I don't watch or listen to too much that random people suggest to me, but there are a few in my inner circle that I do tend to give a go to what they recommend. One of the things recently was a talk between Bari Weiss and Roland Fryer speak about some of Fryer's experience, both from a difficult childhood and more recently as an economics professor at Harvard. I don't listen to Bari often, but I have heard Fryer speak before on topics that he has been studying, like racial prejudice in police shootings that the data doesn't support.
This talk isn't much about that though, but I was reminded about it today after a discussion with my client on the assassination attempt on the Slovak Prime Minister. While that shouldn't happen in my opinion, is it any surprise? After all, most politicians today garner support through polarization on key topics, meaning that one one side there is strong approval, and on the other strong disapproval. And of course, when people feel very strongly about something, some fraction are going to act strongly upon their feelings.
This is not a justification for violence, but polarization is one of the causes of violence today, as every topic whether meaningful or not, has become polarized in public discourse. If we look at football hooligans as an example of polarized behavior where they stab and kill each other because someone barracks for another team, we can see where this kind of attitude falls. Except, we are doing it on everything.
But, what I mentioned was perhaps something interesting to discuss here, because it likely affects us all in some way. To exemplify here, we can use a baseline audience of 100 people to represent an entire population. Now, think about how many are on either side.
- Listening to Donald Trump speak, how many think genius, how many fool?
- Listening to Albert Einstein speak, how many think genius, how many fool?
- Listening to the Dalai Lama speak, how many think peaceful, how many think violent?
- Listening to a top climate scientist speak, how many think correct, how many incorrect?
- Watching a top hockey player play, how many think skilled, how many think unskilled?
The list can of course go on, but what might be interesting to note, is that politicians tend to at best get around 50/50 support, but even if most of the audience don't understand what Einstein is really saying, most will regard him a genius. Why?
Well, it is because politicians are just looking for support to that just over 50% level, and in order to get it, they polarize the audience, and look to get the fraction more by undermining their competitors. They don't have to have evidence to prove anything, they just have to engage the voter on a single aspect. For example, I know a person in the US who will only vote for those who are against abortion. They don't care about anything else, that is their indicator. The person they vote for might be the most horrid human in existence, but if they are against abortion, they get his vote.
So, what politicians do now is just focus on the polarizing factors that will cause people to love and hate them, because if they engage enough through this method, it doesn't even matter if there are conflicts in what they say, because people will focus on the things that are important to them. For instance, if you believe immigrants are the reason you don't have a job, or the cause of increased costs of living, and they are the pains that are top of your experience right now, you are likely to vote for someone who is against immigration.
But, there is no middle ground anymore, no nuance. It is all light-switch, on-off mentality, often driven by emotions, not data. Back when Fryer wrote the study on his findings using millions of data points looking at police prejudice in shootings and not finding any, he was told not to release it, because it would ruin his career. Minutes after releasing a couple hundred pages of report and appendices, he was getting calls and emails about how wrong he is - how'd they read it in that time?
While we might say we follow the science, we don't actually want to do that if it goes against how we feel about something. And even when we say "to each their own belief", we only behave that way when people's beliefs are within our tolerance limits - because when they aren't we want to control people, change their behaviors, and force them into alignment with our own opinions. And, if we can't do it through conversation, we will do it through force.
Conversation however is dead in today's society, because not only are the discussions polarized and without nuance, but people are also emotionally volatile, unable to control themselves when talking about even the simplest of issues, especially if they feel strongly about it. And, because we are in a polarization mindset, we feel strongly about a lot things, whether it is relevant or not, or whether it is real or not.
At the end of the talk, Fryer was asked a question whether his upbringing was part of what made him exceptional today and if giving too much opportunity to disadvantaged kids will end up stifling brilliance, as their desire might reduce. He couldn't answer that, as he didn't have numbers, but in my own experience, brilliant people often tend to come from hard childhood experiences. This is not a hard rule, but there seems to be a hunger in them, in the same way that many top sports people come from poor backgrounds, where they had adversity and challenge to make something of themselves to get out of shitty conditions.
Does it have to be the norm that we must suffer in order to work hard enough? Is suffering a condition we have to go through to have that hunger to be great at something?
Maybe it is, but one of the things we have to consider is what we are doing to the informational landscape now through polarization, as we are activating people to be aggressively "for or against" something, without needing to actually build the skills necessary to do anything about it. We can be "part of a movement" without moving. But the skills necessary to be great at something, requires actually doing something.
Otherwise, we are just politicians pandering to the 50%
When we make decisions based on our expertise and experience, we tend to know what we are doing, but we also have to consider that when it comes to something like governing a country, there are a lot of factors that are outside of our knowledge bank. We might have feelings about them, or aspects of them, but we don't actually know that much. Yet, we are making many decisions that are going to affect us on topics we know nothing about, based on a 20 second soundbite or a tweet. And, those slices of information aren't necessarily based on truth, they are there to leverage our emotional stance, whether we are in support or against what is said.
