Compromise, art and religion are how ideas spread

[luna_manar]

I am too tired to elaborate much on the subject. All I can really say is, if you have proactively acquired, or passively come across information, chances are you are going to judge it more fairly than if it is presented to you by another human being with an opinion already formed about the information. But without the communication, the possibility for misunderstanding is larger than if two people are involved.

If someone does confront you with new information, unless you happen to understand and agree with it right away, you will not--will not--absorb that information if they do not do one of two things:

1. Appeal to an authority higher than you who you already trust, such as God (less work)
2. Rephrase, reconsider, explain, re-explain, concede points when possible, and ultimately listen to you before closing the conversation.

Spreading information from person to person does not have to take a lot of effort. However, spreading ideas--information in which all parties have done a parity check--is a lot of work, and I think this is the reason telecommunications, as they stand today, have vastly favored the cause of belief-driven, archaic agendas over that of intellectual ones; it just takes that much more work to get people to think critically, and the medium by which information is delivered simply does not care what sort of information it is.

The lack of Internet in every aspect of human life 30 years ago limited the capability of tribalism to spread its taint. Intellectualism had gained a powerful hold because the difficulty in teaching ideas to people was made up for by the primary medium of social communication of the day: books, letter, TV, radio, and most importantly, schools and libraries. Wanted to look something up? Head down to the local library. Wanted to learn how to build something? Take a class on it. Wanted to know how world economics worked? College.

The dissemination of information was controlled, and there was no way for churches or large businesses eager to sell their wares to out-pace the educational and governmental system of information delivery.

Now there is, and you are seeing the results.

I am not in any way advocating for regulation of speech on the Internet; no no. I am noting an environmental factor in human social evolution: It's just an observation, albeit one I'm making late at night and while very tired. But when asking myself "why is this happening NOW? Why didn't this happen when I was a kid? How did this happen so fast?" I can think of only two elements that are present now but were missing in 1981: the cable modem, and a personal computer in every household.

Comments

[davv]

I would say there's an exception to your statement that if someone confronts you with new information, you won't absorb the information unless they rephrase it, appeal to authority, or unless you understand it right away.

If I were to tell you about a mathematical proof, I might draw the steps of the proof for you. Assume you don't understand it right off. You could still understand it after thinking about the proof itself for some time, though.

The common language of mathematics makes the need to concede points moot. Either the proof works or it doesn't. Similarly, it also makes an authority irrelevant to the question of whether the proof works, although one could still use an authority as a shortcut - in the form of "this would take a very long time to verify, so I'm going to trust that you/the one who devised the proof knows what he's talking about".

I also think active knowledge would benefit little from either compromise or appeal to authority. If I show you the proof so you can understand how to devise other proofs, you won't benefit if you take it on faith; or, more clearly, if I tell you the solution to a puzzle, you might solve it, but you won't gain the insight that finding the solution yourself brings.

To the extent that knowledge is rewarding, and the feeling of actually understanding is rewarding, it could lead to belief-driven ideas being at a disadvantage compared to what would otherwise be the case. Belief-driven ideas can't be integrated to the same degree that intellectual ones, or knowledge, can, unless they're belief-driven in the sense that you discovered it by subjective discovery (e.g. aspects of yourself "verifiable" by yourself but not by others).

For me, at least, the fact that "belief-driven, archaic agendas" can't easily be checked makes me trust them less, as a default. If I acquire knowledge-as-knowledge, I can fit it into my own map of how other things work, and I can recombine them differently if I face new questions; but if part of my map includes a piece of information that I haven't linked to others, then if that piece of information is wrong, it could affect the whole map.

But then again, I'm not particularly typical as far as beings on this world go :) When something seems simple, I try to think about whether it is actually deceptively so - but I can understand if others take the easy road and just accept data because to go through the work would take far too much effort. On complex issues, I do the same, but I try to do a meta-reasoning on the origin (e.g. "this agreement could either be true or caused by a large conspiracy, but I don't think large conspiracies are very likely").

