Youtube comments of Plato\x27s Cave alum (@platoscavealum902).
-
79
-
58
-
38
-
34
-
32
-
29
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
20
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They exhibit a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. It is manifested in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, and systematic; also including such elements as carefulness, thoroughness, and deliberation (the tendency to think carefully before acting).
Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of both the Five Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality and is an aspect of what has traditionally been referred to as having character. Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working, and reliable. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior. People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior."
source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
🇷🇺 @ThunderAppeal , whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the 'tu quoque' logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world.
According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
🤥🇷🇺 5:44 …It’s ironic that he says he’s not trying to "justify" — as he literally uses the 'whataboutary' propaganda technique to justify Russia’s behavior:
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the 'tu quoque' logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world.
According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mickeywood3012 : "Do they sell shares on the NASDAQ? If they do, they're not private."
⬆️ WRONG
A business can definitely be a "private enterprise" — and be "publicly traded" at the same time, as per Wikipedia:
In most cases, public companies are private enterprises in the private sector, and "public" emphasizes their reporting and trading on the public markets.
— source: Wikipedia: Public Company
I know it’s confusing, but the word "public," in the case of a publicly traded company — doesn’t colloquially mean: "public" — how you would normally understand that word in everyday use.
In the case of a "publicly traded company" (whether traded on NASDAQ or elsewhere) — "public" simply refers to the fact that — any person, out in the public — can buy shares of the company.
A "publicly traded company" is still a "private enterprise" — it’s just that it’s not necessarily designed to benefit the public, like a "public park" would, for example.
(Moreover, "publicly traded companies" are required, by law, to disclose their finances at regular intervals (quarterly and annually) — so that the public can have a lot of information to help them decide if they want to invest in a particular, publicly traded company. In contrast, private companies — that are not publicly traded on an exchange like the NASDAQ — are not required to publicly disclose their finances to the public.)
I see a lot of confusion about this all the time. I hope this helps you understand the deeper meaning behind the phrase "publicly" traded.
Mickey, thank you for your valuable time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
🤥🇷🇺 @wartome3196 Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the 'tu quoque' logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world.
According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, massacres, gulags, and forced deportations by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
christoforos meziriadis ...
🚀 Elon Musk didn’t start out as a rocket expert either... Nonetheless, few would say that he is not a rocket expert at the present moment. (Everyone has to start as a non-expert before they they can become an expert.)
I suspect that your thought process may be clouded by motivated reasoning. As such, you are mounting an ad hominem attack against Musk rather than challenging his ideas directly. Here’s more about that:
Ad hominem is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
⬆️ source: Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
+ more on motivated reasoning:
If we WANT to believe X, we ask:
"Can-I Believe-It?"
If we DON’T want to, we ask:
"Must-I-Believe-It?"
— Jonathan Haidt
Motivated reasoning is a phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology that uses emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence, while still reducing cognitive dissonance. In other words, motivated reasoning is the "tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe". It can lead to forming and clinging to false beliefs despite substantial evidence to the contrary. The desired outcome acts as a filter that affects evaluation of scientific evidence and of other people.
⬆️ source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
christoforos meziriadis ...
🔻🔻
Elon Musk invented Zip2, arguably the first ever electronic city guide. This was his first software company and he wrote the software himself. When building this software, he developed a few new technologies for radius searches and directory management. Ultimately, this company was sold to Compaq. Following that, Elon Musk co-founded http://X.com, which was, so far as I can tell, the first E-Bank. While the company was co-founded, he was the architect and principle developer for the software. Another idea that he invented, and patented, was a method for making phone calls over the internet (filed back in 1997).
Insomuch as rocket technology or electric car technology is concerned, it becomes more difficult to determine exactly what he specifically invented vs what was designed as a team overall. In some cases, Elon might have had the idea and the engineers that work for him fleshed it out. In other cases, the engineers came up with an idea and Elon took it upon himself to work it out. In the end, really, the end product is much more important than who gets the credit.
