It's a difficult problem to crack. My current line of thinking is that we need to improve critical-thinking amongst the population. People with critical thinking will question the things they hear and read, and with an unfiltered source of information (E.g. the Internet) will be able to determin fact from fiction.

I used to think they we should censor bad information (E.g. 5G causes COVID), but that's just not going to work in the modern era.

I don't think it is just lack of critical thinking on the part of general public. I think that there are also some cultural contributors - it is often deemed uncivil or rude to call lie a lie. And if you want to appear impartial, you will need to make things sound middle - softening some stances and making others stronger.

You cant actually distinguish fact from fiction by logic alone. You need specialized knowledge for that, the rest of us you need to decide who to trust.

People who gravitate toward conspiracy theories tend to be intelligent and tend to question things they read. They then proceed to build wild theories, beyond possibilities of dumb people.

How would you improve critical thinking at scale?

You wont, human nature is more or less fixed, cognitive skills are normal distributed, we are not blank slates. You first recognize that the problem is difficult, recognize you cannot social-engineer humans without infringing their rights and you try to come up with some basic rules with the implicit understanding that A) They are not perfect B) They are not immutable, and you start working from there. This is the total opposite to what it is happening now in the way the powerful groups are managing this new global, social landscape.

> improve critical thinking at scale

What's the timeline to measure this? Decades? A lifetime?

You're asking the wrong question. What measurement would you use to measure success?

Yeah - not an easy task.

Teach it in school along with the usual 3 R's.

Yes, that. Simple things like a little stats, a default position of skepticism, an understanging that the message and the messenger are separate, would go a long way.

Not to get overtly political, but one of the two major parties will do literally anything to prevent that. Their ideology interprets critical thought as a direct assault, and they respond accordingly.

As far as I know, critical thinking is an explicit part of the school curriculum everywhere in the US. Do you know of an area where it's not taught?

See my other reply. Edit: for the benefit of the downvoters, here's a concrete example of what I'm talking about: https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2012/06/texas...

From the bottom of the page: A spokesman for the Republican Party of Texas said that the "critical thinking skills" language should not have been included in the document after the words "values clarification," reports Talking Points Memo. The members of the subcommittee "regret" the mistake, he told TPM—however, since the platform was approved, "it cannot be corrected until the next state convention in 2014."

They regret the mistake, it sounds like, so I guess it's all good. Nothing to see here.

I see it, but even deeply conservative states do teach the principles of critical thinking. Picking Alabama as a random example (https://www.alsde.edu/sec/sct/COS/2016%20Revised%20Alabama%2...):

* their curriculum explicitly aims to develop "lifelong, critical thinkers"

* they feel "reading, writing, and critical thinking continue to play central roles in the development of literate individuals"

* students learn to "Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning"

I understand that you're saying beliefs such as creationism don't stand up to any real critical thought, and I agree. But I feel the same way about many beliefs that left-leaning people tend to hold.

> beliefs such as creationism don't stand up to any real critical thought, and I agree.

> But I feel the same way about many beliefs that left-leaning people tend to hold.

Can you provide an example of one of those beliefs that tend to be held by left-leaning people?

Sure. Many people (both commentators and friends of mine) express extreme forms of race and gender essentialism, regularly referring to groups like "white men" or "black women" as though they all have the same thoughts, feelings, and desires.

Yes, but whatever one you are thinking about, rest assured the other would do the same. This idea that half the country is bad and the other is virtuous is as infantile as it is dangerous.

(Shrug) Whatever. It wasn't "the other party" who tried to teach me, at a public junior high school, that Jesus rode a dinosaur to work.

One half of the country is bad. The sooner we pull our heads out of the ground (and other low regions) and face up to that truth, the better off we'll be. A key aspect of critical thought is that there is no inherent virtue in denying reality, and the reality is that BSAB is no longer a viable rationalization.

I am sorry, I really am, that you see the country that way. I humbly suggest that you might be shocked at what you find out if you hang out with some of the people you think are so bad. I think you will find they want the same things you do and have many of the same fears. At any rate, whatever one might think of the other half of the country, it seems we must find a way to live together. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

Hang out with them? I grew up with them. That was enough for me, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

66% of Republicans in a recent poll [1] say that Trump should not concede regardless of what happens in the courts. That amounts to advocacy of a coup d'etat. There is no room for negotiation with these people, any more than there was with the Shining Path or the Red Brigades or the Khmer Rouge. They have chosen their side and committed to it.

The alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

It's time we started contemplating it. Because the other side is doing just that, and then some.

1: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/2020-election-results-almost...

It was a very tense election. What do you think Democrats would say if Trump had won and you polled them? Do you think they would politely accept four more years of Trump? What do you think would be the odds of violence in the cities? Say in Portland, for example? Or Seattle? Do you see violence from Republicans right now?

You seemed to have had a tough time with conservatives growing up and that is unfortunate, but I think you are being incredibly extreme in your blanket assessment of the motivations of half of your countryman.

Yeah, as a black man who grew up in the mid-west, and then lived in new england… I left the states in 2016 and have no intention of coming back until things resolve. Even during in 2016, I knew things were going to get much worse… and Trump (not necessarily his words/actions, but primal response he could evoke in otherwise "rational" or "academic" people who often see themselves above the fray) was just the latest harbinger of that (maybe the straw that broke the camels back, piled high already with many straws of societal malfeasance)… people want to ignore the slow erosion of social-economic freedoms that have been going on for decades and only decreasing more with the next administration placed in power by those who think that things will change for the better just by placing paper in boxes…

Corporate collusion with government baked in with articles of incorporation, solidified with runaway debt spending for their services against the masses is just a tip of the iceberg of societal decay ongoing here with many thinking they can always keep kicking the bill into the future for someone else to deal with… lol… I have no will to live around such a populous with such delusions of the mind.

