To the people saying that this is because of “laziness” or “lack of curiosity”:
I’m bombarded with so much information every day that it’s not feasible to fact-check it all. I have to pick my battles and take things I care less about at face value until I have a reason not to.
I’m bombarded with so much information every day that it’s not feasible to fact-check it all.
Source?
Have you been on the internet? Source: personal experience.
Dude, you’re on a link aggregator right now, you can’t honestly think that you’re fact checking every post you read.
Dude, you’re on a link aggregator right now
Source?
No, Lemmy. Source is a game engine, dude.
Wait, so this isn’t the left for dead 2 lobby?
Nah. We knew the difference between ignorance and stupidity before then.
I have to admit, even while finding the crooked corners of the internet with rotten and CJ, I did hold onto the belief that access to information was going to lift the masses up out of ignorance. I knew about flamewars since the BBS days. I knew about trolls since rm -rf advice was given. I, in my naivete, seriously underestimated the effects of these phenomenon on society writ large.
As with many things, I think the point where it all started to go down hill was once facebook became a thing.
We did not, or at least not universally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_deficit_model
It’s still the problem. Information is widely available but misinformation is easier to find and the ones that need information are the ones that find the misinformation
Not only that, but the good quality information is often blocked behind paywalls
Lack of applicable or pertinent information is still rampant.
Excess information of the stupifying type is everywhere.
dumb people still had access to bullshit information prior to the internet. remember grocery store tabloids? papers with “Bat Boy” on them or how Jesus was constantly coming back, etc? I knew a couple adults that firmly believed and bought that shit.
Sure, but before the internet somebody had to actually print a magazine or a book etc. to spread it wider than word-of-mouth
Yes and no. If people had access to correct information, rather than every passing thought anyone has ever had ever, including complete fabrications and things that were never meant to be taken seriously, then they’d probably be okay.
Even making a claim about what is true and factual seems to be a point to be argued on the internet lately.
We’ve given everyone a voice and access to everyone else’s voice as well as access to all information. Most are lost in the noise, and can’t find the signal.
I remember seeing a lot of people expand their horizons on all kinds of topics when the internet first started catching on.
Now I think it was because they were actively looking for understanding something new, and did not represent the general population.
Now I think it was because they were actively looking for understanding something new, and did not represent the general population.
Assuming that intelligence (and I don’t mean IQ or any other psychometric “proxy” for intelligence, but intelligence as an abstract trait) is normally distributed like most other traits, 50% of people are going to be dumber than average because in normal distributions the mean is the median. The “general population” is not smart by any definition.
And anyone trying to claim that intelligence as a concept is completely socially constructed and that there is no difference in intelligence between people, or tries to conflate IQ etc psychometric measures and intelligence, can shove it up their ass.
I wasn’t even commenting on IQ, just the general population’s interest in even trying to understand new things.
A lot of otherwise smart people I know just can’t get past the indoctrination of bigotry from their youth that is reinforced by conservative media.
Oh I know you weren’t, it was just a disclaimer because a lot of people seem to think that any references to intelligence specifically mean IQ and go into frankly incredibly tedious tirades on IQ’s faults
50% of people are going to be dumber than average because in normal distributions the mean is the median. The “general population” is not smart by any definition.
What if “smart” begins at the 35th percentile, rather than the 50th? What if “gifted” is anything above the 50th percentile?
What if “smart” begins at the 35th percentile, rather than the 50th?
I didn’t mean that the 50th is where “smart” begins, just that 50% are going to be below average in intelligence.
intelligence as an abstract trait
I read something about this two days ago, it’s called “g factor” or something. And yes, it follows a normal distribution.
Apparently, it’s very similar in animals than it is in humans.
The g factor is actually a psychometric construct to an extent, and its distribution isn’t known but it’s generally thought that it’s probably normally distributed. Basically the g factor just summarizes how results on a bunch of different cognitive tasks tend to correlate.
I truly believe it’s a lack of curiosity, people simply are not interested in learning more than they have to.
That’s why I see curiosity as a gift. Friends think I am intelligent, but I’m simply curious enough to learn things.
Agreed. Smart people aren’t smart because they simply are. They’re smart because they learn how to learn. They learn the recognize that the steps to success involve failure. Being smart is about being willing to feel stupid, since anything new you learn/try you’re going to feel overwhelmed.
Not being afraid of failure is key, and the tenacity to drive through it.
It’s called the Information Deficit Hypothesis.
And yes, it’s been proven wrong.
Ah I knew there had to be an actual term for it. Thanks!
People here seem to be mistaking stupidity as a measure of intelligence. Stupidity is a measure of wisdom.
An abundance of information doesn’t fix stupidity in the same way that shoveling water out of a boat with a leak won’t stop it from sinking.
You have to address the leak before shoveling water becomes productive. Or to circle back around, you have to address how someone learns, parses, and applies information before feeding them more information becomes productive.
We shall not confuse data and information. With internet we have access to a lot of data, but information is hard to find. Furthermore information are structured by the institution that made it : university, TV, newspaper, and social network Those dominant institution are not very interested in homelessness or other class struggle in your neighborhood. So relevant information for your social and geographical position is even more rare.
We’ve had libraries since long before the Internet. I don’t think lack of access to information is as much to blame as lack of time and/or willingness to make an effort.
Also, we live in a culture that celebrates, glorifies and rewards stupidity to an insane degree. There is simply very little incentive for people to try and improve themselves.
I think what we currently see is too much misinformation.
Cause is a mix of laziness and mental traps. Aside from targeted missinformation (which uses other mental traps).
this post vs tankies
