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.
Also I think experience has been devalued because its anecdotal. Only facts from an omniscient source are accepted, no matter their often dubious original.
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.
Not that crazy. In fact, the idea about "inexperienced readers" becoming a nuisance has been around since the dawn of writing.
In fact even someone as old as Plato warned us about this, in parable form, when writing was introduced:
https://fs.blog/an-old-argument-against-writing/#:~:text=%E2....
I possibly belong to this set. Could it be that this goes way back when people got hold of religous text and learn to read it and discuss about it?
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.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
> 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'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.
"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)
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.
We definitely need to do some work.
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)
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.
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.
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.
I just can’t if you believe in democracy, however it’s still 50% that doesn’t, although 30% that just want to “win” is still weird.
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.
This is usually what we mean by populism.
I think people have been bitten in the back enough time by assuming the best that people have switched to thinking this way. When you try to be nice and keep getting taken advantage of then it's hard to stay nice.
We're living in a scam economy... My best policy is to not really extend trust as much as extending "tiered courtesy" and carefully observing the results to determine how much more to give... I primarily work hardest on my own trustworthiness, because I know very well how easily any of us can become corrupted by bad times.
Even some of the strongest marriages and families are being torn apart right now because of broken trust.. In my experience, trust is never a permanent state, although I wish it could be. One thing's for certain, there's not a single corporation I trust right now at all, they've been pretty merciless towards everyone except for their Investors and vested leadership.
At least in the USA, one small mistake in trust or lack of safety in certain things ("something happening") could cause you to be on the street within months, even for people like those here on HN who generally have good jobs and such. I think it's getting a bit primal due to that here. We're acting like animals because we've been treated as such for decades and generations and we're finally sick of it. That's my opinion, not really backed up by anything.
Conversely if you do have good intentions and you meet a person who has just been ripped off, do not expect them to take your "trust me bro" at face value.
There is however an odd effect where people take a breach of trust as a reason to give themselves over to an even less trustworthy institution. 2008 financial crisis means you can't trust banks? Why not invest in a Singapore-based defi organisation promising much higher interest rates? MSM trust lost after Iraq war? Why not get your news from the Russian state propaganda channel instead?
If someone affects you negatively you'd be smart to care about your own skin before you care about their intentions, that's not a recent invention and not an unreasonable way to navigate the world, it also has very little to do with emotions. On the contrary, trying to assume someone else's intent seems like a pretty emotional way to operate if anything.
It depends very much on the consequences and their evaluation.
If, exaggerating a bit for illustrative purposes, I say "Hello" to a colleague and that colleague is angry, disappointed, upset that I did not use a more formal "Good morning," which in their mind is reserved for more distinguished colleagues, it becomes a "monkey in the circus" problem.
That is, I have to change my behavior because I am being manipulated as the more astute and cynical colleague wants: my intentions might be good, but the result is that they are angry and ready to talk to HR.
One might read this and think, "This is an absurd case," it will never happen, of course HR, colleagues and all the people in the world will see clearly what is happening.
But it does happen, and something similar has happened to me, when we believe that whatever way people react in their minds should be "honored."
THAT IS TRUTH... You cannot save a drowning person if you first can't swim.... You're both likely to drown... Try to maybe throw them a life vest or rope if you're on the boat, but only sacrifice yourself if you can't live without them. Trustworthiness is of infinite value, but most never learn where that gold is buried.
I generally don't think of people as evil, as others have pointed out, it seems more of a societal/group miasma that envelops us. Lots of people are misinformed, and this misinformation hurts. Lots of people are trying to protect their own interests because they have their own believes on how the world should be and they generate and spread misinformation. Is that evil? I would say it's rather irresponsible.
We can't ignore that actually there are people out there purposefully creating and spreading misinformation, none of them are supervillains. But together? This sort of bad-faith acting compounds quickly and harms society a great deal.