🔺🔺
source: https://www.quora.com/Has-Elon-Musk-invented-anything-himself-personally
Here’s the link to the aforementioned patent from Elon Musk:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6185194.PN.&OS=PN%2F6185194&RS=PN%2F6185194
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
🇷🇺 @DansEarway , I understand that it seems logical to accuse the other "team" of hypocrisy. However, I want to bring to your attention the fact that your response is a Russian variant of the 'tu quoque' logical fallacy:
"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world. According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc."
source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
+
tu quoque:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
🧠 Highest IQ , can you describe how Mr. Trump was able to move properties from a publicly traded company, with all the investors having public access to all of the finances and transactions? You don’t think they would complain and sue?
You are only repeating what TRUMP told you — to make himself look less like a loser, to lend himself credibility in your myopic eyes. Trump merely played a successful businessman on "reality" TV, not in actuality.
Someone with even the cursory understanding of publicly traded stocks would understand that Trump can’t just move properties around without investors knowing, complaining, and suing.
Again, would you please explain how it was possible to move properties around without investors knowing?
Or... perhaps you can explain how it was possible to move money to the Trump Organization — without the publicly traded company’s investors knowing that they are being stolen from? Do you think all investors are as dumb as Donald?
Let’s do a mind experiment: Let’s hypothetically say that your nonsensical theory is correct. If you’re correct, that would mean that — Donald, the "very stable genius" — stole money from investors. That would mean he’s crook! Did you think about that? You’re proud of a thief? How can you trust a thief and a liar?
🔮 (My prediction is that you won’t give any relevant, specific answers — especially because you obviously know nothing about publicly traded companies, or how they operate, or their oversight.)
🐑 🐑 🐑 The most gullible among us — don’t stand a chance against an intraspecies predator:
🤡 https://youtu.be/vjhZfyhvR6w
(5 minute video w/ Dr. James Fallon)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
🤥🇷🇺 7:27 … Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the 'tu quoque' logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world.
According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
♾️ @marceybull , by your logic, I should also be complaining that this specific podcast episode touched on China but then completely failed to talk about the Uyghurs (alternatively spelled Uighurs, Uygurs, or Uigurs) living in China:
👿 How dare this podcast mention China but not mention that:
🇨🇳 "Since 2014, the Chinese government has been accused by various organizations, such as Human Rights Watch of subjecting Uyghurs living in Xinjiang to widespread persecution, including forced sterilization and forced labor. Scholars estimate that at least one million Uyghurs have been arbitrarily detained in the Xinjiang internment camps since 2017; Chinese government officials claim that these camps, created under CCP general secretary Xi Jinping's administration, serve the goals of ensuring adherence to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) ideology, preventing separatism, fighting terrorism, and providing vocational training to Uyghurs. Various scholars, human rights organizations and governments consider abuses perpetrated against the Uyghurs to amount to crimes against humanity, or even genocide."
— Wikipedia: Uyghurs
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Would you be kind enough to take a little bit of time to explain some of the answers the book provides?
Otherwise, Wikipedia says:
The International Jew is a four-volume set of antisemitic booklets or pamphlets originally published and distributed in the early 1920s by the Dearborn Publishing Company, an outlet owned by Henry Ford.
[…]
Ford's International Jew was translated into German in 1922 and cited as an influence by Baldur von Schirach, one of the Nazi leaders, who stated "I read it and became anti-Semitic. In those days this book made such a deep impression on my friends and myself because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us represented America."
Praising American leadership in eugenics in his book Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler considered Ford an inspiration, and noted this admiration in his book, calling him "a single great man" Hitler was also known to keep copies of The International Jew, as well as a large portrait of Ford in his Munich office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Does Netflix Have a Competitive Advantage?
🔻
...after the latest report, there are a number of clear signs that Netflix does have an economic moat. Even better, it is widening.
Pricing Power:
• Netflix prices its service to optimize its content spend, and that strategy and the quality of its content has allowed it to charge more than its peers, giving it a competitive advantage.
