Social affiliation vs accurate knowledge

[Narz]

Had a conversation w my housemate who I'm staying w while in the states who's quite intelligent but on certain subjects just totally shuts down & is unable/unwilling to process nuance or new information.

People thought w the advent of the information age people would become more enlightened but that seems to be based on the idea that homo sapiens are thinking/wise apes when mostly we're very social ones (and the bulk of our intelligence is geared towards how to survive in a group). So more information will just be used to better find our niche & excess or contradictory information that may potentially alienate us will be either left unexamined or denied outright.

I also realized that if the cost of ignorance is deemed low (consciously or subconsciously) & the benefit of new information is not easily applicable people will not be receptive. Knowledge that will cause us to have to re-examine many old beliefs (and potentially alienate associates who share those old beliefs) even if it could provide a modest benefit is not worth the downside. And that can't be readily applied may cause more stress than it's worth (ie : if the air quality in your city is really bad but you can't afford to move what's the point to think about it).

Religious groups know this hence the use of shunning.

I think individuals who've dealt w alot of social rejection in their lives can see what they've been thru w a bit of a silver lining as if you're used to being ostracized you may, in the long run, be more able to break free from the social implications of your beliefs which may hold back a person more entrenched w others.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think that pain is a teacher. Often the lessons learned aren't for you. Curse of the social creature.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

in this topic, people get frustrated when others don't agree with them. more to come...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

@Narz, you have just described the past 3 years' worth of interactions I've had with a woman from Medicine Hat (a small city over 200 miles south of here) who argues incessantly over pretty much anything and everything, whether a large issue, small issue, irrelevant issue, or even if we use the same words to describe the same thing. She recently threw a day-long screaming fit of all-caps and namecalling at me because I said that Medicine Hat is over 200 miles from Red Deer and she said, "no it's more than 200 miles troll".

There aren't enough facepalm emojis in the universe for interacting with this individual.

People ask why I bother, and the fact is that there are times when she spreads misinformation about the disability programs in this province - misinformation bad enough that it actually could deter someone from applying if they need it. I don't let BS like that go unchallenged, like I don't let misinformation about voting go unchallenged. She insists that only people with children get to have a say on education, which of course isn't true; nobody is ever asked to prove parental status to get a school board ballot in municipal elections and it would be absurd to prevent childless teachers from voting or offering opinions on education. When I mentioned that to her, the comeback was that "every teacher I know has children").

FB needs more facepalm emojis.

Now we're in a provincial election campaign here. Election day is May 29. I already know who I'm voting for, and most people in the province can probably say likewise, if they're going to bother to vote. It's definitely not the individual candidate that matters in this election, but rather the party.

Folks here might remember how happy I was when Stephen Harper was defeated in 2015. Well, what we have governing here is the provincial version of that, with an incumbent premier who is determined to remake Alberta in the image of right-wing-governed American states. She openly supports separatists, the truckers' convoys that illegally occupied Ottawa and blocked the Canada/U.S. border at Coutts, and opined that anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers are the most discriminated-against group she's seen in her lifetime (she must have forgotten about racial discrimination, age-discrimination, gender-based discrimination, and all those other groups listed in the Charter of Rights who are supposedly safe from discrimination now but really aren't since there are always loopholes even for the government; it's how the feds got around denying people like me the right to voting by secret ballot as every other Canadian voter is allowed to do).

We went through the Dark Decade with Stephen Harper. Jason Kenney and Danielle Smith are dragging us through that again, on a provincial scale, with their open hostility toward doctors, nurses, teachers, anyone belonging to a union, homeless, disabled, and so on. Not one person either of them appointed to cabinet had an actual professional background in the area covered by their portfolio. My own MLA was appointed Minister of Education, and when questioned as to her qualifications, stated that her status as a mother and grandmother was all the qualification she needed.

Seriously, she has no experience as a teacher. NONE. A first-year B.Ed. practicum student (I've been one) has more real teaching experience than this MLA. Yes, she did spend some years on the Catholic school board, but conveniently omits in her election pamphlets that she approved busing high school students to Edmonton to participate in an anti-abortion rally as a "field trip", not to mention stating that she wanted teachers to "teach the positive things" about residential schools.

What "positive" things? It does explain why she hired a residential school denier to rewrite the social studies curriculum (people like this deny the abuses that happened to the indigenous kids forced to attend these places).

The former Minister of Health has no medical qualifications. He's a lawyer currently in hot water with the Law Society for things he's done. His wife owns a health insurance company that's happy to insure people for medications that he, as Health Minister, delisted. He claims that his shares in her company are in a blind trust, but if anyone believes that, then I've got ocean front property for sale outside my window.

