5 ms·
A lot of us have seen the rage machine polarize someone into partisan insanity. I like to think I'm resistant to this, but I've seen it happen to people who are
by lkbm 3y ago
A lot of us have seen the rage machine polarize someone into partisan insanity. I like to think I'm resistant to this, but I've seen it happen to people who are probably smarter than me. I'd say it's more common with the elderly, but I'm not really sure that's true—there are plenty of Tankies and retvrn crazies in their twenties.
News in its current form is clearly an infohazard. It may be useful to have an awareness of what's going on in the world, but if you find yourself thinking "the other side" are all evil or stupid, you're headed down the same path as so many others who have let the culture war detach them from reality. Take a break. Reassess.
Arguing on the Internet is addicting. Anger is addicting. Turn it off and go have fun with your friends, or build something. If you want to stay aware of what's going on, reading a summary on Wikipedia will give you better information than watching an endless cycle of "look at this bad/stupid person!" videos on Twitter or Facebook.
Honestly, if you just read Wikipedia summaries (or other "calm" summaries) you'll end up better informed than the people who criticize you for burying your head in the sand. Don't let them bully you into joining their anger dopamine frenzy.
- Zetice 3y agoYou can try to avoid bias and “infohazards” but you’ll be unable to completely eliminate them. Better to live with the tools to disarm the hazard than spend your life hiding from anything “exciting”.
- lkbm 3y agoThe intent is not to hide from them or completely eliminate them, but to notice when you're being affected and seeking out more and more. Recognizing their effects and reduce exposure when you notice them taking over is one of the main tools.
- Zetice 3y agoLearning how to freely take in the content without being meaningfully effected is another of the main tools.
- lkbm 3y agoIdeally yes, but this is roughly the same as saying "advertising doesn't influence me". Seems like everyone believes this about themselves, but I'm doubtful that many of them are right. It gets smart people all the time. Good "epistemic hygiene" can go a long way, but recognize that people pretty much always have a blind spot around their own cognitive vulnerabilities, and that includes oneself. Recognize the signs and watch for them in yourself, especially if you're actively seeking exposure.
- Zetice 3y agoNone of what you wrote here leads to the advice that one should, as a matter of regular course, hide from or disengage in understanding what is going on around them, however.
- lkbm 3y agoYeah, I very specifically did not advocate for disengaging from understanding what's going on. I recommended ways in which you can stay informed about what's going on while avoiding the downsides. I'm not endorsing the specific recommendations of the article. I only endorse what I myself stated above.
- Zetice 3y agoYou may have avoided it in your reply to me, but the comment I replied to of yours clearly suggests people disengage from understanding what is going on around them, rather than learn how to extract value from unreliable sources.
- lkbm 3y agoI'm not sure precisely what you're referring to. I recommended reading Wikipedia for less-sensationalist summaries rather than watching videos designed to anger, and specifically said that I believe this will leave you better informed, not uninformed. I said to disengage from the things that are designed to addict you to outrage and to instead engage with things that are designed to keep you informed. If you interpret this as "disengage from understanding what is going on around them", well, sorry, but the last paragraph of my original comment is talking about you.
- Capricorn2481 3y ago> Honestly, if you just read Wikipedia summaries A good portion of the country will reject info you get from Wikipedia. We're all moving to a post-truth world.