I agree with most of your assessment. However I am myself an immigrant and, warts and all, I still think that comparatively the US is still a great place to live and I am grateful for the opportunity I was given to settle here.

If you do not mind me asking, where did you move to? How much better are things there? And what other countries do you think are in better shape than the US?

My dad was an immigrant, and my mothers parents were was well, and I do think some aspects do provide opportunities, but I'm not sure it will negate the long term tail winds faced by many and would rather wait it out while they seem to be ok with engaging in the state of affairs.

> where did you move to?

I moved to Jakarta for now (and a few other places "nearby" for weeks/months here and there pre pandemic) and have been working remotely for the past 5 years for a variety of companies globally.

> How much better are things there?

For me, there is more social economic freedom, cheaper cost of living, more social cohesion (probably related to the fact that the distribution of wealth isn't as skewed towards the wealthy as it has become in the US), and relatively weak government (less downside risk with federal diktats) with nowhere near the amount of %debt to gdp in household/corp/gov sectors. But still faces similar headwinds stagnation in many places and issues unique challenges to being spread out over many islands. Though, I still remain flexible and have my eyes out for others places that could be better in the future.

> And what other countries do you think are in better shape than the US?

Overall I think SEA is pretty good as far as near future. Not really sure about anywhere else (besides nice island enclaves few on earth can enjoy like caymens, seychelles, etc.). There's just a lot of convergence going on between areas globally in all aspects of ones life and I really think that with our current global communications infrastructure being able to enable different forms of organization, there are a lot of existential questions about what things will look like going forward: what most people will accept? what actors will exert sovereignty? how will the most indebted nation/city states (and sub jurisdictions and corporates) deal with declining tax revenues/cash flows in the face of not just mobile capital, but a mobile workforce?

Exciting times!

> I used to think they we should sensor bad information (E.g. 5G causes COVID)

Can you describe these sensors?

I obviously meant "censors".

Now go away troll :)

Are you saying Justice Holmes was right to view opposition to the draft as unprotected by the Constitution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

We are talking about media companies exercising discretion and control over content, not about what is constitutionally protected. I think a more relevant legal discussion would be on the tension over safe harbor provisions vs exercising editorial control.

You claimed to write about “false information that has real world impact, like yelling fire in a crowded theater.” That example is from the real world when the government acted against private parties that engaged in what the government characterized as sedition. Do you withdraw your example?

That's a rather tenuous link. Because a famous person said the same quote in a different context doesn't mean it actually has bearing and what we are discussing. If you don't like the first hypothetical, maybe focus on the second hypothetical, as it is extremely relevant for today.

0k, if an entity starts grading the claims of others for truth or falsehood, would it be held responsible for those claims it does not grade or for incorrect grades? Or is the grading “caveat emptor” and the recipient of information has no guarantee of truth or falsehood anyway?

Is a lack of a label on the below an endorsement of Theranos’ technology?

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/654714209360437249

It's not just handling false information. That is just a very small part of how the far left are trying to stop freedom of speech. How many in-person talks at universities have been shut down in the past 4 years? When people disagree, they call whoever it is a Nazi and get it cancelled.

Today if you post something that is pro-gun, or god-forbid, you support one of Trump's foreign policies publicly, your account on Twitter or IG will get attacked and shut down. Most informational gun accounts on youtube won't show up in searches anymore. I'm not even talking about the tacticool losers posting dangerous videos. These are the people trying to educate others on usage and safety. Because a small part of the country abhor guns, but they also happen to control Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, they shadow-ban and move along with their day.

If flagging false information was the primary usage of censorship, there wouldn't be so much uproar around it.

On the gun thing, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I just tried searching for "gun safety" on YouTube and got tons of results.

To be fair, the actual 'far left' is Pro-gun. You're confusing leftism with Neoliberalism (you're not alone in this thread). The anti-gun people in this category are firmly rooted in the Auth-Right quadrant of the political compass (just a few hairs to the 'left' of Modern Republicanism).

That being said, it's understandable why these platforms don't want to be involved with promoting 'gun-safety' information, and it's not about censorship, it's about liability. You can't talk about gun-safety without talking about proper operation. This information has implications regardless of a users intentions (good or bad). Imagine the headline: 'Mass Shooter planned attack with help from YouTube videos'... The following uproar would only lead to greater censorship and restriction. Restricting content is not about censorship, but preventing scenarios like this. It's impossible to separate 'safety' from 'tactical training', and I for one, would prefer such information was not readily available to any would-be rogue actors.

If you want to have a gun, that's fine. Take a class. Want tactical training, take a class. Better yet, join the military.

I'm not particularly convinced that owning a gun offers any net-benefit as far as safety is concerned. I'd reckon you're statistically more likely to injure yourself (or a family member) than you are to prevent an attack from an assailant. It's also a really hard argument to make that there is 0 correlation between the high level of gun-ownership in the US and the extremely high homicide rate. Especially when looking at hand-guns (Canada for example has similar levels of 'ownership' and a lower homicide rate, but less hand-gun ownership compared to US).

TLDR; restricting 'gun-safety' info is not about censorship, it's about liability and owning a gun probably doesn't make you 'safer'. (these are, of course, my opinions)