So yeah, we can't afford (in a social sense) to be anything but tribal in this election.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Had a conversation w my housemate who I'm staying w while in the states who's quite intelligent but on certain subjects just totally shuts down & is unable/unwilling to process nuance or new information.

People thought w the advent of the information age people would become more enlightened but that seems to be based on the idea that homo sapiens are thinking/wise apes when mostly we're very social ones (and the bulk of our intelligence is geared towards how to survive in a group). So more information will just be used to better find our niche & excess or contradictory information that may potentially alienate us will be either left unexamined or denied outright.

I also realized that if the cost of ignorance is deemed low (consciously or subconsciously) & the benefit of new information is not easily applicable people will not be receptive. Knowledge that will cause us to have to re-examine many old beliefs (and potentially alienate associates who share those old beliefs) even if it could provide a modest benefit is not worth the downside. And that can't be readily applied may cause more stress than it's worth (ie : if the air quality in your city is really bad but you can't afford to move what's the point to think about it).

Religious groups know this hence the use of shunning.

I think individuals who've dealt w alot of social rejection in their lives can see what they've been thru w a bit of a silver lining as if you're used to being ostracized you may, in the long run, be more able to break free from the social implications of your beliefs which may hold back a person more entrenched w others.

Very interesting topic. I've been through social rejection so I know what it is. And definitely, I'll not engage myself in contradicting someone I disagree with as easily as I used to when I was younger, mainly because of that fear of reject.

The way I see it, we are mainly driven by our feelings and our thinkings. Regarding our thinkings, our brain is a problem-solving machine. The brain is so addicted to problem-solving that when we don't have any problem, we create them from scratch so that we could solve them! As such, the brain definitely dislikes inconsistencies, trying to "solve them" when they emerge, therefore triggering conflicts with people having different experiences and having been through different thinking processes.

Yet in the meantime, we're also driven by our feelings. We're indeed social beings and fear of reject is definitely something strong. Once you've experienced it, you definitely think twice before engaging in something that could get out of control.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Man is fundamentally an ape; the thinking part is optional.

Here's Francis Bacon: "Doth any man doubt, that if there were taken out of men's minds, vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds, of a number of men, poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves?"

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Man is fundamentally an ape; the thinking part is optional.

Are you suggesting that apes don't think?

BTW, of course we're fundamentally apes. If evolution had taken a slightly different turn, we'd probably be just another species of gorilla - who actually are intelligent lifeforms capable of learning and abstract thought and communication.

 

[amadeus]

I never thought of the internet as making us smarter, just faster.

I don’t think how sociable people are leads them to be more or less blinkered.

 

[Angst]

I never thought of the internet as making us smarter, just faster.

imo the internet is amazing not because of a brave new world of information. rather, it's amazing by virtue of more efficient stupid. : D

 

[E.man]

More information available doesn't change people's basic character.

People who could find info pre internet can find it faster on the net. Others just use it to ask other ppls opinions. I see it all the time on social media. These ppl would have been asking opinions pre net too.

 

[Remorseless1]

Social rejection predates social media by 250,000 years or so. I also doubt there's more than a few dozen people who haven't gone through rejection. Intelligence and education rarely ensures social graces and toleration.

Yep,homo sapiens sux big-time.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Social rejection predates social media by 250,000 years or so. I also doubt there's more than a few dozen people who haven't gone through rejection. Intelligence and education rarely ensures social graces and toleration.

Yep,homo sapiens sux big-time.

When internet became a thing in France in the end of the 1990's, there was a saying that it would make of the world a "global village". That was perceived as something positive (French people tend to idealize village life). Yet the dimension that was obvious and that was totally missed was that with villages come gossips. And the internet made those gossips global.

Indeed gossips are as old as language is, but they used to be about complaining about the neighbor who doesn't trim his hedge, or the baker's daughter being too light with boys. Now they shape the public opinion. Many people actually believe more Twitter than mainstream media.

 

[Hygro]

Villages indeed are where people kill their neighbors for imaginary dangers like witchcraft,

 

[TheMeInTeam]

that and there was no way everyone would be part of one village, because people who the village sufficiently dislikes are ousted. it would never even get close to being a "global village" though. group formations were never on that scale, couldn't be. even from the sheer logistics of putting millions of people into one forum or gathering point on 1990s tech. even when there are millions on one site like today, the interests to congregate them all on one topic for sustained periods of time aren't there.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"Global Village" is a metaphor for connecting people from from all over the world in a manner that is similar to the old idea of living in a village. CFC is a global village of those who "live" in the grater Civ community. As such, our interactions can come close to the interactions of those who live in a real life village or community. Our village is moderated to try and reduce the negatives of village life (gossip, innuendo, cruelty, etc.). Other "villages", like maybe subreddits, are less moderated and have more variety of the real life interactions we find in face to face communities. There never was going to be a single worldwide global village only millions of smaller and more intimate gathering places for people from anywhere in the world.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

When internet became a thing in France in the end of the 1990's, there was a saying that it would make of the world a "global village". That was perceived as something positive (French people tend to idealize village life). Yet the dimension that was obvious and that was totally missed was that with villages come gossips. And the internet made those gossips global.

