Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#301

Post by rramadass »

dangus wrote: post #170

Huxley’s fears presented in this particular way are immediately debunked by actual book sales and education statistics. Independent bookstores have been consistently growing since 2009: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol... The book industry is expanding with particularly strong growth in e-books and audiobooks: https://worldmetrics.org/book-industry-statistics/ Educational attainment is gen…

> If anything I think that the general population is becoming more aware and educated.

Not necessarily.

Read Jacques Ellul's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul) book "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_M... The wikipedia page has a good synopsis of all the major points. Read carefully his arguments specifically on "Information" and "Education" and how they actually make you more susceptible to Propaganda. Excerpt;

"Information" Is an essential element of propaganda, which must "have reference to political or economic reality" to be credible. In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public opinion." Education permits the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion". Where no informed opinion with regard to political or economic affairs propaganda cannot exist making it an indispensable aspect. Propaganda means nothing without preliminary information that provides the basis for propaganda, gives propaganda the means to operate, and generates the problems that propaganda exploits by pretending to offer solutions. It is through information that the individual is placed in a social context and learns to understand the reality of his own situation. Information allows us to evaluate our situation feel our own personal problems are a general social problem thus enabling propaganda to entice us into social and political action. Information is most effective when it is objective and broad because it creates a general picture. With information quantity is better than quality, the more political or economic facts believed to be mastered by an individual, the more sensitive their judgment is to propaganda. In fact, only in and through propaganda do the masses have access to political economy, politics, art, or literature. The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture, the more susceptible he becomes to the manipulation of these symbols.

Now add to it all that we have discovered since then in Neuroscience/Neurobiology on how to bypass the "rational" side of the Brain and you will realize that we mostly have "Informed Opinions" and "General Confusion" rather than Real "Education" and "Awareness".

If anything, the latter has become far more difficult to achieve today.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#302

Post by tycbjtsctjv »

CalRobert wrote: post #240
apwell23 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to get in a "good school district" ? Is that really that strongly correlated to kids outcome in life . kids grow up and fight for a house in good school district :). I feel like having kids is root of all evil. Ppl justify all sorts of things (like wars and bidding for houses) and say that they are doing those things for sake of their kids.

No, but I want to live somewhere my kids have the freedom to bike and walk around town safely. Anyway, I just took a job helping get more houses off gas and on heat pumps, which is aligned with my goal to be part of addressing climate change, but it is hard to get a house near work (in Amsterdam in this case) when not optimising for pay.

> No, but I want to live somewhere my kids have the freedom to bike and walk around town safely.

Hmmmz, kids can do that practically anywhere in NL (and have good schools). Except maybe in parts of the big cities.

Countryside is both cheaper, safer, and the air is healthier. But don't go too rural. Because then wolves will get your kids for breakfast.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#303

Post by jcul »

I read both many years ago, first 1984 and later Brave New World.

It's been so long I've forgotten some of the details.

Though, to my surprise, I remember while reading Brave New World, finding myself agreeing with a lot of the practices of that society.

A gram of soma, less aversion / denial of death, more liberal sexual norms.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#304

Post by mdp2021 »

valval wrote: post #281
mdp2021 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

«Deal» as in "I was dealt this"? As in, you play a cretinous game and we should be part of it? You seem to say, you called 'democracy' a game in which "who is elected rules, whatever the means that brought to election" - i.e. you are stating that a game is there which is pure filth. To that, you also seem to add that no judgement or criticism should be added, because the game would be under some unexplained extraordi…

You’re either way too smart or way too stupid for me to understand. In any case, there must be at least a 40 IQ point difference between the two of us.

My measurements are very, very high. But I believe that effort plays a role: train yourself to see better.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#305

Post by iwishiknewlisp »

baliex wrote: post #277
skeeter2020 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't I learn this from any game, some with other, more life-applicable lessons and benefits, like sports?

