2 ms·

I agree with you and your idea makes much sense. I've been thinking about how beneficial alliances could be implemented in a number of fields for some years and

I agree with you and your idea makes much sense. I've been thinking about how beneficial alliances could be implemented in a number of fields for some years and have wondered why it hasn't happened on a big scale before this. That said, I would love to chat, form alliances etc. with you and others but I would not do it on Skype or on any Google platform/medium and or Facebook etc. for the very reasons that you are talking about. For starters, I no longer use Skype and I don't even have a Google account let alone use any of their services. Communications would have to be on Tox or some other peer-to-peer communications system that cannot be corrupted by these new owners of the internet. Using any of their services would only aid and abet the problems we're having or trying to solve. In my opinion an independent communications framework must be prerequisite and in place before any proper dialog can take place. Incidentally, I'm one of those people who use rooted smartphones without Google Play Services or any other Google service installed; that's to say I practice what I preach.

dennis_jeeves 7y ago
>I've been thinking about how beneficial alliances could be implemented in a number of fields for some years and have wondered why it hasn't happened on a big scale before this. Well I think there are a number of factors at play here. For one, most reasonable ( and who are grounded in reality) people actually think they can have a dialog with people who are delusional. They do not recognize that low IQ is a formidable barrier. They confuse not having a dialog with being the hardline right-wing types. They confuse low IQ with merely being ignorant. Essentially they squander their efforts in trying to 'convince' ordinary people. ( not saying there is no value to it, after all that is what marketing is) As to why it has not happens on large scale - well consider my post for example - that also requires some thick skin to put it out there. >Communications would have to be on Tox or some other peer-to-peer communications system that cannot be corrupted by these new owners of the internet. Ok, give me links and ids. I've never used Tox( Ofcourse I will do a search for Tox right after I type this post this message) >Using any of their services would only aid and abet the problems we're having or trying to solve. In my opinion an independent communications framework must be prerequisite and in place before any proper dialog can take place. Agreed.
- hilbert42 7y ago
  1. Give me a while to think about it. I don't use Tox much but I could easily resurrect it (it's installed on this PC but I'd likely create another user account first specifically for the purpose). Tox was only my passing suggestion, other peer-to-peer services may be better or have better software (and Tox isn't updated much although it seems to work reasonably well). Therefore, it would be interesting to hear what others have to recommend. 2. Re comment about IQ etc. I cannot paraphrase this or give an adequate reply here without sounding pompous and elitist (which I reckon I'm not); to do so would take me many pages to ensure anything I said wasn't misinterpreted or could be easily taken out of context. Nevertheless, at the risk of using a now overly hackneyed reference together with insufficient supporting argument, what I will say is that for many who I've encountered the Dunning-Kruger effect is very evident. I've some quite intelligent friends and acquaintances with whom I just cannot discuss certain subjects because their views and beliefs about them are so locked-in that they consider them inviolate—even though their views about said matters are clearly wrong. Discussing these matters with them is clearly a waste of time. These days, the tragedy is that so few are taught argument and formal logic when they're young enough so as to get into the habit of regularly questioning and testing their beliefs with others and against external evidence. If anything, I'm too much the opposite, I overly question my stance or beliefs on too many things and that too can be a hindrance. Excluding people from a discussion because their views are wrong or they're cognitively inflexible is both a delicate and complex problem, especially so if one believes that everyone deserves a fair hearing (which is essentially what I believe). One of the problems that we have these days is that many believe they are not listened to by elites/governments etc. and I reckon this is true. The trouble is that the internet and social media have made matters worse so how one develops channels of communication among like-minded people and not be seen as elitist, thus exacerbating the matter is a delicate problem, and I'm not sure I've an answer that's better than anyone else. What I've said above is somewhat clumsy, which is what happens when one tries to oversimplify an argument, nevertheless you'll get the gist of what I mean. 3. For various reasons, I've not much time to devote to such things nor am I all that regular as a correspondent but that could also be said about many. It's why discussions groups should be as wide and flexible as is practicable but still be kept strictly on topic. That's why a good but fair moderator is needed.

dennis_jeeves 7y ago

>I've been thinking about how beneficial alliances could be implemented in a number of fields for some years and have wondered why it hasn't happened on a big scale before this. Well I think there are a number of factors at play here. For one, most reasonable ( and who are grounded in reality) people actually think they can have a dialog with people who are delusional. They do not recognize that low IQ is a formidable barrier. They confuse not having a dialog with being the hardline right-wing types. They confuse low IQ with merely being ignorant. Essentially they squander their efforts in trying to 'convince' ordinary people. ( not saying there is no value to it, after all that is what marketing is) As to why it has not happens on large scale - well consider my post for example - that also requires some thick skin to put it out there. >Communications would have to be on Tox or some other peer-to-peer communications system that cannot be corrupted by these new owners of the internet. Ok, give me links and ids. I've never used Tox( Ofcourse I will do a search for Tox right after I type this post this message) >Using any of their services would only aid and abet the problems we're having or trying to solve. In my opinion an independent communications framework must be prerequisite and in place before any proper dialog can take place. Agreed.

hilbert42 7y ago
1. Give me a while to think about it. I don't use Tox much but I could easily resurrect it (it's installed on this PC but I'd likely create another user account first specifically for the purpose). Tox was only my passing suggestion, other peer-to-peer services may be better or have better software (and Tox isn't updated much although it seems to work reasonably well). Therefore, it would be interesting to hear what others have to recommend. 2. Re comment about IQ etc. I cannot paraphrase this or give an adequate reply here without sounding pompous and elitist (which I reckon I'm not); to do so would take me many pages to ensure anything I said wasn't misinterpreted or could be easily taken out of context. Nevertheless, at the risk of using a now overly hackneyed reference together with insufficient supporting argument, what I will say is that for many who I've encountered the Dunning-Kruger effect is very evident. I've some quite intelligent friends and acquaintances with whom I just cannot discuss certain subjects because their views and beliefs about them are so locked-in that they consider them inviolate—even though their views about said matters are clearly wrong. Discussing these matters with them is clearly a waste of time. These days, the tragedy is that so few are taught argument and formal logic when they're young enough so as to get into the habit of regularly questioning and testing their beliefs with others and against external evidence. If anything, I'm too much the opposite, I overly question my stance or beliefs on too many things and that too can be a hindrance. Excluding people from a discussion because their views are wrong or they're cognitively inflexible is both a delicate and complex problem, especially so if one believes that everyone deserves a fair hearing (which is essentially what I believe). One of the problems that we have these days is that many believe they are not listened to by elites/governments etc. and I reckon this is true. The trouble is that the internet and social media have made matters worse so how one develops channels of communication among like-minded people and not be seen as elitist, thus exacerbating the matter is a delicate problem, and I'm not sure I've an answer that's better than anyone else. What I've said above is somewhat clumsy, which is what happens when one tries to oversimplify an argument, nevertheless you'll get the gist of what I mean. 3. For various reasons, I've not much time to devote to such things nor am I all that regular as a correspondent but that could also be said about many. It's why discussions groups should be as wide and flexible as is practicable but still be kept strictly on topic. That's why a good but fair moderator is needed.