In Sovyet Russia, Internet Wastes Its Time on You!
Had lunch with a coupla Birthers. They asked if the restaurant had any food. The waiter showed them the menu, but they insisted on seeing the original. These things can be easily forged, after all.
But seriously, folks, they were at the next booth and I had nothing better to do than eavesdrop on their idiocy, having failed to bring my own idiot to rant with. The Birther argument in short appears to be: (a) it must be assumed until proven otherwise that Obama wasn't born in the USA; (b) any proof that Obama was born in the USA could have been forged; and (c) I read on the Internet that black is white and night is day. Which makes perfect sense as long as you don't talk to anyone who doesn't hold those tenets. Social psychologists call this The Problem Of Homophily: people who cluster with and communicate only with people they agree with never actually do any thinking as such, they just unite and concur.
And this is part of the way Networks resemble Tribes (and are often confused with Tribes). Under Tribalism v1.0, a person got all hir beliefs and tastes and memes from hir tribe, and never really entertained any others or seriously contemplated the beliefs and tastes and memes of people from outside the tribe. It was a pretty good way to keep your Gatherer-Hunter ass alive, but not so good for arts & innovation & peace. Under the Networks, people define their own affinity groups based on their beliefs and tend to only associate and communicate and disseminate and procreate within those groups, which rapidly produces a homophilous feedback loop that comes to look just like Tribalism v1.0.
On the perpendicular, horizontal axis, one thing a person can say in favor of Hierarchies and Markets is they don't really care so much what you believe or like, as long as you play by the rules (in the case of Hierarchy) and have some cash to spend (in the case of Markets). Setting up Hierarchy and Market infrastructure in nations that have only known Tribalism is a challenge, but getting the Network to them seems to come relatively easily, as the Networks are structured so similarly.
The cure? (Of course I have the cure. What kind of blogging crackpot would I be if I didn't know the solution to everything everywhere?) It's critical thinking, which should be taught to all kids starting around 10, and which should be tested prior to each election in order for a person to retain the right to vote. When I get elected Emperor (or any other kind of penguin), not only will this happen, but every Sunday afternoon everyone will be expected to attend anti-church, where one will sit in uncomfortable seats and be required to question everything one's affinity group holds dear. People will spend several hours reminding themselves that to be a Baptist doesn't mean being JUST a Baptist and it doesn't mean one can't or shouldn't question Baptist tenets, and likewise for being a Liberal, being a Redskins fan, being a Vegetarian, being a Pepsi drinker, and so on.
For now, this much is painfully clear: networked information technology does not make people better-informed, much less more intelligent - it just makes it faster and easier to choose what you want to believe and subscribe only to that channel. For the minority of people who are capable of reseting their beliefs based on the weight of actual evidence, it's a wonderful thing, but unfortunately now that democracy's the predominant form of government, that's of no use whatsoever. New information comes out quickly, but public opinion changes slowly, possibly more slowly than it did before the Information Explosion, so the gap between the realities of informed experts and public policy just keeps getting wider and wider.
The original intention, some would argue, of public education in the USA was supposedly to make sure citizens would actually be qualified to vote intelligently...which would be a much nobler scheme if voting (and more or less education) hadn't been limited to white male property-holders. Still, there's reason to think reasoning skills used to be a much more prominent piece of schooling. Why didn't critical thinking stay in the curriculum when suffrage got universalized? Whose best interests are served by keeping reasoning skills a luxury? LOTS of people - I think it's probably a safe generalization to say it's easier to profit from other people's ignorance than it is to profit from their intelligence.
The whole art of niche marketing, in fact, depends on homophily. If you can convince enough people that black is white and night is day, they will come to constitute their own faction, and once it achieves a certain size it'll be enough for its members to feel secure. At this point they'll stop listening to anyone else, and will buy lots of glow in the dark sunglasses from you. Indeed, their need for a sense of identity will probably benefit more from membership in a smaller faction, since membership in incomprehensibly huge factions (like, say, Republicans or US Citizens) doesn't seem to be as satisfying as membership in more modest ones (like, say, the Tea Party or Furries). Larger collectives dissipate the individual's voice and often don't take significantly better care of their members than more mid-sized collectives do.
And it's always going to be easier to define and divide people using misinformation (and emotion) than using logic, I suspect.
Some days I think the reason so many people turn to conspiracy theories is because they're optimists. It would be a lot more comforting to believe a secret society of smart people was running everything than to think we're doomed to blunder around following popular opinion and trends and buying glow in the dark sunglasses and believing whatever serves our emotional needs.
