Internet, communication theory

[rousseau]

No of course not. But it has changed dramatically what people believe.

You mean they don't believe in things, like gods and angels, like they used to?

It is just the transmission of information. Or maybe misinformation.

As it has been since the invention of the printing press.

Not a big change in terms of what is being transmitted. Just a different way to do it.

Probably when people read newspapers they were better informed. Since most of what they read was vetted.

Free access to the internet undermines the traditional source of one's informational reality, i.e. the networks of people, traditionally your family, friends and neighbours, who believe the same thing as you do. Traditional explanations and supernatural beliefs are hard to sustain once the social structures that support them are removed.

You go away to university and suddenly almost nobody believes what you do, or did. Your siblings move to different towns, so you won’t see them so often. And your laptop plugs you into any social network that takes your fancy and leaves you free to pursue any line of enquiry that takes your fancy.

So certainly, the internet makes us much better informed.

Being exposed to the internet does not automatically make you informed. Not even close.

It is a much better way to also spread misinformation.

So the level of ignorance rises.

Until you reach a place where Trump is the Republican parties candidate.

And you know the misinformation has taken over.

This is why I'd argue that the internet does make us better informed:No given person wants to intentionally become dumber over time. The end of thinking is to solve problems and become smarter.

So let's say conversation [x] is happening on Facebook where five people are discussing a topic. They always start out at [a] which is an ignorant state, and they're always trying to move to which is a less ignorant state. This is the nature of every under-taking to learn, people are trying to become more informed, not less.

Granted, social cohesion between families and communities is a more powerful force than finding truth, and so many people are going to look for information that justifies their belief in order to maintain their social ties. However, because literally every person is actively trying to become smarter, they will in fact tend to become smarter and more informed over time.

When you multiply this process by 200 - 300 years our collective understanding of the universe usually increases dramatically.

 

[rousseau]

Genetically, probably not much, but that's not the point of the question in the original post, which is 'what is the affect of the internet on human society'.

Genetically we are the same, but our collective social understanding has been rapidly changing, and the rate itself has been accelerating since the invent of the printing press. This is strictly due to an increase in the rate that information is transmitted.

To argue otherwise is to have a fundamental misunderstanding of history and social evolution.

I always love these dogmatic pronouncements.

"Disagree with my bare speculations and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of everything."

I love it. As absurd as a human can be.

And evidence they have not advanced at all for thousands of years.

I used strong language because this is something I've studied pretty rigorously and am quite confident of the soundness of my argument. This is what I'm saying:

1) You are correct that humans are genetically the same, for the most part
2) You are incorrect that humans haven't changed, due to collective learning

If you have an argument why what I'm saying isn't correct, I'd love to hear it.

edit:

And to re-iterate these aren't bare speculations as you say. Collective learning is a concept that's common across historical studies, and theorized to be the major driver of all of the social progress we've seen over the past several thousand years.

 

[untermensche]

2) You are incorrect that humans haven't changed, due to collective learning

If you have an argument why what I'm saying isn't correct, I'd love to hear it.

You have done nothing but make an unsupported, unsupportable, dogmatic statement.

I don't know what you think I can do with it.

Except ridicule it.

There is no way to examine people from thousands of years ago.

So any statement about their general nature is pure speculation.

But I have never seen a reason to even think they were any different from people today. What would that even mean?

Except perhaps they were a little more able to survive on their own. A little brighter in other words.

 

[untermensche]

No given person wants to intentionally become dumber over time.

Many people want to appear intelligent.

But most are too lazy to do the work necessary.

So many just adopt some easy explanations and try to pass it off as intelligence.

In other words they are ignorant yet think they know something.

That is what you see all over the internet.

A bunch of ignorance that people believe is the truth.

The internet is not any kind of force to raise general intelligence. It is a great way to make many people misinformed and ignorant.

To the point we have Trump as a major candidate for president.

There could be no clearer demonstration.

 

[rousseau]

2) You are incorrect that humans haven't changed, due to collective learning

If you have an argument why what I'm saying isn't correct, I'd love to hear it.

You have done nothing but make an unsupported, unsupportable, dogmatic statement.

I don't know what you think I can do with it.

Except ridicule it.

There is no way to examine people from thousands of years ago.

So any statement about their general nature is pure speculation.

But I have never seen a reason to even think they were any different from people today. What would that even mean?

Except perhaps they were a little more able to survive on their own. A little brighter in other words.

You asked me if the enlightenment actually changed people. I told you that it did, and I told you why: 'collective learning'. I'm not here to do research for you or spend my weekend typing words into Talk Freethought. If you want to understand why the enlightenment actually did change people, there's some quick google searching you can do.

