![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