And then as you go up the chain of power, what starts happening when powerful people put their interests and world view above everything? Would you say when Bill Gates actively campaigned against laws in Africa to lower AIDS medicines prices (through the abolition of intellectual property for these) that he was being "evil". What kind of world view will put the lives of thousands below intellectual property rights protections? This behaviour was repeated with the COVID vaccine. What about politicians that spread misinformation through social media or tv-shows such as Fox News? Would we consider these people to be "supervillains"? Maybe not... but again... together?
I think the world is full of bad-faith and it's eating itself. But to me the real evil comes from individuals acting in their own self-interest without respecting others. Everyone is contributing a little bit, some contribute a lot more. But this situation is much more dangerous, in my opinion, than having a super-villain because evil seems to be hiding in everyone's best intentions.
Most people support this unknowingly, thus supporting scaffolding of psychopathic systems. Even though 98% are not psychopathic, most people will support adversarial and self-destructive systems.
When asked about one of my peers, I said, "They are extraordinary at [this]"? The Director followed up with, "So you wanna say they are not good at [that]"?
When bad intentions are assumed, there is always a firm grip on the climb to total idiocy. And that Director was in clear view of the summit.
Also, ignoring impact meant that you could actively damage people you did not cared about while pretending ignorance again and again.
I definitely agree with that. I don't think either should be ignored, but weighed against each other. That's pretty close to how our legal system works for a lot of crimes.
I'd also argue a person pretending innocence does -not- have good intentions, regardless of what they say.
People should be permitted to be wrong without getting banned or ratioed... That's what is not being allowed to play out properly... That experience only grows people who become moderators, and even politicians, that inflict the same hostile disregard and aggression towards others... "Hurt people hurt people".
We always should thoroughly address and protect each other online from conversational misconduct and of course verbal or physical abuse, but it seems that Twitter alone encourages it as a means of gaining popularity on the platform... They should be called out for that.
I'm not discounting your point, I definitely know many people that get easily wound-up about issues that have nothing to do with them, but simply something to consider: If you're talking to strangers or acquaintances, are you really sure that the issues they are fighting about don't relate to them personally?
There are one or two political issues that I consider literally a matter of life-or-death. As in, I know people personally who would likely have died if a situation that happened to them a few years ago in one state in the US happened a few weeks ago in a different state in the US.
I agree with your general premise that people need to stop judging the world based on tropes - that's the problem that causes the political issues I'm thinking of - but it's hard not to occasionally get angry when people keep talking about life-or-death issues as if they're some sort of abstract galaxy brain.
Is this post-irony? This is the exact same logic racists use.
It's literally the exact same logic, because racists discuss people's mutable characteristics as well.
>I’m discussing communication styles, which are mutable, and the ideologies that tend to be associated with them, which are also mutable.
You literally just described "SPEAK ENGLISH" and "if only Black people spoke properly and wore their pants up above their waist" (both mutable characteristics).
This has to be post-irony. Good troll.
Not at all. Definitely not in the era of "cancel culture".
>It often turns out that the views in question are something that people have good reason to disapprove of - racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.
It rarely turns out that the views in question are something that people have good reason to disapprove of - racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.
A few examples from past and current companies I've worked at:
1. Titling an apolitical presentation "Make Front-ends Great Again" caused several leftist activist employees to explode on Slack about fascist White supremacy culture.
2. "Believing" (this is an objective fact) that trans-women are biological male humans is hate speech and a firable offence.
3. Expressing the opinion that the company openly donating to shady BLM foundations[0], or any political group for that matter is not a good idea was shouted down as supporting the fascist, racist, White supremacist status quo.
The list goes on. These basic examples are more than enough to get a target on your back, and possibly fired.
[0] https://news.yahoo.com/black-lives-matter-suspends-online-18...
I think that's the only way we can talk about life and death issues when we disagree. Of all the death I've been close to in my life, let's pick my father who died at least partly as a result of years of incompetent medical care in my hometown that wasn't uncovered until he landed in an ER in a different city. Does that give me the right get to angry and shut down conversations about medical care if people say something I disagree with?