- - - Updated - - -

Collective Learning

Collective learning is a complex concept that is variously defined. It is generally conceptualized as a dynamic and cumulative process that results in the production of knowledge. Such knowledge is institutionalized in the form of structures, rules, routines, norms, discourse, and strategies that guide future action.

There's a start. Good luck.

 

[untermensche]

Collective Learning

That is not evidence that people are different.

People thousands of years ago were educated too. Not formally, but you had to know a lot of things to survive.

You have given nothing to support your position.

Beyond bare speculation.

 

[another1]

There is a psychological thing happening because of what George Carlin called TOO MUCH STUFF. He meant physical stuff but the same thing applies with virtual information TRASH. I don't think we can process it all, and it makes us stupid.

Too much stuff is bad when it comes to art. There can be such a thing as too much art. Not everyone is an artist. Not everyone is a musician. But they do it anyway and commentors encourage them. All it takes is a comment like "you have such passion" to keep them pumping out the trash. Negative comments do the same thing actually. Then you have a bunch of crap, with one little diamond flake in hidden inside it. Overlooked and forgotten are great things because there is too much stuff, huh. Good stuff is getting passed up. I'm not saying people shouldn't try, but it doesn't take 400 uploads to figure out that you suck at something, and should move to a new artistic hobby.

As for phones.. It isn't a joke that people are so addicted to them. I don't know why this isn't more of an emergency type thing. I admit that I only half care because the trash fumes of social media are clouding my judgement. My days are a series of memes that transform every few seconds, from a demon possessed girl masturbating with a Crucifix - to a cat that looks like Hitler - to a political figure doing something disgusting - to an entertainment figure doing something pointelss... and finally to me sitting on my toilet laughing mindlessly at my phone.

It doesn't make sense to live like that, but phones are nice. The internet is awesome. Technology is the shit. I just wish for a better way to filter the STUFF. What kind of accomodations could be made for people who don't like inhaling the trash fumes all day? Is there some way to modify my social media accounts?

 

[Speakpigeon]

We've had widespread use of Internet for 20+ years now. So what's happened? How has it changed our behavior? I'm not talking specifics. I'm interested in theory (which by necessity loses some nuance). Social media seems to be the big thing. Resulting in stuff like Flash mobs, killer klowns terror, Arab spring, joke candidates with actual power (Trump, Palin and Berlosconi) and the makers revolution.

I'm just trying to get a handle on the before and after. If I'm to take a poke at it... just guessing wildly here:

The world is getting weirder. It's getting weirder because the information flows aren't top - down any longer. Communication isn't from elites down. Communication as democratized. Now it goes in all directions. A lot of those now communicating, and getting attention aren't well educated. We get the emotional outburst as the main piece of news today. Which has zero brains, analysis or afterthought behind it. It's monumentally superficial. The entire communication of the world is now, basically, village gossip. But also democratic. Hard, if not impossible, to control by the elites.

So information got free. The problem is, all information got free. Not just the information we wanted. So it's more important to get attention than having anything to say.

BTW, I realize how this may come across as negative. It's not really. It's not a question of judging. It's a question of understanding. No matter how we may want to go back, we can't. So there's no point in being nostalgic. But there is a value in understanding how things have changed.

Am I right? Am I wrong? How am I wrong?

If it's basically "village gossip" as you yourself said then what's changed?

I think it is easier to contextualise something said by the guy you meet every other day than what you read on the Internet, which is largely unpersonified, if not anonymous. Your brain is left with the words and only the words, and a few pictures, to try and make sense of what is said. We already had that with books and bookish people haven't had such a good reputation over the centuries. Then the radio came and listeners would never meet the guy doing the talking. So, you could say it's been a trend for a long time and it's just getting more massive now. Mostly, it's entertainment of some sort so people are just wasting their time or essentially being sidelined enjoying meaningless shows while no longer taking part in the life of the city. And then you have all the crazies. A minority but a kind of very activist one, and potentially dangerous, and I'm not talking just about would-be martyrs.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

If it's basically "village gossip" as you yourself said then what's changed?

Village gossip is a victim of Chinese Whispers. The difference lies in that before the people doing the writing were fact checking everything. The facts were more reliable. A channel like Fox news is a post-Internet type establishment. It's 24/7 non-stop bullshit, just pandering. Large portions of the public have stopped expecting news to be moderated. We're hyper-cynical and assume everybody is twisting facts. That's the difference.

 

[another1]

DrZoidberg how much basic education do you think toddlers get from computers? I think the clutter of stuff in the internet would screw a toddler up. Even parental controls wouldn't prevent a really warped learning experience. I'd have a really superficial and doomed concept of the world if I learned about it from places like Twitter. I see irresponsible redneck parents so wrapped up in social media that their children have no choice but to learn it's horrible ways starting at 3 years old. Irresponsible parents yes, but they're just hooked like the rest of us and they mean no harm. Their kids are the next monster and I'm wondering how learning from a device like that will do them in the long run, assuming there is one for them.

