3 ms·

I believe most disinformation problems we face could be eradicated by reading more books. Not because the book might be 100% accurate, but because most social m

by prox 5y ago

I believe most disinformation problems we face could be eradicated by reading more books. Not because the book might be 100% accurate, but because most social media debates are as a deep as puddle (not HN) and epistemologically lacking, and books prevent that and offer avenues for debates. It’s not a cure-all of course, but it gives it scaffolding for meaningful debates. The best online debates I had were on moderated IRC channels set up for that purpose. I agree with the unskilled use of discourse and the data factor.

mdp2021 5y ago
Is it possible that, with your reference to «books», you mean "preliminary to participating to debates, one should have an education (in-depth intellectual training), and a continuous effort towards it"? This should go without saying. The issue is to find the best sources for information and analysis, and the "book" form does not solve the issue.
- qsort 5y ago
  Certainly an essay being written in book form is not a guarantee of higher quality, but incentives and dispositions towards different types of media do matter at least a bit. The act of reading a book encourages the - let's admit it - painstaking act of actively questioning what's being said, cross-checking when necessary, and eventually reaching your own conclusions in a way that Twitter hot takes don't. The intuition and discipline it takes to apply that kind of rigor takes time to develop, arguably a lifetime.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Can you see educated people «reaching [their] own ["]conclusions["] [with] Twitter» - apart from getting elements for judging the speaker (not the matter)? Who would seek knowledge from stubs - and disorganized, "latest without history", and thrown in the unregulated chaos? We have been educated through books since substantially forever, who would call "writings on a daily repainted wall" credible competition? The new ways recently born, and quickly massively misused - for not wanting to see them for what they are, in their limits, and to ride the wave of new games -, seem to have deviated the attention of some to the preexisting context and its already present issues: a large amount of imperfect material (in credible formats) was published. In many Countries critical thinking is (was?) taught with basic education: we have always known that problems are not trivial (centuries of theological debates in front of a Revelation?!). Now: books are what you must have used and continuously use for intellectual preparation; in the current fast dynamics we need more of articles for information and competent analysis. The problem does not change: identifying reliable sources. And the typical solution has always been: identifying the most convincing "authorities", and following them cum grano salis et caveats, judgement always alert, for as long as they will be human.
    - prox 5y ago
      As long as you doubt, you learn. And as you doubt you also keep striving for the best quality sources or insights. It’s indeed a lifelong skill, but it also starts with picking up the first book that helps you contextualize information.

by prox 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago

Is it possible that, with your reference to «books», you mean "preliminary to participating to debates, one should have an education (in-depth intellectual training), and a continuous effort towards it"? This should go without saying. The issue is to find the best sources for information and analysis, and the "book" form does not solve the issue.

qsort 5y ago
Certainly an essay being written in book form is not a guarantee of higher quality, but incentives and dispositions towards different types of media do matter at least a bit. The act of reading a book encourages the - let's admit it - painstaking act of actively questioning what's being said, cross-checking when necessary, and eventually reaching your own conclusions in a way that Twitter hot takes don't. The intuition and discipline it takes to apply that kind of rigor takes time to develop, arguably a lifetime.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Can you see educated people «reaching [their] own ["]conclusions["] [with] Twitter» - apart from getting elements for judging the speaker (not the matter)? Who would seek knowledge from stubs - and disorganized, "latest without history", and thrown in the unregulated chaos? We have been educated through books since substantially forever, who would call "writings on a daily repainted wall" credible competition? The new ways recently born, and quickly massively misused - for not wanting to see them for what they are, in their limits, and to ride the wave of new games -, seem to have deviated the attention of some to the preexisting context and its already present issues: a large amount of imperfect material (in credible formats) was published. In many Countries critical thinking is (was?) taught with basic education: we have always known that problems are not trivial (centuries of theological debates in front of a Revelation?!). Now: books are what you must have used and continuously use for intellectual preparation; in the current fast dynamics we need more of articles for information and competent analysis. The problem does not change: identifying reliable sources. And the typical solution has always been: identifying the most convincing "authorities", and following them cum grano salis et caveats, judgement always alert, for as long as they will be human.
  - prox 5y ago
    As long as you doubt, you learn. And as you doubt you also keep striving for the best quality sources or insights. It’s indeed a lifelong skill, but it also starts with picking up the first book that helps you contextualize information.