Maybe, I don’t know. I have heard people say that the printing press helped cause the religious wars that tore apart Europe; it probably helped cause the American revolution too, which may be a bad thing. As for radio, I’ve heard people say it contributed to the rise of fascism and communism, helped the genocide in darfur, etc. Of course, maybe these things had good effects that outweighed their bad effects—I have no idea really.
I think my overall concern is that I don’t think the slow process of cultural debate is overall truth oriented. I think science seems to be overall truth-oriented, and of course the stock market and business world is overall truth-oriented, and maybe on some level military strategy is overall truth-oriented. And sports betting is overall truth-oriented. But religion and politics don’t seem to be.
I was thinking more that religion and politics become increasingly truth-restricted with increasing content providers in a new medium. People with other politics bring up supporting scientific results and will get attention due to people having an inborn truth orientation. That might’ve happened when more moderate voices entered the printed word business, when more radio stations opened that were not aligned with one faction, and maybe will happen too when more reasonable voices with different biases enter social media.
Fair. One might consider that there could currently be a difference in the reasonableness of different factions, with progressive voices being earlier adopters and better at using social media to make their points, which would get more balanced with increased general sophistication. Anecdotally, many in my bubble seem kind of clueless how to argue against anti-capitalist ideas (which at least I get confronted with regularly), which may be explained with this imbalance.
Maybe, I don’t know. I have heard people say that the printing press helped cause the religious wars that tore apart Europe; it probably helped cause the American revolution too, which may be a bad thing. As for radio, I’ve heard people say it contributed to the rise of fascism and communism, helped the genocide in darfur, etc. Of course, maybe these things had good effects that outweighed their bad effects—I have no idea really.
I think my overall concern is that I don’t think the slow process of cultural debate is overall truth oriented. I think science seems to be overall truth-oriented, and of course the stock market and business world is overall truth-oriented, and maybe on some level military strategy is overall truth-oriented. And sports betting is overall truth-oriented. But religion and politics don’t seem to be.
I was thinking more that religion and politics become increasingly truth-restricted with increasing content providers in a new medium. People with other politics bring up supporting scientific results and will get attention due to people having an inborn truth orientation. That might’ve happened when more moderate voices entered the printed word business, when more radio stations opened that were not aligned with one faction, and maybe will happen too when more reasonable voices with different biases enter social media.
I’m not optimistic. When will more reasonable voices with different biases enter social media? Almost the whole world is already on social media.
Fair. One might consider that there could currently be a difference in the reasonableness of different factions, with progressive voices being earlier adopters and better at using social media to make their points, which would get more balanced with increased general sophistication. Anecdotally, many in my bubble seem kind of clueless how to argue against anti-capitalist ideas (which at least I get confronted with regularly), which may be explained with this imbalance.