Sociopath Community

Turncoat said:

The difference now is that it can be done by choice, and the right information could potentially have someone drift in a new direction. We're in a "Free Marketplace of Information" model right now, but once it's streamlined into a chip that feeds us literal data without us even having to remember reading or watching it?

That's straight programming (imagine it being hacked to give different intel). People have the room right now to argue which lets the facts still mutate, but as was expressed in Ghost in the Shell 2nd Gig once it's being fed straight to your head, and the means of beaming it there is only handled by one group? It's conformist headcanon where they can call differing information "wrong" instead of "alternative" as an information-monopoly, one that makes historical records look less biased by comparison.

We need those gaps between the learning or the info is simply accepted. If kids have been able to get all their school answers as if through a hiveminded psychic link, they will behave as if a part of said hivemind. Where the internet's led to absurd amounts of subcultural divisions, this would have us return to something closer to 90s levels of groupthink, maybe even that of earlier decades like the 50s.

I agree with this. And while chipping may be down the road (or perhaps never even a thing in our lifetime), the foundations for communal programming have been laid out for a long time now. We seen after the invasion of Iraq how easily fear could ensnare the public into shaky lies. And how those lies change the course of history. The invasion of Iraq was a bi-partisan war based off of false pretenses. Probably even an extension of the industrial-military complex that Eisenhower warned us about in 1961.

The top brass at The Pentagon are connected with weapons manufacturers, and the media trumpets the narratives they spin to us. People in upper echelons know a journalist is out for a juicy story. And that makes them so easy to manipulate, when you can choose what will be reported on, and paid attention to.

I'm not sure if the Internet is to be blamed here. It's a tool—an extremely powerful one. But my sense is that something went wrong with our culture. We created high school programs chocked full of irrelevant courses that engender resentment toward education itself.

Critical thinking has long been off the curriculum; we now reward rote memorization. On top of that, more than ever, there is pressure to conform. So now we're in a society of people who grew up disaffected, and who never were encouraged to formulate some solid thoughts of their own. Nor were they allowed to pursue their passions with a singular interest in their formative years. People are raised to be drones.

Turncoat said:

These are the same people who would have been too tired to do research at the library, instead slinging word of mouth from their clusters.

Absolutely.

Turncoat said:

It has use through it's sources. The real problem is over how much your peers care about source accuracy, which is really more of an academian point with a new packaging.

Basically, these same people not learning now would have been the same people not learning new things before. Thankfully they look for sources at all now, it's a step up from just accepting your own knowledge second-hand from some dude who read a random 'zine.

This is actually a difficult area for me. I've never learned statistics, just assimilated bits and pieces. I know the importance of sample sizes, correlation coefficient, methedology. I tend to have ideas based on studies, but then I'll run into people who have contrary studies; that's a difficult field to navigate.

A lot of times when things come down to that, I'll look up metanalyses (if possible) to be fair. My takeaway has been that their are three tiers of people. The one who claims something, the one who can back it up with studies, and the one who can break down studies by how relevant they are. And even if you are correct on your claim, the person who can break down studies could still be wrong, or a sophist It's murky water.

Turncoat said:

Where it isn't in school, it's increased threefold on the internet and they've dumbed it down pretty hard especially for "Creationism" media and shit on the dinosaurs.

They've clearly made it for parents looking for learning aids to educate their children "the right way", and that paired either with homeschooling or a particularly religious state or school institution (like religious private schools) can exemplify the damages.

I think this is a matter of where you look. People like them will always create their own zones. But I feel like they've been a dying breed since 2007/2008. Especially after the Richard Dawkins anti-God stuff got popular.

Turncoat said:

Left's the new Soccer Mom, while when we were growing up it was The Right. As such, counter-cultures such as the art-right have surfaced to balance the equation by adding a rebel factor.

The Maga hat is the modern gothic skull T-shirt.

Perhaps. I know in the case of people like Baked Alaska, they use the MAGA shit to virtue signal and try to attract attention. I don't like to judge people for supporting a particular politician. Except if your a Biden supporter.

Turncoat said:

Weird, my schools were a little too concerned with teaching the atrocities.

I think you mixed up my words "didn't" for "did."

Turncoat said:

It's already been changing, and frankly it's been for the best. Even with a different spin thrown on it it's arguably closer to displaying atrocities so "they may never happen again" compared to before's model of "kids can't handle this crap".

Imagine if we handled The Holocaust more like how other historical traumas were written about for school.

Imagine if we handled other historical traumas like the Holocaust. Perhaps if we covered other genocides as much as we did with the Jews, the American public wouldn't be shamed into paying tax money for Jewish missiles or the Iron Dome. Maybe we would make an Iron Dome for Yugoslavia.

Or, if we recognized that slavery was a stable habit of many cultures all throughout history, modern Americans wouldn't need to feel shame over what was normal contemporarily (still is in many countries).

