Internet increasing or decreasing knowledge

[PLAYER57832]

I have been thinking about this recently.

The internet absolutely gives use all kinds of information, but you have to seek it out. In the old days, real "kooks" could not get far because, before long, they would encounter folks who disagreed. Today, people can be quite intelligent, acquire vast amounts of information, but because they are not really forced to encounter people who really disagree with them, can more easily lapse into one extreme or another.

I see that in opinions on the Affordable Care Act (in the world at large, not so much here). People have a LOT of misinformation about this widespread, government run system. In the "old days" Walter Cronkite would have stepped out and announced "folks, this is how it is"... and 95% of America would have listened. They might not have agreed, but they would have listened.


Today... how many even know who Walter Cronkite is? (or why I would reference him?).

I also see it in the Global Climate Change "debate". The debate is over what to do, not if its happening.. but many fully intelligent, educated people disagree. Digging up the real science facts takes a lot of time and effort, which most people just don't have and instead of a few very trusted sources, folks tend to migrate to whomever most matches how they already think.

[Lootifer]

It does both.

It makes stupid people stupider (much like TV did before that, and radio did before that, all the way back to chinese whispers in ancient times).

It makes smart people smarter (much like TV did before that, and radio did before that, all the way back to chinese whispers in ancient times).

[BigBallinStalin]

Um, increasing.

Reduce transaction costs for the exchange/dissemination of knowledge --> getting more knowledge.

Library genesis, ebooks, forums for bullshitting/debating, etc.
There's also online education, and more.

[mrswdk]

Two replies later and it looks like PLAYER has already found someone who disagrees with her. So much for that hypothesis.

[oVo]

A good thread... I'd like to hear Andy Rooney's view on the current mood of politics and the Affordable Care Act.

The numbing and dumbing down of the World seems to parallel technology sometimes. Television and the internet are loaded with all sorts of fictions for people to sort out. Simultaneously there are opportunities to learn available from both these sources beyond any that ever existed before, but it still requires initiative and effort.

This planet needs more inquiring minds, the knowledge is there
but you still have to seek it.

[john9blue]

I have been thinking about this recently.

The internet absolutely gives use all kinds of information, but you have to seek it out. In the old days, real "kooks" could not get far because, before long, they would encounter folks who disagreed. Today, people can be quite intelligent, acquire vast amounts of information, but because they are not really forced to encounter people who really disagree with them, can more easily lapse into one extreme or another.

I see that in opinions on the Affordable Care Act (in the world at large, not so much here). People have a LOT of misinformation about this widespread, government run system. In the "old days" Walter Cronkite would have stepped out and announced "folks, this is how it is"... and 95% of America would have listened. They might not have agreed, but they would have listened.


Today... how many even know who Walter Cronkite is? (or why I would reference him?).

I also see it in the Global Climate Change "debate". The debate is over what to do, not if its happening.. but many fully intelligent, educated people disagree. Digging up the real science facts takes a lot of time and effort, which most people just don't have and instead of a few very trusted sources, folks tend to migrate to whomever most matches how they already think.

so you would rather have one person influencing the opinions of everyone, leading everyone down the same path, instead of everyone going down whichever path they choose? a very player-esque answer. i guess you're assuming that a "truth-teller" like cronkite would agree with your assessment of something like the ACA? how presumptuous.

as if we don't already have enough blowhards on TV spreading their bullshit to millions of uneducated viewers. i think you're one of the only ones here who would trust the mainstream media to have that kind of responsibility.

here's how it is, player: the internet is largely uncensored and uncurated. the most popular opinions rise to the top, rather than the ones that the network execs decide should be broadcast to appeal to their target demographic. and all of the most popular websites are bound to have a diverse set of opinions from a diverse set of users. it's basically impossible to get far on the internet without running into someone that you disagree with.

personally, i have the internet to thank for teaching me almost everything i know.

i could visit forums like this one and discuss current events, politics, philosophy, and anything else in the world, instead of trying to discuss them with my white-bread, sheltered, suburbanite family.

i could go on wikipedia and learn anything i wanted to know, and see how it was all connected, instead of borderline failing my public school classes that taught me mostly disconnected, meaningless garbage.

even today, like most of my coworkers, i fill in most of the gaps in my software development knowledge with sites like stackoverflow, because college doesn't prepare you for most of the shit you find when you try to write enterprise software.

so yes, the internet has made me immeasurably more knowledgeable. it's the greatest learning tool in history, with the possible exception of the printing press. and just because you've seen a few websites that disagree with you doesn't mean you can disrespect the whole project, the whole community, and pine for the "old days" when nobody knew what the hell was going on.

besides, most dumb people are still watching TV.

