5 ms·

> This is why it is possible to say almost anything without contradiction provided you begin your utterance with the words “A study has shown …” or “Scientists

> This is why it is possible to say almost anything without contradiction provided you begin your utterance with the words “A study has shown …” or “Scientists now tell us that …” More important, it is why in a Technopoly there can be no transcendent sense of purpose or meaning, no cultural coherence. I don't think this is really related to the proliferation of internet connected technology, or even technology in general. People have always been using bad sources of information to justify false beliefs. Before Facebook, people cited the crap they read in tabloid magazines. Before that people cited untested (or poorly tested) theories like phrenology. Before that people cited philosophers like Aristotle who claimed that all matter could be infinitely subdivided. And before that people cited whatever their local priest or shaman told them. Information may have less regulation but it's erroneous to assume, as this excerpt seems to be doing, that regulation of information makes for better information. There is no shortage of instances in which those in charge of regulating information degraded the quality of information, often to suit their own interest. I'm still willing to defend the claim that in aggregate freer flow and production of information improves the average person's understanding of the world . Do we really think that people living in regimes with more tightly regulated flows of information have better understanding of the universe than people with freer access to information? Do we really think that people with lesser access to technology have better understanding of the world than those that have no internet access?

codr7 8y ago
You're entirely missing the point; which is blind faith in technology and scientific authorities, and humiliation and public shaming of anyone who dares to step out of line. Same, same but different. At least you can hold your local shaman responsible when you learn that he took money to feed you lies. Are you saying that matter can't be infinitely subdivided? Because I'm pretty sure the jury is still out on that one.
- losteric 8y ago
  Blind faith in anything is wrong. The difference is scientific process invites peer review, reproduction, and alternative theories. > At least you can hold your local shaman responsible when you learn that he took money to feed you lies. Gods work in mysterious ways. The good shaman give advice that is always right no matter what happens, and fault you for misinterpreting the good word.
  - aarpmcgee 8y ago
    I feel like the word ‘shaman’ is being thrown around pretty lightly in this thread with some implicit derision. This is curious to me.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
base698 8y ago
His broader point is that the medium melds the form of the message. In ancient times we'd have "Old Wive's Tales" that pass the good information around. In a Technopoly you have the same information taking the form of scientific papers. Even for things which may not be science. The secondary point is when you divorce these pieces of information from their culture they become something else. > Do we really think that people with lesser access to technology have better understanding of the world than those that have no internet access? This seems related to what Nassim Taleb would say, "It's easier to macro bullshit than to micro bullshit." IE. Your barber/chef cannot bullshit you, but your economist/software engineer can. Over time the good information gets processed via something like natural selection and you end up with good ideas persisting. So it's not clear to me that a society with the level of information and no clear anchors is full of more understanding than those in the past. See: Lindy Effect It's a very convincing argument. See Twitter, Facebook (/r/insancepeoplefacebook) et all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
- manfredo 8y ago
  > Your barber/chef cannot bullshit you, but your economist/software engineer can. I strongly disagree. Nearly all of the serious misunderstandings of the world I have harbored in the past I believed because I trusted the words of key individuals I held in high regard. Your reference to r/insanepeoplefacebook actually demonstrates that many people are able to recognize false information online.
  - base698 8y ago
    Eh, so if you get a dinner that taste like shit or a haircut that looks lumpy and terrible you can't tell? Held in high regard isn't the point, it's that you know what bad food tastes like. It's nearly impossible to tell whether an economist on television making market predictions has done due diligence or is just talking out of his ass.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Perhaps I misunderstood your comparison. I thought your comment was saying that interpersonal interactions in general (like a conversation with your barber) don't spread BS as well as internet apps. It seems like you were referring to the barber's ability to convince you that his skills are up to par?

codr7 8y ago

You're entirely missing the point; which is blind faith in technology and scientific authorities, and humiliation and public shaming of anyone who dares to step out of line. Same, same but different. At least you can hold your local shaman responsible when you learn that he took money to feed you lies. Are you saying that matter can't be infinitely subdivided? Because I'm pretty sure the jury is still out on that one.

losteric 8y ago
Blind faith in anything is wrong. The difference is scientific process invites peer review, reproduction, and alternative theories. > At least you can hold your local shaman responsible when you learn that he took money to feed you lies. Gods work in mysterious ways. The good shaman give advice that is always right no matter what happens, and fault you for misinterpreting the good word.
- aarpmcgee 8y ago
  I feel like the word ‘shaman’ is being thrown around pretty lightly in this thread with some implicit derision. This is curious to me.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

base698 8y ago

His broader point is that the medium melds the form of the message. In ancient times we'd have "Old Wive's Tales" that pass the good information around. In a Technopoly you have the same information taking the form of scientific papers. Even for things which may not be science. The secondary point is when you divorce these pieces of information from their culture they become something else. > Do we really think that people with lesser access to technology have better understanding of the world than those that have no internet access? This seems related to what Nassim Taleb would say, "It's easier to macro bullshit than to micro bullshit." IE. Your barber/chef cannot bullshit you, but your economist/software engineer can. Over time the good information gets processed via something like natural selection and you end up with good ideas persisting. So it's not clear to me that a society with the level of information and no clear anchors is full of more understanding than those in the past. See: Lindy Effect It's a very convincing argument. See Twitter, Facebook (/r/insancepeoplefacebook) et all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

manfredo 8y ago
> Your barber/chef cannot bullshit you, but your economist/software engineer can. I strongly disagree. Nearly all of the serious misunderstandings of the world I have harbored in the past I believed because I trusted the words of key individuals I held in high regard. Your reference to r/insanepeoplefacebook actually demonstrates that many people are able to recognize false information online.
- base698 8y ago
  Eh, so if you get a dinner that taste like shit or a haircut that looks lumpy and terrible you can't tell? Held in high regard isn't the point, it's that you know what bad food tastes like. It's nearly impossible to tell whether an economist on television making market predictions has done due diligence or is just talking out of his ass.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Perhaps I misunderstood your comparison. I thought your comment was saying that interpersonal interactions in general (like a conversation with your barber) don't spread BS as well as internet apps. It seems like you were referring to the barber's ability to convince you that his skills are up to par?