>I'm not sure we are capable of building a society by internalizing a 'raw' version of our history. Probably because a ‘raw’ version doesn’t make much sense..

>I'm not sure we are capable of building a society by internalizing a 'raw' version of our history. Probably because a ‘raw’ version doesn’t make much sense.. its like looking at a log file. It’s dense. Far too dense to be worth communicating in that format. So instead you pick out key facts and build out a narrative of events, usually with something in mind (a moral, a bug, etc). The bias and myth that people complain about is an inevitable result of this process.. it’s simply a complaint that one set of facts, and resulting narrative, was chosen, but this second set of facts, and narrative should have been chosen instead. Of course, sets C, D and E also exist, but they’re not being argued for.