[crispybits]

I think the main problem is one that Player has spoken about before.

If I googled "gun control" I would get a very different set of search results than if PS googled "gun control" (assuming we both allow all the nasty little cookies google ties us into). I might get a bunch of sites advocating ways in which gun control could be done effectively, PS might get a bunch of sites arguing why gun control is not an effective strategy. A brand new user on a brand new computer might get a set of results somewhere in between the two and mostly focused on the most recent developments.

The way we find information on the internet is the problem, not the internet itself. Friends flag things up to us, so we are influenced (just like we were pre-internet) by our peers. Google takes our history and prioritises sites that more often than not reinforce rather than challenge our beliefs. Forums like this one are better than either, but there is still the very human condition of confirmation bias (how many times does PS just disregard any post not made by an American? Is it coincidence that often those are the posts that most clearly disagree with his viewpoint?).

Clearly the information is out there, but so is an awful lot of misinformation and downright falsehoods presented as truth. For the average person, trying to unpick the credibility of the source, the agenda they may have (nobody is completely neutral and unbiased), and the way conclusions are drawn from premises (which with good writers can be completely flawed but almost undetectably so due to the way they phrase their arguments) is virtually impossible.

It's good that we have this open an information marketplace. It gives us opportunities we have never had before (I could participate in a real time brainstorming session with people from every continent and every culture). But we need to remain aware of the limits and the pitfalls of the way the system works, and anyone unaware of either will almost certainly be deceived at some point into thinking they know something that just isn't true.

[thegreekdog]

The internet provides people with the ability to increase knowledge, but it does not increase knowledge on its own. For example, if I spent my day surfing the internet by looking at porn, I wouldn't increase my knowledge (except about the different sexual positions Lisa Ann has engaged in), although I suspect my forearm strength would increase.

If, on the other hand, I read scientific articles or religious articles or political or economic articles, as I've done in the last two weeks, my knowledge will increase without the higher transaction costs.

That being said, there is less firsthand knowledge. For example, Phatscotty recently posted some "evidence" of liberal professors/students in college in the United States. He didn't actually read the study (it only talked about professors), so was his knowledge increased or decreased? He read some summary or political propaganda piece that cited to a study, but didn't bother to read the study.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think the main problem is one that Player has spoken about before.

If I googled "gun control" I would get a very different set of search results than if PS googled "gun control" (assuming we both allow all the nasty little cookies google ties us into). I might get a bunch of sites advocating ways in which gun control could be done effectively, PS might get a bunch of sites arguing why gun control is not an effective strategy. A brand new user on a brand new computer might get a set of results somewhere in between the two and mostly focused on the most recent developments.

The way we find information on the internet is the problem, not the internet itself. Friends flag things up to us, so we are influenced (just like we were pre-internet) by our peers. Google takes our history and prioritises sites that more often than not reinforce rather than challenge our beliefs. Forums like this one are better than either, but there is still the very human condition of confirmation bias (how many times does PS just disregard any post not made by an American? Is it coincidence that often those are the posts that most clearly disagree with his viewpoint?).

Clearly the information is out there, but so is an awful lot of misinformation and downright falsehoods presented as truth. For the average person, trying to unpick the credibility of the source, the agenda they may have (nobody is completely neutral and unbiased), and the way conclusions are drawn from premises (which with good writers can be completely flawed but almost undetectably so due to the way they phrase their arguments) is virtually impossible.

It's good that we have this open an information marketplace. It gives us opportunities we have never had before (I could participate in a real time brainstorming session with people from every continent and every culture). But we need to remain aware of the limits and the pitfalls of the way the system works, and anyone unaware of either will almost certainly be deceived at some point into thinking they know something that just isn't true.

Clear internet cache.
Problem solved.

Or don't use google.
Or, use google, clear cache, use add-ons such as adblock+ and DoNotTrackMe.