I think there are a lot of people who would answer "yes," because they assume that a personal emotional connection to an issue, grounded in experience, always pushes people towards the truth. They love the rule that if somebody present has been personally affected by an issue, then they should get angry, and everybody else present should shut up and accept whatever they have to say. But they believe that because of the bubble they live in. On the rare occasions I get outside my bubble, I find that people's personal experiences most often deepen their commitment to whatever they already believed, even if it's something I think is wrong. For example, I met a conservative Christian who blamed permissive liberal culture for their gay brother suffering from drug addition and periodic homelessness (instead of thinking that maybe growing up gay in a conservative Christian household had something to do with it.) And of course you meet the people who consider themselves authorities on global warming because they grew up on a farm and remember how their family suffered during drought years. You don't know shit about the weather unless you've lived through that!
In truth both sides of the political divide in America tend to think that the other side must be emotionally disconnected and inauthentic, and emotional growth would naturally lead them to the truth. Growing up in a small town, I was frequently told that the reason I didn't believe in God was that I wasn't emotionally open to him. I was repressed and disconnected, too cerebral, and that's why I didn't feel His love. Most conservatives think that one reason liberals are able to believe such crazy things is that they derive their emotional sustenance from ideology instead of authentic connection with their neighbors and their community. Most liberals think the same thing about conservatives. Everyone thinks that their side's views are more grounded in authentic experience.
There is also a minority of people who value intellect over emotion, and those people believe the opposite: that their side is more rational and fact-driven, the other side is blindly emotional, and their side would triumph if emotion were excluded from discourse. That's not what I'm saying. I'm only saying that a personal connection to an issue shouldn't be treated as a trump card that can shut down a conversation.
It's entirely possible that I miss-interpreted what the GP meant by "fighting words". My interpretation was "passionate argument" not "verbal abuse."
Becoming concrete and opinionated isn't happening in a vaccuum. The high and mighty detached conversation was for 20 years+ ago
Nothing is worse online than expecting a specific on-topic discussion and then seeing a long trail of comments that have nothing to do with the source topic... hah. cough Reddit.
yeah. I'm lucky enough to have several circles of cafe/bar friends who also enjoy open conversations. Even if we all frequently disagree, that's part of the fun. I've run into so many of this new younger generation who seem incapable of abstractly considering a topic without dragging their emotional baggage into it. I guess it's a result of helicopter parenting and social media reinforcement of the notion that speech you don't like is a form of violence. For better or worse, I just hold my ground and ease them into the idea that we can disagree and still not be enemies. Just the same as I used to do with right wing lunatics for most of my life.
I doubt we would have ever discovered fire or invented the wheel if we didn’t have a nice warm cave to ruminate in.
The article talks about false personalization, giving the example of someone being wrongly upset about a friend not inviting them to a social event, misinterpreting something that didn't involve them.
Views on social issues inherently involve most people. If you hold, and exercise politically an opinion that as a result has a real, negative effect on me being defensive is reasonable.
I’ve seen it a lot, some of the most vehemently lefty Marxists I’ve known or met came from very well off backgrounds. Class guilt is very much a thing. I’m fact the dissociation between middle class socialists and actual working class people has become a significant factor in UK politics recently.
People seem to be increasingly concrete in their judgements about social, economic, and political issues that have nothing to do with them as individuals, and often it results in fighting words, and that's crazy to me. A deep polarization is coming from many fronts, and it also over-emphasizes issues, making people far more offensive and defensive than before -- possibly heightened because of pandemic-related isolation and economic stress.
I think a lot of people judge the world based on tropes... The small-minded view based only on the people they've observed, rather than being able to place themselves in the shoes of others they don't know, and it's a growing problem when narrowly focused people like this lead and make decisions for us all. I think we really need to reject the use of tropes in discussions as fact because it's toxic, but at the same time, I work hard to not be triggered by anything that's well intended. We all make mistakes, and as long as you can choose to walk away, being misunderstood is a small price to pay for regular human communication.