Something that I believe sets chess aside from most other pursuits (e.g. sports, other games) is the lack of luck; it’s almost all skill. You and your opponent both have everything laid out in front of you, and if you’re skilled enough you can see more than they see, etc etc

There is absolutely randomness and variance in chess. And variance/randomness is important for any sport, that is what makes it exciting and worth playing. If there were no randomness then every game against the same team and players would be the same.

And anyway, sports are vastly more complicated than chess is. Just simply dribbling a basketball while bipedal walking is beyond the capability of replication by robot at the current moment. But a home computer from 20 years ago would beat >90% of the world in chess.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#306

Post by mdp2021 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #271
mdp2021 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

«Deal» as in "I was dealt this"? As in, you play a cretinous game and we should be part of it? You seem to say, you called 'democracy' a game in which "who is elected rules, whatever the means that brought to election" - i.e. you are stating that a game is there which is pure filth. To that, you also seem to add that no judgement or criticism should be added, because the game would be under some unexplained extraordi…

You are demonstrating what I joked(?) in another comment ("It ain't democracy if you ain't won.") perfectly . Thanks.

No, not perfectly, because your half-joked formula can have implications that are very much not universal. (In fact, it can also mean the opposite of what I wrote. Although, it can have a few interpretations which are interesting and productive beyond its close scope: among them, "discontent reveals flaws in the system".)

Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates that appeal to the guts are disqualified from office" has strong grounds.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#307

Post by iwishiknewlisp »

willguest wrote: post #83

Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources or appreciate in value in the eyes of an economic system that prioritizes increasing capital valuations above all else, including human dignity, long-term survival and the life of other species, I would say we're already there. Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade ou…

It would take someone mentally ill (i.e. "neurodivergent") to actually go beyond the routine and take drastic action to fix. Normal people don't go against what society deems normal. Normal people will lie to themselves rather than face the truth, and that's a good thing usually. Almost always is it better to be united in a less optimal path than divided. This is true for the individual as well as socirty.

However, in certain situations a society's path becomes so misdirected that its better to be alone than follow the group.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#308

Post by iwishiknewlisp »

willguest wrote: post #83

Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources or appreciate in value in the eyes of an economic system that prioritizes increasing capital valuations above all else, including human dignity, long-term survival and the life of other species, I would say we're already there. Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade ou…

[flagged]

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#309

Post by verisimi »

cholantesh wrote: post #255
verisimi wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to ask oneself, is it better to have a comforting story, that is likely leveraged for someone, somewhere's benefit, or to start with the honest position, which is that "I don't know". One can of course become more certain of whatever-it-is, but not without attempting some personal research. Or, one can just defer all personal responsibility and parrot whatever the consensus view is.

So then, obviously, you've been personally responsible and tried to replicate all of the studies that led to the conclusion that microplastic concentrations in reservoirs are increasing, as well as the ones that concluded that bioaccumulation of microplastics have deleterious effects on human health, and then got them peer reviewed, right? And you also decided that 'personal responsibility' is actually tacitly accept…

No, I haven't replicated these tests. I'm just not assuming them to be true.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#310

Post by verisimi »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #278
verisimi wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to ask oneself, is it better to have a comforting story, that is likely leveraged for someone, somewhere's benefit, or to start with the honest position, which is that "I don't know". One can of course become more certain of whatever-it-is, but not without attempting some personal research. Or, one can just defer all personal responsibility and parrot whatever the consensus view is.

Well to be honest, we don't truly 'know' anything, we can only make best guesses. My best guess based on what i've read from who i perceive as smart people is that microplastics are everywhere, not enough exercise makes you ill, looking in the sun kills your eyes and doing drugs is no good. Are you just can say "I don't know"

Yes, we don't truly know much (not nothing). We can, on occasion, drill into whatever is being claimed, look at the data and see if we agree with the conclusion.

If you personally sample test studies, comments or whatever you then get a handle on how many assumptions you feel are being made, whether you always/occasionally/never agree with what is stated.

Post reply on HN