> This is a really oblique response. Could you be more explicit about what "not-actually-true "truths"" you're referring to? It's not always so cut and dried a

> This is a really oblique response. Could you be more explicit about what "not-actually-true "truths"" you're referring to? It's not always so cut and dried as ~"false truths", but more like normalcy/convention/cultural-norms are unquestioned. Look how we conduct journalism, in largely narrative form with a few cherry picked stats here and there. What the media decides and broadcasts is reality is what "mainstream" consumers believe/perceive reality is composed of. Sure, freedom of speech allows differing opinions to be broadcast, to some degree (and with limitations), but we have decades of experience in seeing that the Right beliefs are what prevail, attaching a "conspiracy theory" sticker is just one of the latest. Take "democracy", our most sacred institution - there are an infinite number of variations of democracy, but how many people think of it any more complexly than a binary? Yes, vigorous debate is allowed and even encouraged about mild tweaks, but how often does one encounter discussion of fundamental changes to how we practice democracy? Take our financial system - I think we're all aware of some of the interesting decisions that are made in this area on a regular basis. Consider covid and the "moral obligation" people have to get vaccinated and put up with any financial hardship resulting from lockdowns. I'm not opposing this on its own, but why is saving the lives of primarily boomers who've lived long, relatively lovely lives a moral imperative, spare no expense, and anyone who doesn't fall in line is considered selfish if not evil....but when it comes to children around the world dying of malnutrition, or people at home dying from drug issues, why is there zero moral imperative? "That's different"? Indeed it is, but I would very much like to see it stated explicitly and precisely why one "is" a moral imperative that demands setting aside all other concerns, and the others do not. If it is actually about saving lives, shouldn't we be concerned about all lives? Take how we live in general: how we educate our children and the public ((or don't as is often the case - see: financial literacy, critical thinking, etc), how we choose to design our cities, you name it. All of this is just "how it is", rarely do we seriously question the optimality of the fundamental ways we run things. But when something goes wrong, oh boy are we quick to point a finger at this or that policy/person, typically with zero regard whatsoever for the comprehensive causality that preceded the event. I propose that it is the psychological phenomenon/exploit described in this parable that enables this comedy of errors to continue on generation after generation, and I do not think I am the only person who is well aware of it: There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”