It's even worse: the views that folks are getting all worked up about, aren't their own personally formed opinions -- they are being programmed with these opinions via media, advertising, etc.
Then we hold these opinions so strongly that if we disagree about anything at all -- any nuance, out of the infinite menu of "correct" opinions -- we argue bitterly ... driving apart friends, families, etc.
We must learn to hold opinions more lightly and to value direct experiences & physical relationships with real people, more than virtual experience.
It's sad because at the end of the day we all have so much in common, but we are becoming convinced that we're so different and what's more, that others are in fact evil people. Great pain and trouble might come from this trend.
This. Talking to people on both sides, it's all just regurgitation of headlines and pundits. Most people know how to deal with people who are "with" them or "against" them, but don't know how to react to someone who partially agrees, or agrees on issues, but not solutions. Anything outside of mainstream rhetoric is immediately labeled conspiratorial. Which is strange to me. Most people on both sides seem to recognize the media is rigged by big money, but they don't seem equipped or encouraged to form their own opinions that incorporate this knowledge.
Also I think experience has been devalued because its anecdotal. Only facts from an omniscient source are accepted, no matter their often dubious original.
It seems crazy to say but I think it may all boil down to a massive influx of inexperienced readers. That plus the fact that most content on on the internet is not to be taken quite at face value.
Counterintuitively I believe there are more people reading and communicating textually than ever before. Way more! That would be good except they are doing it all via the Internet which is an absolute free for all of weaponized content, created for commercial or political purposes.
Critical reading and thinking skills are needed to navigate the internet.
-----
This book is kind of funny: [The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind](https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicame...) ... but it is good for hypothesizing about how consciousness has evolved. The relevant part to this discussion is when he writes about people literally being driven insane by the birth of writing. They were just unable to integrate the new influx of information quickly enough. Imagine your dog for example, learning to read. It would be quite the experience for poor Fido.
The printing press, in time, caused the reformation, the enlightenment, etc. But it was a bumpy road along the way.
My point is that, everyone having the internet in their pocket will have a larger impact than anyone anticipates today.
I agree it's not crazy. To me the best explanation is that Facebook introduced many inexperienced people to political topics, and they had trouble distinguishing fact from fiction. Someone told me something similar happened when radio first got popular. Hopefully our societies will get better at filtering information as these technologies mature.
It actually does make me wonder if we can see a connection between what's happening now and what happened when Protestant Christianity started spreading with the whole "priesthood of the believer" deal where everyone can read the Bible in whatever translation and interpret it just as well, supposedly, as those who are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Latin and actually studied the historical context of it. Seems very similar, in some ways, on a rough look.
I think you nailed it there. Forgot where I read it but there's a similar principle/observation of software devs where every year the number of new developers grows exponentially larger and so as we move into the future, the industry racks up an increasingly larger share of novices compared to experts.
Seems to be a similar phenomenon playing out in larger society - we who've been around the block know where the potholes are and how to deal with them appropriately but the flood of newcomers fall prey to them in increasing numbers every day.
I think it’s a function of information overload. It’s all just too much for people, so they look for the quickest “conclusion” in the truest sense of the word, i.e. the interpretation that allows them to end the discussion and no longer be bothered about it.
The internet, it seems to me, is the primary cause of this information overload. And it also makes it so much easier to just “swipe left” on people. In the real world, in a local community, you would not have been able to just walk away from conflict. But in the internet, you almost have to do it to stay sane.
I agree with this, and I would add that groups interacting under the influence of such rapid, impersonal dismissals, has the effect of removing all nuance and subtlety from their language. I have a fear that if I were to take a time machine forward, Jules Verne style, I would see emoticons have entirely supplanted the alphabet.
almost feels like there's no room for nuance, but I know that there is, just not in public. i have a conjecture that every public platform where people are even slightly concerned about their opinions being attached to their identity turns into an echo chamber dominated by the vocal group. its crucial that people understand that identity is not just about the opinions you hold and you can agree on some things but not on others. its very simple if you think about it, but that's precisely what's missing when you constantly consume content mindlessly. try consuming content you don't agree with at all. for a week. a month. a few months. then you'll find yourself surprisingly slipping into agreeing with the content. it happens. its happened to me when I purposely did this as an experiment. the only way out is to THINK and listen to all sides
> Anything outside of mainstream rhetoric is immediately labeled conspiratorial. Which is strange to me. Most people on both sides seem to recognize the media is rigged by big money, but they don't seem equipped or encouraged to form their own opinions that incorporate this knowledge.
I propose that if you think of a human mind as a neural network that is trained by the information it ingests, much of the mysteries of human behavior makes almost complete sense.
