Pagename: philosophy - Philosophy
Category:Array
Post Count: 5Category:General
Pagename: philosophy - Philosophy

Changes in societal information flow

Unsurprisingly, there has been notable changes in how information flows through society in the past 50 years. Before the internet, the flow could be described as moving from source to journalist to news consumers and then spreading throughout the greater public based on personal connections.

This had various pros and cons. In a time when journalists held a relatively coveted position with an association of integrity, their positions were more secure and the pressure to be informative and accurate was more acute than in times more recent. Consumers of their news would typically be suitably educated to understand the content and their interactions with friends, family and other contacts would allow tailored messaging suitable for the recipient. So, for example, folk with greater understanding would be able to determine how to talk with other similar individuals or if it was more appropriate to adjust their conversations to those with less understanding.

While journalists were held to a higher account, they had more control over the flow of information and that allowed potential abuse. Controlling the flow of information was possible for those with government control or with the power or influence (read ‘money’) to sway the journalists or the journalist’s employers. Media organisations became some of the most persuasive and the most wealthy based on this potential influence.

With the internet, information has been allowed to flow much more freely. It is now far less controllable by one individual or organisation. Social media has made this process more efficient again as individuals are able to connect and share information across their networks of friends and acquaintances. A side-effect of this is the erosion of authority that was once placed in journalists. Media organisations have had to resort far more to using emotive topics to ensure they stay relevant to their customers. If topics are not emotive, it is in their interest to make them emotive.

Other individuals and organisations have taken advantage of this change to produce emotive content without the need to maintain the integrity or objectivity that traditional media organisations were bound to. So the average consumer, while now the receiver of more news than ever, can easily receive more biased and less trustworthy news. On top of that, the ability of individuals to personally tailor their communications with others while discussing new topics is greatly diminished.

It has all lead to a polarizing of view points. Two polar ends could be defined as a spectrum from those who respond to reasoned rational debate to those who respond to emotive topics. These issues have only become more apparent as the internet and social media has become more widely used. It has not been a good outcome with democracies now faltering in the face of concerted efforts to sway views.

Hence the urgent need for new tools to help netizens to bring integrity back to our information and news consumption.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Category:General
Pagename: philosophy - Philosophy

Softening the path towards rationality

At times I stray away from my trusted circle of friends while online and I end up dealing with the public. What a shock. It is these times when it is confirmed that social media can indeed produce an echo chamber with people that agree with your views. Stepping away from those usual contacts shows me that a lot of people have vastly different, and I would say ‘irrational’, views on the world and how it is run. Climate change (CC) has been the bastion of irrationality for decades now. I still regularly come across people who consider CC a conspiracy of some sort, or a mistake or exaggeration made by the researchers involved. There are just too many independent researchers who have reached the same conclusion over decades to give those retorts any merit.

So my mind naturally wonders to how and why these people hold onto these views. I believe I saw the same effect with the Trump support I saw while living in Knoxville, Tennessee. At the time (and to this day) it was a strongly red state. Conversations about politics, while rare, were typically strongly in favour of Trump. Alternative views stood out in this area. If you were a democrat who didn’t want an argument, it was better to avoid the topic altogether. If you were someone who felt it was important to get along with your neighbours and colleagues, you had better like Trump. It is this type of effect that explains a lot of irrationality. For a lot of people, the need to be right, the need to know the truth, is secondary to getting along in their community.

It is with this in mind that I find an explanation for those irrational views in a lot of topics. People who are unable to dive into a complicated subject and are surrounded by people who have formed their opinions based on flawed information, are often likely to take those views on themselves. With social media allowing people to form communities of like minded people and with biased media sources feeding in their own inflammatory narrative, polarization is happening more and more. This also explains the stronghold of conspiratorial theories being in rural areas where community ties are all the more important.

This effect has become very problematic for climate change because the world needs everyone to get on board. We need everyone to be on the same page and as long as those people follow the views of their inner circle, they are going to represent a resistance to action. Case in point, as an external viewer, it makes sense that workers in the primary industries are not ready to change their way of life. Many of them grew up in families who did the same occupation which has always been valued. They work hard and struggle to produce the goods for their community and wider society. Now society turns around and says what they are doing in all part of the problem and they need to just stop. It is truly unrealistic. We, as a society, need to communicate we appreciate what they have contributed and then as a society, we need to compensate these industries in a way that allows them to transition to alternative occupations.