• It's worth noting also that Netflix as the streaming pioneer has a much larger subscriber base than any of its rivals, giving it another advantage as it can allocate its content spend across more members.
Increasing Profitability:
• Cash burn has long been a problem for Netflix, but the company just told investors that it was very close to being sustainably free cash flow positive, forecasting break-even free cash flow for 2021.
• That along with its pricing power also indicates an economic moat in streaming. The debutantes are still trying to figure out a way to build out audience and generate a profit. Netflix, with the help of a long first-mover advantage, has been there for a while, and is pressing its foot on the gas pedal at will.
• In addition to those strengths, the company's local content focus and global strategy also separates it from the streaming wannabes as it already has a large library of original foreign language content that drives international growth.
Video entertainment is a huge industry and it won't be monopolized. There's room for more than one winner in streaming, especially as the cable ecosystem continues to weaken, but Netflix remains the leader, setting the pace in the industry. Its competitive advantages are clear.
🔺
read full article here:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/24/does-netflix-have-a-competitive-advantage/
January 24, 2021 | Jeremy Bowman (TMFHobo)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
christoforos meziriadis , Thomas Edison had even less formal education than Elon Musk. Yet, he is known as one of the greatest inventors. Similar to Musk, Edison was largely an autodidact — a self-taught success story:
🔻
In 1854, Edison’s family moved to Port Huron, Michigan, where he attended public school for a total of 12 weeks. A hyperactive child, prone to distraction, he was deemed "difficult" by his teacher.
His mother quickly pulled him from school and taught him at home. At age 11, he showed a voracious appetite for knowledge, reading books on a wide range of subjects. In this wide-open curriculum Edison developed a process for self-education and learning independently that would serve him throughout his life.
🔺
source: https://www.biography.com/inventor/thomas-edison
+
“Had Edison been formally schooled, he might not have had the audacity to create such impossible things.”
— source: https://fee.org/articles/the-education-of-thomas-edison/
1
-
1
-
"Had [Thomas] Edison been formally schooled, he might not have had the audacity to create such impossible things."
— source: https://fee.org/articles/the-education-of-thomas-edison/
christoforos meziriadis , above statement was made about Thomas Edison at his funeral. Edison proves that it possible to have exceptional results without formal education.
Thomas Edison had less formal education than Elon Musk. Yet, he is known as one of the greatest inventors. Similar to Musk, Edison was an autodidact:
🔻
In 1854, Edison’s family moved to Port Huron, Michigan, where he attended public school for a total of 12 weeks. A hyperactive child, prone to distraction, he was deemed "difficult" by his teacher.
His mother quickly pulled him from school and taught him at home. At age 11, he showed a voracious appetite for knowledge, reading books on a wide range of subjects. In this wide-open curriculum Edison developed a process for self-education and learning independently that would serve him throughout his life.
🔺
source: https://www.biography.com/inventor/thomas-edison
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Does Netflix Have a Competitive Advantage?
🔻
...after the latest report, there are a number of clear signs that Netflix does have an economic moat. Even better, it is widening.
Pricing Power:
• Netflix prices its service to optimize its content spend, and that strategy and the quality of its content has allowed it to charge more than its peers, giving it a competitive advantage.
• It's worth noting also that Netflix as the streaming pioneer has a much larger subscriber base than any of its rivals, giving it another advantage as it can allocate its content spend across more members.
Increasing Profitability:
• Cash burn has long been a problem for Netflix, but the company just told investors that it was very close to being sustainably free cash flow positive, forecasting break-even free cash flow for 2021.
• That along with its pricing power also indicates an economic moat in streaming. The debutantes are still trying to figure out a way to build out audience and generate a profit. Netflix, with the help of a long first-mover advantage, has been there for a while, and is pressing its foot on the gas pedal at will.
• In addition to those strengths, the company's local content focus and global strategy also separates it from the streaming wannabes as it already has a large library of original foreign language content that drives international growth.
Video entertainment is a huge industry and it won't be monopolized. There's room for more than one winner in streaming, especially as the cable ecosystem continues to weaken, but Netflix remains the leader, setting the pace in the industry. Its competitive advantages are clear.