All of these solutions were provided by the internet, so I've never bought into the Fear of control/limits by google. Whenever some dastardly organization seeks control, there are many within the internet who can easily thwart it. (This will eventually end when the USG takes more control over the internet though. The 'democrats' of the world constantly clamor for a presumably good autocracy--e.g. 'centralization of government is necessary; national regulatory agencies protect us; President Obama promotes the public interest'; etc.).

The main limits are imposed by the individual's cognitive bias (e.g. PS reinforcing his bias about teh liberuls), but this problem has been around since books started becoming cheaper for the masses. I wouldn't be surprised if people made arguments akin to Player's during the times of the Gutenberg press (which is why I don't find her position warranting much concern).

Finally, in regard to player's position, we must ask, "compared to what?" If someone complains about something yet doesn't offer any comparison, then we shouldn't take their position seriously. Anyone can complain about anything, but without a vision/example of something better, then the complaint should be ignored. It would be similar to me complaining about the Pythagorean theorem.

[crispybits]

The difference between the printing press and the internet is that I could open a free web page blog thing tomorrow and spout utter drivel at no cost to myself except time, whereas even in the latter years of the purely paper information world it cost a fair amount per copy to get your information out there.

I agree to an extent that the control/limits thing is a lesser problem (and I'd phrase it less in terms of control and more in terms of reinforcing that pre-existing confirmation bias - they don't tell you what to think but once they know what you think they feed you much more of the same).

How does the average person tell the credibility of one site from another? Especially if that person, as many do now, has an existing distrust for the "corporate mainstream"? Who is a crackpot and who has access to unrevealed truths?

[Night Strike]

In the "old days" Walter Cronkite would have stepped out and announced "folks, this is how it is"... and 95% of America would have listened. They might not have agreed, but they would have listened.

You also have to remember that back in those "old days", those in the media who called themselves journalists actually questioned what the government was doing. Today they push the government's narrative.

[PLAYER57832]

Two replies later and it looks like PLAYER has already found someone who disagrees with her. So much for that hypothesis.

Hmm. so 2 people disagreeing means a hypothesis is dead?

You show you are no scientist, that is for sure!

No, if anything, your view actually supports my hypothesis. Knowledge is GAINED by encountering those who disagree, not lost. It is only if we allow ourselves to be challenged, and then force ourselves to defend our position, that we can truly know if we are correct ... or just being lazy.

[PLAYER57832]

I have been thinking about this recently.

The internet absolutely gives use all kinds of information, but you have to seek it out. In the old days, real "kooks" could not get far because, before long, they would encounter folks who disagreed. Today, people can be quite intelligent, acquire vast amounts of information, but because they are not really forced to encounter people who really disagree with them, can more easily lapse into one extreme or another.

I see that in opinions on the Affordable Care Act (in the world at large, not so much here). People have a LOT of misinformation about this widespread, government run system. In the "old days" Walter Cronkite would have stepped out and announced "folks, this is how it is"... and 95% of America would have listened. They might not have agreed, but they would have listened.


Today... how many even know who Walter Cronkite is? (or why I would reference him?).

I also see it in the Global Climate Change "debate". The debate is over what to do, not if its happening.. but many fully intelligent, educated people disagree. Digging up the real science facts takes a lot of time and effort, which most people just don't have and instead of a few very trusted sources, folks tend to migrate to whomever most matches how they already think.

so you would rather have one person influencing the opinions of everyone, leading everyone down the same path, instead of everyone going down whichever path they choose? a very player-esque answer. i guess you're assuming that a "truth-teller" like cronkite would agree with your assessment of something like the ACA? how presumptuous.

Well, I suspect you don't know that much about Cronkite, to be honest. He was very much aware of the power he wielded and, while those times were absolutely much, much different. I don't deny that shaping happened, but a lot of the "shaping" had to do with the times. Anyway, not intending to lapse into a debate about Cronkite, he was just an example of the change we have seen.

And... the REAL point is not that he would or would not agree "with me", it is that he would present the facts as FACTS, and then diverse opinions as OPINIONS.

as if we don't already have enough blowhards on TV spreading their bullshit to millions of uneducated viewers. i think you're one of the only ones here who would trust the mainstream media to have that kind of responsibility.