Hindsight is 20/20 and this is the case here. We really should of done things differently in the decades past. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a society where the approach I describe can be expected. Individuals are expected to move within societies laws and regulations. Little regard is given to individual industries unless the needs become dire. So in short, we need societal change. Let’s not hold our breath.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Category:General
Pagename: philosophy - Philosophy

Fourth twenty in twenty – Environmental woes

Over time our society has developed a culture, a way of doing things, that cannot be sustained by the natural world. To be sure, it will take decades but it is clear that our way of life in Australia and most developed countries requires an unsustainable amount of destruction to the natural environment. Bit by bit, development swallows what remains of the bush. To question that process in front of some can result in astonishment or disbelief that we could want anything else other than more suburbia and more economic activity. These people are clueless about the importance of the natural world.

With the use of incremental steps, the destruction cannot be halted. The argument will always be ‘this is such a small impact, it is insignificant‘. Yet, viewing the current landscape often makes my stomach twist into knots. Suburbia and agriculture, typically devoid of native vegetation, covers huge swaths of land. Areas of bush often only exist where the land is unusable for people such as mountainous terrain. Even those areas are often seriously degraded by introduced species of flora and fauna.

What I believe is required is a hard line that cannot be crossed. That is, a percentage of land that cannot be touched. Really, I think we have crossed an appropriate point already but given we have flown past that point and will need a period of adjustment, we can and should set a point in the near future where no further bush can be cleared. Without this type of policy, we will incrementally destroy our environment to the point of no return.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Category:General
Pagename: philosophy - Philosophy

Third twenty in twenty – Mathematics is worthwhile

Personally, I love a good puzzle to work on. So, for that reason, it makes sense I enjoy mathematics more than the average Joe. Still, even with that in mind, I am perplexed at the resistance applied to avoid learning all things mathematical. This topic comes up fairly regularly now I have young children of school age. There disinterest is accentuated by the fact that neither has a definite idea on what they would like to do as a future occupation. I certainly don’t won’t to hit them with the ‘well those occupations require mathematics’ line for fear of encouraging them to avoid those particular occupations. Both kids have resented the mental effort required to learn mathematics at various points. Some of my children’s teachers have even appeared to acquiesce with the students in their dislike of mathematics. Very disappointing.

One worn out argument that is often aimed at mathematics is ‘I will never use it, so what’s the point?’. Indeed, on face value, the argument has value. There are not too many jobs that require employees to break out their pen and paper and start throwing Pythagoras theorem around. Yet, many of those same workers will apply mathematics in an implicit sense. Making sense of dates and times is a frequent task for most. Being able to make adjustments to various measures of magnitude is a given in daily life. Got enough money to buy the milk? How many extra eggs to make that double batch of pancakes? This is not even touching on the more advanced ways we can and do use mathematical thinking, generally without even relating it to the mathematical skills we are actually using. The same skills we learn at school.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Category:General
Pagename: philosophy - Philosophy

Second twenty in twenty – Non thinkers

In earlier years of my life, I was under the impression that people would form alternative conclusions on topics based on different information or different values. However, I understand now, cognition is a core feature of our beliefs. In particular, lack of cognition appears to explain a substantial number of conclusions that I find to be mysterious. That is, people concluding believes that appear self-evidently wrong to me. I better note here that I know I am not infallible. I fully understand that I can be wrong and any particular ‘argument’ or belief I have, may be the wrong one. It is less likely to be based on lack of cognition though. I am typically willing to think through a topic until I feel I have a solid grasp of the topic. Just as importantly, I am comfortable with accepting I do not know about a topic to reach a solid conclusion.

I believe the problem with non-thinkers is rife. Even on topics where people are often forced to have an opinion of some sort (think political affiliation, views on climate change etc. ), I find a lot of people are unaware of the fundamental concepts. They use the opinions of those around them to form their own rather than thinking through a topic with the facts on hand and their own values. I remember this realisation hitting home when I took environment science as an elective subject at uni. I often found myself surrounded with people with a similar view point (ie we need to care for the environment) but were often ignorant of the underlying reasons for it.