This is more than an attempt to make sure "things may never happen again." We're far from being able to re-enact a Holocaust or slavery. These books are designed to sew in the minds of children that multiculturalism is the way to go, and that all else is in the name of hate.

Very buzzed response, sorry if it seems scattered.

You write more coherently and less scattered drunk than I do sober 

Tryptamine said:

the media trumpets the narratives they spin to us. 

While this is true, we also now expect to some degree that we're being lied to. Once Deepfakes hit the mainstream harder than they did earlier this will escalate.

The notion of "propaganda" has hit the mainstream to the nth degree now that there's so many conflicting sources of it. In a sense, through media trying to pull us in so many directions it's enforcing either picking a side or learning to read between the lines. Prior, people trusted the news similarly to how people trust doctors.

What's scarier to factor are the passive effects of watching even what's understood to be fake. Seeing a sex tape of an upcoming senator for instance that people can tell was doctored footage of a different pornstar will still leave a different impression on people over where their minds will tangent with these artificial ideas.

Effectively we'll be handling much more, without even noticing it, over passive associations through crossing archetypal symbols. It'll be like what musical cues already do to us, and what laugh tracks used to do for people, but escalated further. 

I'm not sure if the Internet is to be blamed here. It's a tool—an extremely powerful one. But my sense is that something went wrong with our culture. We created high school programs chocked full of irrelevant courses that engender resentment toward education itself.

I'd blame it more on teachers. I usually hear of one or two good teachers for every dozen bad ones.

Critical thinking has long been off the curriculum; we now reward rote memorization.

Thankfully the internet offers people a place to bring their critical thinking, should that be their desire.

Turncoat said:

It has use through it's sources. The real problem is over how much your peers care about source accuracy, which is really more of an academian point with a new packaging.

Basically, these same people not learning now would have been the same people not learning new things before. Thankfully they look for sources at all now, it's a step up from just accepting your own knowledge second-hand from some dude who read a random 'zine.

This is actually a difficult area for me. I've never learned statistics, just assimilated bits and pieces. I know the importance of sample sizes, correlation coefficient, methedology. I tend to have ideas based on studies, but then I'll run into people who have contrary studies; that's a difficult field to navigate.

Their sources usually have further sources, which then can be further researched in PDF scans or whatever else mirrors the original sources.

Past a point what information you subscribe to will always fall onto matters of faith, and what conclusions the article comes to often comes from skewing data that was once more plainly presented (or twisting the meaning of a word). It's easier for example to believe "Science" over how it tries harder to replicate their findings, it makes it take less faith to put faith into it when it's aiming to explain smaller pieces with larger bodies of words to a dissecting degree, but even that can be appropriated into short-sighted conclusions that, on their own if left uncorrected, skew the intended data towards a different conclusion. Even the use of outdated information leads to many clashes when the idea of "updated information" is brought into question (or if they just stubbornly cling to older data from it suiting their conclusions, like a Freudian). 

Even a step further, there's people out there who either, by intention or by accident, present a side poorly as to create a squeaky wheel stinker that others would rather avoid. A poor presenter of undeniable facts can still have people end up joining the other side purely over it's presentation. 

As such, it's about depth (or rather ought to be instead of charisma as a shortcut), and the effort it took down the rabbit hole to get the data. As it is with peer-to-peer communication there's always going to be some degree of filtering out the bias of the writer to see what it's prime data is, if not going the extra mile and checking their sources to see where their bias may have led their reading astray.

A lot of times when things come down to that, I'll look up metanalyses (if possible) to be fair. My takeaway has been that their are three tiers of people. The one who claims something, the one who can back it up with studies, and the one who can break down studies by how relevant they are. 

With easier access to research, it's easier to insist that people do it. Many still won't, but the effort it takes to shame them for it is much, much less.

I could never insist someone go to the library and check out some tomes to learn what I'm trying to talk with them about, but I certainly can link an article or otherwise insist that they link me their sources. Even if they don't, some of their shit can be quoted and searched through Google to find similar themes, if not simply searching for their subcultural keywords, allowing back searching someone's bibliography purely through their linguistic choices.

I'd never have called someone lazy over not knowing something until the information age.

And even if you are correct on your claim, the person who can break down studies could still be wrong, or a sophist It's murky water.

I'd rather talk to someone of depth who has it wrong than someone shallow who stumbled upon the supposedly right conclusions. It's about how much rigor they put behind their knowledge, and their means of discernment when it comes to sources. It's about the process, how they learn, that allows talking to an educated idiot or even someone mocking a dumb demographic through parody to be a step above someone who says "things are because they are, don't challenge it".

Turncoat said:

Left's the new Soccer Mom, while when we were growing up it was The Right. As such, counter-cultures such as the art-right have surfaced to balance the equation by adding a rebel factor.