"people on both sides seem to recognize the media is rigged by big money" is a bit of a hanging chad, but I suspect that is explained by something like this:
What you say seems to be the case. I've been thinking a lot about it lately.
It's pretty easy to see this programing in others, but remarkably more difficult to perceive regarding oneself.
The thing is (in my opinion) we can't really get by without some level of automatic programming. If we had to stop and weigh each decision and figure everything out from first principals we would have immense trouble operating. So we get cultures, religions, customs and ethical "hard facts" to help us get by. They work in a limited time and space but often break down as circumstances change and many (most?) people have a very hard time adjusting to the new reality.
I still think people should be a bit more critical (and cynical even), looking at who benefits from masses holding a belief and trying to determine "truth" from first principals more then they do now, but think I understand why this isn't the general case.
> they are being programmed with these opinions via media, advertising, etc.
The opinions of peers and social media seems to power most of the clichéd responses, from what I see.
It is less clear where those clichés originate or who are the originating amplifiers/influencers.
I hear people regurgitate canned memes, but it isn't obvious where they were programmed. My mum repeats some memes that I think she learnt from her peer group, even though the memes are conflicting with the underlying beliefs I know her to have.
I think you are implying traditional media and advertising has an outsized influence. That is weird to me, although I agree their influence definitely exists as a background swamp.
Edit: Is using the word “tropes” like this common? (“tropes” as used in this thread). Meme or stereotype or cliché seem better word fits for some of the usages I have read so far. I’m guessing “meme” has been stolen for visual gags.
The media is the only source of anyone's information about anything beyond our immediate personal relationships and direct worldly interactions. For the vast majority of people, the scope of direct worldly interactions is extremely limited.
Take a moment to think about what we believe to be the fundamental facts about the biggest topics in the world at the moment. How many of those facts have originated outside of our own minds?
This set of basic facts are almost all sourced from the media. It's interesting to think about whether this same set of facts also set limits to the scope of opinions that could be formed to explain them.
And yet here you are sharing opinions on a social media site.
> The media is the only source of anyone's information
Citation please (perhaps using Fox News?). I am being cheeky, but you are being black&white absolute, and stating your opinions as facts (which I don’t like).
There are plenty of people that don’t watch TV, don’t listen to radio, and don’t read traditional media sources. Talk to a teenager - where do their opinions come from? Not traditional news sources.
The guy at the pub that is bashing me with QAnon and “do your research” has not picked that up from any traditional media in New Zealand. I see the same pattern with plenty of other memes (left or right), where the meme has definitely not been transmitted by big media. Memes that are too far out to be publicised on our local media (due to stronger laws against bullshit).
I don't think I need a citation to back up the full statement. You chopped my sentence in half, then argued against that half.
I'm happy to discuss the full idea with you, and I'll try to reiterate it again more clearly.
The facts relating to topics and events that exist beyond our own experience, and the direct experience of the people we interact with in our lives have to come from somewhere. That somewhere is always a form of media (social or traditional).
The set of facts that we receive about these topics may also set limits on any independent ideas we, and others with the same set of facts, can come up with to explain them.
When the QAnon guy at the pub is delivering his ideas and talking points, he is doing so using a different set of basic facts that he has received about the topic. The set of facts that he has been exposed to are quite different to yours. So different that there isn't much overlap at all in the set of ideas and opinions that each of you can generate to explain them.
The interesting thing to think about is that we all place some trust in the media we consume (social or traditional) to deliver us the set of facts that accurately describes topics we have no direct exposure to. That includes the QAnon guy at the pub.
You have a good point. It doesn't necessarily need to be consciously programmed into people. Maybe it's just the hive mind forming memes. All those minds reading, thinking, looking, creating ... causes strange ideas (myths?) to percolate throughout society. Similar to the birth of religions perhaps?
This is a point Scott Adams talks about at length in his podcasts.
"People don't have opinions. People are assigned their opinions according to their choice of media that they opted to consume."
(obviously phrased as an absolute for punchiness. the context here is "unless you're the kind of person who makes it their business to observe media on different sides and analyse the differences", which is generally the focus of his podcasts these days)
> It's sad because at the end of the day we all have so much in common, but we are becoming convinced that we're so different and what's more, that others are in fact evil people.
Divide and conquere is the working management strategy. It helps a lot to increase control over population in the country.
Traditionally it was 'ideology' now it's 'populism'.
To take a 'very sensitive' concept, even the framing of a subject creates dissonance i.e. 'pro choice' or 'pro life' etc. - the literal framing of the issue from 'either side' goes right past the other argument.
