> Dunking on social media tells our monkey brain that we are rising in prominence, even though by next week people will have forgotten and moved on to the next round of gossip. Advanced tech exploits the brains of ideologues, who then create a culture where others spend too much time pledging fealty to ideologies rather than developing new ideas and technology for the benefit of humankind.
The word "ideologue," is key because it's a thought terminating cliche we use as an epithet to describe the people we don't agree with, instead of what it precisely is - a pattern of thinking that iterates the logic of an underlying idea. It may not even be on a chosen belief, but just a symbol for something we picked up and used as a stub for a concept.
I just assume people persecute each other because they love it, and instead, I index on finding people who aren't as addicted to that kind of conflict, as there are enough people in the world that arguing with any one of them is an opportunity cost against living. Maybe this is the real impact of the internet - when your potential Dunbar number and opporutunity now seems infinite, we can replace any person we have a conflict with, with just another more agreeable and validating avatar on the screen.
That fast, swipe-left culture filter not only rewards intolerance, but even imposes opportunity costs on tolerance because tolerance consumes time that could be applied to swiping until you get validation, and exposes you to defending against the infinite persecution of whomever you are tolerating. I'd be concerned about what human quality is atrophying as a result of not exercising the experience the tech has automated and replaced. It's not empathy, it's something more real and consequential like courage, dignity, or compassion.
The article is important, but I don't think there is a back or an undo we can reason ourselves back to as a culture. It's just a matter of finding new minds to equip with freedom and set to building again.
The word "ideologue," is key because it's a thought terminating cliche we use as an epithet to describe the people we don't agree with, instead of what it precisely is - a pattern of thinking that iterates the logic of an underlying idea. It may not even be on a chosen belief, but just a symbol for something we picked up and used as a stub for a concept.
I just assume people persecute each other because they love it, and instead, I index on finding people who aren't as addicted to that kind of conflict, as there are enough people in the world that arguing with any one of them is an opportunity cost against living. Maybe this is the real impact of the internet - when your potential Dunbar number and opporutunity now seems infinite, we can replace any person we have a conflict with, with just another more agreeable and validating avatar on the screen.
That fast, swipe-left culture filter not only rewards intolerance, but even imposes opportunity costs on tolerance because tolerance consumes time that could be applied to swiping until you get validation, and exposes you to defending against the infinite persecution of whomever you are tolerating. I'd be concerned about what human quality is atrophying as a result of not exercising the experience the tech has automated and replaced. It's not empathy, it's something more real and consequential like courage, dignity, or compassion.
The article is important, but I don't think there is a back or an undo we can reason ourselves back to as a culture. It's just a matter of finding new minds to equip with freedom and set to building again.