People have been spouting authoritative-sounding bullshit about things they have no business talking about for as long as humans have had language. The only difference is that now, any single humans bullshit is able to reach everyone on the globe with a smartphone in seconds.
On social media we have these huge conversations where nobody involved has any actual experience. They're just repeating what other people said. Isn't that literally insane?
Submitted 8 months ago by Dr_Satan@lemm.ee to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
dhork@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Agreed. It’s an old problem. Call it “bad epistemology” (BE).
The method of Science was arguably contrived to combat BE (or at least to offer an advantageous alternative).
Which gives us a nice spectrum. On one end strong reference to observation, firsthand (direct observation) and secondhand (good authority) delivering high-quality knowledge (IE science etc). On the other end a recursive bullshit machine.
Restaldt@lemm.ee 8 months ago
So exactly how the world worked before the internet except instead of getting your misinformation from aunt Becky you get disinformation from xXxFrenchmansCumsockxXx a12 year old in a foreign country… or a bot
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Here’s a couple of differences
Millions of us communicate our ideas to millions every minute.
An idea can go anywhere in the world instantly.
So there’s that vast amplification. A cannon vs a pistol.
glimse@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Is the “stupid question” if it’s literally insane? If so then no, that’s not what insanity means. But I think this is a thinly-veiled vent more than a question…
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
When reality goes north and opinion goes south, getting further apart every day, then yes, I call that insanity.
And that’s more than just the present state of opinions. That’s arguably the core function of the present system. (not necessarily by design of course. That would probably be just paranoid).
Imagine a game of telephone. Where, a hundred exchanges down the chain, the chain twists upon itself, looping, conversation feeding upon recycled conversation, recursively. That’s where we are.
glimse@lemmy.world 8 months ago
If that’s insanity then humans have been insane for thousands of years. People talking out their asses isn’t new at all
ElJefe@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Lol no. That’s not at all where the current state of things is. Yes, you do have localized echo chambers where people repeat their insane little opinions about whatever bullshit alex Jones or musk or Jordan Peterson or whomever says. But that represents a minimal number compared to the amount of people out there who are vastly knowledgeable and studied and experienced in the things they do. Your hyperbolic hot take is not only wrong, but is also reductive and neglects to acknowledge that there are a lot of intelligent people out there doing good things for society.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
People blather about nothing and things they know little about in basically every setting. It’s what people do, and is commonly called conversation.
ickplant@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Sometimes it’s called the Joe Rogan Experience.
Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
It was a thing before social media you know the bar talk about train are alwuys late, you just need to do that, that and that, or teacher don’t use proper pedagogy with kids and tons of other.
It’s eusy to talk about something you don’t know
H_Interlinked@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Every AI discussion I’ve read this morning following the SORA promotional release.
overzeetop@lemmy.world 8 months ago
But, also, this describes every response to a ML prompt.
set_secret@lemmy.world 8 months ago
not only that, but occasionally someone with significant professional experience will contribute, but will be immediately downvoted if their professional take isn’t in line with the uninformed consensus.
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Oh yes. All the time.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
literally
Adverbs are fun. Know any others?
When we repeat statements from scientists in that particular field, and it’s a well-proved assertion that has survived regular scientific challenges, it’s a different thing from parroting the verbal drool of someone paid to say outlandish and unfounded gibberish.
If we’re talking vaccines, give me an army of epidemiologists vs a street-preacher like Joe Rogan.
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Credulously, conventionally, smugly, provincially, dogmatically, unironically
hightrix@lemmy.world 8 months ago
When this happens on a topic with which you have expert level knowledge, it is so blindingly obvious and eye opening just how wrong every other conversation may be. It strongly suggests having a highly critical eye on any topic.
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
The popular criteria for sane conversation appear to be
-
logically consistent more or less
-
sounds like something that I already agree with
There you go. Stick to those rules and you can have a conversation about goddamn vulcan brain surgery. And everybody involved will wisely nod their heads.
