The article seems to be making a case for protecting your mind from the constant bombardment of "junk food" media readily available in our current culture. I respect the idea, but I find it impractical. I do however find it effective to control the flow of that media, and in particular control the order in which I consume it. If I roll out of bed and open reddit or facebook first thing in the morning, I feel like I a…
The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
51–60 of 74 posts
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#52Since this is freshman-level "think, don't believe", here's an equally valid counterargument at roughly the same level. In Heinrich's book "The Secret of our Success" on cumulative cultural evolution, he gives an example of pre-Columbus American cultures whose diet was based on bitter manioc (a.k.a. cassava). Like the name suggests, in its raw form it's too bitter to eat, but these cultures evolved a set of tradition…
Relevant to this is the analogy by Phil Goetz of reason as a memetic immune disorder [1]:
> The reason I bring this up is that intelligent people sometimes do things more stupid than stupid people are capable of. There are a variety of reasons for this; but one has to do with the fact that all cultures have dangerous memes circulating in them, and cultural antibodies to those memes. The trouble is that these antibodies are not logical. On the contrary; these antibodies are often highly illogical. They are the blind spots that let us live with a dangerous meme without being impelled to action by it.
> A little reason can be a dangerous thing. The landscape of rationality is not smooth; there is no guarantee that removing one false belief will improve your reasoning instead of degrading it. Sometimes, reason lets us see the dangerous aspects of our memes, but not the blind spots that protect us from them. Sometimes, it lets us see the blind spots, but not the dangerous memes. Either of these ways, reason can lead an individual to be unbalanced, no longer adapted to their memetic environment, and free to follow previously-dormant memes through to their logical conclusions.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aHaqgTNnFzD7NGLMx/reason-as-...
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#53Since this is freshman-level "think, don't believe", here's an equally valid counterargument at roughly the same level. In Heinrich's book "The Secret of our Success" on cumulative cultural evolution, he gives an example of pre-Columbus American cultures whose diet was based on bitter manioc (a.k.a. cassava). Like the name suggests, in its raw form it's too bitter to eat, but these cultures evolved a set of tradition…
It's not that weird that people pick the first buffet option, or browse Facebook, or whatever the default easy option is. What I do find weird is that they stop there. You don't need some paradigm shifting insight or a leap in the dark to do a little random walk and find something else you like a little more. I used to read PC magazines, the kind that were available in grocery stores (because I'm old), then I discove…
UPDATE: I see this explanation is covered more thoroughly in other comments.
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#54Since this is freshman-level "think, don't believe", here's an equally valid counterargument at roughly the same level. In Heinrich's book "The Secret of our Success" on cumulative cultural evolution, he gives an example of pre-Columbus American cultures whose diet was based on bitter manioc (a.k.a. cassava). Like the name suggests, in its raw form it's too bitter to eat, but these cultures evolved a set of tradition…
The hive mind is an interesting phenomenon, it seems that there isn't a right or wrong way to do things. Anything we do is a behavior which ripples its effects way beyond our understanding. One thing seems certain though; if a behavior is there, it's been selected by evolution. So, there has to have some advantage at some level even if it isn't obvious at all.
Regarding Chesterton's Fence, it's something I've been noticing myself as my understanding grows. Though I didn't know the term, I do see it more and more around me. I have the feeling that one example of this behavior can be spotted in today's strict Muslim society, where women are covered head to toe. As westerners, we see it as a very absurd thing to do for the sake of a religion. But do we really understand the whole story? Seeing how we ourselves quickly rushed to cover our faces to avoid catching a contagious disease, I'm speculating that something similar might have been the initiative for such a cultural artifact. Which are the most vulnerable and most valuable people in a society? Women, obviously, we have to protect them. Perhaps in similar disease outbreaks in the Middle East, people figured out that by reducing contact with your environment actually reduces the possibility for illness and death.
It perhaps then, eventually creeped its way into religion, because you had to make sure people would follow the advice even if they didn't understand it, and that was the institution people listened to at those times and was more likely to be passed on to next generations. Survival supersedes freedom, so, there you have it.
[0]: https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/stanford-b...
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#55Starts off promising but spends a lot of space going nowhere. Lots of inline links that go to other articles on the same blog. Reads like a self-help or pop-business book and content marketing had a baby and it was raised by a TED talk.
dead on. - ultimately a let down
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#56The more I read this article, the more uncomfortable I began feeling with the tone it had, which I could see being used by the conspiracy/anti-science types of the world. This idea that we all believe crazy ideas as a result of overconfident experts is the same fallacy addressed by Isaac Asimov in his essay “The Relativity of Wrong” [1]. The whole thing is worth a read, but I’ll include the most relevant passage below.
> In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.
What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.
[1] https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.ht...
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#57Since this is freshman-level "think, don't believe", here's an equally valid counterargument at roughly the same level. In Heinrich's book "The Secret of our Success" on cumulative cultural evolution, he gives an example of pre-Columbus American cultures whose diet was based on bitter manioc (a.k.a. cassava). Like the name suggests, in its raw form it's too bitter to eat, but these cultures evolved a set of tradition…
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an excellent counterargument. Here is another one: You will never be a completely rational being, no matter how hard you try. You are very good at tricking yourself, and it happens all the time. If you attempt to "think, don't believe", you will fail, and along the way yield all control over what you believe.
That's not an argument, just a sequence of assertions.
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each assertion is true. The last one is the argument, the first two are just context.
I don't know what to tell you. This is not how logic works.
Re: The Modern-Day Mind-Killer
#60The buffet line analogy doesn’t really work. Since you can’t go backwards or look too far ahead, you take the items at the beginning that are above your satisfaction threshold, not knowing whether there will be items further along that satisfy you.
With a buffet (and when browsing the Internet), you can absolutely go backwards. Just get back in line. Yet we act as if there is a shortage of $resource.
I -could- go back and forth 30 times and end up with a satisfaction-maximizing plate.
But I'm not gonna do that. I'm going to stack some lettuce because I know it's a good base for whatever I get next (though cheap for the restaurant). I'm going to pick a quantity that leaves room for unexpected yummies ahead out of sight, but also is sufficient that if I find few things I like ahead I'll still be happy with my salad.
I don't even manage to maximize the outcome at buffets that I've been at before with mostly static contents.