5 ms·

Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular) has always been a threat to authorities. And, as always, a little knowledge is a da

Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular) has always been a threat to authorities. And, as always, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And, as Engelbart predicted, it has created a race. Lets take a look on online content, and we see that - because of vested interests - there's very little in-depth content available (at any price) and plenty of superficial content to foster the dangerous. (What's there has largely not been a concern of SV.) Television (and FM radio before it, as the creators of both complained) played a similar role (with better control-rods) before the net. Pouring out thoughtless sludge creates the expected result.

blitmap 8y ago
It's been a lot of fun for me to think about how knowledge can be conveyed 'superficially'. Make it cute, make it pretty, make it gamified. I love Wikipedia and I know many others get lost in that article forest too, but I've been trying to learn how to illustrate my understanding of something in a way that is easy to consume by others. This has led me from low-level systems programming to web development and using frameworks like d3 to create animations of what I'm describing. I think we'll counter authoritarianism on 2 fronts: 1) Make more information freely accessible. 2) Take existing, accessible information and convey it in a friendly way for the masses.
- Klover 8y ago
  Can you show what you’ve made so far? I’d love to see it.
ggm 8y ago
Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular) has always been a threat to authorities. Yeeeesss but, and it's a huge but, auto-didacticism in particular has huge risks. Misapprehension of core knowledge self acquired is remarkably hard to shift. Hence, huge numbers of ant vaxx, anti agw and like movements with self sustaining belief about science data and it's interpretation. Monkton is a prime example. Tries to claim authority vested in his own interpretation of the science inputs. I guess I'm agreeing.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  What is "anti agw"?
  - sverige 8y ago
    Apparently it stands for "anthropogenic global warming." Never mind the documented cases of data fraud, it's because "auto-didactic."
    - graeme 8y ago
      Autodidact contrarians on this subject seem intensely vexed by data fraud. If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? This "fraud" of which you speak appears to be a non-issue amongst scientists.
      - fromthestart 8y ago
        >If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when in line with an alleged agenda, something that should be vexing? You don't think it's possible that the same shunning that occurs in non academic settings towards deniers might occur in the sciences? In which case perhaps scientists aren't willing to risk careers and funding to go against the grain, if they are even concious of any bias. I imagine most young people are entering into this field now treating agw as confirmed fact. And if you combine that with the all of the ways in which the scientific institution is currently broken (p value abuse/misuse, publish or perish, reproducibility crisis), it's very possible for an artificial, or massaged, narrative to come to dominate discourse even if it isn't quite true...
        graeme 8y ago
        I was being somewhat facetious. There does not appear to have been data fraud. OP was referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email... The only people I've seen who are worried about it are either propagandists or autodidacts. Not using the term propagandiat loosely. Referring to people at industry funded think tanks. But others who thrive on being "contrarian" and self educated always seem to reference this "fraud" even though there seems to be nothing to it. Added some quotes to my original post to clarify.
pesmhey 8y ago
What would be an example of in-depth content that is missing from the web?
stcredzero 8y ago
And, as Engelbart predicted, it has created a race. Lets take a look on online content, and we see that - because of vested interests - there's very little in-depth content available (at any price) and plenty of superficial content to foster the dangerous. This is simply the human condition. It was just as true of written language and illustration. Also, take a look at YouTube. There's quite a bit of in-depth content there in an absolute sense. 90% or more of it might be fluff, but as Theodore Sturgeon observed, 90% of everything is "shite." Yet somehow, we muddle through. Young people with almost no resources and education still manage to create marvelous new culture, seemingly whole cloth. If we are to have a free society, that means people have to be free to make the wrong choice. Otherwise, we've empowered some entity or another to dictate to us what's acceptable and what's not, and we're no longer free.
- badpun 8y ago
  > This is simply the human condition. It was just as true of written language and illustration. There's a famous book, "The Revolt of the Masses" by Ortega, which claims the opposite. His conclusion is that, before mass media, common people were uneducated, but were actually quite aware of and humble about their ignorance - they did not think they understood how the world around them (incl. politics etc.) works. But after they've been exposed to the press and radio, which mostly gave them random, disjointed and poorly checked facts as well as opinion pieces (almost always with an agenda), they started to believe they understand more than they actually did. That's the "Revolt of the Masses" - masses of people started to have an opinion, and it was often ignorant and stupid.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Here, you're just talking about the operation of propaganda.
    - badpun 8y ago
      Not only. Haven’t you noticed how most people nowadays have opinions on subjects on which they’re (at best) poorly informed? It’s a form of “cognitive hubris”, and Ortega’s claim was that people weren’t neccessarily always like that. I imagine that, before mass media and education, people were a lot more focused on spiritual/religious things, and were leading heated debates in those areas. These were far less dangerous that ill-informed debates on real, important subjects.
jkoudys 8y ago
Sure, but I see it more about the medium than the actual content produced. Look at the glut of superficial top-level comments right here from people who didn't seem to even read the article and instead write out the same talking points that always get voted up. Hackernews is much better than most, but even freely accessible forums have the same issues.