But seriously, folks, they were at the next booth and I had nothing better to do than eavesdrop on their idiocy, having failed to bring my own idiot to rant with. The Birther argument in short appears to be: (a) it must be assumed until proven otherwise that Obama wasn't born in the USA; (b) any proof that Obama was born in the USA could have been forged; and (c) I read on the Internet that black is white and night is day. Which makes perfect sense as long as you don't talk to anyone who doesn't hold those tenets. Social psychologists call this The Problem Of Homophily: people who cluster with and communicate only with people they agree with never actually do any thinking as such, they just unite and concur.
And this is part of the way Networks resemble Tribes (and are often confused with Tribes). Under Tribalism v1.0, a person got all hir beliefs and tastes and memes from hir tribe, and never really entertained any others or seriously contemplated the beliefs and tastes and memes of people from outside the tribe. It was a pretty good way to keep your Gatherer-Hunter ass alive, but not so good for arts & innovation & peace. Under the Networks, people define their own affinity groups based on their beliefs and tend to only associate and communicate and disseminate and procreate within those groups, which rapidly produces a homophilous feedback loop that comes to look just like Tribalism v1.0.
On the perpendicular, horizontal axis, one thing a person can say in favor of Hierarchies and Markets is they don't really care so much what you believe or like, as long as you play by the rules (in the case of Hierarchy) and have some cash to spend (in the case of Markets). Setting up Hierarchy and Market infrastructure in nations that have only known Tribalism is a challenge, but getting the Network to them seems to come relatively easily, as the Networks are structured so similarly.
The cure? (Of course I have the cure. What kind of blogging crackpot would I be if I didn't know the solution to everything everywhere?) It's critical thinking, which should be taught to all kids starting around 10, and which should be tested prior to each election in order for a person to retain the right to vote. When I get elected Emperor (or any other kind of penguin), not only will this happen, but every Sunday afternoon everyone will be expected to attend anti-church, where one will sit in uncomfortable seats and be required to question everything one's affinity group holds dear. People will spend several hours reminding themselves that to be a Baptist doesn't mean being JUST a Baptist and it doesn't mean one can't or shouldn't question Baptist tenets, and likewise for being a Liberal, being a Redskins fan, being a Vegetarian, being a Pepsi drinker, and so on.
For now, this much is painfully clear: networked information technology does not make people better-informed, much less more intelligent - it just makes it faster and easier to choose what you want to believe and subscribe only to that channel. For the minority of people who are capable of reseting their beliefs based on the weight of actual evidence, it's a wonderful thing, but unfortunately now that democracy's the predominant form of government, that's of no use whatsoever. New information comes out quickly, but public opinion changes slowly, possibly more slowly than it did before the Information Explosion, so the gap between the realities of informed experts and public policy just keeps getting wider and wider.
The original intention, some would argue, of public education in the USA was supposedly to make sure citizens would actually be qualified to vote intelligently...which would be a much nobler scheme if voting (and more or less education) hadn't been limited to white male property-holders. Still, there's reason to think reasoning skills used to be a much more prominent piece of schooling. Why didn't critical thinking stay in the curriculum when suffrage got universalized? Whose best interests are served by keeping reasoning skills a luxury? LOTS of people - I think it's probably a safe generalization to say it's easier to profit from other people's ignorance than it is to profit from their intelligence.
The whole art of niche marketing, in fact, depends on homophily. If you can convince enough people that black is white and night is day, they will come to constitute their own faction, and once it achieves a certain size it'll be enough for its members to feel secure. At this point they'll stop listening to anyone else, and will buy lots of glow in the dark sunglasses from you. Indeed, their need for a sense of identity will probably benefit more from membership in a smaller faction, since membership in incomprehensibly huge factions (like, say, Republicans or US Citizens) doesn't seem to be as satisfying as membership in more modest ones (like, say, the Tea Party or Furries). Larger collectives dissipate the individual's voice and often don't take significantly better care of their members than more mid-sized collectives do.
And it's always going to be easier to define and divide people using misinformation (and emotion) than using logic, I suspect.
Some days I think the reason so many people turn to conspiracy theories is because they're optimists. It would be a lot more comforting to believe a secret society of smart people was running everything than to think we're doomed to blunder around following popular opinion and trends and buying glow in the dark sunglasses and believing whatever serves our emotional needs.