I am one of the few here who can remember that time. (not the only one, but most are younger), who remember when mainstream WASN'T just a bunch of opinion, but took pains to actually report facts, and facts on things that really matter, not just what Miley wore at the emmies.

here's how it is, player: the internet is largely uncensored and uncurated. the most popular opinions rise to the top, rather than the ones that the network execs decide should be broadcast to appeal to their target demographic. and all of the most popular websites are bound to have a diverse set of opinions from a diverse set of users. it's basically impossible to get far on the internet without running into someone that you disagree with.

and here is where we majorly disagree, because the fact that searches are based so heavily on opinion feeds itself. As soon as a certain number of people BELIEVE something is true, it gets prominence. There is no check to that process unless people go out of their way to do so.

personally, i have the internet to thank for teaching me almost everything i know.

Two points.

First, you are talking about an evolving internet. The worst impacts I am talking about have only started to come to fruition. Who has had the internet up until now? Business and mostly highly educated people, people with good jobs or who valued technology and information enough to put significant chunks of cash toward computers. Its only recently that the internet has become ubiquitous and nearly a necessity, a place open to any and all.

Also, I would put you as a nice exception, rather than the norm. You actually debate, do research and are not going to just "stomp off" --figuratively or literally because people disagree. You may not agree with others, but you WILL listen fully and actually consider what they say, even when you really disagree.. maybe PARTICULARLY when you disagree. I could contrast you with some others, but I don't want to name names. Truly, even the "most closed-minded" here are better than the majority "out there". At least they are making the attempt to come here and debate!

i could visit forums like this one and discuss current events, politics, philosophy, and anything else in the world, instead of trying to discuss them with my white-bread, sheltered, suburbanite family.

Me too, but we are exceptions.

i could go on wikipedia and learn anything i wanted to know, and see how it was all connected, instead of borderline failing my public school classes that taught me mostly disconnected, meaningless garbage.

wikipedia is a good reasource, BUT.. its not factual science. The problem is as I noted above, that people can edit it. It is not verified, it is really just a collection of what a bunch of people think. It turns out that a lot of what people know is accurate and real, but the illusion that wikki is a real source is pretty dangerous. To some extent, it is still reliable because we still have so many people who are brought up with evidence based learning and training. Also... there is "conservipedia", which flat out distorts a LOT, but yet is given credence because it matches the belief systems of so many.

even today, like most of my coworkers, i fill in most of the gaps in my software development knowledge with sites like stackoverflow, because college doesn't prepare you for most of the shit you find when you try to write enterprise software.

OK, now you are talking about very specific evidence based information that is pretty easy to verify. Also, its computer-based technology. Try doing the same on even basic groundwater issues and you won't find it so easy.

so yes, the internet has made me immeasurably more knowledgeable. it's the greatest learning tool in history, with the possible exception of the printing press. and just because you've seen a few websites that disagree with you doesn't mean you can disrespect the whole project, the whole community, and pine for the "old days" when nobody knew what the hell was going on.

besides, most dumb people are still watching TV.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. You have more knowledge, sure, but are you absolutely sure it is correct? And, do you REALLY take the time to verify that what you know, outside of what you need for work, is really true?

In fact, some of what you say above indicates you almost don't think there IS such a think as "real truth" and facts. Yet.. well, there is. Knowing the difference is incredibly important to the world, society, our future. Its not that having opinions is bad, but if we cannot at least agree on facts, then we cannot even communicate, never mind cooperate.

That is what I mean by the Affordable Care Act being an example. People TRULY BELIEVE that Muslims are excluded... TRULY BELIEVE that the government is going to "take our guns"... next year or so. And, for the most part, these are NOT the people just watching TV. These are people getting most of their information from the internet. Most of the people who misunderstand what the Affordable Care Act really says.. not opinion, but what it says and does, the FACTS, got their information from the internet.

[BigBallinStalin]

The difference between the printing press and the internet is that I could open a free web page blog thing tomorrow and spout utter drivel at no cost to myself except time, whereas even in the latter years of the purely paper information world it cost a fair amount per copy to get your information out there.

I agree to an extent that the control/limits thing is a lesser problem (and I'd phrase it less in terms of control and more in terms of reinforcing that pre-existing confirmation bias - they don't tell you what to think but once they know what you think they feed you much more of the same).

1 How does the average person tell the credibility of one site from another? Especially if that person, as many do now, has an existing distrust for the "corporate mainstream"? 2 Who is a crackpot and who has access to unrevealed truths?