The other day, it was mentioned in a comment that it is hard to work out what is the right thing to do nutritionally for our children, as information is hard to find and a lot of it contradicts the other. Now, apply this to everything that is important to us and everything that affects us, and how the hell are we meant to make decisions on how to run a country, or what to do about the environment - especially when those who often have the loudest voices, are also those who have the most to gain from us listening to and following them.
There is no one solution to the mess that is our informational landscape, but whatever the group of solutions will be, the most effective ways will be to use the data to improve our knowledge and then play the odds. The environment doesn't improve because we feel it should. Clean energy doesn't magically appear without investment and development. Society doesn't become healthy through polarized conversation.
We don't need extremes, we need growth. Not growth of profits, but growth of understanding. We should stop supporting a 51% majority structure, and instead start working toward consistently being 1% better together.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
I think you are right in saying that there is no middle ground these days. People aren't able or willing to be empathetic and that is what is really giving us issues as a society. That's my opinion anyway.
I wonder if we went through and audited all of our extreme positions, how many would be contradict another.
NO.
Because real-life suffering and suffering as conditions are different. In the former there is uncertain pain and suffering whereas in the latter it's known, definite, and certain. For instance, in the GYM we know how much we need to endure to get the kind of body we desire.
The real-life experiences and pains are real and uncertain and that makes the personality of someone sharp, sustainable, and grounded. I would agree adversity, and challenges always polish human ability and brilliance and that should be delegated to real-life events, real-life circumstances.
There is a famous quote--
That which does not kill us makes us stronger-- Friedrich Nietzsche
I think that these days, many people can't tell the difference between suffering and discomfort. People hear a word they don't like and are injured as if stabbed with a knife. It is part of the extreme way people think and how they consider their emotions as physical reality.
Possibly they are unexpressed emotions, or emotions boiling from within. Catharsis is a cure.
It seems the world is not connected by internet and technology and our perspective has changed from local community to eyes on the world. As liberating and enlightening as that can be, it also has its drawbacks as anything good does.
I see people gathering virtually in echo chambers where the narrative is to hate or blame something for their problems. It is so easy to stop connnecting with the community around us in favour of bearing the weight of the world including the environmental crisis. Medicine has perplexed me lately as eastern traditional clashes with the western big pharma folklore vs science narrative. It will be a little from each to get it right.
I find a soljtion is to grab a manageable drinking vessel and just sip from the firehose and not to drink it all at once. Focus on what we can control and pour efforts back into people within a couple miles of us. Amazing how that helps perspective, and brings you back to satisfying results.
Social media is comparable to a community, as porn is to a loving relationship.
Those echo chambers are like artificial sweetener, they don't feed the brain what it needs. And like colored candies, pretending that they are filled with nutrients, leaving the body wanting.
Spend a month diving deep into one topic at a time - then return to it yearly for another week to stay updated. Every year, you could add a couple more.
I think polarization has been a popular mean for politicians to use to come into power in recent years.
It has always been part of it, but it used to be tied more to things that actually affected us, rather than topics of discussion.
The attempted assassination of the Slovak Prime Minister isn’t a surprise to me as well but why is that event a common thing in politics?
Assassination is too common and makes me scared of politics each day. It happens very well here in Nigeria too
I am surprised it doesn't happen more - especially in some places where people are so triggered by their emotional responses.
I don't always listen to everyone, but I listen to wise people because they give the right advice in most cases.
But, how do you know they are wise?
Like a scientist like Albert Einstein or someone very experienced in any subject
I'm super surprised there was an assassination attempt... It kinda scares me that there are people that try to kill in real life...in movies it's cool and thrilling but I don't understand why it would happen in real life...
I even get scared of trying to become a politician because I'm afraid I might be a target
Are you trying to become a politician?
Not really a politician but want to help people in my society a lot🥰
So because of that I keep considering it a lot
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 42/62) Liquid rewards.
I really like the idealism and support it. But unfortunately not everyone will be on board. If we take environmental emissions, the rich won't let go of their private planes. For the very popular or important, it is a form of security. Another big greenhouse gas contributor is the meat industry. I think a lot of people would be up in arms if cows are controlled and beef prices go really high. Even more so if they are removed altogether. A lot of people are ok with giving up something that isn't going to affect them as much. But once their norm and comfort is under attack, then they will go against it.
I agree with your outlook. There is no real discussions anymore because people are so polarized and even the politicians are as well. You can't really discuss things as people have kind of made up their mind. We need more discussion and just because people disagree on one thing, it shouldn't mean disregarding them or ignoring their reasons.
lolztoken.com
ERROR: Joke failed.
@bpcvoter3, You need more $LOLZ to use this command. The minimum requirement is 0.0 LOLZ.
You can get more $LOLZ on HE.