it easy for them by asking them to influence 500 or should we band together and use our numbers as a deterrent to mass influence? "If they can effectively control...", but you are assuming it to be foregone conclusion. I think the battle is still raging on and more people we have on our side that they must influence the better, instead of just 500. >In other words, the priority should be sorting out the news media first. Will it ever be completed sorted out to be fair all the time, to all the parties? I believe we have created this current phenomenal prosperity, not by assuming people doing right thing all the time, but despite there being bad elements. Hence, I appreciate what we have much more. Anytime I hear, "and, over here all of us do the right thing.", I bet against that solution being successful. If there is one thing that I agree with bible is that humanity is fallen. We must work with that assumption as we design or evaluate solutions.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "Is that an achievable goal? Why in a highly educated, highly liberal, highly resourceful society like USA we still lack this capability? Is it because at the end of the day we are emotional beings, not rational?" Let me put it another way. If we started using direct democracy tomorrow, which areas of policy do you feel informed enough to make policy decisions on? The economy? Foreign policy? Education? Healthcare? The military? Any others?