The Maga hat is the modern gothic skull T-shirt.

Perhaps. I know in the case of people like Baked Alaska, they use the MAGA shit to virtue signal and try to attract attention. I don't like to judge people for supporting a particular politician. Except if your a Biden supporter.

"The Ends Justify The Means" is a reason to pick him over Trump anyway. There's more to gain in the colder sense of making the choice in lieu of moralist stances over an awkward fumbler who lingers near kids a little too long.

Turncoat said:

It's already been changing, and frankly it's been for the best. Even with a different spin thrown on it it's arguably closer to displaying atrocities so "they may never happen again" compared to before's model of "kids can't handle this crap".

Imagine if we handled The Holocaust more like how other historical traumas were written about for school.

Imagine if we handled other historical traumas like the Holocaust. Perhaps if we covered other genocides as much as we did with the Jews, the American public wouldn't be shamed into paying tax money for Jewish missiles or the Iron Dome. Maybe we would make an Iron Dome for Yugoslavia. 

I'm all for public schools having a mandatory Historical Atrocities class, frankly history is taught in far too much of a neutral tone when it's actually quite dramatic.

Or, if we recognized that slavery was a stable habit of many cultures all throughout history, modern Americans wouldn't need to feel shame over what was normal contemporarily (still is in many countries).

We're more likely to accomplish this once machines replace the majority of human labor. It also doesn't help that 'the white race' is associated with corporate wealth, and that many of them are what enable sweat shop practices in the modern age. It lets them conflate the two issues quite easily even if it's really more of a cultural affluence meets wealth issue.

This is more than an attempt to make sure "things may never happen again." We're far from being able to re-enact a Holocaust or slavery. These books are designed to sew in the minds of children that multiculturalism is the way to go, and that all else is in the name of hate.

What has The Holocaust more rigorously enforced is over it's connections to the second world war, the sheer scale of it as an event, as a kill count, and as efficiency, and that the demographic it targeted is more baseline than matters purely of wealth or politics. Pol Pot's kill count by comparison for example is a drop in the bucket:



We also were growing up during a time where more people who went through that were still alive, so it still carried about as much relevance to bring up as the horrors of Vietnam when it comes to American culture anyway. It's about as much "race propaganda" as combining Black History Month with the Vietnam War, and much of what let Hitler's campaign be this successful and get this far was over his understanding of charisma and media, something that frankly ought to echo as a warning towards those who'd still fall prey to it nowadays.

Blanc said: 

You write more coherently and less scattered drunk than I do sober 

How he'd write sober meanwhile is itself a curiosity.

If it's like it is with me, I can find it easier at points with a bit of a buzz to type my thoughts out than otherwise. 

Alice:

You're right. Upon a second look, it seems like the thing is legit. How videos like the first one Trypt posted are supposed to help feminism and reduce racism I don't know. The formatting of that show is so fucked up and triggering.

I would say it's generally good to increase awareness of gender and race issues even starting from primary schools. However, videos like these do a disservice to the genuine good efforts out there, because now those good efforts will be boxed with braindead nonsense like this. It's giving opportunities for the other side of the polarized spectrum to pull strawmen and ridicule feminism over the stupid 1%.

`Schools teaching creationism are practically non-existent at this point (as they should be).`

Visit Kansas lol

`The one who claims something, the one who can back it up with studies, and the one who can break down studies by how relevant they are.`

This will get you pretty far and is an extremely good guideline imho ^

I have discussed this topic ad nausea on reddit channels (I could link it some posts but I've deleted my account since) and IRL.

I think there's a huge issue with Internet and the information flood these days, because people are unable to form good rules to determine what to trust and what not to trust. I think issues like these can only be fixed by trying to raise awareness and education at every level (not just primary school and then let people forget it), promote trustworthy news sources, and hold journalists and other authorative sources of information accountable. And emphasize the importance of meta-analyses.

I have a small checklist I run every claim I hear about through to determine how much value I place on it. It's very mundane and boring, but works:

1. I trust what the experts say
2. If the experts don't agree, I don't make up my mind.
3. If an expert opinion is not available, I will check the evidence, and probably won't have a strong opinion either way.

For this to work, the insitutions and the experts that provide their opinions need to be held accountable, so I would promote systems that do that. Like peer review and the scientific method. There's always money in debunking things, so I don't place much trust on these conspiracies that science is utterly corrupt and biased.

The problem I see these days is that every Jack and Joe wants to be Michelangelo, an artist and a pioneer, a fact-checker, and a genius critical thinker. Most such people grossly overestimate their abilities, when they would get much further with some humility and trust in credible authorities and time-tested methods.

Legga said: 

Visit Kansas lol

What's wrong with Kansas :D

It's such an exciting place.