blitmap 8y ago

It's been a lot of fun for me to think about how knowledge can be conveyed 'superficially'. Make it cute, make it pretty, make it gamified. I love Wikipedia and I know many others get lost in that article forest too, but I've been trying to learn how to illustrate my understanding of something in a way that is easy to consume by others. This has led me from low-level systems programming to web development and using frameworks like d3 to create animations of what I'm describing. I think we'll counter authoritarianism on 2 fronts: 1) Make more information freely accessible. 2) Take existing, accessible information and convey it in a friendly way for the masses.

Klover 8y ago
Can you show what you’ve made so far? I’d love to see it.

ggm 8y ago

Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular) has always been a threat to authorities. Yeeeesss but, and it's a huge but, auto-didacticism in particular has huge risks. Misapprehension of core knowledge self acquired is remarkably hard to shift. Hence, huge numbers of ant vaxx, anti agw and like movements with self sustaining belief about science data and it's interpretation. Monkton is a prime example. Tries to claim authority vested in his own interpretation of the science inputs. I guess I'm agreeing.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
What is "anti agw"?
- sverige 8y ago
  Apparently it stands for "anthropogenic global warming." Never mind the documented cases of data fraud, it's because "auto-didactic."
  - graeme 8y ago
    Autodidact contrarians on this subject seem intensely vexed by data fraud. If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? This "fraud" of which you speak appears to be a non-issue amongst scientists.
    - fromthestart 8y ago
      >If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when in line with an alleged agenda, something that should be vexing? You don't think it's possible that the same shunning that occurs in non academic settings towards deniers might occur in the sciences? In which case perhaps scientists aren't willing to risk careers and funding to go against the grain, if they are even concious of any bias. I imagine most young people are entering into this field now treating agw as confirmed fact. And if you combine that with the all of the ways in which the scientific institution is currently broken (p value abuse/misuse, publish or perish, reproducibility crisis), it's very possible for an artificial, or massaged, narrative to come to dominate discourse even if it isn't quite true...
      - graeme 8y ago
        I was being somewhat facetious. There does not appear to have been data fraud. OP was referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email... The only people I've seen who are worried about it are either propagandists or autodidacts. Not using the term propagandiat loosely. Referring to people at industry funded think tanks. But others who thrive on being "contrarian" and self educated always seem to reference this "fraud" even though there seems to be nothing to it. Added some quotes to my original post to clarify.

pesmhey 8y ago

What would be an example of in-depth content that is missing from the web?

stcredzero 8y ago

And, as Engelbart predicted, it has created a race. Lets take a look on online content, and we see that - because of vested interests - there's very little in-depth content available (at any price) and plenty of superficial content to foster the dangerous. This is simply the human condition. It was just as true of written language and illustration. Also, take a look at YouTube. There's quite a bit of in-depth content there in an absolute sense. 90% or more of it might be fluff, but as Theodore Sturgeon observed, 90% of everything is "shite." Yet somehow, we muddle through. Young people with almost no resources and education still manage to create marvelous new culture, seemingly whole cloth. If we are to have a free society, that means people have to be free to make the wrong choice. Otherwise, we've empowered some entity or another to dictate to us what's acceptable and what's not, and we're no longer free.

badpun 8y ago
> This is simply the human condition. It was just as true of written language and illustration. There's a famous book, "The Revolt of the Masses" by Ortega, which claims the opposite. His conclusion is that, before mass media, common people were uneducated, but were actually quite aware of and humble about their ignorance - they did not think they understood how the world around them (incl. politics etc.) works. But after they've been exposed to the press and radio, which mostly gave them random, disjointed and poorly checked facts as well as opinion pieces (almost always with an agenda), they started to believe they understand more than they actually did. That's the "Revolt of the Masses" - masses of people started to have an opinion, and it was often ignorant and stupid.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Here, you're just talking about the operation of propaganda.
  - badpun 8y ago
    Not only. Haven’t you noticed how most people nowadays have opinions on subjects on which they’re (at best) poorly informed? It’s a form of “cognitive hubris”, and Ortega’s claim was that people weren’t neccessarily always like that. I imagine that, before mass media and education, people were a lot more focused on spiritual/religious things, and were leading heated debates in those areas. These were far less dangerous that ill-informed debates on real, important subjects.

jkoudys 8y ago

Sure, but I see it more about the medium than the actual content produced. Look at the glut of superficial top-level comments right here from people who didn't seem to even read the article and instead write out the same talking points that always get voted up. Hackernews is much better than most, but even freely accessible forums have the same issues.