5 ms·

> Can we please stop reading history and stories as things that people in the past slavishly believed to the letter like unthinking machines? Of course stories

> Can we please stop reading history and stories as things that people in the past slavishly believed to the letter like unthinking machines? Of course stories about leaders glorify them. People back them did not had so many information. All negative information about the king or leader was (self) censored. Look at cult Steve Jobs had in his lifetime, he was far from perfect, but nobody cared. Or some political leaders, despite all the corruption, drugs...

avgcorrection 3y ago
You don’t need to have so many information in order to think for yourself. You can choose to believe it or not. I could make a manifesto about being the greatest person to have ever lived. People are not going to believe it just because there doesn’t exist a counter-manifesto about me.
- tcgv 3y ago
  We live in an era defined by information and science. It may seem natural for us to adopt a skeptical stance and question long-standing myths, as we've been encouraged to do so—it's ingrained in our education system and our culture. That certainly wasn't the norm in the medieval times when people lived a restrained rural life without access to education and under totalitarian regimes.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    Half-correct in a completely incorrect way. Who’s more indoctrinated: someone who lives off the land and has all the free-mind time in the world since he does manual work all day? Or someone who went through over a decade of Prussian-inspired conformity/workplace training (schooling)? And gets information-saturated from all free angles throughout the day?[1] Of course you won’t be convinced either way so there is no point pursuing this. [1] The mind is not like a vessel that you fill up with knowledge and facts.
    - kiba 3y ago
      Half-correct in a completely incorrect way. Who’s more indoctrinated: someone who lives off the land and has all the free-mind time in the world since he does manual work all day? Or someone who went through over a decade of Prussian-inspired conformity/workplace training (schooling)? And gets information-saturated from all free angles throughout the day? It's inaccurate to think of Prussian school as a system of conformity. Rather that's the opposite intention.[1] 1. http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/25/factory-model http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/25/factory-model
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        I skimmed your little heterodoxy. I don’t see how that applies to my argument. I guess the “Prussian” model was quite anarchic and freeing? I’m not some Khan Academy, tech-optimistic, gadgets-will-solve everything type that your article seems to be arguing against.
  - wolvesechoes 3y ago
    'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...
- kiba 3y ago
  Thinking for yourself required knowledge and actual study, not just something people can do on a moment's notice. For example, thinking about the movie 300(2006) required some knowledge of how aristocratic Sparta actually works. It's basically a fascist movie glorifying the brutality of Spartan warriors with no question on its actual efficacy as a fighting force(unremarkable). I recommend this essay on why Sparta sucks.[1] 1. https://aeon.co/essays/who-are-the-leaders-in-our-heads-and-how-did-they-get-there https://aeon.co/essays/who-are-the-leaders-in-our-heads-and-...
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    Thinking for yourself requires just existing. That goes for anyone who is not being indoctrinated into a cult.
    - kiba 3y ago
      Thinking for yourself requires just existing. That goes for anyone who is not being indoctrinated into a cult. The mistake is thinking that you can just "think for yourself" without possessing knowledge. I think people who avoid scams, cults, and pseudoscience largely does it through general knowledge and heuristics, not by thinking hard.
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        > The mistake is thinking that you can just "think for yourself" without possessing knowledge. This is clearly a mistake since EVERYONE THINKS FOR THEMSELVES WITHOUT BEING SPOON-FED IT. A person needs to be socialized enough to develop language. As long as you’re more human-sociable than a chimpanzee-raised jungle child, that base is covered. You don’t need much more beyond that in order to “think”. > I think people who avoid scams, cults, and pseudoscience largely does it through general knowledge and heuristics, not by thinking hard. Everyone has built-in heuristics. Why do you think “rationalists” complain about “cognitive biases” so much? We need heuristics to survive. Something which we did prior to Prussian-inspired schooling.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
karaterobot 3y ago
I think the contrary is more likely to be true: that people from that era had a vivid inner life and curiosity about the universe. They talked about things with each other. It's hard to censor thoughts, or discussions between people. A good book about this is The Cheese and the Worms by Carlo Ginzburg, focusing on the trial of a single peasant in the 16th century.

