Yeah, considering how well the EPA has done that in the Trump administration doesn't exactly bode well for how the "DHS" will do under a variety of different administrations.
Yeah, considering how well the EPA has done that in the Trump administration doesn't exactly bode well for how the "DHS" will do under a variety of different administrations.
I was driving on a highway in Texas when a coyote strolled lazily across the road. It glanced at my car but wasn't bothered, so even after hitting the breaks and slowing down it still got...
I was driving on a highway in Texas when a coyote strolled lazily across the road. It glanced at my car but wasn't bothered, so even after hitting the breaks and slowing down it still got pulverized. I realized that the coyote simply couldn't perceive an asphalt road, or the shiny metal objects on wheels. Nothing in its brain had evolved to understand any of these stimuli or perceive them as dangerous. It's easy to consider ourselves "above" animals, but I wonder how much our modern technology is beyond our biological ability to handle. Are we adapted to sit in front of screens, indoors, eating modified foods, with constant visual and aural stimulation? On a subconscious level it could be causing our brains to short-circuit or come up blank.
I like that the author pulled back and gave plenty of caveats to his argument. Jake, he seems to come to a similar level of skepticism as you. The world is getting to a weird point where nothing is verifiably true - is the first result on Google the right answer, or is it what Big Goog thinks is best for me? TV inundated with ads, dating apps and social media replacing real socialization.
I'm more and more inclined to just ignore the world, do my work to contribute to society and lie low until I die.
I agree. I've decided that the best way for me to live is within my community, interacting with people in real life as much as possible. When you can perceive something with your own eyes and ears you can at least be reasonably assured that you are experiencing reality.
You know, I was about to make a post honing in on this topic for a larger discussion, but this is sort of the answer that I was "looking" for (or rather, needed to hear to better articulate my...
You know, I was about to make a post honing in on this topic for a larger discussion, but this is sort of the answer that I was "looking" for (or rather, needed to hear to better articulate my own). Also, paradoxically, the people I would want to hear from are by definition not on Tildes but you seem to be in both worlds?
My confliction is the desire to be "informed". Which is why I'm on Tildes these days. A year or two ago I really cut down on the amount of social media and news I interact with. But even with Tildes being higher quality than other forums, how do I know the information I'm consuming is accurate let alone relevant? Is it worth the risk, given the prevalence (to whatever degree) of deception in news/social media, to be "informed" about the major events on Earth?
It's not just the economics of my time, but the ethics for being a good citizen. Should I be following current events (like US, and related, BLM protests) or the dynamics of politics? Or I should I just spend 2 hrs every couple years reading up before voting and then move on with life. Would being more involved locally, in politics and the community of people, be more valuable? What about being better informed about my profession (latest research developments) so that I may be more effective and generate more value?
These aren't metaphorical questions per se, I'd like to hear more from you. I'm a hair away from essentially blocking everything except my WIRED subscription and chat apps to stay in contact with friends/family abroad, and basically just looking for validation (or cautions).
In most cases, you don’t need to be informed. It’s irrelevant and inconsequential. Getting informed once a week, a month or even less is enough. We usually don’t seek news for actionable data, we...
In most cases, you don’t need to be informed. It’s irrelevant and inconsequential. Getting informed once a week, a month or even less is enough.
We usually don’t seek news for actionable data, we do it to feel part of a community. We have a psychological need to project our concerns into the world.
Seems like you and I decided to do our "information cuts" around the same time. I thought I'd miss Facebook, but not once since deleting it have I wished that I had access to it. It makes keeping...
Seems like you and I decided to do our "information cuts" around the same time. I thought I'd miss Facebook, but not once since deleting it have I wished that I had access to it. It makes keeping in touch with friends (real friends, i.e. 5% of the people on my friends list) so much more enjoyable.
