> If we could just get people who aren't informed to recognize that they're not informed and not have an opinion, that would be a huge win for civil discourse.

> If we could just get people who aren't informed to recognize that they're not informed and not have an opinion, that would be a huge win for civil discourse. I agree, but I think this falls into the category of "we've tried literally nothing and we're all out of ideas". If someone is sitting on a pile of $, I think something quite effective (but oh, would it be controversial) could be built. > I'm suggesting that you have the will to say "I am not fully informed" when you don't know the answer. "The spirit (will) is willing (well, sometimes) but the flesh is weak". Free will, heuristics, and consciousness/reality are extremely complex topics. I believe very strongly that modern day people have this ability in similar quantities to the ability of people from 50 years ago to not be racist. It is innate, second nature, System 1, outside their control. From below: >> Eventually you have to trust someone with something. You have to. While this is not logically, physically, necessarily true, I think this is literally true for most people, as a consequence of the evolved nature of consciousness, combined with culturally-ingrained norms, one of which is whether philosophy was a part of the educational curriculum one was exposed to... And even then, how good one is at it, in fact (which is typically inaccessible, thus imagined/simulated). Another: >> To you, the danger is not knowing that there are, in fact, lizard people controlling the government. To me, the danger is in ending up spending my free time poring over fringe lizard-people Twitter. Also simulated. Sure, it's "just snark", "speaking colloquially", {excuse du jour}, but I wonder if the mind atrophies with lack of use like muscles do.