6 ms·

> But my point is that people do not find realistic opinions that interesting. Saying "I don't know" or "both sides have merit" is sometimes accurate but never

> But my point is that people do not find realistic opinions that interesting. Saying "I don't know" or "both sides have merit" is sometimes accurate but never interesting. Society selects for this. I completely agree with you, and "Society selects for this" is a decent explanation (I would add in culture) - but isn't it strange that there seem to be so few outliers? And I'm not talking about disinterested centrists, but more like people who are interested in the meta aspect, the fact that approximately no one is interested in what is actually true (that they do not know, that both sides typically do have some merit), especially when compared to how people really are (they do not know that they do not know, they (commonly) cannot realize or even consider the possibility that each side usually has some valid points....rather, a very common phrase I hear nowadays is "I've had enough of this 'both sides!'"). Isn't it strange that this is the nature of the system that we live in, and isn't it even stranger that hardly anyone seems to find it odd? > What is frustrating is that society reproduces so much of this nonsense. It's frustrating for sure, but if you think about it: why wouldn't it produce nonsense? Like, we've been having these sorts of issues for decades - we see more of it (and I suspect more exists) because of the internet, but we haven't really changed much about the way we do things (if anything, any new tool we get is used to crank the insanity even higher), so does it make sense to expect it to improve over time?

wolverine876 5y ago
> And I'm not talking about disinterested centrists, but more like people who are interested in the meta aspect, the fact that approximately no one is interested in what is actually true (that they do not know, that both sides typically do have some merit) I think you can find plenty of that kind of discussion the academic/professional sphere, though it's small in proportion to the greatly increased radicalized chatter. That's part of the point of radicalization and propaganda - to politicize everything, to the point where there is no truth, just partisan claims and suspicion. They are doing an effective job, but we don't have to go along with it - I simply refuse to read the partisan stuff; there is plenty to read, especially from the entirety of human history before the last several years. > we've been having these sorts of issues for decades Polarization and, IIRC, radicalization, have increased dramatically recently.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > I think you can find plenty of that kind of discussion the academic/professional sphere, though it's small in proportion to the greatly increased radicalized chatter. Agree. You can find "plenty", of a certain quality (but how high?) Compare this to the activity and quality of discussion in the history of philosophy though, an academic undertaking that seems to have taken a seat at the kids table in modern times. > That's part of the point of radicalization and propaganda - to politicize everything, to the point where there is no truth, just partisan claims and suspicion. I firmly believe that much of what you are referring to is to a large degree consciously ~engineered. But also at the same time, I think we should be extremely mindful of emergence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence > They are doing an effective job, but we don't have to go along with it - I simply refuse to read the partisan stuff; there is plenty to read, especially from the entirety of human history before the last several years. I prefer reading some of it on an ongoing basis and studying its nature, the ~techniques, the effects, how it alters the perception of the public, etc. Study it as a system, understand how it works, why things are the way they are, how it can be influenced, etc. > Polarization and, IIRC, radicalization, have increased dramatically recently. Very true. The internet and mass media is powerful, much of it is controlled by a relatively small number of people, and is increasingly censored and propagandized. And yet, things are still quite open, many opportunities, channels, and attack vectors are available, for now.

wolverine876 5y ago

> And I'm not talking about disinterested centrists, but more like people who are interested in the meta aspect, the fact that approximately no one is interested in what is actually true (that they do not know, that both sides typically do have some merit) I think you can find plenty of that kind of discussion the academic/professional sphere, though it's small in proportion to the greatly increased radicalized chatter. That's part of the point of radicalization and propaganda - to politicize everything, to the point where there is no truth, just partisan claims and suspicion. They are doing an effective job, but we don't have to go along with it - I simply refuse to read the partisan stuff; there is plenty to read, especially from the entirety of human history before the last several years. > we've been having these sorts of issues for decades Polarization and, IIRC, radicalization, have increased dramatically recently.

mistermann 5y ago
> I think you can find plenty of that kind of discussion the academic/professional sphere, though it's small in proportion to the greatly increased radicalized chatter. Agree. You can find "plenty", of a certain quality (but how high?) Compare this to the activity and quality of discussion in the history of philosophy though, an academic undertaking that seems to have taken a seat at the kids table in modern times. > That's part of the point of radicalization and propaganda - to politicize everything, to the point where there is no truth, just partisan claims and suspicion. I firmly believe that much of what you are referring to is to a large degree consciously ~engineered. But also at the same time, I think we should be extremely mindful of emergence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence > They are doing an effective job, but we don't have to go along with it - I simply refuse to read the partisan stuff; there is plenty to read, especially from the entirety of human history before the last several years. I prefer reading some of it on an ongoing basis and studying its nature, the ~techniques, the effects, how it alters the perception of the public, etc. Study it as a system, understand how it works, why things are the way they are, how it can be influenced, etc. > Polarization and, IIRC, radicalization, have increased dramatically recently. Very true. The internet and mass media is powerful, much of it is controlled by a relatively small number of people, and is increasingly censored and propagandized. And yet, things are still quite open, many opportunities, channels, and attack vectors are available, for now.