1. In much the same way they differentiate the incorrect from the correct in regard to written materials.
2. Telling the difference between those two depends on one's methods in 1.

This is an educational issue. We can expand the flood of information, but the dangers of doing so depend mainly on education--understood in a general sense (i.e. not exclusively schooling). So, I'm not too concerned about the internet itself; instead, I'm much more concerned about people's education.

(of course, the relationship between internet and education is endogenous since one can become educated on the internet, so it's hard to say).

[2dimes]

The Internet is just a huge library. Problem is there are so many books in it that are bogus.

[Gillipig]

In the "old days" Walter Cronkite would have stepped out and announced "folks, this is how it is"... and 95% of America would have listened. They might not have agreed, but they would have listened.

You also have to remember that back in those "old days", those in the media who called themselves journalists actually questioned what the government was doing. Today they push the government's narrative.

This is worth seconding. It's the same in Sweden. The media sucks politician balls, and politicians are dead afraid of being portrayed negatively by the media so they suck media's balls back. They used to not get along, now they are best pals. No out of the box criticising from the media, they only ever criticise them if someone does something obviously unpopular like cheating on their wife (like I give a damn about who they sleep with anyway), and politicians go as far as creating their party program with the media in mind, ("it must go over well" and all that bullshit).

[oVo]

In Cronkite's day a half dozen conglomerates did not own
all of the newspaper, radio and television resources.

I have to fact check to see if it's even six, Belo Corporation
was recently added to the Gannet Media empire.

[PLAYER57832]

In the "old days" Walter Cronkite would have stepped out and announced "folks, this is how it is"... and 95% of America would have listened. They might not have agreed, but they would have listened.

You also have to remember that back in those "old days", those in the media who called themselves journalists actually questioned what the government was doing. Today they push the government's narrative.

???
Really depends on who you listen to. But, back then most national journalists had to essentially have "security clearances". Walter Cronkite did not put out anything not OK'd by the government.

[PLAYER57832]

The internet provides people with the ability to increase knowledge, but it does not increase knowledge on its own. For example, if I spent my day surfing the internet by looking at porn, I wouldn't increase my knowledge (except about the different sexual positions Lisa Ann has engaged in), although I suspect my forearm strength would increase.

If, on the other hand, I read scientific articles or religious articles or political or economic articles, as I've done in the last two weeks, my knowledge will increase without the higher transaction costs.

That being said, there is less firsthand knowledge. For example, Phatscotty recently posted some "evidence" of liberal professors/students in college in the United States. He didn't actually read the study (it only talked about professors), so was his knowledge increased or decreased? He read some summary or political propaganda piece that cited to a study, but didn't bother to read the study.

I guess my concern is that in the past, folks with extremist views tended to at least know they held extremist views. Today, many think they are actually in the majority, because unless you actively seek out opposing views, you don't find them.

On the other hand, as you noted, there is a lot of information out there to find. Its just that a lot of people never go much beyond "wikki", which is OK for general information, but not really for true research. Because Wikki is one or two steps removed from the original, its easy for small errors and misunderstanding to perpetuate, but because its written by "real people", it tends to be more "understandable" than some research papers. (then again, my papers were always known to be quite readable )

[thegreekdog]

I guess my concern is that in the past, folks with extremist views tended to at least know they held extremist views. Today, many think they are actually in the majority, because unless you actively seek out opposing views, you don't find them.

I'm not sure that extremists thought they were extremists in history (or at least, they didn't care).

Extremists (or, more accurately what you call extremists) have polling data to determine whether they are extremists. Some might say opposing intervention in Syria is extremist because the Tea Party folks are against it; yet polling data shows that this is not an extreme position. Similar polling data exists for the government shutdown, spending, the Affordable Care Act, etc.

[Gillipig]

Totally decreasing. Just like books, damn how they decreased our knowledge level.

[Lootifer]

In the "old days" Walter Cronkite would have stepped out and announced "folks, this is how it is"... and 95% of America would have listened. They might not have agreed, but they would have listened.

You also have to remember that back in those "old days", those in the media who called themselves journalists actually questioned what the government was doing. Today they push the government's narrative.

@ this and others:

People have been lying and spinning BS since the dawn of time, modern media is just an extension of the same crap.

That's exactly what I mean by it makes us both dumber and smarter. Information doesnt affect knowledge, interpretation/digestion of information is what matters.