If I'm right about all that, then the tendency to favor intellectual ideas would relate to the degree to which one keeps a map of interrelated information versus a bunch of disconnected facts. I don't rate education very highly in advancing the mindset of keeping a map, because it's much easier to teach to tests that test disconnected facts. However, the increased computerization could support the map-type of thinking, because computers are logical, so to deal with them beyond the surface, you pretty much have to reason.

[luna_manar]

The common language of mathematics makes the need to concede points moot. Either the proof works or it doesn't. Similarly, it also makes an authority irrelevant to the question of whether the proof works, although one could still use an authority as a shortcut - in the form of "this would take a very long time to verify, so I'm going to trust that you/the one who devised the proof knows what he's talking about".

But if you're talking to someone who doesn't understand the fact that the veracity of mathematics is not subject to Opinion or God's Approval, you will have to reexplain, perhaps endlessly, until you are either understood, or decide to give up on account of the person refusing to take in the information.

Just because something like a mathematical proof is eloquently, universally and even beautifully functional does not mean everyone will approach it scientifically, or even realize that it's not something that can be debated. They might come around to understand after you have explained to them that whether or not they understand the proof right away has nothing to do with them being wrong or stupid (therefore they have nothing to gain by defending their "opinion" and nothing to lose by not comprehending right away), but you still had to explain it to them in order to dispel their belief system, and that takes effort and time and is not guaranteed to be successful no matter how correct you are. So even if you aren't conceding points, you're still expending energy (and likely using some form of diplomacy in the process).

Appeals to authority and passive information acquisition require no such effort on the part of the person imparting information. Without a direct challenge from one equal individual to another, there is no conflict, therefore no defensiveness, therefore the information imparted (correct or incorrect) is more easily absorbed.

I don't rate education very highly in advancing the mindset of keeping a map, because it's much easier to teach to tests that test disconnected facts.

I am confused by your use of the term "education." Are you talking specifically about our educational system? While you will get no argument from me that public (and private) educational systems are more adept at producing creatively and scientifically bereft, conformist grunts than free-thinking intellectuals, I hesitate to say it makes a person stupider to go to school than not. If the individual is self-motivated and curious (most people are not), then such a system is and always will be an obstacle. However, if an individual is passive and reactionary, they may not seek out their own education if left to their own devices. That's not really what I'm talking about, though: public schools are a way of disseminating information, along with public libraries, and, although I might be incorrect (and I'll research it a bit more tomorrow after I've slept), however flawed our school system is, I'd hazard a guess that it espouses less superstitious garbage as Truth and encourages more unilateral reasoning than, say, private southern Baptist options.

[davv]

But if you're talking to someone who doesn't understand the fact that the veracity of mathematics is not subject to Opinion or God's Approval, you will have to reexplain, perhaps endlessly, until you are either understood, or decide to give up on account of the person refusing to take in the information.

That's true, but you have to start from somewhere. If there's a shared set of ways of understanding or relating to the world, you can make use of those as a common language to transfer information; and if that shared set is logic, then it doesn't leave much up to interpretation. At worst, the information tells the person something about a system (like mathematics) that he's not interested in and that he doubts the validity of; at best, it gives him information he can understand, or at least verify, right away.

Even for those who don't think mathematics is universal, I think there are categories of information that can be transferred easily. I mentioned puzzle solutions. If you tell someone how to solve a puzzle (assuming he's interested), then he can check for himself, even if he doesn't gain much insight by simply following your solution. He doesn't have to take it on authority, nor does he need to compromise with you: either the puzzle gets solved or it isn't, and if it's unambiguous enough, he won't have much opportunity to do the solution incorrectly.

If appeal to authority works when there's no challenge between the people engaged in it, then information in context of a common system works when there's no significant difference in the systems as perceived by the the participants. Appeal to authority is, in one way, a rule of its own: "you can trust X without having to check for yourself". If that rule isn't held in common, then the appeal fails: the person might consider the authority not an authority after all, or he might be distrustful of authority in general.