I joined Tildes because I was sick of the censoring, bias, groupthink, and infiltration campaigns. Sounds like you may have had similar reasons for joining. If we could know the demographics of Tildes users in detail, we could get a feel for what kind of information the average user here is likely to share, and what the "average" opinion would be. For instance maybe 60% of Tildes users work in white collar jobs, as opposed to 40% on Reddit or some other medium. That would influence and be correlated with their views on many topics. Since we can only know very little about the users here, I think it's best to take what we see here with some level of skepticism, knowing that the people on this forum may very well have different values that we are assuming. Just because there are a lot of posts about topic X, doesn't mean topic X is necessarily important and urgent.
Regarding your questions, I ask myself similar things all the time. When you posted this article and your accompanied comments I felt some relief that someone has the same concerns. It's easy to get stressed out about the problems in the world. I equate that to turning a car on, putting it in neutral and revving the engine at max. It's so much wasted energy. I'm convinced that the best choice - the one that can lead to fulfillment and peace with ourselves - is to take the action that most directly causes a small change. And I believe this often means working within our immediate spheres of influence - how we take care of ourselves, our friends, and our families, and how we treat people every day.
There isn't a quick answer to most important issues, despite the immediate gratification offered by social media, TV, and Amazon. Have you considered spending your own time and effort to influence the causes that you care about? Not the politics themselves, but the results that politicians/movements are (claiming to be) aiming for. So whatever cause you care about, working to spread awareness, teach others, implement improvements within your immediate circle. I don't know what you value, so I can't say what's more valuable, but I would bet that you would find it more meaningful.
For example, the BLM movement has resulted in a lot of public demonstrations, but how many protesters went home afterwards, feeling like they did their good deed, and went back to their same habits. Maybe some donated to BLM or to a political candidate. Why abdicate their influence and autonomy to a political group? What if the group mishandles the money? What if the politician makes claims and doesn't follow through? What if a policy gets enacted but is so bloated with bureaucracy that nothing ends up happening? And even so, what's the policy going to do - force people's brains from ever firing their neurons in a way that results in unfair treatment of another person? Compared to the US white population, the black population is more impoverished and has a higher rate of single-parent homes. Clearly, generations of slavery and racism contributed to this. But what do we do from here to help? There are mentoring organizations, food banks, parent advocacy groups within nearly every community that have shortages of volunteers.
To me, working to help a single person is more meaningful than laboring endlessly in politics. You can buy a homeless guy water and food and be criticized by those who say "there are organizations combating homelessness, the money is better given to them" or "you aren't helping him you're just making him dependent" or whatever. But when he takes the food, smiles and thanks you, and you smile back, you know it was meaningful. No one needs to tell you otherwise.
BLM is only one example of an issue, but one that you mentioned and that's been relevant. I am interested to hear your take. What appeals to you about WIRED compared to other sources? Are you well-connected in your city, or are most of your friends and family elsewhere?
Everything is balance. Maybe spend an hour a week reading up rather than one a year. While we may not be capable of understanding all the complexity of the world, if we aspire to anything good we...
Everything is balance.
Maybe spend an hour a week reading up rather than one a year. While we may not be capable of understanding all the complexity of the world, if we aspire to anything good we do need to be aware of more than just our immediate circumstances and environment. I'd argue that the kind of 'benign' ignorance that comes from completely isolating yourself the way you mention just makes you easier to manipulate, and is an abdication of your most important responsibility outside of your self and family - actually engaging with and contributing to your community.
I don't agree that we "need" one, or that it's even possible, but Facebook and Google have already taken on such initiatives, especially recently with COVID-related content, which has taken...
I don't agree that we "need" one, or that it's even possible, but Facebook and Google have already taken on such initiatives, especially recently with COVID-related content, which has taken casualties. Not to mention that not all state-sanctioned information is the truth or that there is a single truth. Theory of knowledge is not appreciated by the common person let alone the rigor needed for fact checking. Googling is more about confirming opinions than research.
So I'm wondering what everyone's thought's are on where this is going and how to manage our content input on the way there, because to be honest, I'm more and more inclined to just ignore the world, do my work to contribute to society and lie low until I die.
