24 ms·

This problem is far deeper and more complex than the author makes it out to be. I have yet to see a single detailed explanation that actually touches on all the

This problem is far deeper and more complex than the author makes it out to be. I have yet to see a single detailed explanation that actually touches on all the intricacies involved: from blog posts to documentaries, they all are incomplete at best or wrong at worst. So of course, the proposed solutions are necessarily incomplete, as they're not working from a comprehensive understanding of the problem. I don't know how to solve this. The problem isn't recent, it's at least decades old, if not centuries. As far as I can tell, it boils down to a lack of effort to reconcile the experiences of disparate groups, and the need to contextualize their ideologies within those experiences. This fundamentally means that one person's facts can be another person's fiction, and the line between the two should be tread carefully. For a long time, this problem was sidestepped entirely, as groups simply avoided one another or had minimal contact.The problem was exacerbated in the modern world, and has been brought to its most extreme conclusion through the internet. Institutional authority today speaks with too much unearned certainty. Those who share that certainty will be appeased, and those who do not will be incensed. I do not know how to solve this problem. Neither does anyone else, though. That includes the author of this article, who doesn't even understand the problem in the first place. If there is one takeaway, however, that I would like people to have, it is this: just because someone disagrees with you, or refuses to acknowledge facts of which you are certain, does not mean they are stupid. It is entirely possible it is you who are missing something. Be uncertain.

loopz 6y ago
The solution is simple, yet unoptimized entirely but for the smallest union of people: Empathy The incentive everywhere need to be to empathize and understand our differences, to bridge the gaps. When one looks at the overall business world, which is institutionalized war and injustice, against people and environment, there is much to work with. All the logic in the world won't right these wrongs.
- Siira 6y ago
  Most people don’t have that much empathy. Most of them don’t even want it. (I certainly don’t want it.) Your solution is basically adding terms for other people to everyone’s utility function. It would require a super-Orwellian effort to pull that off. The truth is that there is no panacea at all, and we need to design sound game theoretic mechanisms for every single thing we care about.
  - loopz 6y ago
    With empathy comes many gifts, well-being, and a culture that is more sustainable.

loopz 6y ago

The solution is simple, yet unoptimized entirely but for the smallest union of people: Empathy The incentive everywhere need to be to empathize and understand our differences, to bridge the gaps. When one looks at the overall business world, which is institutionalized war and injustice, against people and environment, there is much to work with. All the logic in the world won't right these wrongs.

Siira 6y ago
Most people don’t have that much empathy. Most of them don’t even want it. (I certainly don’t want it.) Your solution is basically adding terms for other people to everyone’s utility function. It would require a super-Orwellian effort to pull that off. The truth is that there is no panacea at all, and we need to design sound game theoretic mechanisms for every single thing we care about.
- loopz 6y ago
  With empathy comes many gifts, well-being, and a culture that is more sustainable.