-
orcrist@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Your explanation is wrong, though. People might have experience, but you don’t know who, because they can lie. And if you think about it, a lot of what we learn is stuff we haven’t experienced directly, for a variety of practical reasons.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Doesn’t matter . I had an anti vaxx lady wave a meme in my face and tell me doctors can’t be trusted.
They not only have experience they have proof. Confirmation bias is a bitch I guess.
tygerprints@kbin.social 8 months ago
Antivaxxers tend to be uneducated people with agendas. They are actually wanting to see more people get sick and die, because they think it "eliminates" undesirable (ie, educated liberal good people) from the world. When it fact, it only eliminates their own ignorant breed. That's why I don't argue with them, I let them go ahead and exhaust themselves on their cross of ignorance.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Remember, reddit didn’t do it.
EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
PSA: The antagonist of FarCry 3 is not a credible source for what does or doesn’t constitute “literally insane”
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
When somebody’s ideas about reality, and reality itself, are really different, we say that person is fantasizing or hallucinating or suffering a fugue state. Insanity, in other words.
What I describe could be a personal insanity. Or a social kind of insanity, where society is insane.
teft@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Do you think people only talk about things online that they haven’t experienced irl?
Personally I tend to only talk about things I’m sure about or have first hand experience in.
hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Source: trust me bro
Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Sounds like real life
Quik@infosec.pub 8 months ago
As others pointed out, having the feeling of knowing (about) things without actually having experienced them yourself is a core feature of what one might call intelligence, and as such not insane.
I would argue instead that the problem isn’t with arguments over stuff you haven’t experienced yourself, but rather people caring too much about their fixed opinion and not about actually trying to find the truth (e.g. though argument) as they might proclaim.
(I am relatively certain of this point as I’ve seen seemingly good counter examples to this provided by the LessWrong community, where people often discuss topics they do not necessarily have experience with, but rather try to find the truth and therefore not have a fixed opinion beforehand.)
amio@kbin.social 8 months ago
Do you have any personal experience with insanity, then? /j
I mean, sort of. "Insane" is pushing it, as it's very normal. You're not really supposed to take anyone's statement at face value.
bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Is there a question here? Or are you just complaining?
sugarfree@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s insane, but I love it.
half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Team peepee
tygerprints@kbin.social 8 months ago
Oh Dr. Satan. I wouldn't call it insanity so much as willful ignorance. People only want to hear what they want to hear. So they tend to reject anything that's a new idea or that challenges their world view and it's easier just to repeat the things they've been brainwashed to believe.
As an LGBTQ plus a bunch of other letters person, trust me when I say I've come against this wall many times. People who are relatively young with little world experience trying to tackle huge issues without much wisdom to back it up. The result IS a kind of mass insanity, where people are more willing to trust misinformation and silliness. That truly is a horrible consequence of not being open minded and willing to be educated.
thorbot@lemmy.world 8 months ago
And that’s why I don’t use social media
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
There’s a lurking assumption that anything this complex, coherent and fervently argued must surely be true. But it just ain’t so. The creation of entire galaxies of utter bullshit is actually quite trivial.
key@lemmy.keychat.org 8 months ago
The ability to learn from other people without needing the same first hand experience is a hallmark of intelligence. It’s one of the things about our species that allowed us to develop past just being yet another animal in the wild. Education is largely based on that principle; your history teacher didn’t experience the horrors of trench warfare firsthand.
So I wouldn’t call social media insanity so much as potentially addictive, which can cause you to overindulge in those behaviours. Admittedly addiction can feel like insanity when you’re in the throes of it.
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
It is not the obvious function of knowledge that’s at issue, it is its quality. When the observation and the knowledge get too far apart, the words cease to refer to the observation and begin to refer only to themselves.
And then the quality becomes poopoo. A solipsistic black hole.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I have never verified 99% of the knowledge I read in textbooks either. But aside from math little in the textbooks held much truth. Especially the economy books.