avgcorrection 3y ago

You don’t need to have so many information in order to think for yourself. You can choose to believe it or not. I could make a manifesto about being the greatest person to have ever lived. People are not going to believe it just because there doesn’t exist a counter-manifesto about me.

tcgv 3y ago
We live in an era defined by information and science. It may seem natural for us to adopt a skeptical stance and question long-standing myths, as we've been encouraged to do so—it's ingrained in our education system and our culture. That certainly wasn't the norm in the medieval times when people lived a restrained rural life without access to education and under totalitarian regimes.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Half-correct in a completely incorrect way. Who’s more indoctrinated: someone who lives off the land and has all the free-mind time in the world since he does manual work all day? Or someone who went through over a decade of Prussian-inspired conformity/workplace training (schooling)? And gets information-saturated from all free angles throughout the day?[1] Of course you won’t be convinced either way so there is no point pursuing this. [1] The mind is not like a vessel that you fill up with knowledge and facts.
  - kiba 3y ago
    Half-correct in a completely incorrect way. Who’s more indoctrinated: someone who lives off the land and has all the free-mind time in the world since he does manual work all day? Or someone who went through over a decade of Prussian-inspired conformity/workplace training (schooling)? And gets information-saturated from all free angles throughout the day? It's inaccurate to think of Prussian school as a system of conformity. Rather that's the opposite intention.[1] 1. http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/25/factory-model http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/25/factory-model
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      I skimmed your little heterodoxy. I don’t see how that applies to my argument. I guess the “Prussian” model was quite anarchic and freeing? I’m not some Khan Academy, tech-optimistic, gadgets-will-solve everything type that your article seems to be arguing against.
- wolvesechoes 3y ago
  'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...
kiba 3y ago
Thinking for yourself required knowledge and actual study, not just something people can do on a moment's notice. For example, thinking about the movie 300(2006) required some knowledge of how aristocratic Sparta actually works. It's basically a fascist movie glorifying the brutality of Spartan warriors with no question on its actual efficacy as a fighting force(unremarkable). I recommend this essay on why Sparta sucks.[1] 1. https://aeon.co/essays/who-are-the-leaders-in-our-heads-and-how-did-they-get-there https://aeon.co/essays/who-are-the-leaders-in-our-heads-and-...
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Thinking for yourself requires just existing. That goes for anyone who is not being indoctrinated into a cult.
  - kiba 3y ago
    Thinking for yourself requires just existing. That goes for anyone who is not being indoctrinated into a cult. The mistake is thinking that you can just "think for yourself" without possessing knowledge. I think people who avoid scams, cults, and pseudoscience largely does it through general knowledge and heuristics, not by thinking hard.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > The mistake is thinking that you can just "think for yourself" without possessing knowledge. This is clearly a mistake since EVERYONE THINKS FOR THEMSELVES WITHOUT BEING SPOON-FED IT. A person needs to be socialized enough to develop language. As long as you’re more human-sociable than a chimpanzee-raised jungle child, that base is covered. You don’t need much more beyond that in order to “think”. > I think people who avoid scams, cults, and pseudoscience largely does it through general knowledge and heuristics, not by thinking hard. Everyone has built-in heuristics. Why do you think “rationalists” complain about “cognitive biases” so much? We need heuristics to survive. Something which we did prior to Prussian-inspired schooling.
- drewcoo 3y ago

karaterobot 3y ago

I think the contrary is more likely to be true: that people from that era had a vivid inner life and curiosity about the universe. They talked about things with each other. It's hard to censor thoughts, or discussions between people. A good book about this is The Cheese and the Worms by Carlo Ginzburg, focusing on the trial of a single peasant in the 16th century.