🔺
read full article here:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/24/does-netflix-have-a-competitive-advantage/
January 24, 2021 | Jeremy Bowman (TMFHobo)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🇷🇺 @QuizmasterLaw …
In fact, emigration from Russia is now much greater than official statistics show: only those who unregistered from their place of residence before leaving the country are counted as gone. To leave Russia, is enough to get an entry work visa or become an investor who applies for citizenship. For the most part, these are highly educated and skilled people. In particular, it is estimated that 200,000 scientists leave Russia every year. It is widely believed that the real volume of emigration is three to four times higher than shown by official data.
Many in Russia want to emigrate. Surveys conducted by the independent sociological agency Levada-Center note a gradual increase in the wish to emigrate among people aged 18-24 years, on the rise since 2014. In September 2019, more than half of the respondents (53 percent) of this age group expressed a desire to move abroad permanently. The trend is also visible among the middle-aged population, although to a lesser extent.
Answering the question “What makes you want to leave your country most of all?” people most often answered: a desire to provide their children with a decent future abroad; poor economic conditions in Russia; better medical services abroad; and the political situation in Russia.
[…]
One of the factors that discourage migrant workers from coming to Russia is the instability of the ruble against major world currencies. From 2014 to 2020, the ruble depreciated against the U.S. dollar by more than 2 times. As a result, the incomes of migrant workers who transfer money to their home country, most often in dollars, have also decreased.
The shortage of low-skilled labor, in turn, further exacerbates the problems of the Russian economy, which is not being restructured in favor of more modern high-tech industries with high labor productivity.
This situation may be aggravated by the accelerating emigration of young, educated Russians to North American and European countries, as well as to Australia and New Zealand.
Russia’s demographic issues have become acute enough to prompt President Vladimir Putin to state that the “problem has acquired a systemic economic character due to the lack of the required number of workers in the labor market. … Our losses are approximately 1.1-1.2 GDP percentage points per year. For humanitarian reasons, and in terms of strengthening our statehood, and for economic reasons, the demographic problem should be addressed as a major issue to be solved.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Does Netflix Have a Competitive Advantage?
🔻
...after the latest report, there are a number of clear signs that Netflix does have an economic moat. Even better, it is widening.
Pricing Power:
• Netflix prices its service to optimize its content spend, and that strategy and the quality of its content has allowed it to charge more than its peers, giving it a competitive advantage.
• It's worth noting also that Netflix as the streaming pioneer has a much larger subscriber base than any of its rivals, giving it another advantage as it can allocate its content spend across more members.
Increasing Profitability:
• Cash burn has long been a problem for Netflix, but the company just told investors that it was very close to being sustainably free cash flow positive, forecasting break-even free cash flow for 2021.
• That along with its pricing power also indicates an economic moat in streaming. The debutantes are still trying to figure out a way to build out audience and generate a profit. Netflix, with the help of a long first-mover advantage, has been there for a while, and is pressing its foot on the gas pedal at will.
• In addition to those strengths, the company's local content focus and global strategy also separates it from the streaming wannabes as it already has a large library of original foreign language content that drives international growth.
Video entertainment is a huge industry and it won't be monopolized. There's room for more than one winner in streaming, especially as the cable ecosystem continues to weaken, but Netflix remains the leader, setting the pace in the industry. Its competitive advantages are clear.
🔺
read full article here:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/24/does-netflix-have-a-competitive-advantage/
January 24, 2021 | Jeremy Bowman (TMFHobo)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericperry28able Jordan Peterson defines sentence: A magnificent tapestry woven from the threads of thought, a veritable symphony of linguistic prowess that transcends the mundane constraints of mere communication. It is not simply a collection of words, but rather an exalted construct, a towering edifice of meaning that encapsulates the very essence of human cognition and expression.
