Asklemmy

Maybe that's not what's happening to begin with. I reject the entire premise. And all the users in here humble bragging is honestly nauseating.

I think it's becoming better overall, not worse. Yes, there's a populism issue at the moment, but this is far from the first time that's happened. We're dealing with the introduction of an entire new means of communication, online media in general and social media more specifically. That brings all new hazards and benefits that need to be dealt with.

The era after the printing press was developed brought intellectual development, but it also sparked revolutions. Those didn't always wind up with that right people getting into power. It took a while for society to adapt and stabilize. I expect the same will happen with Internet communication.

I'm also hopeful because studies have shown that successive generations generally improve their abilities in abstract thinking. (I'm having trouble sourcing that statement, unfortunately). That's important for the economy because the jobs of the future will need that abstract thinking. At least in my experience, it also acts as a bulwark against bad actors because people with poorer abstract thinking abilities tend to be more gullible, at least when it comes to lies that they like.

You would think the Internet and access to an unprecedented amount of information would have made us smarter, more emphatic, and so on.

But it turns out people are easily misled and manipulated. Social media quickly starts to feed you more of the same crap just because you watched one video. Village idiots can now form echo chambers with like-minded individuals, e.g flat Earth believers.

Those who want power will take advantage of people who fall into all this.

I think there's this idea of historical tick-tock, that goes from faith or belief to enlightenment. It swings back and forth depending upon geopolitical development.

But that aside, I believe that after the digital revolution, getting people to believe bunk en masse became easier. This has amplified the grift economy, which in turn spreads disinformation, fronts logical fallacies as a debate method and puts bad faith arguments on a pedestal.

Take for instance that guy who illegally experimented on kids because he thought he had a better vaccine than the multi-purpose vaccine that was standardised. After he lost his medical practice he has been forced to rely on financing from conspiracy theorists and socialize with flat earthers because he is now an anti-vaccine icon.

He has to do that because his name is synonymous with malpractice and needs to play the part to feed his face.

This is just one example of the grift economy. For more, seep up "savage alpha male podcasts" to see an even harder grift.

Wait til AI takes prominence. What effect on intellectualism that might have remains to be seen. As long as LLMs aren't tailored to bias certain views, it may just lift humanity.

It's not. We'd still be hitting rocks if we were anti intellectual.

I don't think anyone's anti intellectual, people use rhetoric to defend their ideas, to defend their ways, to justify what they've already done. If you used your intelligence and started to agree with people, no one would challenge you, you wouldn't run into anti-intellectual bias.

When you challenge people, or disagree with them, they're going to use rhetoric against you, and that often is portrayed as anti-intellectual. If they think you're a threat they'll attack you by any means possible

People who believe they are intellectual rarely are, or they would be able to couch their points in more accessible ways.

i think eventually nothing will matter even to the living, so there will be no use for emotion or conflict. the fact that one doesnt know if theyll have food tomorrow, or if theyll be there tomorrow gives meaning to the fighting. so i feel that it makes sense that people are the way they are