I'm all for tighter regulations on how the truth is presented, and I'm not against more fact-checking and counter-misinformation research within the government, but a government agency that...
I'm all for tighter regulations on how the truth is presented, and I'm not against more fact-checking and counter-misinformation research within the government, but a government agency that dictates the truth doesn't sit well with me. We've seen other government agencies get co-opted by those with less than altruistic intentions, so it doesn't seem like a stretch that this version of the Ministry of truth could evolve into something closer to Orwell's ministry of truth
That does not inspire confidence.
Exactly. These organizations already sound dystopian when you consider how they perform.
Yeah, considering how well the EPA has done that in the Trump administration doesn't exactly bode well for how the "DHS" will do under a variety of different administrations.
The Department of Homeland Security already exists, and has for a number of administrations.
I was driving on a highway in Texas when a coyote strolled lazily across the road. It glanced at my car but wasn't bothered, so even after hitting the breaks and slowing down it still got pulverized. I realized that the coyote simply couldn't perceive an asphalt road, or the shiny metal objects on wheels. Nothing in its brain had evolved to understand any of these stimuli or perceive them as dangerous. It's easy to consider ourselves "above" animals, but I wonder how much our modern technology is beyond our biological ability to handle. Are we adapted to sit in front of screens, indoors, eating modified foods, with constant visual and aural stimulation? On a subconscious level it could be causing our brains to short-circuit or come up blank.
I like that the author pulled back and gave plenty of caveats to his argument. Jake, he seems to come to a similar level of skepticism as you. The world is getting to a weird point where nothing is verifiably true - is the first result on Google the right answer, or is it what Big Goog thinks is best for me? TV inundated with ads, dating apps and social media replacing real socialization.
I agree. I've decided that the best way for me to live is within my community, interacting with people in real life as much as possible. When you can perceive something with your own eyes and ears you can at least be reasonably assured that you are experiencing reality.
You know, I was about to make a post honing in on this topic for a larger discussion, but this is sort of the answer that I was "looking" for (or rather, needed to hear to better articulate my own). Also, paradoxically, the people I would want to hear from are by definition not on Tildes but you seem to be in both worlds?
My confliction is the desire to be "informed". Which is why I'm on Tildes these days. A year or two ago I really cut down on the amount of social media and news I interact with. But even with Tildes being higher quality than other forums, how do I know the information I'm consuming is accurate let alone relevant? Is it worth the risk, given the prevalence (to whatever degree) of deception in news/social media, to be "informed" about the major events on Earth?
It's not just the economics of my time, but the ethics for being a good citizen. Should I be following current events (like US, and related, BLM protests) or the dynamics of politics? Or I should I just spend 2 hrs every couple years reading up before voting and then move on with life. Would being more involved locally, in politics and the community of people, be more valuable? What about being better informed about my profession (latest research developments) so that I may be more effective and generate more value?
These aren't metaphorical questions per se, I'd like to hear more from you. I'm a hair away from essentially blocking everything except my WIRED subscription and chat apps to stay in contact with friends/family abroad, and basically just looking for validation (or cautions).
In most cases, you don’t need to be informed. It’s irrelevant and inconsequential. Getting informed once a week, a month or even less is enough.
We usually don’t seek news for actionable data, we do it to feel part of a community. We have a psychological need to project our concerns into the world.
Seems like you and I decided to do our "information cuts" around the same time. I thought I'd miss Facebook, but not once since deleting it have I wished that I had access to it. It makes keeping in touch with friends (real friends, i.e. 5% of the people on my friends list) so much more enjoyable.