Why is these no internet for kids? There are "better internet for kids" plans but there is no universal internet for children only. I thought that would come about in the 90's and there were bills for major censorship that failed badly. No internet for kids only was ever mentioned from what I've seen. They build child urinals so why can't they make child internets? How much harder would it be? No heavy porcelain to lug around. Just type a few numbers in and set up some computers servers, or whatever. Bam you have a safe place for kids to learn. Something is amiss.

 

[rousseau]

Wouldn't the internet just intensify what you would experience sans internet? If you live in a red county and everyone you know on Facebook and Twitter posts red things, you're just going to see it more frequently with the internet present. But then, otoh, you also have the potential to be exposed to information outside of your circle, unlike times prior to the internet.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg how much basic education do you think toddlers get from computers? I think the clutter of stuff in the internet would screw a toddler up. Even parental controls wouldn't prevent a really warped learning experience. I'd have a really superficial and doomed concept of the world if I learned about it from places like Twitter. I see irresponsible redneck parents so wrapped up in social media that their children have no choice but to learn it's horrible ways starting at 3 years old. Irresponsible parents yes, but they're just hooked like the rest of us and they mean no harm. Their kids are the next monster and I'm wondering how learning from a device like that will do them in the long run, assuming there is one for them.

Why is these no internet for kids? There are "better internet for kids" plans but there is no universal internet for children only. I thought that would come about in the 90's and there were bills for major censorship that failed badly. No internet for kids only was ever mentioned from what I've seen. They build child urinals so why can't they make child internets? How much harder would it be? No heavy porcelain to lug around. Just type a few numbers in and set up some computers servers, or whatever. Bam you have a safe place for kids to learn. Something is amiss.

I think the people who read Twitter tends to be the better informed in our society. There's plenty people who don't even make it that far

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't the internet just intensify what you would experience sans internet? If you live in a red county and everyone you know on Facebook and Twitter posts red things, you're just going to see it more frequently with the internet present. But then, otoh, you also have the potential to be exposed to information outside of your circle, unlike times prior to the internet.

That's the going accepted theory. But we also have access to more information. So what is the end cost or benefit?

 

[bilby]

I think the people who read Twitter tends to be the better informed in our society. There's plenty people who don't even make it that far

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't the internet just intensify what you would experience sans internet? If you live in a red county and everyone you know on Facebook and Twitter posts red things, you're just going to see it more frequently with the internet present. But then, otoh, you also have the potential to be exposed to information outside of your circle, unlike times prior to the internet.

That's the going accepted theory. But we also have access to more information. So what is the end cost or benefit?

Before the Internet, people were exposed to a handful of near-universal news sources. Everyone got the same news, regardless of what they liked or believed; If the news on the ABC or BBC or in the newspaper disagreed with what your friends and family said, then you got those two points of view - or you had to make a deliberate and clear choice to avoid news outlets altogether.

With the Internet, you can carefully tailor your news to match your preconceptions. You can basically stay as ill-informed as your ancestor, but without having to take his path of deliberately avoiding any external information.

The conspiracy theorist of the 1980s knew that he was avoiding exposure to the news; This was an additional hurdle to leap, an additional thing to rationalize, before he could be comfortable in his beliefs. Today's conspiracy theorist can easily convince himself that he is very well informed - he reads the news daily, listens to podcasts, watches TV (or at least YouTube), etc., etc.

Today it is possible to be very well informed and completely wrong at the same time - something which was simply not the case back in the day.

 

[another1]

Before the Internet, people were exposed to a handful of near-universal news sources. Everyone got the same news, regardless of what they liked or believed; If the news on the ABC or BBC or in the newspaper disagreed with what your friends and family said, then you got those two points of view - or you had to make a deliberate and clear choice to avoid news outlets altogether.

I lived before the internet and the handful of news sources were just blaring sound in the house to me. I had a list of phone numbers for "people who would know", when I was in doubt about smoking banana peels or where the pyramids really came from. That has now been amplified by 7 billion, and it makes truth an impossibility.

You can NOT stay well informed, with that much information popping up into your life. If you wanted a person to stay well informed, and from the "correct sources", you'd have to have to sit them down at age 3 and say hey these are the only two web pages you're ever allowed to visit. Still, they would be wrong, but at least they would be consistent. Hopefully.