Indeed gossips are as old as language is, but they used to be about complaining about the neighbor who doesn't trim his hedge, or the baker's daughter being too light with boys. Now they shape the public opinion. Many people actually believe more Twitter than mainstream media.

It is a global village in the sense that I can have a conversation with people on the other side of the world without having to send physical letters and spend a fortune on postage.

Maddy (my cat) was fascinated with the computer I had when she was a kitten. The first day I got her (August 7, 2007) was a day when I was having a discussion-turned-argument with a bunch of Freecycle moderators/group owners in the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia (we were trying to figure out how to stave off a takeover).

I got up from the computer to go run an errand. I returned to find that Maddy had done some cat-thing on the keyboard, and the message that got sent out to all these people was full of alphabet soup and multiple rows of "x".

Fortunately, people were understanding when I told them to disregard the last message. "The cat did it" is something that they're familiar with. One person said that since the discussion had gotten a bit tense, it seemed "appropriate".

Villages indeed are where people kill their neighbors for imaginary dangers like witchcraft,

Huh. That woman from Medicine Hat I mentioned earlier informed me - and was quite insistent about it - that witches are real, she says I'm a witch, and that the Salem witch trials concluded in 1963.

She carried on about this for DAYS, even when one of my friends on that page posted proof of the dates of the start and end of the witch trials.

Normally this individual is someone generally regarded by the regulars there as a "village idiot" who really is all kinds of stupid. People like that tend not to be taken seriously.

However... she's been threatening to sic the cops on me. I don't worry about her "cop friends" in Medicine Hat. If they're at all competent, they'd laugh at someone who claims someone else is "mentally unstable" for quoting her posts (have to, or people wouldn't have a clue what my own posts would be about, not to mention it's proof of some of the misinformation she peddles).

When she started talking about calling the cops in Red Deer and telling them I'm mentally unstable, that's a different thing. Based on how some cops treat such calls, plus I've already had the displeasure of a "wellness check" in the past... I really don't want some cop showing up here, not having a clue what my situation really is, and possibly not understanding how to deal with diabetic people (stress can lead to sudden changes that can be life-threatening if not treated immediately, and a hypoglycemic person can appear drunk to an untrained person). The fact is, I have regular contact with home care workers and social workers, who would definitely report any issues I might have that needed other professionals to help me, plus I have a security setup that enables me to call for the police, fire, or ambulance if needed...

I asked my friend on FB to keep an eye out for such threats and report them (he often sees her posts before I do). It's 99% likely that nothing would come of this, but all it would take is that 1% to make my life hell.

"Global Village" is a metaphor for connecting people from from all over the world in a manner that is similar to the old idea of living in a village. CFC is a global village of those who "live" in the grater Civ community. As such, our interactions can come close to the interactions of those who live in a real life village or community. Our village is moderated to try and reduce the negatives of village life (gossip, innuendo, cruelty, etc.). Other "villages", like maybe subreddits, are less moderated and have more variety of the real life interactions we find in face to face communities. There never was going to be a single worldwide global village only millions of smaller and more intimate gathering places for people from anywhere in the world.

Hm. I'd actually characterize CFCOT as a village, with the larger site being the surrounding villages, towns, etc. The entirety of CFC would be like a region of a larger province, or the entirety of a smaller province. The reason for this is that there are people who only post in the Civ forums who never venture into the Colosseum, and by this point, the reverse is probably true as well - OT posters who don't play Civ or post in any of the Civ forums.

Or if you do want to consider the entirety of the forum to be a village, the staff forum is where the closed council meetings happen, and open council meetings where the public can weigh in with opinions is Site Feedback.

At any rate, I consider this place to be a community where I feel comfortable, for the most part. It's not roses all the time, but enough of the time to make me want to stay.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, CFCOT is a global village, It's small, like a village. But it's made up of people from around the globe. And that's one of the things that's best about it.

It's not what was meant by "global village" when the term was first used. But it's as complete a realization of that notion as there will ever be.

 

[Josu]

I never thought of the internet as making us smarter, just faster.

This. This miillion of times.
Furthermore, we have not evolved to make good decisions, we have evolved to make fast decisions.
Sometimes accurate knoledge takes a time, so unconsciously we take decisions based on prejuices, which are faster.