Personally, what do to move past that is ask myself the question 'when does life begin'. That's a difficult question, and all but the most ardent ideologues would have to at least ponder that. And FYI I'm not even hinting at an answer to it etc. just illustrating how a simple question, which kind of speaks to the hart of the matter can 'reframe' away from slogans.
Most people have 'radar' for 'people in the other group' and tend to diminish everything, i.e. assume people are acting in bad faith, when this behaviour itself is acting in bad faith.
In the last 20 years or so, my persona 'radar' now is for people who are caught up in memes, populism, bubbles etc..
Being outside of a bubble doesn't mean information in those bubbles is necessarily 'wrong' but it helps to contextualize.
American media in particular is a bit pernicious, the capitalist element of it, the fact the stakes are so high (America has power and influence), my god.
I'm so extremely grateful that almost my entire family is 'non aligned'. You could never really tell the 'side' that people are on, often, they don't even have a 'side'. I can't imagine what living in a bubble situation i.e. family, work, local politics might be like. I wouldn't want to move the 'state that shares my values' so much as the 'state that isn't wrapped up in everything being a social war'.
You want to know what's funny? Even on the 'most sensitive issue' of abortion, you are right 'we have more in common' than not. Vast majorities of Americans believe that 'abortions in 3rd trimesters are problematic' while '1s trimester' are not. That's oversimplifying a bit for sure, nevertheless, there is a very crude kind of consensus except at the margins.
But the way the parties deal with each other is not equal. The right wing is conservative and holds by its definition “conserved” ideas, aka not up to date.
A majority (which runs in the millions) already knows what it wants and voted accordingly, and a minority conservative SCOTUS voted against it. So now the states can vote on it, but the information I am getting that some states find all abortions being illegal is just as a fundamentalist a position as any. Aka for one party in particular there is no grey. This has largely to do with the power/voting dynamics of the right.
One side is not equal in its approach to issues by its nature (conservation)
It would be a lot more interesting if conservatism would mean “skeptic” in practice, but we all know it has gone far beyond it.
Not to say I welcome curious conversations with anyone, but to say the two sides are equal in their approach and methodology is not true (in my experience)
You say “information I am getting”—are you not US-based? I can tell you the two parties are pretty much the same in their approach (other than some minor differences in organizational structure). It’s professionalized and data-driven. They are just trying to win elections.
Party dynamics in the US evolves a lot. GOP is nothing like what it was 10 years ago, and nothing like it was during the 1990's. Democrats used to be the 'Party of the South' etc.. SCOTUS confirmation has changed.
Also, it's really not quite appropriate to say conservatives are even 'conservation', even if that were true, it doesn't make the posture inherently unfair etc..
Finally, you say 'both sides' - there are not '2 sides' that's a myth. The GOP is utterly divided between Trumpers and non, and the Left is divided between the Woke and Classical socialists. A lot of people in private have ideas across the spectrum.
Do you have a breakdown on numbers approximately between the divisions? It’s also interesting you say “in private” , so what people say and do differs from what they believe at home?
Bob Woodward on TV yesterday said that 20% of Republicans want Trump gone, 50% support him, and 30% just want to 'win'.
More than 1/2 of GOP Senators probably despise Trump, they see him for what he is, but he's popular. Meaning, he can 'have them fired' like he's 'firing' Liz Cheney by supporting her attackers. That's how politics works. Mitch McConnell utterly despises Trump, but he'll come out publicly and support him if he's he man.
All 'public' politics is posturing and populism, it's just a bit worse in the USA.
No, 50% of GOP voters are beholden to Trump and will do what he says. Liz Cheney is being ousted by him right now. Trump is backing candidates who support him against those who do not, making a lot of GOP afraid to speak out.
Oddly, if he does announce he's not running, he may lose influence.
Trump has to keep the appearance of power otherwise the structure will eat him alive, they hate him.
He'll have to keep fighting all the way to the grave.
The 'people' are stupid and put their egos before reality.
They are also inclined to support people over ideas, and many of them legitimately believe the election was rigged because Trump and Newsmax/Foxnews told them so. So in a weird and perverse way, they are 'acting in good faith'.
'The Big Lies' are possible when people are already sensitive about it and 'want to believe it' i.e. they just need a reason to believe.
Then we hold these opinions so strongly that if we disagree about anything at all -- any nuance, out of the infinite menu of "correct" opinions -- we argue bitterly ... driving apart friends, families, etc.
We must learn to hold opinions more lightly and to value direct experiences & physical relationships with real people, more than virtual experience.
It's sad because at the end of the day we all have so much in common, but we are becoming convinced that we're so different and what's more, that others are in fact evil people. Great pain and trouble might come from this trend.