I joined Tildes because I was sick of the censoring, bias, groupthink, and infiltration campaigns. Sounds like you may have had similar reasons for joining. If we could know the demographics of Tildes users in detail, we could get a feel for what kind of information the average user here is likely to share, and what the "average" opinion would be. For instance maybe 60% of Tildes users work in white collar jobs, as opposed to 40% on Reddit or some other medium. That would influence and be correlated with their views on many topics. Since we can only know very little about the users here, I think it's best to take what we see here with some level of skepticism, knowing that the people on this forum may very well have different values that we are assuming. Just because there are a lot of posts about topic X, doesn't mean topic X is necessarily important and urgent.
Regarding your questions, I ask myself similar things all the time. When you posted this article and your accompanied comments I felt some relief that someone has the same concerns. It's easy to get stressed out about the problems in the world. I equate that to turning a car on, putting it in neutral and revving the engine at max. It's so much wasted energy. I'm convinced that the best choice - the one that can lead to fulfillment and peace with ourselves - is to take the action that most directly causes a small change. And I believe this often means working within our immediate spheres of influence - how we take care of ourselves, our friends, and our families, and how we treat people every day.
There isn't a quick answer to most important issues, despite the immediate gratification offered by social media, TV, and Amazon. Have you considered spending your own time and effort to influence the causes that you care about? Not the politics themselves, but the results that politicians/movements are (claiming to be) aiming for. So whatever cause you care about, working to spread awareness, teach others, implement improvements within your immediate circle. I don't know what you value, so I can't say what's more valuable, but I would bet that you would find it more meaningful.
For example, the BLM movement has resulted in a lot of public demonstrations, but how many protesters went home afterwards, feeling like they did their good deed, and went back to their same habits. Maybe some donated to BLM or to a political candidate. Why abdicate their influence and autonomy to a political group? What if the group mishandles the money? What if the politician makes claims and doesn't follow through? What if a policy gets enacted but is so bloated with bureaucracy that nothing ends up happening? And even so, what's the policy going to do - force people's brains from ever firing their neurons in a way that results in unfair treatment of another person? Compared to the US white population, the black population is more impoverished and has a higher rate of single-parent homes. Clearly, generations of slavery and racism contributed to this. But what do we do from here to help? There are mentoring organizations, food banks, parent advocacy groups within nearly every community that have shortages of volunteers.
To me, working to help a single person is more meaningful than laboring endlessly in politics. You can buy a homeless guy water and food and be criticized by those who say "there are organizations combating homelessness, the money is better given to them" or "you aren't helping him you're just making him dependent" or whatever. But when he takes the food, smiles and thanks you, and you smile back, you know it was meaningful. No one needs to tell you otherwise.
BLM is only one example of an issue, but one that you mentioned and that's been relevant. I am interested to hear your take. What appeals to you about WIRED compared to other sources? Are you well-connected in your city, or are most of your friends and family elsewhere?
Everything is balance.
Maybe spend an hour a week reading up rather than one a year. While we may not be capable of understanding all the complexity of the world, if we aspire to anything good we do need to be aware of more than just our immediate circumstances and environment. I'd argue that the kind of 'benign' ignorance that comes from completely isolating yourself the way you mention just makes you easier to manipulate, and is an abdication of your most important responsibility outside of your self and family - actually engaging with and contributing to your community.
I don't agree that we "need" one, or that it's even possible, but Facebook and Google have already taken on such initiatives, especially recently with COVID-related content, which has taken casualties. Not to mention that not all state-sanctioned information is the truth or that there is a single truth. Theory of knowledge is not appreciated by the common person let alone the rigor needed for fact checking. Googling is more about confirming opinions than research.
So I'm wondering what everyone's thought's are on where this is going and how to manage our content input on the way there, because to be honest, I'm more and more inclined to just ignore the world, do my work to contribute to society and lie low until I die.
I'm all for tighter regulations on how the truth is presented, and I'm not against more fact-checking and counter-misinformation research within the government, but a government agency that dictates the truth doesn't sit well with me. We've seen other government agencies get co-opted by those with less than altruistic intentions, so it doesn't seem like a stretch that this version of the Ministry of truth could evolve into something closer to Orwell's ministry of truth