4 ms·

> Hearing something you might disagree with is part of life and very important to critical thinking. I believe this is 100% true. Unfortunately, the vast majo

by jmcqk6 7y ago

> Hearing something you might disagree with is part of life and very important to critical thinking. I believe this is 100% true. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the skills to handle this. Look at the anger that appears on this site when certain topics are brought up. So people have a hard time dealing with ideas they disagree with, but I doubt that forced interaction with those ideas will improve the situation. We can see empirically that the most common reaction is to double down on your own ideas, get defensive, and generally react in a very self-centered and egotistical manner. That's the current situation. Would banning political ads make this problem worse? I think I can see the logic here - people will only seek out what they agree with. But it's not like political ads are the only way that they might be forced to see something they disagree with. The only way to do that these days would be to be completely off grid somewhere and never to see anyone else. It's also the case that political ads probably provide the worse kind of perspective of views you disagree with. The solution to the problem is to find a way to get people to break out of their ego-based thinking. A lot of magical things can happen when people are honestly committed to finding the truth, instead of protecting what they think the truth is.

WaitWaitWha 7y ago
> Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the skills to handle this. I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. So, unfortunately, the vast majority of people no longer have the skills to handle this. > ... double down on your own ideas, get defensive, and generally react in a very self-centered and egotistical manner. > ... find a way to get people to break out of their ego-based thinking Yes. I think at least in western society (and I start to see this in Asia too) the self-importance crept in, replacing self-reliance. How did we get here, and how do we "break out"?
- inetknght 7y ago
  > How did we get here Everything about modern American culture; a nation of throwaway everything. Throwaway food, throwaway tools, throwaway friends, throwaway jobs. > and how do we "break out"? I dunno but maybe listen to and work to solve the things people complain about? Income inequality, global warming, healthcare including mental health, education, penal system, politics
  - mc32 7y ago
    All good causes but I think it’s tangential. People who are unaffected by all that haven’t “broken out”.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. Propaganda is not a new thing and the reason it was and is widely used is because it works. "But it would not work on smart people like me, but only on millenials or ...". Hint: If everybody considers themselves smarter than average...
- testuser66 7y ago
  > I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. I am not so sure that we changed so rapidly. It would also make sense that this is not new, and it has just become more apparent in the last few decades, as people have been increasingly communicating with with more other people than ever before. I think the vast majority of people never had the reason/opportunity to acquire critical thinking skills. It has been discussed by philosophers hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago, so I think it's safe to assume it's not new. But regardless, I believe the real issue here is that we are not doing much to teach people to think critically.
- brycesbeard 7y ago
  What makes you think this is different? I think this process is baked into the structure of our brains and is part of the inherently biased way our brains operate.
- IX-103 7y ago
  I don't think there is a change in skills to handle this. I think that what happened is that now information travels so quickly while the variety of information sources people consume has decreased. Before people had time to think about news and talk to people with different views and get push back. That additional friction slowed the spread of misinformation and guaranteed it would mix with the information. When given both, a sufficient portion of the population was able to determine which was which. Then these people could moderate the discussion with targeted persuasive arguments. Sure, a lot of people still believed the misinformation, but they were less confident about it. Now the information and misinformation travel separate channels. By the time they meet odds are the people involved are already emotionally invested in one or the other.

by jmcqk6 7y ago

WaitWaitWha 7y ago

> Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the skills to handle this. I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. So, unfortunately, the vast majority of people no longer have the skills to handle this. > ... double down on your own ideas, get defensive, and generally react in a very self-centered and egotistical manner. > ... find a way to get people to break out of their ego-based thinking Yes. I think at least in western society (and I start to see this in Asia too) the self-importance crept in, replacing self-reliance. How did we get here, and how do we "break out"?

inetknght 7y ago
> How did we get here Everything about modern American culture; a nation of throwaway everything. Throwaway food, throwaway tools, throwaway friends, throwaway jobs. > and how do we "break out"? I dunno but maybe listen to and work to solve the things people complain about? Income inequality, global warming, healthcare including mental health, education, penal system, politics
- mc32 7y ago
  All good causes but I think it’s tangential. People who are unaffected by all that haven’t “broken out”.
diffeomorphism 7y ago
> I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. Propaganda is not a new thing and the reason it was and is widely used is because it works. "But it would not work on smart people like me, but only on millenials or ...". Hint: If everybody considers themselves smarter than average...
testuser66 7y ago
> I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. I am not so sure that we changed so rapidly. It would also make sense that this is not new, and it has just become more apparent in the last few decades, as people have been increasingly communicating with with more other people than ever before. I think the vast majority of people never had the reason/opportunity to acquire critical thinking skills. It has been discussed by philosophers hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago, so I think it's safe to assume it's not new. But regardless, I believe the real issue here is that we are not doing much to teach people to think critically.
brycesbeard 7y ago
What makes you think this is different? I think this process is baked into the structure of our brains and is part of the inherently biased way our brains operate.
IX-103 7y ago
I don't think there is a change in skills to handle this. I think that what happened is that now information travels so quickly while the variety of information sources people consume has decreased. Before people had time to think about news and talk to people with different views and get push back. That additional friction slowed the spread of misinformation and guaranteed it would mix with the information. When given both, a sufficient portion of the population was able to determine which was which. Then these people could moderate the discussion with targeted persuasive arguments. Sure, a lot of people still believed the misinformation, but they were less confident about it. Now the information and misinformation travel separate channels. By the time they meet odds are the people involved are already emotionally invested in one or the other.