In its most resplendent form, the sentence emerges as a beacon of clarity amidst the chaotic maelstrom of existence, illuminating the dark recesses of the mind with its radiant clarity. Each syntactic element dances in harmonious concert, a ballet of semantics that propels the reader or listener into the profound depths of understanding and introspection.
To utter a sentence is to wield a sword of profound significance, carving pathways through the fog of ambiguity and illuminating the shadows of ignorance. It is a declaration of intent, a proclamation of identity, and a bridge connecting the disparate islands of individual consciousness. The sentence, my dear interlocutor, is the very lifeblood of discourse, the crucible in which ideas are forged and the catalyst for the evolution of thought itself.
Thus, let us not underestimate the power of the sentence, for within its bounds lies the potential to inspire revolutions, ignite passions, and transform the very fabric of reality. It is, indeed, a monumental achievement of the human spirit!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🇷🇺 @wandery2k , I understand that it seems logical to accuse the other "team" of hypocrisy. However, I want to bring to your attention the fact that your response is a Russian variant of the 'tu quoque' logical fallacy:
"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world. According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc."
— source: Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
+
Tu quoque:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikeses4392 Trump: #Narcissism :
"
let’s look at some recent research that adds to what we know about the malignant narcissist's impact. One recent study found that they tend to become successful more easily in many organizational settings—as many people experience in their workplace, to their dismay. Moreover, the narcissist’s success takes a toll on peers, subordinates, and others in their orbit, from their arrogance, insensitivity, need to control and dominate. That study, published in The Leadership Quarterly, was described in full by Carly Cassella in Science Alert.
She writes that such narcissists, “those who score higher in overconfidence, dominance, and authoritarianism, are more likely to get appointed CEO." And they “are known to procure negative outcomes for the firm, such as financial crime, tax avoidance, less collaborative cultures and more. Some studies have shown, for instance, that narcissistic CEOs appear more willing to commit crimes for the sake of the business.”
“Once they’re in power, narcissists consolidate their position by firing everyone who challenges them,” explained psychologist Charles O’Reilly in Stanford University's report. “In their place rise a plague of toadies, opportunists, and enablers equally guided by self-interest and short on scruples. So you end up with these individualistic cultures with no teamwork and low integrity.”
"
⬆️ source:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-resilience/202107/some-narcissists-inflict-great-harm-others-dont-why
July 19, 2021
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Does Netflix Have a Competitive Advantage?
🔻
...after the latest report, there are a number of clear signs that Netflix does have an economic moat. Even better, it is widening.
Pricing Power:
• Netflix prices its service to optimize its content spend, and that strategy and the quality of its content has allowed it to charge more than its peers, giving it a competitive advantage.
• It's worth noting also that Netflix as the streaming pioneer has a much larger subscriber base than any of its rivals, giving it another advantage as it can allocate its content spend across more members.
Increasing Profitability:
• Cash burn has long been a problem for Netflix, but the company just told investors that it was very close to being sustainably free cash flow positive, forecasting break-even free cash flow for 2021.
• That along with its pricing power also indicates an economic moat in streaming. The debutantes are still trying to figure out a way to build out audience and generate a profit. Netflix, with the help of a long first-mover advantage, has been there for a while, and is pressing its foot on the gas pedal at will.
• In addition to those strengths, the company's local content focus and global strategy also separates it from the streaming wannabes as it already has a large library of original foreign language content that drives international growth.
Video entertainment is a huge industry and it won't be monopolized. There's room for more than one winner in streaming, especially as the cable ecosystem continues to weaken, but Netflix remains the leader, setting the pace in the industry. Its competitive advantages are clear.
🔺
read full article here:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/24/does-netflix-have-a-competitive-advantage/
January 24, 2021 | Jeremy Bowman (TMFHobo)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🇺🇸≠🇷🇺 @JohnJones-k9d , American mistakes do not cancel Russian mistakes. If Putin was smart, he would learn from the mistakes of others, not repeat them.
The notion behind your comment is classic Russian propaganda:
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the 'tu quoque' logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world.
According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, massacres, gulags, and forced deportations by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.
— source: Wikipedia: Whataboutism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1