5 ms·
The American Brain
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- SuperFerret 7y agoThe "artificially generated speech" is really interesting. There's no reason why it can't happen on the other side of of the bell curve. Global right wing movements are a good example.
- pjc50 7y agoI can't see where the article talks about this?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ihm 7y agoThis article is pretty naive in completely ignoring the role of propaganda and advertising.
- helpPeople 7y agoI find marketing such a strange idea. I believe the Ancient Greeks hated these mind control techniques. But in modern society, we are told it's a good thing. I'm not sure what is good about being tricked to buy average products at expensive prices. Samsung/Apple are my two examples in the tech world.
- rabidrat 7y agoThere are Ages of Reason and Ages of Vanity. It is important to know which you are in.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vanderZwan 7y ago> But in modern society, we are told it's a good thing. Sure, but look who is telling you that. What you're hinting at is discussed further in Manifacturing Consent, might be interesting to you if you have not heard of it yet[0][1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoIt's almost as if it's promoting a comforting but unrealistic narrative.
- eisrep 7y agoThis was addressed in the text: > In reality, there’s a lot of other stuff going on in the MPI—stuff like tribalism and virtue signaling and media manipulation and the cudgel of cultural taboo and other fun things in the pit of hell we’ll be descending into together later in the series. But we’re keeping things simple for now...
- HBKXNCUO 7y agoYup, and it also fails to take into account inherent group interests. One example would be that homosexuals have an inherent group interest in having others accept homosexuality. It isn't enough for an idea to be "more wise" or "more correct" or whatever for it go from a fringe idea to a mainstream one. Someone needs to have some reason to bother pushing the idea. Any idea with a dedicated group pushing it is more likely to go from the fringe to the mainstream. Depending on how dedicated that group is, and what kind of resources they have to push the idea, there is no reason to believe that some idea being "more wise" or "more correct" is even necessary for it to go from the fringe to the mainstream.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- stephanheijl 7y agoA society’s mind is its marketplace of ideas, and the freer, more open, and more active that marketplace is, the sharper and clearer the giant mind is and the faster the pace of societal growth. This is a good takeaway; even though the fringes of any discussion are generally filled with bad ideas, enabling people to have the discussion is paramount in finding the ideas that turn out to be "diamonds". It also permits us to gauge the quality of ideas that are not good allows us to consider why they are not. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- joelx 7y agoI agree. The article's key takeaway is that "Mute buttons in any form should raise red flags".
- pjc50 7y agoMute buttons and blocks are a survival technique for some people.
- Aloha 7y agoSurvival from what - or in what way? Ignoring a bad idea does not make it go away.
- beat 7y agoSome people face challenges to their very right to exist online. Muting the people who say such things is easier than fighting or coping. Look up spoon theory for a practical explanation.
- Aloha 7y agoI'm an overweight gay male probably on the autism spectrum with learning disabilities, I don't really like effectively being lectured on my privilege. You'll never change the conversation if you don't engage with it - its perfectly fine to step away from time to time, but unplugging and living in your own reality serves no one.
- srmatto 7y agoThe premise of this article reminds me of this essay: "If Materialism Is True, the United States Is Probably Conscious" https://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconscious-140130a.htm https://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconscious...
- olooney 7y agoInteresting paper but t feels a little like a "paradox of the heap" argument[1]. A human has 9e10 neurons[2], while a rabbit only has 5e8, and there are only 3e8 Americans. I don't see a problem arguing that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon arising in networks of at least 1e10 nodes, or in networks that have certain recurrent structures regardless of network size, or that "consciousness" is a qualitative concept measured on a sliding scale so that a rabbit is 1/180th as conscious as a human. Though if someone wanted to argue that the United States as a whole exhibits about the same level of consciousness as a rabbit, I don't think I would argue with them... but, having known several pet rabbits, it would feel to me that we are saying the same thing, which is that neither exhibits a meaningful level of consciousness at all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...
- minitoar 7y agoI’m probably missing the point of your comment by coming to the defense of pet rabbits but...they are actually quite intelligent! They can be litter box trained and really have a lot going on if you don’t keep them locked in a hutch 24/7.
- everyfakeword 7y agoMetaphorical... I don't want to be ignorant I want to ask, When 'did' the 'usage' of a 'tool' 'became a weapon' ? Cui bono ? BTT (-;
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 7y agoThere's a real "Whig view of history" going on here, which seems to center on the idea that society gradually moves from wrong ideas towards right ones. And that truth not only sticks but expands, so all you have to do is proclaim the Truth to enough people and it will move the window of acceptable ideas towards progress. What this doesn't cover is the "history of bad ideas", and their virality. It's not enough to look at just America. For a full picture you'd have to look at Nazi Germany, Rwanda, etc. There are certain ideas which are popular, persistent, false, and dangerous; a classic example is the "blood libel", or the "protocols of the elders of Zion" hoax. > "In 1959, almost every reasonable person in the U.S. thought interracial marriage was an immoral thing. Today, we see this as a failure of wisdom." The thing is, this wasn't a position of blank ignorance; it was an ideology. It was something people had to be taught, and an idea that had to be fought. And there's no reason why it couldn't come back again if enough clever people promoted that idea.
- bluetomcat 7y agoAs a European observer of the general discourse in "popular speech platforms" of the "American Brain", I am baffled by the narrow breadth of topics that get discussed most of the time. Enormous heat is generated from discussions on gay marriage, gun laws, abortion laws and minority rights. Identity politics at full throttle. It feels very shallow and unintellectual. You are forced to identify as a member of some group, and then you become a social justice warrior of that group. It all feels like a very wrong way to approach politics on a national level.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Miner49er 7y agoWhat do you mean by "identity politics" in this context? What does identity politics have to do with gun laws, for example?
- AMerrit 7y ago"Gun Owner" is a way people self identify and cling to in a very irrational way. At least I assume that's what they are talking about.
- zepto 7y agoI think it’s the media that identifies the group ‘gun owners’ more than individuals do.
- bluetomcat 7y agoWith respect to gun laws, you identify loosely either as a "Texan farmer who needs guns to protect his farm", or a "student who might become a victim of a crazy classmate", or maybe a gun producer who profits from the sales of guns. The whole political and societal discourse then starts revolving around satisfying the individual interests of these groups, instead of looking at things integrally from a systematic point of view. If you optimise the system from above, you may even avoid the need of having those groups of people in the first place.
- paulpauper 7y agoway too long of an article and obvious to anyone who knows about politics and political discourse over the past few decades. the window shifts. views that were not controversial become controversial, and the other way around. >But dictators aren’t the only ones who use mute buttons. Given all of the obvious benefits of free speech, when a culture or a movement or an individual citizen seems threatened by free speech, the first question you should ask is: “Why? What are they so scared of?” Free speech is a tool that helps us see what’s true versus false and right versus wrong—so if you believe truth and virtue are on your side, a vibrant, open discourse is your best friend. And if someone is trying to repress free speech—that tells us something important. this does not seem to apply to social networks and YouTube. tons of ppl and content creators have been censored or terminated for making certain content and remarks outside of the overton window.
- socalnate1 7y agoThis is chapter six of a much, much longer article; (which is not yet all published). Make sure you read it with that understanding, this is not intended to be read in isolation. https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/story-of-us.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/story-of-us.html