The diplomacy then comes into play when there's a difference between systems. Compromise is perhaps realignment by argument (finding a common ground), whereas appeal to a shared authority is realignment by the system as defined by that shared authority.

I am confused by your use of the term "education." Are you talking specifically about our educational system?

Yes. I should have specified, but it's thrown around a lot here as referring to simply the system - or rather, it is often assumed, before the event, that the only or the best way to attain knowledge (be educated) is through the state-managed system.

To be more specific still, I'm talking about the educational system as I experienced it here (in Norway). The United States one might differ, but the general structure is the same: compulsory schooling based on common curricula.

If the individual is self-motivated and curious (most people are not), then such a system is and always will be an obstacle. However, if an individual is passive and reactionary, they may not seek out their own education if left to their own devices.

I could be at a disadvantage, yes. As I think I were one of the former, at least in terms of knowledge, I cannot know what the alternate universe where there were no schooling/education would be like for the latter. But are most people not curious, or is the curiosity wrung out of them? It feels intuitive to me that the latter's the case, because that's what I experienced the education system trying to do - but again, I don't think I'm one of the passive and reactionary ones, so I couldn't say. Are children generally curious, or are some less so?

That's not really what I'm talking about, though: public schools are a way of disseminating information, along with public libraries, and, although I might be incorrect (and I'll research it a bit more tomorrow after I've slept), however flawed our school system is, I'd hazard a guess that it espouses less superstitious garbage as Truth and encourages more unilateral reasoning than, say, private southern Baptist options.

True again, but it seems to me that people putting their young ones in private Baptist schools (not that we have them here) are just imposing their common idea structures on their young, who can't easily think for themselves. When the state engages in depositing sets of ideas into minds, it probably does better than the private religious alternatives, in that the ideas themselves are better ones; but it could do even better by working with curiosity rather than against it - or, in the very worst case, running parallel systems for the passive and the interested.

All that is off-topic, I know, but there you go. I suppose I'm trying to say that the obstacles to communicating efficiently don't seem to be absolute: you can have information that flows readily because of appeal to a common authority -- or to a common set of ideas, like logic. But whether the reactionary/tribalist bias is absolute depends on whether it is innate or learned - and if it is the latter, then the internet doesn't have to reinforce it. If something else could be learned instead (which the internet could help in doing if people make the effort, since it makes data so widely available), then the intellectual type of information could become prevalent.

[lhexa]

If someone does confront you with new information, unless you happen to understand and agree with it right away, you will not--will not--absorb that information if they do not do one of two things...

Hmm, I've got some experiences that fall into neither category. What comes most to mind are rebukes (often either short and to the point, or at the tail end of a conversation) which resonate, which stick in my mind despite my initial dismissal of them. A recent example was a friend accusing me of using forthrightness as an excuse for being unkind, and an earlier, but important, example was being cautioned that all successful writing has a good idea of its audience (and, implicitly, that I didn't). However, I imagine that many, maybe most, people don't share my obsessive streak, which more or less forces me to fully consider such remarks even in the absence of invoked authority or long involvement.

The lack of Internet in every aspect of human life 30 years ago limited the capability of tribalism to spread its taint.

Also, I have to take issue with the points made surrounding this statement. Many forms of erroneous judgment resulting from limited perspective are hard to notice, but there's one you see showing up again and again, in every period of history: the belief in the decline of youth. In the specific case, how do you know that humanity is more tribal now? We are, after all, well past the days of McCarthyism, which by my judgment was the most egregious expression of us-vs-them thinking in the last century of American history. More, I've got a hypothesis for why the Internet might make humanity look more tribal: the anonymous and fleeting nature of most Internet commentary favors unengaged, antisocial, and impulsive commentors. It's a system that makes the most obnoxious people the most visible. A similar effect shows up in various online communities: the most visible, active members are also the most obnoxious.