I think the people who read Twitter tend to be the better informed in our society. There's plenty people who don't even make it that far

Yes people do stay well informed about the world on Twitter but it doesn't put one extra drop of water into dehydrated mouths in the world. You'd think that if we were so well informed, we'd give a feck about the apocalypse that has happened in the 3rd world. Nope. Drake has a new song and these funny little video clips are too irresistible to stop spreading to others like germs. I see it doing very little good, other than feeding news from 40 million sources (55 of which are half correct), and allowing us to be watched and appreciated for being the vain monsters we are. It is more about being appreciated than being well informed, Twitter is. I know some people just watch feeds and don't comment, but I'm doubting they don't interact at least a few times a month. People who think they can use it and just observe are kidding themselves. The images they're exposed to victimize them, so there is that at least. So what good is it really? The supposed Arab Spring is a joke man. Social media is the beginning of an ice age. Do people seriously think they're well informed by Twitter? Like for real type seriously? It is almost insulting to me when you say that social media can keep me well informed.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Porn and cat videos. The net has made it easier to live in an "information" cocoon, hearing only what you want to hear. Right wing jabberers, Beck and Infowars and Breitbart. It allows ISIL to recruit fools for cannon fodder. Trolling and bullying. It may though have helped put the skids to religion to a great degree. So we have the rise of the Nones.

 

[tantric]

when i was a kid, in the 70s and 80s, i was very fortunate in that my family owned a set of encyclopedias. and you better bet i read them. if i wanted to know something, that was it, or a trip to the library. i distinctly remember the librarian who tried to keep me out of the adult section, and how my mom dealt with that. oh, my encyclopedia recommended hiding under a table in the event of nuclear war. there were so many things i just couldn't find out....

but the above poster has a point - now, instead of knowing things, we know how to find out things.

and i seriously hope you're overestimating the importance of social media. facebook is NOT a paradigm shift. wikipedia IS. fucking hate facebook - it's like a cancer. last time i updated ubuntu, somehow i started getting pop up facebook shit from a page i haven't touched in ten years.

 

[DrZoidberg]

when i was a kid, in the 70s and 80s, i was very fortunate in that my family owned a set of encyclopedias. and you better bet i read them. if i wanted to know something, that was it, or a trip to the library. i distinctly remember the librarian who tried to keep me out of the adult section, and how my mom dealt with that. oh, my encyclopedia recommended hiding under a table in the event of nuclear war. there were so many things i just couldn't find out....

but the above poster has a point - now, instead of knowing things, we know how to find out things.

and i seriously hope you're overestimating the importance of social media. facebook is NOT a paradigm shift. wikipedia IS. fucking hate facebook - it's like a cancer. last time i updated ubuntu, somehow i started getting pop up facebook shit from a page i haven't touched in ten years.

I do regular deletes of Facebook app. The thing is that I have never installed a Facebook app. Not particularly secure this thing.

 

[fromderinside]

I do regular deletes of Facebook app. The thing is that I have never installed a Facebook app. Not particularly secure this thing.

Money makers tend to get that way being included in most every other app competing for your attention.

I also read a bit about most information is free. That my friend is an intentional move by keepers of the gate to keep interest up among the hoi poloi. The downside is that it may actually discourage creativity on the internet. Most regulation, including permissiveness, leads to dumbing down.

 

[another1]

Facebook is doing things too evil to speak rationally about. It is too unbelievable that a social media entity could be so low. It all becomes a haha joke because hey it is just facebook, we use it harmlessly every day. They do all of their evil legally apparently. So screw crying about it. Quitting Facebook sounds like a solid idea but I need to get my contacts emails written down first. Still gotta stay in touch because I need them all to know what my sandwiches look like. And when I go pee.

Hopefully social media refusal will be trending soon enough. The outright rape of our social information is going to raise eyebrows, once it comes to light. Or has it already, but nobody cares? I'm not sure but something in fiction may eventually have to bring the point to the masses. Can you imagine what could be done with all that info? Add 200 years to the pile of personalities being computed. Good God what kind of robot are they trying to build? I want it nowhere near me thank you. no no noooo

 

[DrZoidberg]

Facebook is doing things too evil to speak rationally about. It is too unbelievable that a social media entity could be so low. It all becomes a haha joke because hey it is just facebook, we use it harmlessly every day. They do all of their evil legally apparently. So screw crying about it. Quitting Facebook sounds like a solid idea but I need to get my contacts emails written down first. Still gotta stay in touch because I need them all to know what my sandwiches look like. And when I go pee.

Hopefully social media refusal will be trending soon enough. The outright rape of our social information is going to raise eyebrows, once it comes to light. Or has it already, but nobody cares? I'm not sure but something in fiction may eventually have to bring the point to the masses. Can you imagine what could be done with all that info? Add 200 years to the pile of personalities being computed. Good God what kind of robot are they trying to build? I want it nowhere near me thank you. no no noooo

Yeah... but... it's easy to whine about Facebook. But it is free to use. If something is free, they will need to recoup that money somehow. There are plenty of less nefarious Facebook-clones, that all have failed. And this the age of rapid adoption.

I think the problem isn't Facebook's invasion of privacy. It's that people don't care about having it invaded.