Because judgments about the quality of entire generations, entire groups of people, or even humanity as a whole are extremely subject to deficiencies of perspective, I think that such judgments merit a higher standard of reasoning and argumentation than more specific judgments.

[luna_manar]

I think you might be mistaking a the claim that it was harder to disseminate information 30 years ago for a "decline of youth" argument. That's not what I'm trying to say: It was harder for everyone to disseminate information 30 years ago. The fact that intellectualism had an institutionalized upper hand is part of what kept us going forward instead of backwards. There is historical precedent for this: the institutionalization of the dissemination of scientific knowledge to public masses is part of what allowed what we think of as "first-world" countries to flourish. An educated populace combats ever-present tribalism.

Far from there being a systematic decline of society, what we're seeing right now is a renewed thrust of polarization, brougth on by a combination of bad economic times, "war," political upheaval in other countries (always a factor, to be fair), and, yes, the mismanagement and under-utilization of Internet resources for use in public education. Resources religious and political groups have made very liberal and creative use of.

The more readily available information is and the more effectively that information is disseminated and processed, the more quickly it is absorbed. This goes beyond simple observation: it is tried and true marketing 101.

I am not saying that tribalism hasn't always outpaced intellectualism. It has, simply because it is so simple, and intellectualism is difficult. I am saying that intellectualism has a new enemy--and underutilized friend--in the Internet. It simply doesn't help the case of science that much of the information that would allow people to educate themselves is kept behind lock and key (or even if it isn't, appears to the public eye as though it is), and is a privilege to access.

Religion is not so discerning with its advertising or dissemination of literature. If we are to keep up with it, we absolutely must make better use of the tools we have at our disposal. I'm saying we should do that more.

As to your previous point, I'm not actually sure I understand what you're trying to argue. I will look again when I am not about to go to bed (how does this always happen to me? Someone says something interesting and I'm too tired to look at it.)

[lhexa]

Ah, okay, I read your post as arguing "The rise of the Internet has caused a rise in tribalism", but it looks like your actual belief is more nuanced. I didn't take you to be making a "decline of youth" argument, but even so, all arguments about generational differences are subject to the same deficiencies of perspective as the "decline of youth" one.

In particular I objected to:

The lack of Internet in every aspect of human life 30 years ago limited the capability of tribalism to spread its taint.

I still claim this is false, but it's less central to your points than I thought. Some people use the Internet to surround themselves with ideological fellow-travelers, but some find intellectual challenges there they never would have otherwise.

As for the other paragraph, I was arguing that not all new information has to be presented in one of the two ways you listed in order to be absorbed, but it might be a minor issue.

[luna_manar]

As for the other paragraph, I was arguing that not all new information has to be presented in one of the two ways you listed in order to be absorbed, but it might be a minor issue.

To be fair, you are probably right about this. I haven't thought about it enough to actually decide whether I actually think this, or if I just thought of this.

I still claim this is false, but it's less central to your points than I thought.

I am curious as to why you think it is false, or rather, what about it is false, so I'm still interested in hearing your argument on that point.

[lhexa]

I am curious as to why you think it is false, or rather, what about it is false, so I'm still interested in hearing your argument on that point.

When I think about it, I can't fill in enough details to make a strong argument, but here're the bones of one. First, all the ways in which the Internet fosters tribalism were available before the Internet (here I just thought of lists of such ways, but who knows if I'm leaving something out). Second, while these ways may have become more efficient with the Internet (for instance, the "News from Neptune" phenomenon happens easily here), so have the ways of combating tribalism (I'm thinking mainly of the intermixing of communities -- it's generally possible for a hostile, or at least doubting outsider to enter a conversation with even the most insular communities, for better or for worse). So I think it's a wash overall. But this is, as I said, only the skeleton of an argument.

[luna_manar]

Hmmm--I don't think I actually disagree with this. The way I look at it, though, the Internet is not being used by "progressives" and scientists as efficiently as they could, and that seems to be a likely problem.